Whatever length is appropriate for the story. Enough to tell the story properly. Any attempt to set an arbitrary time, in my opinion, is ridiculous.
What length of movie do you like?
I wish all movies were aprox. 90 minutes long. Most action movies are over 2 hours, and unless they are totally spectacular, i get antsy and lose my patience with sitting in one spot for so long. I am even worse about this at home, as i have less patience for a longer movie at home than at the theater.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
I too like 90 - 100 minutes. I could go two hours if the damn theatres wouldn't show so many commercials and previews!
Quote:
Exactly. If the movies good (i.e. LOTR) I'll glady sit for 3+ hours*. Conversely, I wish Adam Sandler movies were 2 minutes.
* I should preface this by saying that I haven't been to a movie theater, other than my own in well over 5 years so my answer might be different if I had to sit in a public theater.
| Originally Posted by Gecko85 Whatever length is appropriate for the story. Enough to tell the story properly. Any attempt to set an arbitrary time, in my opinion, is ridiculous. |
Exactly. If the movies good (i.e. LOTR) I'll glady sit for 3+ hours*. Conversely, I wish Adam Sandler movies were 2 minutes.
* I should preface this by saying that I haven't been to a movie theater, other than my own in well over 5 years so my answer might be different if I had to sit in a public theater.
I'd say about the 90 minnite mark for comdeys.
But again if its a good movie I can sit though the whole thing. The abyss SE for example is long but good. Also jay and selint bob strike back.
I think adam sandler movies are alright he's just got to get away from the same plot over and over agin. I like his non happy madison movies better.
Its always the same I'm a loser and/or stupid who redems him self at the end.
I thought anger mangment was one of his best movies.
He needs to keep all his buddies out of the movies as most of them can't act.
But again if its a good movie I can sit though the whole thing. The abyss SE for example is long but good. Also jay and selint bob strike back.
I think adam sandler movies are alright he's just got to get away from the same plot over and over agin. I like his non happy madison movies better.
Its always the same I'm a loser and/or stupid who redems him self at the end.
I thought anger mangment was one of his best movies.
He needs to keep all his buddies out of the movies as most of them can't act.
Depends on the movie. All the movies from LOTR seemed like they were over is 30 minutes because they were so great, but Chronicles of Narnia and Polar Express seemed like they were 36 hours long, just slightly more entertaining than watching paint dry or baseball.
Give me a great epic and I'll go for 4 hours, though most that long will tend to be in two parts with an intermission anyway. But it's perfectly possible to small a small, polished jewel type of movie.
Quote:
That's funny, because I'm just the opposite. I can deal with longer movies better at home. If nothing else, at least because I can pause it to take a break, or go to the bathroom. I can't do that in the theater.
As far as preference of movie length goes. I agree with many others here, that it depends on the film. The LOTR's movies are a great example of movies that I think are still too short (they left out some very important parts of the books, such as "The Scouring of the Shire"). Other movies (such as "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events" at 108 minutes) are waaaay too long.
| Originally Posted by yankeeman I am even worse about this at home, as i have less patience for a longer movie at home than at the theater. |
As far as preference of movie length goes. I agree with many others here, that it depends on the film. The LOTR's movies are a great example of movies that I think are still too short (they left out some very important parts of the books, such as "The Scouring of the Shire"). Other movies (such as "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events" at 108 minutes) are waaaay too long.
I notice that so often when a film is very long it could be shorter and as effective.An example is King Kong. Kong fighting dinosoars is forty minutes long I bet. He punches and knocks them down fifty times when twenty would have been just a good. The running of the bulls scene could have easily been 1/3 shorter and again great. Kong running through the city again 2/3 that length just as good.
I simply do not have an iron butt. So for me 2 hours 15 minutes is generally long enough. Sure long enough to tell the story but if a character getting through six tribulations shows the sacrifice, showcases the effects and tells the story why have ten?
Art
I simply do not have an iron butt. So for me 2 hours 15 minutes is generally long enough. Sure long enough to tell the story but if a character getting through six tribulations shows the sacrifice, showcases the effects and tells the story why have ten?
