Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Weekly Poll 2/29/04: Does film runtime affect your judgement toward a film's quality?

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters
View Poll Results: Does a film's runtime affect your perception of its quality?
Usually, I consider films around 3 hours long to be of high quality.
2
2.08%
Usually, I consider most 90 min fillms to be stinkers or are for kids.
3
3.13%
Films duration only SLIGHTLY affects my judgement of a film's quality.
31
32.29%
Film duration in no way affects my judgement of a film's quality, not even slightly.
52
54.17%
Option 1 + 2
5
5.21%
Other reason (please specify)
3
3.13%
Voters: 96. You may not vote on this poll

Weekly Poll 2/29/04: Does film runtime affect your judgement toward a film's quality?

Old 03-02-04, 02:14 AM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: So. CA
Posts: 830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Weekly Poll 2/29/04: Does film runtime affect your judgement toward a film's quality?

For films you have not seen, does the duration of the film affect your perception about its overall quality?

Discuss.




Weekly Poll (2/22/04): BEST film directed by David Lean?

Weekly Poll (2/15/04): BEST Western film?

Last edited by smirnoffski; 03-02-04 at 02:24 AM.
Old 03-02-04, 02:43 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Lobstrosities
Posts: 10,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Being honest with myself I went with options 1+2, even though they are worded a bit too strong to really represent my opinion. Of course, all films are individual and these preconceptions are thrown out once I actually see it.

I generally give longer films more weight, but there are several reasons for this. One is that telling a good story takes time. It takes time to flesh out characters and not rely on clichés. Also, it is well known that studios, distributors and theaters all want shorter films. So if the director is able to keep a film very long then I expect he had to fight for it, which means it was important to him (or her).

Short films I judge more harshly than I give credit to long films. There aren't any real reasons for this other than the fact that most short films (90 minutes or less) are bad. Of course there are exceptions to this, but they are rare. The only one I can think of, just of the top of my head, is Lola Rennt, which is around 80 minutes I think. It only comes to mind because I was surprised how short it was after viewing it.

I'm sure others can list many excellent short movies, but the vast amount of garbage that clocks in at 90 minutes or less is overwhelming.
Old 03-02-04, 02:48 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I would consider most films under the 90 mark as good popcorn fun. I wont say they are all stinkers. It all depends on the story telling.
Old 03-02-04, 03:36 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
fumanstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 55,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not at all. Most animated movies are 90 minutes, give or take, and they do a great job of telling a story in that time. On the other hand, all three LOTR movies were too long, and i at the theater for each movie i saw myself looking at my watch.

I have no reason to consider the length of a movie to determine it's quality... the only reason i look at running time is to make other plans before or after a movie. A short movie can drag as much as a long one, and a long movie can seem to end quickly.
Old 03-02-04, 05:00 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Run time really has no bearing on quality. There are some great stories that take 90 minutes to tell, some that take 3 hours to tell. It's all in the telling, and it can go anyway. I've seen some 90 minute movies that felt like 10 hours, and some 3 hour movies that just flew by.
Old 03-02-04, 12:23 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
mdc3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Posts: 9,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Film length does not influence quality at all in my opinion. I've seen some fantastic short films and some great long ones... but then I've seen some films that were 2 hours and pretty good, but easily could have been 90 minutes and would have been masterpieces.

I think it's just a case by case thing... I'm never 'afraid' of a shorter film...

MATT
Old 03-02-04, 12:30 PM
  #7  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Runtime doesn't matter to me. My judgement towards a film is based entirely on it's rating. The more blood and tits, the better the film. And if somebody gets shot point blank in the head it's a masterpiece.
Old 03-02-04, 12:45 PM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Groucho
Runtime doesn't matter to me. My judgement towards a film is based entirely on it's rating. The more blood and tits, the better the film. And if somebody gets shot point blank in the head it's a masterpiece.


The runtime doesn't affect my opinion too much. But 3 hour movies tend to sway me from watching them, especially in the case of DVDs. If I want to watch something and I'm staring at my DVDs I'll think "Do I really want to spend 3 hours on one movie?" And I find myself reaching for something shorter and more easily digested. For this reason some of my favorite movies don't get rewatched very often, like Scarface. It's much easier to justify sitting on my butt for 2 hours than 3.
Old 03-02-04, 12:48 PM
  #9  
Retired
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 27,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No impact.

