Movies are too fucking long these days imho

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (297 of them)

he problem is more to do with regular films pushing past 120 minutes

Ordinary fuckin' "regular" films -- I hate em. Stop going.

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 02:23 (4 years ago) Permalink

looking up run times of movies I like, noticed that Wonder Boys clocks in at 1:47 (which is sort of surprising for '00s adult comedy/drama) - maybe it's not a great movie, but it does a lot with a sub-2 hour run time.

a cross between lily allen and fetal alcohol syndrome (milo z), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 02:31 (4 years ago) Permalink

And the novel on which it's based is much too long.

Filmmaker, Author, Radio Host Stephen Baldwin (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 02:32 (4 years ago) Permalink

I don't remember much being cut out from the novel.

a cross between lily allen and fetal alcohol syndrome (milo z), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 02:35 (4 years ago) Permalink

Lots of bits of business didn't make it.

Filmmaker, Author, Radio Host Stephen Baldwin (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 02:36 (4 years ago) Permalink

One movie that rally sticks out for me for its economy is The Squid and the Whale.

Simon H., Wednesday, 16 June 2010 02:43 (4 years ago) Permalink

*really

Simon H., Wednesday, 16 June 2010 02:44 (4 years ago) Permalink

Ordinary fuckin' "regular" films -- I hate em. Stop going.

― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:23 PM (36 minutes ago) Bookmark

you don't like movies that aren't epics or sagas?

delanie griffith (s1ocki), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 03:00 (4 years ago) Permalink

finally found a "short" action movie:

Save Ferris' It Means Everything knocked my socks off (latebloomer), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 05:43 (4 years ago) Permalink

Ordinary fuckin' "regular" films -- I hate em. Stop going.

― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, June 16, 2010 2:23 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark

But you like "Only the Lonely?"

Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 07:38 (4 years ago) Permalink

Repo Man was pretty economical in length, i'm pretty sure.

sarahel, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 09:50 (4 years ago) Permalink

"Black Book" was hella long but zipped by

progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 10:14 (4 years ago) Permalink

then again it covered WWII up to the establishment of Israel, so...

progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 10:15 (4 years ago) Permalink

s1ocki, you complained about Un Prophet being too long iirc but that movie wasn't actually too long imo, it moved really fast and was well made. the film was okay, not great, and certainly not the masterpiece it was hailed as (or anywhere close to it) but it justified its length.

― jed_, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
i dunno i felt it could have lost 20-30 mins no problem

― delanie griffith (s1ocki), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

But that's quite a long way from SATC2 where it seems really to be inflated by perhaps an hour to give extra 'value', as oposed to The Prophet, where slight misjudgements might have been made in plotting.

Caught a screening of Seven Samourai last night. Perfect three hour film, but the NFT had a 5-10 intermission (a screen with a japanese character (which I suppose might have meant 'intermission') and music). The guy who introduced said it wasn't really a break as such.

People talking afterward was all a mix of 'this was great' but also 'three hours'!

xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 10:27 (4 years ago) Permalink

Had a similar experience at the NFT not too long ago with Once Upon a Time in America. Now there's a long-arse film (orginal director's cut TEN HOURS apparently). I enjoyed it, but the break was extremely welcome.

rhythm fixated member (chap), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 10:31 (4 years ago) Permalink

10 hour OUATIA would be a weekend must-watch for me

Remember when Mr Banhart was a replicant? (darraghmac), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 10:32 (4 years ago) Permalink

ppl use the phrase "director's cut" any old way huh

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 10:37 (4 years ago) Permalink

more like director's uncut

sarahel, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 10:39 (4 years ago) Permalink

this new prolixity is definitely a thing but i dunno if it's so bad in itself

if a shit film is too long then the duration isn't rly the problem, unless yr a critic and are obliged to sit through the whole film in which case it will seem all the more hateful

but for solid above-avg hwood pics (which i probably don't watch enough of), 2+ hr runtimes are usually acceptable in creating a more thorough immersion in w/e fictional world is expensively created

nakhchivan, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 10:41 (4 years ago) Permalink

it grinds my gears because 1) with a long movie, factor in trailers and frankly, the likelihood is i will need a piss, 2) (related, kinda) films that start mid-evening and end after last orders is some bullshit

ultra nate dogg (history mayne), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 10:44 (4 years ago) Permalink

tristan tzara's syphilitic genitourinary problems and acute diuresis were actually the source of the surrealists' film-watching habits

print the legend tho

nakhchivan, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 10:51 (4 years ago) Permalink

Caught a screening of Seven Samourai last night. Perfect three hour film, but the NFT had a 5-10 intermission (a screen with a japanese character (which I suppose might have meant 'intermission') and music). The guy who introduced said it wasn't really a break as such.

Yeah, I think Seven Samurai justifies its 3,5 hour length... Though apparently there are also 3 hour and 2,5 hour shorter cuts of it in existence, but I've only seen the original cut, so I have no idea how well the other versions work. And the intermission (along with the japanese text and intermission music) was part of the original version of the movie, or at least that's how it was introduced when I saw it at a local film archive. I love Seven Samurai, but I still think it was nice to take a break in the middle of such a lengthy film, I'm not sure why movies these days don't have intermissions any more. IMO every movie that lasts more than 3 hours should have one.

Tuomas, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 11:06 (4 years ago) Permalink

2001 had an intermission in its initial run and a re-release I saw in '74, and it's only 135 minutes (tho Kubrick trimmed it after the opening).

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 11:29 (4 years ago) Permalink

Am guessing that the dvd is the same but blu-ray of 2001 has the "Intermission" card half way through. I stick the kettle on when it appears.