Art
To summarize and agree with others (all IMHO):
1) Length of movie depends on subject matter. Sometimes a miniseries would be better, and sometimes a 15 minute "featurette" is adequate to get the vision across to the audience.
2) Setting where said movie is viewed also plays a factor - I had to stretch out my legs every half hour or so during Narnia, so I know for me that it's nice to be able to pause a movie when needed. (So when they come out with Narnia sequels for the other books, we'll start having to call them by their book titles, right? So what's the abbreviation for "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe"? Is it "LWW", or "TLTWTW"? Or maybe we should just go with "Narnia 2", "Narnia 3", etc.?)
3) The resulting quality of the movie is also a big factor. IMHO no directors/actors/film crew/other support crew are going to get across 100% of what they intended, but if the end result is that a given movie affects people in some manner - to where there is obviously some attention to detail/extraordinary acting/other redeeming factors - then the decision of what parts to keep in the movie were well chosen...
If a movie is not put together well, is 2+ hours long, and has terrible acting/CG animations/other, I wouldn't walk out (being the cheapskate that I am, I will suffer through the entire movie to get my money's worth!), but I would definitely be squirming and frowning in my chair, eagerly awaiting the end credits...
1) Length of movie depends on subject matter. Sometimes a miniseries would be better, and sometimes a 15 minute "featurette" is adequate to get the vision across to the audience.
2) Setting where said movie is viewed also plays a factor - I had to stretch out my legs every half hour or so during Narnia, so I know for me that it's nice to be able to pause a movie when needed. (So when they come out with Narnia sequels for the other books, we'll start having to call them by their book titles, right? So what's the abbreviation for "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe"? Is it "LWW", or "TLTWTW"? Or maybe we should just go with "Narnia 2", "Narnia 3", etc.?)
3) The resulting quality of the movie is also a big factor. IMHO no directors/actors/film crew/other support crew are going to get across 100% of what they intended, but if the end result is that a given movie affects people in some manner - to where there is obviously some attention to detail/extraordinary acting/other redeeming factors - then the decision of what parts to keep in the movie were well chosen...
If a movie is not put together well, is 2+ hours long, and has terrible acting/CG animations/other, I wouldn't walk out (being the cheapskate that I am, I will suffer through the entire movie to get my money's worth!), but I would definitely be squirming and frowning in my chair, eagerly awaiting the end credits...
Quote:
I had the same opinion of the Battle of Helm's Deep. It was about ten minutes too long for my taste (Peter Jackson just doesn't seem to have a good sense of when to stop on these scenes).
But I didn't have a problem with the overall length of the EE versions of the LOTR films. In fact, I would have prefered a few more scenes like the one where Frodo and Sam watch the Elves leaving.
| Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn I notice that so often when a film is very long it could be shorter and as effective.An example is King Kong. Kong fighting dinosoars is forty minutes long I bet. He punches and knocks them down fifty times when twenty would have been just a good. The running of the bulls scene could have easily been 1/3 shorter and again great. Kong running through the city again 2/3 that length just as good. ... Art |
But I didn't have a problem with the overall length of the EE versions of the LOTR films. In fact, I would have prefered a few more scenes like the one where Frodo and Sam watch the Elves leaving.
Quote:
It really depends what kind of mood I'm in. Sometimes I would rather leave the lights on and watch a short (22-45 minute) TV series episode on DVD. Other times I want to turn off the lights, fire up the projector and immerse myself in a great movie for however long it takes the story to unravel.
| What length of movie do you like? |
The longer the movie is, the less likely I am to get around to watching it at all.
If I have some free time to watch a movie, I probably won't have three hours. Or even if I do have the time, I just might not feel like using up such a large chunk of my free time on one movie.
I had a large backlog of movies (many of which were critically acclaimed) that I never got around to watching because of the length. I made a concerted effort in the past few years to catch up with these movies: The Right Stuff; Gone With the Wind; Ghandi; Dr. Zhivago; It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World; Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge Over the River Kwai, etc. Most of them were worth it, but I am unlikely to repeat-view such long movies. The exceptions are Apocalypse Now and The Godfather (1 & 2), I think I can watch those movies anytime.
