imo with ticket prices going up, i'm OK with the idea of getting more of your money's worth, but yeah most movies just aren't meant to sustain really long runtimes. maybe they should do more Grindhouse-style double features with a director or team of directors combing 2 or 3 complementary stories. or bring back cartoon shorts before the movie!
― some dude, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:46 (thirteen years ago) link
again, pulp fiction was a pretty "big" movie with tons of characters & storylines. what bothers me is movies not even close to attempting that kind of scale running that long.
― delanie griffith (s1ocki), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:46 (thirteen years ago) link
Saw one of those P. Jackson hobbit movies in cinema once - not my choice - my arse fell asleep
― I am utterly and abjectly pissed off with this little lot (Tom D.), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:46 (thirteen years ago) link
― some dude, Tuesday, June 15, 2010 9:46 AM (25 seconds ago) Bookmark
good idea but sadly it'll never happen cuz grindhouse tanked so so bad
max that sounds sensible except for the distinct lack of ice-cold budweiser being delivered to me in my cinema seat
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:47 (thirteen years ago) link
― some dude, Tuesday, June 15, 2010 9:46 AM (41 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
yeah the only time i really feel like i get 'bang for my buck' is when i sneak into a second movie, but its like torture to do that now when movies are two hours long, i emerge from the theater blind and pale and weak
― max, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:47 (thirteen years ago) link
movies - 5-6 £/hbooks - £2/h?videogames - £1/h?albums - 50p/h?
movies never gonna cut it at that rate
― sent from my neural lace (ledge), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:48 (thirteen years ago) link
it'd be good if they decided to give us 'more bang for our book' by making better movies that you didn't immediately forget, or never want to think about again, etc
― May be half naked, but knows a good headline when he sees it (darraghmac), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:48 (thirteen years ago) link
i emerge from the theater blind and pale and weak
― max, Tuesday, June 15, 2010 2:47 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
jaggeresque
― sites.younglife.org:8080 (history mayne), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:50 (thirteen years ago) link
Mick or Louis?
― I am utterly and abjectly pissed off with this little lot (Tom D.), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:51 (thirteen years ago) link
i so rarely go to the theater anymore that tbh that this is kind of a non-issue for me -- even when watching like an hourlong show on DVD or OnDemand or whatever, I'll end up pausing it to change the baby's diaper or check my e-mail or something. so when I rent some longer movie like Inglourious Basterds, I end up watching it in installments over the course of 2-3 days.
― some dude, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:51 (thirteen years ago) link
max otm, though, i always feel like some bleary-eyed vampire when walking out of a movie theater while there's still some daylight
don't take some little dude to the movies
― May be half naked, but knows a good headline when he sees it (darraghmac), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:52 (thirteen years ago) link
"You can't always get what you wantYou can't always get what you want..."
Fits with the song
― I am utterly and abjectly pissed off with this little lot (Tom D.), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:52 (thirteen years ago) link
i was fully down with inglourious basterds' running time
― delanie griffith (s1ocki), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:53 (thirteen years ago) link
people who take little babies to movies are disgusting savages imo
― some dude, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:54 (thirteen years ago) link
particularly in-flight movies imo
― May be half naked, but knows a good headline when he sees it (darraghmac), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:55 (thirteen years ago) link
but yeah i wasn't implying IB's length was a problem like it is for most of the movies we're talking about here (although i didn't love it like other people seem to, but that's a different convo)
― some dude, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:55 (thirteen years ago) link
ya i'm just throwing that out there
― delanie griffith (s1ocki), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:56 (thirteen years ago) link
long wwii epics = finelong rob reiner-esque romcoms = so not fine
is how i break it down to an extent
otm
― May be half naked, but knows a good headline when he sees it (darraghmac), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:56 (thirteen years ago) link
i watched valentines day on the plane this weekend, probably the most embarrassing movie ive ever seen, but its not a good topic for discussion as no amount of cutting could have turned that into a well-made movie
― max, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:57 (thirteen years ago) link
long middle earth epics = ???long remakes of classics = ???
think your position is a bit confused here tbh
― dat nigga del griffith (zvookster), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 13:58 (thirteen years ago) link
no i definitely think the LOTR movies "deserve" to be long (though not as long as they were), but i still blame them for making movies that long OK
get it?
― delanie griffith (s1ocki), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:01 (thirteen years ago) link
i don't think it's fair to blame them at all. epics and adaptations have always been epic length, we're talking about movies that aren't traditionally long getting longer.
― some dude, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:03 (thirteen years ago) link
Titanic is probably a better scapegoat, just on a "well, we spent all this money, might as well put everything we can onscreen" tip.
