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 3

post #61 of 274
9/11/12 at 12:43pm
Gesh never mind a movie being too long, what I do mind are the prices of the movies being too much, specially for a short movie.

Djoel
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #62 of 274
9/11/12 at 12:48pm
The first movie I thought of when I saw the thread title was The Dark Knight, but the OP uses it as an example of when a long movie is justified. The movie had two endings. The extended bit with Two Face was totally incongruous and superfluous to the rest of the movie. But then that goes to show you how opinions vary.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 274
9/11/12 at 12:53pm
I LOVE long movies at home. In the theater, my bladder just can't handle it. I think I've permanently damaged my bladder due to movie theathers. mad.gif
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 274
9/11/12 at 12:57pm
Every time I hear this debate, I can feel my blood pressure hit the top of my skull.

I flash back to me sitting on the couch watching the end credits "Dune" with cartoon question marks spinning over my head... and then finding out that the Japanese got the full, five-hour cut.

My eyes bleed just thinking about it.

Question: Is the length of a film an arbitrary limitation by a douchebag studio suit trying to maximize turnover in the theaters?

Because I can't count the number of times the missus and I looked at each other on the expensive side of the plexiglass and said, "ONLY ten fiddy per ticket? What a great value! I hope we're only entertained for 80 minutes, or it would be like stealing!"

Reply
Reply
post #65 of 274
9/11/12 at 1:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim McC View Post

I disagree with good ole Rog. Good movies can be too long.

My guess though is you understand the sentiment. And really, that's all the farther you need to go.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 274
9/11/12 at 1:55pm
How about we go back to the good old days and have an Intermission again. That would make things seem a bit short plus the theaters could sell more candy and ice creams..
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 274
9/11/12 at 2:28pm
Better yet, bring back the newsreels. I want to know how our boys are doing against Hitler. biggrin.gif
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 274
9/11/12 at 2:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

Better yet, bring back the newsreels. I want to know how our boys are doing against Hitler. biggrin.gif
As Captain America leads them to victory.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 274
9/11/12 at 3:05pm
"Meanwhile... Ness and his men speed toward Capone's hideout!"
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 274
9/11/12 at 3:16pm
both intermission and newsreels sound good to me... smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 274
9/11/12 at 3:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

both intermission and newsreels sound good to me... smile.gif
On the rare occasion that I got to the theater I have one purpose: To watch the movie and get the heck out. I don’t need to see commercials, previews, or socialize with the dipsh*t that has been talking on his/her cell phone or with friends while I’m trying to watch the movie. Also, if you don’t have a strong bladder then don’t come, or go to the restroom when you need to. That is a personal problem, not a societal problem. In addition, if you have ADD, then don’t come. I don’t want to hear all of these lame excuses for not being able to sit through a 1:45 movie. And a second visit to the concession stand will bankrupt you. smile.gif

A newsreel in today’s society? Seriously? The death rate at theaters would dramatically increase. Depending on your viewpoint that might be a good thing. biggrin.gif

Now, where in the h*ll is my 4th vodka and tonic? biggrin.gif


wink.gif
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 274
9/11/12 at 3:50pm
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.




No. I think movies should be 3 hours or more. Most movies do not go into detail when telling a story. I like long movies which tells a story with detail. Not some 1.5 hour shoot-em-up action movie. If I am going to pay $11 for a movie, I would expect to get my $$ worth.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 274
9/11/12 at 4:09pm
Whatever happened to "Intermission"? I remember that many >2-hour films had them when I was a kid.


Reply
Reply
post #74 of 274
9/11/12 at 4:18pm
Or, better yet:


Hey, if they started adding intermissions again, they could fill that time with all of the stupid commercials they show ad nauseum before the movie starts. I get really aggravated when I shell out up to $15 to watch commercials!!!mad.gif
Edited by cctvtech - 9/11/12 at 4:32pm
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 274
9/11/12 at 5:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirpie View Post

My guess though is you understand the sentiment. And really, that's all the farther you need to go.

What sentiment? I am not a mind reader. I know one thing, I've never watched a good movie and thought, "Damn, I wish that movie was longer"
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 274
9/11/12 at 7:34pm
I still enjoy going to the theater even if the prices are high, but when I go I check runtimes and if they are short I wont even bother. I feel like movies that are too short are the terrible ones
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 274
9/11/12 at 8:11pm
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.
I like a movie that's long enough, and good enough, to not leave me wishing it had lasted longer and makes me feel I got my money's worth. A movie that's too long for me is one that doesn't hold my interest. It's my fault if I keep watching it.

Was Battleship over 2 hours? I didn't notice. It was a little slow at first, and wasn't the best movie "evar", but it was quite fun to watch. What about The Hunger Games? Wasn't it like 2:22? I thoroughly enjoyed that one and didn't even notice the time. Pearl Harbor is long but the story is very enveloping, it's one of my favorite movies.

If all movies over 80-90 minutes that weren't non-stop action couldn't keep my attention I'd see a doctor for ADD.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 274
9/11/12 at 10:29pm
Looks like the only thing I'm gonna take away from this thread is ... that maybe I should cancel that order I placed for Battleship on Blu before it ships. wink.gif

I've never had a problem with long movies. My bladder is good for at least six hours. If they are good I stay awake the whole time. If not, well then, time for a quick snooze until something explodes and wakes me up.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 274
9/11/12 at 11:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jevans64 View Post

Looks like the only thing I'm gonna take away from this thread is ... that maybe I should cancel that order I placed for Battleship on Blu before it ships. wink.gif
You might want to rent it first, then decide if you want to put it in your collection. Overall I enjoyed it very much, I thought it was a great action-packed distraction from the real world for a couple of hours but I'm not sure I'd want to own it. There just wasn't enough substance to it to make it re-watchable more than a few times.
Edited by Ishniknork - 9/11/12 at 11:18pm
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 274
9/12/12 at 6:16am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jevans64 View Post

Looks like the only thing I'm gonna take away from this thread is ... that maybe I should cancel that order I placed for Battleship on Blu before it ships. wink.gif
I've never had a problem with long movies. My bladder is good for at least six hours. If they are good I stay awake the whole time. If not, well then, time for a quick snooze until something explodes and wakes me up.