If I have some free time to watch a movie, I probably won't have three hours. Or even if I do have the time, I just might not feel like using up such a large chunk of my free time on one movie.
I had a large backlog of movies (many of which were critically acclaimed) that I never got around to watching because of the length. I made a concerted effort in the past few years to catch up with these movies: The Right Stuff; Gone With the Wind; Ghandi; Dr. Zhivago; It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World; Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge Over the River Kwai, etc. Most of them were worth it, but I am unlikely to repeat-view such long movies. The exceptions are Apocalypse Now and The Godfather (1 & 2), I think I can watch those movies anytime.
100 minutes is perfect for me...which means the movie itself ends at 93 minutes. Most movies have 7 minutes of credits. I can watch the special features(if i liked the movie enough) right after the movie and finish everything in roughly 2 hours.
Quote:
I find 102 minutes MUCH better in every instance. That would make the movie 95 minutes instead of a paltry 93. Although, some credits I've noticed have been as long as 8 or 9 minutes, and sometimes they even hide some bonus footage at the end. In that case, I'm not sure whether to count that as part of the movie or part of the credits. I'm willing to allow the movie to hit 98 minutes, but that's it. On the flip side, I once tried to watch a movie that was cut down to 92 minutes, and there just wasn't time to properly tie up the loose ends.
| Originally Posted by Rakesh.S 100 minutes is perfect for me...which means the movie itself ends at 93 minutes. Most movies have 7 minutes of credits. I can watch the special features(if i liked the movie enough) right after the movie and finish everything in roughly 2 hours. |
I get antsy at around 100 minutes.
I try really hard to only watch really good films. Boards like this and reading reviews helps. But it is only the truly great films that I really enjoy. When I get a great film, I am sorry to see it end. I love 3 and even 4 hour great films. There aren't enough of them. Most of them get severely cut for theatre release - got to get the DVD.
Personally, if it's a good movie and it requires 3 hours to tell the story, that's okay. I don't mind sitting for extended periods of time. What I do mind is the fact that none of these 3+ hour movies offer short intermissions anymore. I can't stand trying to figure out which 3 minutes of a movie I haven't seen is going to be the least crucial, so I can go and take a leak after drinking the giant tub of Coke the theater has sold me.
Why don't we get intermissions anymore? We seem to be seeing a lot more 2.5 to 3.5 hour extravaganzas than we did 15 years ago, yet we used to get breaks during the long movies (most of the time - I know there were some directors that objected). Two hours or more is a long time to ask even a grown man to "hold it."
Why don't we get intermissions anymore? We seem to be seeing a lot more 2.5 to 3.5 hour extravaganzas than we did 15 years ago, yet we used to get breaks during the long movies (most of the time - I know there were some directors that objected). Two hours or more is a long time to ask even a grown man to "hold it."
I've said this before, but too many movies are made as if directors are comparing the length of their movies like young boys compare the length of their penises. The only difference is the young boys cannot make their penises longer by not cutting stuff that is irrelevant and should be cut.
That's a long way of saying I don't care how long the movie is, if the material that is in the movie is necessary to the story and interesting. Unfortunately, more often that not, that's not the case.
That's a long way of saying I don't care how long the movie is, if the material that is in the movie is necessary to the story and interesting. Unfortunately, more often that not, that's not the case.
About 8-12 hours is my favorite. (Lonesome Dove, LOTR (all 3) good examples)
If I picked a length which has been the most reliably entertaining, it would be the miniseries.
Obviously an Adam Sandler miniseries would be hell on earth, so go figure.
Chris.
If I picked a length which has been the most reliably entertaining, it would be the miniseries.
Obviously an Adam Sandler miniseries would be hell on earth, so go figure.
Chris.
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
AVS Forum
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
WilliamR
1009 Replies
BASSAHOLIC
532 Replies
bass addict
416 Replies
Recommended Communities
