Are movies too long these days?

S

Sebassssssss

New member
I was going to settle down for the evening and watch "Zodiac" but I've just found out it is 3 hours in length.

I know I could split it over 2 nights (anymore would be ridiculous, tv series are deliberately designed to accomodate the long viewing period, but films aren't).

The fact is, few movies can pull off such a running length, it's going to have to be one hell of a movie to keep me gripped.
 
I think that an average movie should be 2 hours, if its anymore than that then its got to be a decent enough storyline for the audience to actually enjoy it, otherwise its just going to be too boring.
 
If it's good, doesn't matter how long. I sat through Zodiac no problem, time went by fast, good film. Saying that, I don't usually see a very long film at cinema incase I need the loo. Watch longgggggggg ones at home, so can pause it. :)
 
It depenRAB on the movie. The lord of the rings films for example were a joy to sit through. Rambo felt too short IMHO. Wasn't there a time when films had to be under 90 minutes (88) so they could fit quite happily on a 90 minute VHS tape ready for rental? Other films could push the 2 hour time due to the 120 videos. Or is that a myth?

Give me a 3 hour epic anyday over something that goes by in a flash.
 
It's LOTR that set the precedence for the three hour movie in the modern age - demonstrating that the public would sit through a three hour mainstream movie in large numbers. The problem is that it has now led a slew of films which would make a snappy 100 mins, but end up as bloated, overlong and badly paced. It's, to my mind, lazy editing (one of the hardest things with film-making is taking the hours of footage and making it into a trim, coherent plot), and films like Spider-Man 3 and the Pirates sequels have no place in the three hour region. A decent editor with a mission to make the films a civil length could have saved those movies.
 
Zodiac is 2hrs 38mins actually including credits and gripped me all the way. Cloverfield was 85 minutes
The old blockbusters were very long. Would The Godfather have been a better film at 90 mins or Spartacus, or Lawrence of Arabia?
If there's a good enough story to tell, length doesn't really matter to me.
 
there seems to be a trend of films being at least two hours long.

It's quite refreshing to see a film clock in at 90 minutes nowadays.

Although if a film's good I don't mind it clocking in at 2 hours.......
 
In the cinema the 3+ hour films (assuming they're good films) should go back to the short interval :mad:

But I guess it's 'get 'em in and out quick'

I'd have loved to see LOTR extended versions in the cinema but would have never have lasted without a loo break.
 
I don't see the problem with a 3 hour film, as long as each scene is relavent to the storyline, I don't care whether it's slow. Movies like king kong, first hour could've easily been reduced to maybe 30 minutes.
 
I only hope that more cinemas start following the example set by one I used to work for (one of the big chains) and bringing back the good old days of the interval!

I was working for a cinema last year and for every showing of Pirates of the Caribbean 3, there was an interval so people could go and move around/go to the toilet/buy some food etc.

As a cinema-goer, I really can't hack long films anymore. I had this evil back condition two years ago and whilst I'm normally ok, if I sit down for a prolonged period, my back gets really stiff and feels sore the next day.

Long films should have intervals in my opinion. People shouldn't be sat down in a small, cramped space for over 3 hours in chairs that can hardly be described as supportive.

That's my take on it.

As for films in general - as long as the film is worth being over the standard 90 min - 2 hours, I don't mind it. However, there have been several films that could easily have been edited in my opinion.
 
Yes, and no. Some films deserve to be long, some don't. I personally prefer film that are just shy of two hours - that said, if I have the time and have heard good things about a film, I will watch it.

I actually had the same problem with Zodiac the other night; as I started it, I realised how long it was and stopped it just because I didn't have the time.
 
The trouble with film directors is that they seem to equate length with quality.

Steven Spielberg couldn't make a film under 220 minutes if he tried I expect.

Mind you the worst example of length induced hubris in recent years has to be Michael Bay's Bad Boys 2 which clocked in at a ludicrous 2+ hours. :eek:
 
Back
Top