A crappy hour and a half film can feel like it's never going to end, and a great 3+ hour film can be over before I know it and leave me wanting more.
Old 03-02-04, 12:50 PM
  #10  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Jray
The runtime doesn't affect my opinion too much. But 3 hour movies tend to sway me from watching them, especially in the case of DVDs.
Interesting...I'm just the opposite. I tend to wait on seeing longer movies until they are on DVD. That way I can break it up across two evenings if I have to.
Old 03-02-04, 03:59 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
oh crap I forgot to read the post entirely, it depends on the genre of the film, for instance I would never want to see a romantic comedy longer than 2 hours 90 minutes is enough
Old 03-02-04, 04:04 PM
  #12  
Retired
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 27,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Groucho
Interesting...I'm just the opposite. I tend to wait on seeing longer movies until they are on DVD. That way I can break it up across two evenings if I have to.
I think he meant more when he's just walking to his shelf to pick a movie, he's less likely to pick a 3+ hour one as it's hard to find the time. Rather than saying he prefers to watch longer ones at the theater.

I agree with you on preferring to watch longer movies at home, as you can split it up, and/or take bathroom breaks without missing anything.
Old 03-02-04, 04:16 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Duluth, GA, USA
Posts: 37,782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This could easily be a topic in the Mature Forum...
Old 03-02-04, 04:33 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lincolnwood, Illinois
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Absolutely not. Can you imagine if Phone Booth lasted more than 2 hours, it just would not work? The 81-minute runtime was perfect and managed to keep the suspense high.
Old 03-02-04, 05:08 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I can't imagine why anybody would say that runtime affects their perception of the "quality" of a film even slightly. Maybe I'm not understanding the question or something but it seems there is only one answer.

I would have thought Josh Hinkle's post would speak for just about everybody but then I look at the poll results and .

Then I look at the question in the post itself that specifies "for a film you haven't seen" and am even more perplexed by the results and the poll itself. How can you tell anything about the quality of a film you haven't seen by looking at the runtime???

Am I missing something here??
Old 03-02-04, 05:44 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If a film is long, I won't think it's good or bad until I watch it, but it's too short like 70-80 minutes then I'll have my doubts on the quality.
Old 03-03-04, 08:28 AM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Josh Hinkle
I think he meant more when he's just walking to his shelf to pick a movie, he's less likely to pick a 3+ hour one as it's hard to find the time. Rather than saying he prefers to watch longer ones at the theater.
Yep, that's pretty much what I was saying.

The idea of watching a movie over multiple nights seems appealing, but I have a hard time doing it. Sometimes I'm forced to, if I start dozing off.
Old 03-05-04, 06:25 PM
  #18  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: So. CA
Posts: 830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bump
Old 04-06-04, 03:21 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For me... Films duration only SLIGHTLY affects my judgement of a film's quality.
Old 04-06-04, 09:32 PM
  #20  
SeeNo Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Why should I tell you?
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by jfrost
For me... Films duration only SLIGHTLY affects my judgement of a film's quality.
ditto.
Old 04-25-04, 11:18 AM
  #21  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: On the penis chair
Posts: 5,169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I missed this poll when it comes out.

For me, I tend to prefer shorter films, but that's because of my time limitation. A short film can be either good or bad, and so does longer movies.

And oh, good idea, smirnoffski.
Old 04-25-04, 11:36 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 22,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It doesn't affect me. I will say that I used to think 3 hours meant the film had something of importance to say or they wouldn't have made it so long. A viewing of Pearl Harbor did more than prove me wrong.
Old 04-25-04, 11:42 AM
  #23  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Pearland, TX
Posts: 4,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The length of the movie doesn't affect the quality of the movies. A good movie is good not because it's of certain length.
Old 04-26-04, 09:48 AM
  #24  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Giantrobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: South Bay
Posts: 57,598
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
No effect.

In fact, over the last few years we've been getting more 3 hour + movies.

For what we pay at the Theater and for DVDs I -PREFER- long movies.
Old 04-26-04, 11:21 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk Legend
 
matome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: NY
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I never take into account the runtime when watching a movie. However if the movie is more than 2 1/2 hours, it had better be damn good to keep me in the seat that long.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.