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 9

post #241 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

BS! rolleyes.gif
The extended versions are primarily used to sell HV optical discs.
Take a look at the films that have been both nominated and won the Best Film Editing award - that have NOTHING to do with taking things out and EVERTHING to do with how the movie is put together:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Film_Editing

AGREED.
post #242 of 275
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

BS! rolleyes.gif
The extended versions are primarily used to sell HV optical discs.
Take a look at the films that have been both nominated and won the Best Film Editing award - that have NOTHING to do with taking things out and EVERTHING to do with how the movie is put together:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Film_Editing

lol. YOu have no idea how much footage was removed from those awesome movies. You can bet they removed a TON of footage.

For the fellowship of the ring, Peter Jackson had about 20 hours of footage of the ring wraths chasing arwen on the horse.
post #243 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

BS! rolleyes.gif
The extended versions are primarily used to sell HV optical discs.
Take a look at the films that have been both nominated and won the Best Film Editing award - that have NOTHING to do with taking things out and EVERTHING to do with how the movie is put together:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Film_Editing

lol. YOu have no idea how much footage was removed from those awesome movies. You can bet they removed a TON of footage.

For the fellowship of the ring, Peter Jackson had about 20 hours of footage of the ring wraths chasing arwen on the horse.

I think you're both talking about the same thing but from different perspectives. The footage shot far exceeds the final movie, so you could think of it as removing a ton of footage or putting together the best pieces...
post #244 of 275
Sometimes the story being told gets changed between the time the film was shot and the final edit. I've read about incidents when actors have been recalled so additional (usually brief) scenes could be shot after primary production had formally ended.

If its story is well told and engrossing, the film's length is irrelevant.
post #245 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

lol. YOu have no idea how much footage was removed from those awesome movies. You can bet they removed a TON of footage.
For the fellowship of the ring, Peter Jackson had about 20 hours of footage of the ring wraths chasing arwen on the horse.

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with what you have been ranting about since you started this BS thread. You have been referring to finished movies since your first post. This is just another pathetic lame attempt at backpeddeling from you when you are proven to be wrong.
post #246 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with what you have been ranting about since you started this BS thread. You have been referring to finished movies since your first post. This is just another pathetic lame attempt at backpeddeling from you when you are proven to be wrong.

Is it backpedalling or just plain trolling.....
post #247 of 275
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with what you have been ranting about since you started this BS thread. You have been referring to finished movies since your first post. This is just another pathetic lame attempt at backpeddeling from you when you are proven to be wrong.

you said editing a film has nothing to do with cutting out parts of a movie. YOU are WRONG.

you are saying the director shoots 2 hours of film and only uses those 2 hours. Silly. really silly.

Many times the differene between a good movie and an average movie is removing and keeping the right footage. Bottom line is many crap movies keep too much and are too long. Many movies that are 150mins would be far better as 90 minutes. Some movies like Dances with Wolves are better at 230 minutes.

And if you think this thread is BS why dont you leave? REally are in some type of argument competition?
post #248 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

you said editing a film has nothing to do with cutting out parts of a movie. YOU are WRONG.

rolleyes.gif
Quote:
you are saying the director shoots 2 hours of film and only uses those 2 hours. Silly. really silly.

I never said that so please do not put words in my mouth that I never posted. Just more flapdoodle from you.
Quote:
Many times the differene between a good movie and an average movie is removing and keeping the right footage. Bottom line is many crap movies keep too much and are too long. Many movies that are 150mins would be far better as 90 minutes. Some movies like Dances with Wolves are better at 230 minutes.

Once again you offer up YOUR opinion like it is some factual information. It isn't. You just don't seem to want to understand that.
Quote:
And if you think this thread is BS why dont you leave? REally are in some type of argument competition?

Just trying to show that your diatribes to be what they are . . . BS.
post #249 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

If its story is well told and engrossing, the film's length is irrelevant.

