or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Why are movies so LOOOOONG?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why are movies so LOOOOONG? - Page 6

post #151 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

You have it all backwards. You start drinking first, then you never have to say "WTF?" again. I have it down to a fine art, my friend.
I guess I'm just an amateur...tongue.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

mine came today and i popped in the first disk...
transfer is of vhs quality, watching on my pj... however, after the first 3 or 4 minutes, i completely forgot about the quality of transfer...
not that i'd decline a pristine transfer to blu... but this is "good enough"...
have a box of kleenex nearby... i'm a bit "leaky" to begin with, and this has gotten me 3 times in the first 45 minutes...
Took a look at mine last night and it looks exactly like I remember the SD broadcast, although I don't recall as much print damage or "frozen grain."

Somebody rich and powerful needs to push thru a new master (Mr. Speilberg, are you listening?wink.gif).....
This film is too amazing to be confined to the dusty shelves of film history.
post #152 of 275
^^^

yea, i hear that... someone needs to do this...

provably would cost an almighty fortune though... frown.gif
post #153 of 275
Hey sog35, what did you think of Wagner's Ring Cycle on PBS this week? Too long? wink.gif
post #154 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

What is "too long" or "crappy parts" is entirely subjective.
The length of a movie is...well, the length of the movie.
It just IS.
If one doesn't like said "fluff" or "crap," there is a cure for that....it's called the FF button on the remote.wink.gif

Or better yet just dont watch the movie. If your pressing FF button you might as well press stop.
post #155 of 275
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Or better yet just dont watch the movie. If your pressing FF button you might as well press stop.

pretty hard to 'not watch' if I paid money for tickets or money to rent a movie.

I guess many of you think the movie industry is just perfect.
post #156 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

pretty hard to 'not watch' if I paid money for tickets or money to rent a movie.
I guess many of you think the movie industry is just perfect.

Well I dont know how much you pay for renting a movie but over here its between $1.50 and $5.00 and if a movie is awful to me I just press stop and take it back the next day. I dont bother with it.
post #157 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

pretty hard to 'not watch' if I paid money for tickets or money to rent a movie.

Never walked out of a movie halfway through have you? I have. My time and patience are worth far more than what a movie ticket costs.
Quote:
I guess many of you think the movie industry is just perfect.

rolleyes.gif
post #158 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Never walked out of a movie halfway through have you? I have. My time and patience are worth far more than what a movie ticket costs.
rolleyes.gif

Spot on Lee. Ive walked out of King Kong Lives and Poison Ivy (drew barrymore) couldnt watch anymore. smile.gif
post #159 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Or better yet just dont watch the movie. If your pressing FF button you might as well press stop.
It depends on the movie.
An action movie with the eye-rolling, mandatory Hollywood "love interest" scene(s) is always a candidate for FF.
Horror movies with idiotic teenage dialog between scares is also a possibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

pretty hard to 'not watch' if I paid money for tickets or money to rent a movie.
That's what God invented Netflix for...wink.gif
post #160 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

That's what God invented Netflix for...wink.gif

WoW! And I thought Netflix was invented by Marc Randolph and Reed Hastings. biggrin.gif

So dare I ask . . . are they . . . God? tongue.gif
post #161 of 275
Back to the time thing, i find that i just start getting antsy when a movie goes past 2 hours, in fact 90-100 minutes is like max for me to really enjoy. Even at home, when i can pause and go to the bathroom, its gotta be an incredibley exceptional movie to keep me from getting antsy after 90-100 minutes.
post #162 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeeman View Post

Back to the time thing, i find that i just start getting antsy when a movie goes past 2 hours, in fact 90-100 minutes is like max for me to really enjoy. Even at home, when i can pause and go to the bathroom, its gotta be an incredibley exceptional movie to keep me from getting antsy after 90-100 minutes.
It's called "short attention span" and is related to ADD. Causes of Short Attention Span. Seek professional help. tongue.gif
post #163 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by cctvtech View Post

It's called "short attention span" and is related to ADD. Causes of Short Attention Span. Seek professional help. tongue.gif
I started to click that link then got sidetracked.
post #164 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

I started to click that link then got sidetracked.
I....what?
post #165 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

the biggest age group of transformer fans are 25-35 years old.
Transformers was huge in the late 80's
Yep, I can remember buying Transformer toys for my son.....

LOL. I was in that group, 28 when Transformer toys came out, and all I could think of is...now that is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever seen. Still do, while some of the special effects are kinda cool in the movies, and Megan's midriff does do a nice job of distraction (but she's much, uh, better in Jennifer's Body) Transformers overall still represents the worst of science fiction, but to each his own smile.gif.

I often like longer movies just so I can see more cool stuff; someone commented on the length of LOTR in extended vs theatrical release and personally I like the extended edition--because it's got more cool stuff (but then I have been a fan of Tolkien for quite a long time, read the books many times starting in my school days, a long time before the movies). I suppose for me a book can definitely have me looking for additional information from a story in a movie, sometimes just to see how they work it in, or because I think it adds to the development of a character or a scene imparts just enough additional information as to be relevant. Now that I've got a home setup worthy of better sound and visual effects, I can also be sucked in by movies that really don't have much in redeeming value otherwise (like Transformers, Matrix movies).
post #166 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

pretty hard to 'not watch' if I paid money for tickets or money to rent a movie.

So you'd rather torture yourself just to "get your money's worth"? All of maybe a buck or three for rental, or fifteen or so for one showing?

