Are movies getting too long?
#1
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Are movies getting too long?
I grew up in the 80s and 90s, when movies were usually an hour and a half to two hours.
It's rare that a movie could actually maintain itself for longer than that. And it seems that lately, there are movies that seem to be long for the sake of long, rather than because they need to be.
My wife and I watched Blood Diamond last night. Great movie, kind of petered out at the end. I think it could have wrapped up a little earlier.
I went and saw Transfomers earlier this week. My issues with the movie aside, there was no reason at ALL that movie should have cleared 2 hours. And the final running time was nearly 2:22!
There are many other examples, (Spider-Man 3 leaps to mind) but those are the just the two I've encountered this week. What I don't understand the most about this trend is that the longer the movie, potentially the fewer showings at the theater and the less overall box office.
As it was before, it's rare that a movie NEEDS that lengthy running time. Why is there an effort of late to make a lot of movies longer than they need to be?
It's rare that a movie could actually maintain itself for longer than that. And it seems that lately, there are movies that seem to be long for the sake of long, rather than because they need to be.
My wife and I watched Blood Diamond last night. Great movie, kind of petered out at the end. I think it could have wrapped up a little earlier.
I went and saw Transfomers earlier this week. My issues with the movie aside, there was no reason at ALL that movie should have cleared 2 hours. And the final running time was nearly 2:22!
There are many other examples, (Spider-Man 3 leaps to mind) but those are the just the two I've encountered this week. What I don't understand the most about this trend is that the longer the movie, potentially the fewer showings at the theater and the less overall box office.
As it was before, it's rare that a movie NEEDS that lengthy running time. Why is there an effort of late to make a lot of movies longer than they need to be?
#2
Moderator
Seems like it wasn't too long ago (although maybe a decade now in retrospect) people were complaining that movies were too short Overall though I agree, a good length for a movie is about 1:40 - 2:00. Anything less and you usually don't have time to fully develop something (characters, plot, whatever). When they start to get longer than that it seems like something is getter dragged out/excess footage has been left in.
#4
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Janitor's closet in Kinnick Stadium
Posts: 15,725
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
As long as the stuff is essential to the story then 2.5 hours is ok. But if 30 min of it is fluff then it needs to get cut out.
Transformers was about 30 min too long.
The 40 Year Old Virgin is a good example too. I'm not sure of the running time but as funny as it is that movie seems to drag on forever.
Transformers was about 30 min too long.
The 40 Year Old Virgin is a good example too. I'm not sure of the running time but as funny as it is that movie seems to drag on forever.
#5
I think it depends on the movie. Some movies are better suited to a longer format because of the epic feel. But a lot of movies, especially comedies, work better shorter because of the pacing and it keeps the jokes from getting overdone by the end of the movie.
#6
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally Posted by inri222
Are movies getting too long?
No, only the bad ones.
No, only the bad ones.
I'd rather watch Satantango (7.5 hours) or Out 1 (12.5 hours) again than sit through Shrek or Pirates of the Caribbean.
#7
Moderator
Originally Posted by sundog
Yes. Poor movies can be interminable clocking in under 90 minutes.
I'd rather watch Satantango (7.5 hours) or Out 1 (12.5 hours) again than sit through Shrek or Pirates of the Caribbean.
I'd rather watch Satantango (7.5 hours) or Out 1 (12.5 hours) again than sit through Shrek or Pirates of the Caribbean.
#8
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 20,085
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
I don't care how long a film is as long as it's good. That being said the only real conviction I have is comedies should be no longer than 90-100 min. max. I almost never see a good comedy that clocks in close to 2 hours.
#9
DVD Talk Legend
Yeah Draven this is exactly what I've been thinking, especially this summer. It seems 2 1/2 hrs is the new 2 hrs, and I just don't get it. It would save studios money, and get better reviews if films were closer to 2 hrs. Nearly everyone I've talked to about the big movies this yr has complained about length (myself included).
It's one thing to have an epic movie like LOTR, Gladiator, etc. where longer times are needed... but every movie being 150+ mins is just getting tiring.
Look at Raiders of the Lost Ark, about as perfect as you can get at 115 minutes imo.
It's one thing to have an epic movie like LOTR, Gladiator, etc. where longer times are needed... but every movie being 150+ mins is just getting tiring.
Look at Raiders of the Lost Ark, about as perfect as you can get at 115 minutes imo.
#10
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
I'd agree that there are definitely some "epic" movies that need a fat runtime. But people have brought up good examples of movies that are just too long. And great example about Raiders of the Lost Ark Artman - let's see what Indy 4 clocks in at
I really don't understand it. I'm a former video editor so I'm always looking at things in a "cut it, cut it, CUT IT" way and it amazes me how many things that have so little to do with a story remain in, seemingly only to lengthen a film.
Brevity, people!
I really don't understand it. I'm a former video editor so I'm always looking at things in a "cut it, cut it, CUT IT" way and it amazes me how many things that have so little to do with a story remain in, seemingly only to lengthen a film.