― some dude, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:04 (thirteen years ago) link
slocks is right
roadshow-type pix have always been long, ever since, like, 'birth of a nation'
the problem is more to do with regular films pushing past 120 minutes
― sites.younglife.org:8080 (history mayne), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:06 (thirteen years ago) link
still don't really get it since the objection doesn't seem to be that these long popcorn movies drag but that they...take up too much of your life or something?
― dat nigga del griffith (zvookster), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:16 (thirteen years ago) link
they fuckin drag believe me
― sent from my neural lace (ledge), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:17 (thirteen years ago) link
― dat nigga del griffith (zvookster), Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:16 PM (51 seconds ago) Bookmark
it is kind of a professional concern for reviewers. tummies begin to rumble c. 110 minutes yo.
― sites.younglife.org:8080 (history mayne), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:18 (thirteen years ago) link
haha well i get it if they drag, idk it just seemed more philosophical than that
― dat nigga del griffith (zvookster), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:19 (thirteen years ago) link
philosophical angle - "why are so many shitty movies dragging these days"
― May be half naked, but knows a good headline when he sees it (darraghmac), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:20 (thirteen years ago) link
"No good movie is too long, and no bad movie is short enough." – Roger Ebert
― breaking that little dog's heart chakra (Abbott), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:23 (thirteen years ago) link
marley and me: 115minthe bounty hunter: 110min
― sites.younglife.org:8080 (history mayne), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:23 (thirteen years ago) link
I can see the others, but how do you get albums at 50p per hour? Most albums aren't even an hour long, and depending on format they can cost well over £15. Unless you're offsetting free download/spotify albums against bought albums, but that's a whole different thing. Or replay value, but then you can rewatch films if you buy instead of go to the cinema...
Also, it doesn't seem like anyone has linked to this other relevant thread: Your ideal length of a film
― emil.y, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:30 (thirteen years ago) link
TV shows get to have it both ways - they're an hour at most, yet the "experience" lasts months and even years. And you can charge out the wazoo for the DVDs.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:31 (thirteen years ago) link
Why dont movies just have a 10-min intermission?
― Adam Bruneau, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:32 (thirteen years ago) link
Gandhi did. The movie theater even had some old reel they put on, with candy-stripes and big white capital letters that said "INTERMISSION".
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:34 (thirteen years ago) link
historias extraordinarias had TWO intermissions!
― delanie griffith (s1ocki), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:35 (thirteen years ago) link
Or replay value, but then you can rewatch films if you buy instead of go to the cinema...
was thinking of replay value, and that is true but that would count for videos, as a separate category from movies.
pretty stupid metric anyway tbh.
― sent from my neural lace (ledge), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:35 (thirteen years ago) link
Lots of movies have an intermission, but it always seems to be taken out of the DVD?
― May be half naked, but knows a good headline when he sees it (darraghmac), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:35 (thirteen years ago) link
i'm sure i remember intermissions in movies all the time when i was a kid.
i think heat had one when i saw it (not a kid by then).
― sent from my neural lace (ledge), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:36 (thirteen years ago) link
people like to think theyre getting their moneys worth. its like 78 minute cds.
― truffle-flavoured french fry (titchyschneiderMk2), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:37 (thirteen years ago) link
I am usually waiting for film to end when I do go to the cinema. Weird example of one time I kinda wanted it to carry on: Cloverfield.
― mdskltr (blueski), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:37 (thirteen years ago) link
Fantastic Mr Fox was a wonderful movie for many reasons, not least of which is thanks to its 87 minute running time.
― Filmmaker, Author, Radio Host Stephen Baldwin (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 14:38 (thirteen years ago) link
I've seen 80-minute movies that dragged. Length seems secondary: It's about storytelling. Think about how even your longest favorite movies begin immediately (the great opening in The Godfather), or how length suits either the sweep of years of the pressure of close quarters in Reds, Prince of the City, Das Boot, etc.
Movies take forever to get started these days. One thing I love about the original Bad News Bears is how it introduces credits, setting, plot, and all but one of its main characters under the 8-minute mark, all at a leisurely pace, and gets right onto the field:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgk_8Ydy0_M
― Pete Scholtes, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 19:03 (thirteen years ago) link
or the pressure
― Pete Scholtes, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 19:04 (thirteen years ago) link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadshow_theatrical_release
― jaymc, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 19:05 (thirteen years ago) link
(^movies with intermissions)
― jaymc, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 19:06 (thirteen years ago) link
I've seen 80-minute movies that dragged. Length seems secondary: It's about storytelling.
This is the truth. A great rule of thumb I heard long ago is that it doesn't matter how long it actually is so much as how long it seemed to be (this was either Pauline Kael or Dr. Ruth that said that)
There are two hour movies that fly by and there are 90 minute movies that make you check your watch every three minutes.
― Cunga, Tuesday, 15 June 2010 19:14 (thirteen years ago) link