Here's a tip. If a filmmaker is known for works that you think aren't up to snuff, DON'T GO SEE THEIR FILMS ANYMORE.

I've already bailed on M. Night Shaymalan, and I know I'm not alone. Of course some still like his films, and that's okay, because they're not spending my money to see his work.
Quote:
I guess many of you think the movie industry is just perfect.

If we think the movie industry is "perfect", then why are many of us walking out of movies we think sucks? confused.gif Do you even consider what you post or do you post every inane thought that comes in your head? (Considering your rapid postcount over the past two weeks, including multiple posts in a few minutes, I suspect the latter.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Actually Transformers is made for both nostalgic parents and their kids. Thats why they make the big money.

And both groups wouldn't mind seeing a little Megan midriff action. wink.gif
post #167 of 275
^^^

i may rent it and just ff to the bare midriff parts... tongue.gif
post #168 of 275
Could you imagine the meetings Bay and his producers had when discussing that?

"We got Megan Fox."

"She a good actress?"

"Not really."

"Well, what can she do?"

"Look hot in a belly shirt. She's got amazing abs."

"Okay, we have some glycerine. Spray it on her, wait until the sun catches it just so, and film it!"

"Money in the bank, boys. Money in the bank."
post #169 of 275
I think movies have been too short in recent years actually.
post #170 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

Could you imagine the meetings Bay and his producers had when discussing that?

"We got Megan Fox."

"She a good actress?"

"Not really."

"Well, what can she do?"

"Look hot in a belly shirt. She's got amazing abs."

"Okay, we have some glycerine. Spray it on her, wait until the sun catches it just so, and film it!"

"Money in the bank, boys. Money in the bank."

something tells me that may not be far from the truth... tongue.gif
post #171 of 275
Hey, Peter Gruber always said Jacqueline Bisset's wet t-shirt from The Deep made him a very rich man.
post #172 of 275
Though it's from 2009, it does have some interesting data:

By The Numbers: The Length Of Feature Films

http://www.slashfilm.com/by-the-numbers-the-length-of-feature-films/
post #173 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

Hey, Peter Gruber always said Jacqueline Bisset's wet t-shirt from The Deep made him a very rich man.

a VERY fond memory from my yute... tongue.gif
post #174 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

Hey, Peter Gruber always said Jacqueline Bisset's wet t-shirt from The Deep made him a very rich man.

So for the producers of Basic Instinct with Sharon Stone's . . . er . . . lady parts biggrin.gif
post #175 of 275
I think it this subject is very subjective and as long as the story is strong, I dont mind being 2-5 hours long as long as there is an intermission like The Godfather. But if a story is weak and not going anywhere and you notice yourself nodding off then it is time to turn off that movie and return it or shelve it for a very long time. I thought Transformers was great and I could have actually kept going if they did. So with that said and to answer the question yes it could hurt the movie if plot is too weak and story bounces here and there but also could be a good thing.
post #176 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Movieholic View Post

I think it this subject is very subjective and as long as the story is strong, I dont mind being 2-5 hours long as long as there is an intermission like The Godfather. But if a story is weak and not going anywhere and you notice yourself nodding off then it is time to turn off that movie and return it or shelve it for a very long time. I thought Transformers was great and I could have actually kept going if they did. So with that said and to answer the question yes it could hurt the movie if plot is too weak and story bounces here and there but also could be a good thing.
That's true, I have the same point after Avengers.
post #177 of 275
Take ghost rider 2 for example,
only 90 minutes long but the acting / scripting was terrible and i was only at chapter 5 and i had to turn it off. Yes it was that bad. If a movie is 2.5 hours long with good acting good writing good plot and action id get lost in the movie easy. Where i can't keep my eyes off the screen. smile.gif
post #178 of 275
I've seen too many of this new breed of summer movies...

The real question is: Why are today's summer movies so BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD?
post #179 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by cctvtech View Post

It's called "short attention span" and is related to ADD. Causes of Short Attention Span. Seek professional help. tongue.gif

I need help, but cant concentrate long enough to remember for what.

Seriously, i think its from work where i had a million different things to jump to one after another, very few long projects (office work), and the computer where i am constantly jumping from Facebook to a forum to Ebay to my email to another forum to Facebook etc etc etc.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
post #180 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

I'm not sure if this a recent trend but there seems to be more 2+ hours movies than before.
I understand movies like LOTR and Dark Knight need the extra time to develop characters. Also these movies are great so I have no problem if these movies run over 2 or even 3 hours.
But there are movies out their that have no business being 2 hours long. The most recent example I can think of is Battleship. The movie had some decent action scenes that could stand on its own. Why on earth does this movie have to be longer than 2 hours? Take out all the crappy parts of the movie and it would be 90 minutes of great action and special effects. I just don't get it.
Especially now with ipads/iphones/ect hardly anyone has patience. Our attention span as a nation is shorter than ever. Why not give us movies that get rid of all the fluf/crap and just pack all the good parts of the movie to 80-90 minutes.
Here are a list of other movies that are way too long. So long that it actually hurts the good parts of the movies:
Transformers 1-3 (although I can understand #1 to introduce the characters but still way too long)
KingKong
Pearl Harbor
Waterworld
Matrix Reloaded
Even Dark Knight Rises could have benefited from being trimmed by 10 or 15 minutes.

Mike Bay and Gore Verbinski films, YES! Chris Nolan and Joss Whedon films, No, they are not long enough!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Why are movies so LOOOOONG?