Originally Posted by sog35
problem is you are bring up the EXCEPTIONS not the rule.
There are exceptions to any rule..
The rule is if you make a film well it can be as long as it needs to be. Most filmmakers that embark on "epic" films are skilled enough to do it. Most filmmakers that produce crap, bloated films won't ever try to make a ten hour film because they never think outside their box of making a fluff piece that is only aiming to be a hit at the box office. They never get out of making two hour crap, because two hour crap pays their bills consistently, and they're not in it for the art.
Editing is part of being a good filmmaker, but so is coming up with a good idea, casting it well, getting a solid screenplay, knowing how to shoot it, knowing how to market, knowing how to use effects, knowing how to put on a soundtrack.
That's a lot for even seasoned filmmakers who know all the artistry, and most filmmakers only develop a couple of those skills fully. So the majority of films aren't just crappily edited, they stink to high heaven all the way through. But again, it also depends on your definition of "crap," as some would find even a film like Battleship to be two hours of crap/fluff that needs to be ashcanned before it hits theaters, and some don't see any crap or fluff at all.
So you're going to get "bloated" and "crap filled" films from here on out because plenty of people don't see the "crap" as crap, and some see what you see as being good as being crap anyway.
Studios aren't designed to make "good" films all the time, they're designed to make films that make money, crap or no crap. As long as the dollars are there (and they are, more or less), they're still going to make films the way they make them, and people like you (and me, and everyone else) will have differing views on how much crap is in them (if any.)
10 minute movies. LOL.
10 hour movies. LOL.
Most movies of those lengths will not have any success.
Most ten hour movies have had great success considering not very many are made. Certainly a much higher ratio of success over the vast majority of two hour movies (most of which flop or do mediocre.) And many ten minute shorts have launched many a career, and are more prevalent on the web than they've ever been. They don't get widely distributed because most people dismiss them before they even see them as they have a hard time thinking outside the box of "two hour movie." (You seem to be one of their number.) Most people watch movies as timewasters or entertainment, not for the art.
If you're solely defining success as blockbuster bucks, then you miss the point, as those short films and long-long films aren't competing against films like Battleship.
And again, when you say cut the fluff out of Battleship, that's a film that's so filled with fluff (come on, it's a popcorn flick, not high art or even LOTR level decent filmmaking that everyone can agree will stand the test of time) that no two people will agree on what parts to cut. Some like explosions, some like Brooklyn Decker in skimpy clothes, (remember, some would question your sexuality at the mere mention of axing the boobage), some like both explosions and a skimpy-clothed Brooklyn Decker. Because the film is aiming for the widest possible audience (which is primarily teenagers/young adults that like explosions and girls, as that's the demographic that most consistently goes to the theater or rents/buys in the critical first week), it'll have both, and it's all fluff. Battleship was never aiming for anything more than what it achieved. If you think it's somehow going to become a work of art, or even a good film by cutting 30 minutes, you'll never gain a majority consensus on that. At least not enough to score a box office like it did. It was a cheesy, blow-away-aliens-look-at-pretty-girls movie, something Hollywood has never had a shortage of, and no one will ever agree on what to cut (if anything.)