But I would like to remind people that filmlength do effect if a movie is well told and engrossing.

There is always a fine line when you edit something. To much or to little.
post #250 of 275
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

rolleyes.gif
I never said that so please do not put words in my mouth that I never posted. Just more flapdoodle from you.
Once again you offer up YOUR opinion like it is some factual information. It isn't. You just don't seem to want to understand that.
Just trying to show that your diatribes to be what they are . . . BS.

True or False Mr Stewart:

part of film editing is removing unnecessary scenes or parts of scenes.
post #251 of 275


Here we go.
post #252 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by cshawnmcdonald View Post



Here we go.

Or rather get a room and get it over with, obviously love unrequited. smile.gif
post #253 of 275
Hahahah this is really serious issue... Directors should think that why movies are so long. biggrin.gif
post #254 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

True or False Mr Stewart:
part of film editing is removing unnecessary scenes or parts of scenes.

OK,I've waited long enough, whats the answer,
post #255 of 275
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbailey75 View Post

OK,I've waited long enough, whats the answer,

I too am waiting for Mr Steward
post #256 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

Sometimes the story being told gets changed between the time the film was shot and the final edit. I've read about incidents when actors have been recalled so additional (usually brief) scenes could be shot after primary production had formally ended.
If its story is well told and engrossing, the film's length is irrelevant.
I've been trying to give example of this like with people complaining about large food portions and this is probably the best thing said so let's just close this silly thread.
post #257 of 275
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

I've been trying to give example of this like with people complaining about large food portions and this is probably the best thing said so let's just close this silly thread.

lets go with your food analogy:

You say big portions are no problem and should never complain about it.

But what if you ordered vegitarian spagetti. But when you food comes its full of hamburger. Then what? Of course you could remove the meat but that takes time and is a waste. Same thing with movies. Too many movies are stuffed with crap/filler that no one wants. Can you fast forward those parts? Sure, but its a pain in the azz.
post #258 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

I've been trying to give example of this like with people complaining about large food portions and this is probably the best thing said so let's just close this silly thread.

lets go with your food analogy:

You say big portions are no problem and should never complain about it.

But what if you ordered vegitarian spagetti. But when you food comes its full of hamburger. Then what? Of course you could remove the meat but that takes time and is a waste. Same thing with movies. Too many movies are stuffed with crap/filler that no one wants. Can you fast forward those parts? Sure, but its a pain in the azz.

Vegetarian is how it's spelled. Spaghetti for that matter. Maybe instead of you you mean your. Hamburger? What's that? Ground chuck, sirloin, round, other? Once it's cooked with meat it's still a meat sauce. Not the same thing with movies. Some people should learn to edit their own posts smile.gif The beauty of home viewing is the fast forward or eject keys...
post #259 of 275
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Vegetarian is how it's spelled. Spaghetti for that matter. Maybe instead of you you mean your. Hamburger? What's that? Ground chuck, sirloin, round, other? Once it's cooked with meat it's still a meat sauce. Not the same thing with movies. Some people should learn to edit their own posts smile.gif The beauty of home viewing is the fast forward or eject keys...

but ff is a pain in the azz. same as removing meat from spagetti.

my whole point is it seems that movies today have more crap/filler/snot then ever. Seems that producers/directors want to make movies longer so they seem 'epic and grand in scale'. Ever since the success of Titanic and then the success of Avatar. All these wanna be direcotrs want to make their movies 3 hours long.
post #260 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

I've been trying to give example of this like with people complaining about large food portions and this is probably the best thing said so let's just close this silly thread.
I would like a doggy bag for the excised scenes, please. tongue.gif
post #261 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

lets go with your food analogy:
You say big portions are no problem and should never complain about it.
But what if you ordered vegitarian spagetti. But when you food comes its full of hamburger. Then what? Of course you could remove the meat but that takes time and is a waste. Same thing with movies. Too many movies are stuffed with crap/filler that no one wants. Can you fast forward those parts? Sure, but its a pain in the azz.
You send it back because it's not what you ordered. Seriously, if I was a vegetarian (and I'm not) and was served spaghetti with meat when I ordered spaghetti without, I sure wouldn't waste my time picking the meat out...
post #262 of 275
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cctvtech View Post

