Are movies actually getting longer?
 

I often read how movies are getting longer and longer every year. For example, this year four of the top six grossing movies of the year (as of July 13) are over two hours long:

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - 2h 16m
The LEGO Movie - 1h 40m
X-Men: Days Of Future Past - 2h 11m
Maleficent - 1h 37m
Transformers: Age Of Extinction - 2h 45m
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - 2h 22m

As proof of movies getting longer, most of the articles I read point out that the length of movies from the past appeared to be shorter. Thirty years ago only one movie in the top six grossing movies of 1984 was over two hours in length:

Beverly Hills Cop - 1h 45m
Ghostbusters - 1h 47m
Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom - 1h 58m
Gremlins - 1h 46m
The Karate Kid - 2h 7m
Police Academy - 1h 37m

However, does anyone know if the majority of movies are actually getting longer? I understand that so-called "event movies" that tend to be blockbusters are getting longer, but does anyone know if, overall, the average length of a movie is actually getting longer?

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

It's those never-ending opening studio logos, I tell ya!

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

This is not good news. My attention span is

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

So many movies of the 30s and 40s topped out at no more than an hour and ten minutes. You used to be able to show three movies on one bill and still have room for cartoons and newsreels.

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

Life gets faster as you age, except for movies, where your life seems to get longer. I'm going to go see more new movies. Maybe that way I'll live to be 300 years old. ;)

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

Movies are getting longer, but part of that can be attributed to the closing credits, which are getting insanely long. Do we really need to know who the craft service vehicle driver's insurance agent is?

Some closing credits are at or above 10 minutes (and they count that as part of the movie's running time). In the pre-Star Wars days, many movies had no closing credits at all, or if they did have them, they were a minute or two at most.

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

Event movies have to be long or audiences think it's an indicator of a lesser movie. I think it did hurt The Dark Knight Rises, that felt like two movies worth of plot crammed into a tiring experience.

Even animated films are getting longer these days, when their length directly impacts their expense.

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

Crocker Jarmen is on to a significant point ...

The rise of the modern multiplex allows for longer movies to be palatable to theaters. Thirty years ago (as stated in the OP) theaters were primarily still one screen and having to run multiple showings of blockbusters throughout the day. Shorter run times = more turnarounds.

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.

Before anybody says this: no, theater owners did not sit down with David Fincher and his buddies and say "can you make a longer movie?"

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

If you listen to commentary tracks for movies from the '80s and '90s, especially with movies that have extended cuts, you'll hear directors talk about having to fight if they wanted a movie to be longer than two hours.

I think the game changer was Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings. Once studios realized a three hour movie could open to $100 million weekend, there was no point in keeping run times to reasonable lengths.

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

I would think that the success of Titanic, and later long adaptions of books (LOTR and Harry Potter) made them comfortable with longer films overall. EDIT: Sean O'Hara beat me to it.

But you also have to consider that most of those 80s titles you listed are comedies, which tend to be shorter anyway. The Star Wars OT and the first three Superman films were all over 2 hours (although not by much).

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

Along Brack's line of thought ... Movies are not longer. Your bladder is less tolerant as you get older.

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

It sucks. Movies get longer and as I age my bladder gets weaker and weaker. I can count on at least one jog to the bathroom now a days and sometimes two if I have a drink.

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

A better comparison would be with no sequels involved. How can you compare a micro-budget comedy like Police Academy to the latest Transformers sequel?

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

the end credits take up a lot of time.

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

Remember back in the day when there were NO end credits. You might have a minutes worth of credits at the beginning, watch the movie then see "The End" as the lights come on.

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

Hell, Bergman's films of the 60's didn't even have a "The End". Sometimes his films just flat-out ended as soon as a character finishes a line with no credits whatsoever (Think Hour of the Wolf) Let's bring those endings back!

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

Thank you for all of the replies. I really appreciate them.

Anyway, there seems to be some confusion about the movies listed from 1984. Just to clarify, the six movies listed from 1984 are, according to Box Office Mojo, the domestic top six highest grossing movies from 1984. The six movies listed from this year are the domestic top six highest grossing movies this year, according to Box Office Mojo, as of July 13.

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

Raw data would seem to suggest that movies aren't really getting longer. See here: Movies aren’t actually much longer than they used to be.

Of course, the method the author used isn't perfect, but the data is freely available from IMDb's servers if someone wants to investigate further.

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

You can't. Police Academy has a far more engrossing plot, stronger characters, and better pacing than Transformers: Age of Extinction. Plus Police Academy didn't need $200 million for special effects, they had Michael Winslow instead. ;)

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

Somebody get Al Gore on the phone.

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

About the same.

Top movies of 1974:
Blazing Saddles: 1hr 35m
Towering Inferno: 2hrs 45m
The Trial of Billy Jack: 2hrs 51m
Young Frankenstein: 1hr 46m
Earthquake: 2hrs 9m
The Godfather Part II: 3 hours 20 minutes

It varies year to year, there are so many more movies these days that it's hard to weigh it out. That said, big epic movies that do well in theaters always tended to be over 2 hours, and comedies always tended to be closer to 90 minutes. The example list from 1984 has 4 comedies on it which appear to be properly timed.

2013:
Catching Fire 2hrs 26m
Iron Man 3 2hrs 15m
Frozen 1hr 42m
Despicable Me 2 1hr 38m
Gravity 1hr 33m
Monsters University 1hr 50m
Man of Steel 9hr 45m

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

How the heck was The Trial of Billy Jack 2:51? Sounds like a trial, all right!

:lol: Man of Steel.

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

This is the first movie I thought when I read this topic. The Summer Blockbuster movies have no business being longer then 2 & 1/2 hours, as they are just bloated at that point. Movies like Lord of the Rings Trilogy can get away with it because there is so much content in the book to cover (although The Hobbit Trilogy is bloated at this point too). I look at summer blockbusters like Jaws, Star Wars, Raiders, ET, all were around 2 hours, and were the perfect time.

Now I have no problem with a drama that goes longer then 2 & 1/2 hours, because they usually have an interesting story that can hold your interest for that long. And Comedies should never go past 90-95 minutes either.

Re: Are movies actually getting longer?
 

Not longer. Just shittier.

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.

I have the sneaking suspicion that if this movie were brand new and exactly the same as it was back then and were released today, no one would laugh and there would be tears and audible sniffles during the film's final section. I don't know if that would mean society has gotten more sensitive or just more gullible.