Brevity, people!
#12
Inane Thread Master, 2018 TOTY
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Are any of us really anywhere?
Posts: 49,443
Received 912 Likes
on
772 Posts
what i enjoy:
horror= 1:45
comedy= 1:45-always under 2:00
family/animated= 1:30
action= 2:15
drama= 1:45-2:00
sci-fi/fantasy= 2:15-2:30 (with the exception of all LoTR's, which should always be watched at just under to slightly over the 4 hour mark)
horror= 1:45
comedy= 1:45-always under 2:00
family/animated= 1:30
action= 2:15
drama= 1:45-2:00
sci-fi/fantasy= 2:15-2:30 (with the exception of all LoTR's, which should always be watched at just under to slightly over the 4 hour mark)
#13
Michael Bay has made only one movie that runs less than 120m and then no movies that run less than 130 outside of that one, and I think he might even only have one movie running less than 140m. His movies are all very long. Not that that makes them any better...
#14
DVD Talk Legend
I still don't understand the less runtimes=less people argument.
Let's say there are 100 people who want to see Transformers.
If the theater has 5 showings, expect 20 people in each.
If the theater has 4 showings, expect 25 in each.
The number of showings doesn't make a portion of the 100 people not want to see giant robots kick ass.
If people want to see a movie, they're gonna see it
(based on their desire to see the plot, action, characters, etc--not bassed on a schedule).
Let's say there are 100 people who want to see Transformers.
If the theater has 5 showings, expect 20 people in each.
If the theater has 4 showings, expect 25 in each.
The number of showings doesn't make a portion of the 100 people not want to see giant robots kick ass.
If people want to see a movie, they're gonna see it
(based on their desire to see the plot, action, characters, etc--not bassed on a schedule).
#15
DVD Talk Godfather
Eh. There were movies that were too short too, like Shrek the Third and Fantastic Four.
I've been fine with the lenth of movies, and don't really pay attention much to it at all.
I've been fine with the lenth of movies, and don't really pay attention much to it at all.
#16
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by GuessWho
I still don't understand the less runtimes=less people argument.
Let's say there are 100 people who want to see Transformers.
If the theater has 5 showings, expect 20 people in each.
If the theater has 4 showings, expect 25 in each.
The number of showings doesn't make a portion of the 100 people not want to see giant robots kick ass.
If people want to see a movie, they're gonna see it
(based on their desire to see the plot, action, characters, etc--not bassed on a schedule).
Let's say there are 100 people who want to see Transformers.
If the theater has 5 showings, expect 20 people in each.
If the theater has 4 showings, expect 25 in each.
The number of showings doesn't make a portion of the 100 people not want to see giant robots kick ass.
If people want to see a movie, they're gonna see it
(based on their desire to see the plot, action, characters, etc--not bassed on a schedule).
I can say from experience that we often don't see a movie on a given day because of when it was showing.
#17
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by GuessWho
I still don't understand the less runtimes=less people argument.
Let's say there are 100 people who want to see Transformers.
If the theater has 5 showings, expect 20 people in each.
If the theater has 4 showings, expect 25 in each.
The number of showings doesn't make a portion of the 100 people not want to see giant robots kick ass.
If people want to see a movie, they're gonna see it
(based on their desire to see the plot, action, characters, etc--not bassed on a schedule).
Let's say there are 100 people who want to see Transformers.
If the theater has 5 showings, expect 20 people in each.
If the theater has 4 showings, expect 25 in each.
The number of showings doesn't make a portion of the 100 people not want to see giant robots kick ass.
If people want to see a movie, they're gonna see it
(based on their desire to see the plot, action, characters, etc--not bassed on a schedule).
100 people want to see Transformers today, theater has four showings, theater seats 20. So only 80 of those get to see it, the others are turned away. Maybe only 15 of those bother to see the movie another time, the other 5 never make it back (and a couple of those think about going to a movie in a week or two but decide it's always sold out and don't go back to the theater ever).
#19
DVD Talk Hero
More showings = more potential customers.
6 showings x 20 seats = potentially 120 paid
9 showings (+3 for shortness) x 20 seats = potentially 180 paid
6 showings x 20 seats = potentially 120 paid
9 showings (+3 for shortness) x 20 seats = potentially 180 paid
#21
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by dadaluholla
Is this some sort of broom closet or an actual theater?
#22
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by Ginwen
We have theaters in Seattle that seat about that many. They don't show Transformers though.
#24
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by MoviePage
To paraphrase (or maybe quote) Roger Ebert: no good movie is too long, and no bad movie is too short.
#25
Moderator
Originally Posted by sundog
Yes. Poor movies can be interminable clocking in under 90 minutes.
I'd rather watch Satantango (7.5 hours) or Out 1 (12.5 hours) again than sit through Shrek or Pirates of the Caribbean.
I'd rather watch Satantango (7.5 hours) or Out 1 (12.5 hours) again than sit through Shrek or Pirates of the Caribbean.