Battleship is a good rental but horrible to own, imo.

The plot is really bad and its really silly how the humans could not figure out an easier way to beat the aliens. really silly. And really long for a silly movie. There is about 30+ of total filler crap is so aweful.
Reply
Reply
post #81 of 274
9/12/12 at 8:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim McC View Post

What sentiment? I am not a mind reader. I know one thing, I've never watched a good movie and thought, "Damn, I wish that movie was longer"

OK, I'll break it down to this sentiment since people's interpretations are a bit more jaded than I anticipated.

"That was great! It's a shame that great experience is over."
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 274
9/12/12 at 8:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Battleship is a good rental but horrible to own, imo.
The plot is really bad and its really silly how the humans could not figure out an easier way to beat the aliens. really silly. And really long for a silly movie. There is about 30+ of total filler crap is so aweful.

So it appears that your issue isn't that movies are "too long" (since youve admitted that you have no issues with 'good' long movies), it's that you think some movies could be better if they edited out the crappy parts and the "fluff"; in the case of Battleship you'd like to cut about 25% of the content.

First of all, the "fluff" and bad parts are completely subjective (as someone said earlier). For instance, in my opinion if you cut all of the bad parts from Transformers 2, you'd be left with a two minute trailer. You're assuming that editing a 2 hour movie down to 1.5 hours would eliminate exactly the half hour of crap that *you* specifically hate. I'd argue that a crappy writer/director will have the same percentage of crap in their films whether they are 10 minutes long or 3 hours long. Bad is bad at any length.

What percentage of content do you consider acceptible to remove before a film isn't even the same film anymore? In my opinion, claiming that Transformers 2 would be better if you removed the bad parts isn't much different than saying that "Date Movie" would be hilarious if they removed all of the jokes that were flops.

Boiled down, your complaint is "why aren't these movies better?!". And the simple answer is "because they arent"
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 274
9/12/12 at 8:50am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vespaguy View Post

So it appears that your issue isn't that movies are "too long" (since youve admitted that you have no issues with 'good' long movies), it's that you think some movies could be better if they edited out the crappy parts and the "fluff"; in the case of Battleship you'd like to cut about 25% of the content.
First of all, the "fluff" and bad parts are completely subjective (as someone said earlier). For instance, in my opinion if you cut all of the bad parts from Transformers 2, you'd be left with a two minute trailer. You're assuming that editing a 2 hour movie down to 1.5 hours would eliminate exactly the half hour of crap that *you* specifically hate. I'd argue that a crappy writer/director will have the same percentage of crap in their films whether they are 10 minutes long or 3 hours long. Bad is bad at any length.
What percentage of content do you consider acceptible to remove before a film isn't even the same film anymore? In my opinion, claiming that Transformers 2 would be better if you removed the bad parts isn't much different than saying that "Date Movie" would be hilarious if they removed all of the jokes that were flops.
Boiled down, your complaint is "why aren't these movies better?!". And the simple answer is "because they arent"

trust me.
Go watch Battleship and it will easy apparent what 30 minutes should have been cutoff. Its not really up to opinion, its just really bad film making.
Well unless you are a huge Rhinna or Brooklyn decker fan.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 274
9/12/12 at 8:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Well unless you are a huge Rhinna or Brooklyn decker fan.

That tells you why someone thought those crap parts were a good idea in the first place.

Trust me, for all your "They should have cut the fluff out", someone somewhere else (and probably a lot more someone elses) is saying, "They should have added 30 more minutes of boobs."
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 274
9/12/12 at 10:09am
I think Hitchcock said a movie's length should be no longer than what the human bladder can hold or something like that. I use the numb butt index it I notice my butt getting numb and I'm checking my watch it's too long. Pretty fine line between necessary back story for character development and boring filler.
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 274
9/12/12 at 10:11am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

That tells you why someone thought those crap parts were a good idea in the first place.
Trust me, for all your "They should have cut the fluff out", someone somewhere else (and probably a lot more someone elses) is saying, "They should have added 30 more minutes of boobs."

then they should watch a different type of movie
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 274
9/12/12 at 10:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

then they should watch a different type of movie

A different type of movie? It's in the same genre as Transformers, where Michael Bay spent considerable amount of time filming Megan Fox's bare midriff. Which everyone raved over just as much as the giant robots.

I like how you think you can cut the fluff out of Battleship of all films, when basically the entire film was one big fluff piece. You're not going to make Die Hard out of that junk by editing.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 274
9/12/12 at 10:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby94928 View Post

Shoah...
http://www.amazon.com/Shoah-History-Holocaust-Import-Regions/dp/B000AS4L16/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347320095&sr=8-1&keywords=shoah+dvd
Thank you kindly...ordered.smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 274
9/12/12 at 10:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave84 View Post

I think Hitchcock said a movie's length should be no longer than what the human bladder can hold or something like that.

“The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder.”

He also said:

“If it's a good movie, the sound could go off and the audience would still have a perfectly clear idea of what was going on.”

“There is no terror in a bang, only in the anticipation of it”
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 274
9/12/12 at 10:49am
I'm gonna agree with the original poster; when I'm not sure between 2 movies I'll usually go with the shorter one. I hate the feeling of walking out of the theater and it's already dark outside; I feel like I wasted away my whole day.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Why are movies so LOOOOONG?