Bill A, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 11:45 (4 years ago) Permalink

i saw it last year and im sure we had an intermish

ultra nate dogg (history mayne), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 11:45 (4 years ago) Permalink

The new/old intermission: waiting one week for the next episode.

rim this, fuck that (Eric H.), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 11:53 (4 years ago) Permalink

intermissions are too fucking long these days imo

jed_, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 12:05 (4 years ago) Permalink

words are too fucking long these days imo, intermish is the approp spellng from now on

world cop (dyao), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 13:18 (4 years ago) Permalink

Why not intrmisn?

Tuomas, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 13:25 (4 years ago) Permalink

ending words in 'ish' is the new 90 min rom com for the twit crowd, pass it on

world cop (dyao), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 13:27 (4 years ago) Permalink

suggest banish

mdskltr (blueski), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 13:28 (4 years ago) Permalink

ya 2001 has a pretty sweet intermission card with the (ligeti?) music playing over it

delanie griffith (s1ocki), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 13:39 (4 years ago) Permalink

i saw Superman 2 with a friend and his family as a kid (having already seen it once in full thank god) and they made us go in half way through the film just as Lex is waving his white hankie at Zod in the White House. Then we watched 'til the end, sat through the rest of the 'programme' (trailers, a short film about solar energy etc) and then left just after Zod and Co start tearing up the place. Didn't understand it then, don't understand it now. But yeah i agree that it's become a meme that this happened.. but then i also was part of it happening!

piscesx, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 14:52 (4 years ago) Permalink

That's grounds for arrest. Superman II is at the top of the heap for comic book movie sequels.

Filmmaker, Author, Radio Host Stephen Baldwin (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 14:53 (4 years ago) Permalink

i don't understand the meme part

delanie griffith (s1ocki), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 14:54 (4 years ago) Permalink

Not to mention that I don't wanna be there when Zod finds out you walked out of the movie.

Filmmaker, Author, Radio Host Stephen Baldwin (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 14:57 (4 years ago) Permalink

Meme part was in response to
-

up to a point people turned up mid-programme, and stayed on to "where they came in".

i mean, this is what people say happened, but programme start-times were given in newspapers etc. -- imho this became a meme because postmodernist movie critics/historians like the idea of people just like turning up and not caring about narrative man.

― sites.younglife.org:8080 (history mayne), Tuesday, 15 June 2010 09:57 (Yesterday)
-

piscesx, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 15:12 (4 years ago) Permalink

ah

delanie griffith (s1ocki), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 15:28 (4 years ago) Permalink

if that's a meme so is the world series

progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 15:40 (4 years ago) Permalink

but it's more said of the thirties than 1980

dat nigga del griffith (zvookster), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 15:44 (4 years ago) Permalink

the meme part is not turning up whenever, which probably happened (though was definitely unusual in the extreme by 1980), but people later on saying that "turning up whenever" was better than the fascist, time-table-ist modern way of doing things. idk, none of the olds in my family thought it was a good way to see films, and people turning up halfway through was and is annoying as balls. though some of these same olds say that they always preferred the b-picture -- which is kind of a meme.

ultra nate dogg (history mayne), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 16:51 (4 years ago) Permalink

they sure loved memes. back then

delanie griffith (s1ocki), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 16:53 (4 years ago) Permalink

no they didn't, that's just a meme

progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 16:54 (4 years ago) Permalink

most ppl from the 30s-50s seem to recall it fondly when they recall it, but i guess that's more printable nostalgic than bitching abt it. i'm not sure abt individual start times in the bill being advertised routinely btw: i know Rank had to specifically try to get exhibitors in Britain to advertise start times for Henry V in 1944.

dat nigga del griffith (zvookster), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 17:04 (4 years ago) Permalink

among the uninformed shit i've heard people say in my long career as a film academic is that until the 60s ppl didn't know when films started, and just showed up and took their chances, staying round till when they came in (if they wanted to, man, if they cared about plots and all that mess). it's true that in most cinemas they'd let you stay in once you were there, but it just isn't true that people didn't know start-times.

xpost

you'd get programme start times back in the '20s, routinely. as with today, you could make a calculaish based on how long the main film was likely to be, etc., if you just wanted the main film. of course, there were many more suburban cinemas etc etc, and there's no really good sampling.

ultra nate dogg (history mayne), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 17:07 (4 years ago) Permalink

among the uninformed shit i've heard people say in my long career as a film academic is that until the 60s ppl didn't know when films started

what the hell. why would anyone believe this.

goole, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 17:09 (4 years ago) Permalink

it's fun

mdskltr (blueski), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 17:13 (4 years ago) Permalink

i don't think it's uninformed shit, it's abt moviegoing in the days of continuous programs, where a bill of newsreels, shorts, b feature and main feature would show on loop!

dat nigga del griffith (zvookster), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 17:17 (4 years ago) Permalink

so ppl get programme start times & then in mayne's take they turn up at the start of the loop or calculate as opposed to "turning up in the middle"...they were turning up in the midde of something even if they were calculating abt likelihoods... so it's a reach calling the "took their chances" take on this moviegoing uninformed shit in contrast. u must really hate the postmodernists to be so dogmatic abt this minor grist to their mill.

dat nigga del griffith (zvookster), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 17:19 (4 years ago) Permalink

it was a loop of a basically fixed length, with given start times, and a work-out-able time at which the main feature would begin. even modern cinemas (where i live) don't give the actual movie start-time. im saying that ppl who turned up 45 minutes into 'casablanca' and got their arses in everyone's face finding a seat would not have been super-popular.

there were (iirc) theatres that only really showed news, cartoons, shorts, etc: obviously they were different.

xpost

ultra nate dogg (history mayne), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 17:21 (4 years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.