You send it back because it's not what you ordered. Seriously, if I was a vegetarian (and I'm not) and was served spaghetti with meat when I ordered spaghetti without, I sure wouldn't waste my time picking the meat out...

so can you ask for a refund at a theater if the movie had too much fluff/crap in it?
post #263 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

so can you ask for a refund at a theater if the movie had too much fluff/crap in it?

The difference between your analogy and Zoey's is that if you're ordering a vegetarian spaghetti and get meat in it, it's no longer vegetarian spaghetti, and therefore you're entitled to a refund. Everyone knows vegetarian dishes DON'T HAVE MEAT.

Movies don't work that way and you know it. You don't order a movie. There's no widely accepted definition of fluff/crap, just what you yourself may define (and no, you don't speak for everyone, so don't even go there.)

If you watch a film and find it has filler/crap, DON'T GO SEE FILMS BY THAT FILMMAKER ANYMORE.
post #264 of 275
I have a suggestion! There are few people that agree with the thread starter who seems to enjoy carrying on his or her mantra. Why do we continue to extend this thread for 264 posts except to give the starter his or her jollies.....
post #265 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby94928 View Post

I have a suggestion! There are few people that agree with the thread starter who seems to enjoy carrying on his or her mantra. Why do we continue to extend this thread for 264 posts except to give the starter his or her jollies.....

The thread had some decent posts that could stand on their own, but why on earth does this thread have to be longer than 100 posts?

My whole point is it seems that threads today have more crap/filler/snot than ever.

Many times the difference between a good thread and an average thread is removing and keeping the right posts. Bottom line is many crap threads keep too much and are too long.

Bottom line is too many threads are so bloated at over 265 posts. There are threads that have no business being 9 pages long.

Let me add; I want my life back.


wink.gif
post #266 of 275
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

The thread had some decent posts that could stand on their own, but why on earth does this thread have to be longer than 100 posts?
My whole point is it seems that threads today have more crap/filler/snot than ever.
Many times the difference between a good thread and an average thread is removing and keeping the right posts. Bottom line is many crap threads keep too much and are too long.
Bottom line is too many threads are so bloated at over 265 posts. There are threads that have no business being 9 pages long.
Let me add; I want my life back.
wink.gif

i see what you've done here
post #267 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

The thread had some decent posts that could stand on their own, but why on earth does this thread have to be longer than 100 posts?


Answer:

Haberdashers had an unusually high rate of mercury poisoning from the mercury they used to cure pelts.
Shipwrights had an unusually high incidence of mesothelioma from the use of asbestos.

There must be something, some chemical or toxin as-yet-to-be-discovered in GreenGlue or Roxul Safe-N-Sound that makes Home Theater enthusiasts suffer from the heartbreak of an Enlarged Clavin.

post #268 of 275
Skyfall running time is 2.5 hours ....neh neh neh neh neh smile.gif
post #269 of 275
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

Skyfall running time is 2.5 hours ....neh neh neh neh neh smile.gif

no problem if skyfall is as good as Casino.

although i think Solace is better and Shorter than casino.
post #270 of 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

What?? how can you compare time to something like audio. That makes no damn sense. Time is duration, audio level is loudness. This is getting ridiculous, I don't know why I'm even replying to this. stupid is what stupid does I guess.

I am sorry that you you cannot understand this, but what to expect from someone who likes doggy bags ..... as I said, it is just ignorance and there is no point in argueing with that.

But gee, for the others I will say, it was aN exquisitely trivial argument: what poor quality audio as well as idiotic volume levels and large portions in restaurants have in common is that thay both address one thing: IGNORANCE.
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?