Are movies actually getting longer?
07-14-14 | 10:42 AM
#26
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
When I was a college film reviewer I saw TRIAL OF BILLY JACK at an advance screening at the old RKO Warner theater on Broadway at 47th St. (torn down in 1987). It was sandwiched in between two kung fu films, ATTACK OF THE KUNG FU GIRLS, starring Cheng Pei Pei, and STING OF THE DRAGON MASTERS, starring Angela Mao, two films I've happily purchased on DVD and revisited multiple times. (I've never seen TRIAL OF BJ a second time.) My friend and I came in on the end of ATTACK OF THE KUNG FU GIRLS.
Yes, TRIAL was a long movie and the audience was a mix of college and other press and kung fu fans who lingered to see what was going on (quite a change from today when legions of publicists man the tables at advance screenings and scrutinize every invitee). After Billy Jack's spiritual journey (which actually wasn't a bad scene) at around the two-hour point and his return to the school in time for a Kent State-like confrontation with National Guardsmen and subsequent tragedies and tearful reconciliations, the crowd got restless and started laughing at everything. I'm not kidding, during all the tragic scenes, the audience kept laughing. The more tearful it got the harder the audience laughed. I'm cracking up just remembering it right now. If there was a wet eye in the house it was because people were laughing so hard. If there was anyone in the place who took the film seriously, they were in a tiny minority and kept it to themselves. Then we all stayed for STING OF THE DRAGON MASTERS and a good time was had by all. Ahh, those were the days.
Yes, TRIAL was a long movie and the audience was a mix of college and other press and kung fu fans who lingered to see what was going on (quite a change from today when legions of publicists man the tables at advance screenings and scrutinize every invitee). After Billy Jack's spiritual journey (which actually wasn't a bad scene) at around the two-hour point and his return to the school in time for a Kent State-like confrontation with National Guardsmen and subsequent tragedies and tearful reconciliations, the crowd got restless and started laughing at everything. I'm not kidding, during all the tragic scenes, the audience kept laughing. The more tearful it got the harder the audience laughed. I'm cracking up just remembering it right now. If there was a wet eye in the house it was because people were laughing so hard. If there was anyone in the place who took the film seriously, they were in a tiny minority and kept it to themselves. Then we all stayed for STING OF THE DRAGON MASTERS and a good time was had by all. Ahh, those were the days.
07-14-14 | 10:44 AM
#27
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
Comedies have certainly gotten longer.
07-14-14 | 11:42 AM
#28
Senior Member
Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
Multiplexes started to spawn in the late 1980s and early 1990s. With the rise of facilities with 8, 10, 12 or god-knows-how-many screens, the demand changed. Theater owners no longer needed 90-minute turnaround comedies ... They now needed enough product to keep all these screens full! One way to do this is to lengthen movies and reduce the number of needed show times.
The articles I've read claim theater owners prefer shorter movies so they can have more showings on weekends, and thus, more paid admissions.
07-14-14 | 01:57 PM
#29
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
Horror movies have remained fairly short. If anything, a lot of horror movies don't run much longer than 80 minutes because one gets the feeling they couldn't come up with enough material for another act.
07-14-14 | 11:07 PM
#31
DVD Talk Hero
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 34,236
Received 2,045 Likes
on
1,391 Posts
From: Not necessarily Formerly known as Solid Snake
Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
I'm not sure I understand this reasoning. Longer running times will reduce the number of needed showtimes. But how will that fill numerous screens? If theater owners need enough product, they need more movies or at least movies popular enough to fill the seats in multiple sub-theaters to show them on several screens in the same multiplex.
The articles I've read claim theater owners prefer shorter movies so they can have more showings on weekends, and thus, more paid admissions.
The articles I've read claim theater owners prefer shorter movies so they can have more showings on weekends, and thus, more paid admissions.
I would say that second part depends ... longer movies usually mean more concession sales. More money is made from concession sales than admission tickets. Theater owners are lucky to get 20% of the admission ticket. However, more admissions also equal more concession sales.
07-14-14 | 11:25 PM
#32
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
I've been saying for a while that directors should make shorter theatrical cuts and longer extended cuts for home viewing. We get longer director's cuts on home video all the time, but directors keep trying to shove as much as they possibly can into the theatrical cuts, because God forbid anyone is allowed to watch any movie in a theatre without their bladders exploding less than halfway through.
I remember hearing Peter Jackson on the commentary track for the extended cut of King Kong complaining about having to cut an action scene (involving the characters being attacked by aquatic creatures on a raft, if I remember correctly) from the theatrical cut. He already had a film that came in at 187 minutes, and there he was, thinking about how he could cram even more fucking crap into the theatrical cut.
With directors like Jackson, I think the problem is ego: thinking that every second of footage they shoot is so brilliant that excluding any of it is unthinkable. With others, they may think they're just trying to give audiences as much bang for their buck as possible. Whatever the cause, one of the reasons I hardly ever get to theatres these days is bloated running times. Movies that run 2.5 or 3 hours work much better on home video, where I can watch it more like a TV series, an hour here and an hour there.
I remember hearing Peter Jackson on the commentary track for the extended cut of King Kong complaining about having to cut an action scene (involving the characters being attacked by aquatic creatures on a raft, if I remember correctly) from the theatrical cut. He already had a film that came in at 187 minutes, and there he was, thinking about how he could cram even more fucking crap into the theatrical cut.
With directors like Jackson, I think the problem is ego: thinking that every second of footage they shoot is so brilliant that excluding any of it is unthinkable. With others, they may think they're just trying to give audiences as much bang for their buck as possible. Whatever the cause, one of the reasons I hardly ever get to theatres these days is bloated running times. Movies that run 2.5 or 3 hours work much better on home video, where I can watch it more like a TV series, an hour here and an hour there.
07-14-14 | 11:34 PM
#33
Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
Good movies aren't long enough. As an example, I could have sat through at least another 2 hours of Transformers 4.
Bad movies aren't short enough. By the 1 hour 45 minute mark I was so irritated and pissed off by Captain America Winter Soldier I wanted to leave. However, like a battered spouse I just kept waiting for it to get better. Of course, it never did.
Bad movies aren't short enough. By the 1 hour 45 minute mark I was so irritated and pissed off by Captain America Winter Soldier I wanted to leave. However, like a battered spouse I just kept waiting for it to get better. Of course, it never did.
07-15-14 | 11:07 AM
#34
Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
Good movies aren't long enough. As an example, I could have sat through at least another 2 hours of Transformers 4.
Bad movies aren't short enough. By the 1 hour 45 minute mark I was so irritated and pissed off by Captain America Winter Soldier I wanted to leave. However, like a battered spouse I just kept waiting for it to get better. Of course, it never did.
Bad movies aren't short enough. By the 1 hour 45 minute mark I was so irritated and pissed off by Captain America Winter Soldier I wanted to leave. However, like a battered spouse I just kept waiting for it to get better. Of course, it never did.
07-16-14 | 10:48 AM
#35
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
The bladder problem could be solved by reintroducing the intermissions that were common in longer movies, such as Lawrence of Arabia, Gone With the Wind, Ben Hur, and Grand Prix, many years ago. And theater owners would get a boost in concession sales. (I believe that they are still used in most "Bollywood" movies.)
That assumes that Apatow movies can be considered "comedies", something I dispute.
That assumes that Apatow movies can be considered "comedies", something I dispute.
Last edited by lizard; 07-16-14 at 10:57 AM.
07-16-14 | 05:11 PM
#36
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
Yes
it seems like every movie I get from Netflix is over 2 hrs long
it seems like every movie I get from Netflix is over 2 hrs long
