Movies are too fucking long these days imho

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

That *they* could, I mean.

Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 21:41 (3 years ago) Permalink

I'm just curious which PoMo academics are writing/believing/arguing this. I've been out of school for a while, and my major allowed me to be a bit of a dilettante, but I still hadn't heard about this at all, even in the requisite critiques/responses to Adorno's condemnation of popular film as the new opiate of the masses.

― sarahel, Wednesday, June 16, 2010 9:39 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

s1ocki is right, it's too boring to get into, but anyway it's a thing, not really put about by big-name postmodernists that i can recall, but it is a thing. i dunno if it would come up w/r/t adorno, let alone the "requisite" (lol) critiques/responses thereto.

ultra nate dogg (history mayne), Wednesday, 16 June 2010 22:24 (3 years ago) Permalink

s1ocki is right, it's too boring to get into, but anyway it's a thing, not really put about by big-name postmodernists that i can recall, but it is a thing. i dunno if it would come up w/r/t adorno, let alone the "requisite" (lol) critiques/responses thereto.

I don't think it's boring, but it just seems kinda a hard-to-stomach stretch of logic that esp. based on the most prevalent behavior and perception of people doesn't really seem relevant or accurate. Again, I'm a total dilettante, but from what I remember, "back in the day" people would go to see a particular movie, take note of the time it started which would be advertised on the marquee and in the newspaper, and show up on time.

current course offerings in my major where i went to college

sarahel, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 22:34 (3 years ago) Permalink

you ee-diots.

Nobody said that MOST people did this ROUTINELY! It was just KNOWN to happen! One example wd be teenage couples turning up and going in whenever bcz, oh, maybe they weren't gonna watch a whole lot of the movie?

Unless it's one of those apocryphal Psycho stories, Hitchcock was worried about spectators entering after Janet Leigh's exit and wondering where she was.

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 17 June 2010 00:33 (3 years ago) Permalink

guys

delanie griffith (s1ocki), Thursday, 17 June 2010 00:58 (3 years ago) Permalink

what's going on here

Filmmaker, Author, Radio Host Stephen Baldwin (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 17 June 2010 01:01 (3 years ago) Permalink

people who weren't ALIVE when movie theaters would admit you in the middle of the feature are claiming IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 17 June 2010 01:02 (3 years ago) Permalink

good thing you're here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

congratulations (n/a), Thursday, 17 June 2010 01:06 (3 years ago) Permalink

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

congratulations (n/a), Thursday, 17 June 2010 01:06 (3 years ago) Permalink

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

congratulations (n/a), Thursday, 17 June 2010 01:06 (3 years ago) Permalink

hey guys just turned up in the middle of the thread, what's happening

dmr, Thursday, 17 June 2010 01:11 (3 years ago) Permalink

an argument so boring my conscious mind can barely contain it has somehow broken out in the middle of my beautiful thread

delanie griffith (s1ocki), Thursday, 17 June 2010 01:12 (3 years ago) Permalink

guess I'll keep reading until it's over then catch up on the beginning tomorrow

dmr, Thursday, 17 June 2010 01:12 (3 years ago) Permalink

anyway movies are too fucking long these days imo. sometimes this even applies to short movies, I see a lotta 90 minute documentaries that I wish were one-hour cable TV shows (being serious here)

dmr, Thursday, 17 June 2010 01:13 (3 years ago) Permalink

no good comes of any thread where "meme" surfaces

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 17 June 2010 01:24 (3 years ago) Permalink

^t bomb

hope this helps (Granny Dainger), Thursday, 17 June 2010 01:37 (3 years ago) Permalink

You fucking amateurs

A prog venn diagram for you to think about (Matt #2), Thursday, 17 June 2010 01:39 (3 years ago) Permalink

guess I'll keep reading until it's over then catch up on the beginning tomorrow

― dmr, Wednesday, June 16, 2010 9:12 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

dying

max, Thursday, 17 June 2010 03:50 (3 years ago) Permalink

!!!! lmao @ dave tbh

ian, Thursday, 17 June 2010 03:54 (3 years ago) Permalink

When In Rome is only 91 minutes long but feels much, much longer.

a cross between lily allen and fetal alcohol syndrome (milo z), Friday, 18 June 2010 03:45 (3 years ago) Permalink

Dinkytown flocked to the Varsity in the prewar years, when Fisher held "bank day" drawings for prizes such as new dishes, and sometimes even let patrons stay overnight in the cool air conditioning, which was provided by air pumped through water drawn from an underground well.

"Very few places had air conditioning in those days," says Beatrice Perper, one of Fisher's daughters, who worked the box office. "Many times in the summer, he left the theater open, so people could sleep there. He hired two people to stay and watch the theater. People used to bring whole families."

http://www.citypages.com/2005-03-09/arts/varsity-cheer/all

Pete Scholtes, Friday, 18 June 2010 13:55 (3 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

is it time for the film equivalent of this thread?

Simon H., Friday, 18 June 2010 14:45 (3 years ago) Permalink

6 months pass...

this thread was a right laugh, but i've never seen a thread so become so totally de-railed.

but yeah movies.. they're *mental* long these days agreed. especially comedies.

piscesx, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 13:25 (3 years ago) Permalink

movies I've seen recently that were the perfect length: Taken (think this was like 80-90 minutes?), Toy Story 3 (~100 minutes), and nothing else

Egyptian Raps Crew (bernard snowy), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 13:28 (3 years ago) Permalink

Watched Wendy and Lucy for the second time a couple of nights ago. 75 minutes--perfect. (Generally I like long films, though.)

clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 13:31 (3 years ago) Permalink

전승 Complete Victory (in Battle) (NotEnough), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 14:43 (3 years ago) Permalink

Okay, so I plotted the average length of the top ten box office films for each year. I know more data points would have been nicer, but I've only got so much free time.

I like examining unexamined assumptions ("films are longer these days") - turns out this one might be true!

전승 Complete Victory (in Battle) (NotEnough), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 14:45 (3 years ago) Permalink

even more amazing is just *how* short they were 10 years ago. 107 minutes!

piscesx, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 15:17 (3 years ago) Permalink

Excellent work. "I like examining unexamined assumptions"--for the folks on ILB, let me say that Bill James couldn't have said it better himself.

We need a data-analysis expert here. Your graph is persuasive, but a couple of red flags I'd raise: 1) is 10 films a year enough to start drawing conclusions (especially 10 that aren't random--maybe hits are longer by nature), and 2) maybe 2004-2009 is a blip; if you eliminate the last five years, you could say the length didn't increase at all from 1979-2004.

I don't know. I play a grade 6 math teacher in real life, but this one's above my pay grade.

clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 15:19 (3 years ago) Permalink

that graph is dominated by statistical noise

caek, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 15:22 (3 years ago) Permalink

i dont mind long movies - if the movie is too long for itself thats another thing - like transformers 2 prob just shouldve been a commercial or whatever

ice cr?m, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 15:27 (3 years ago) Permalink

xpost -- We could retitle it 'supernovae are brighter these days'

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 15:28 (3 years ago) Permalink

skewing results: 12-minute end credits for horseshit effects-laden stuff

kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 15:29 (3 years ago) Permalink

no good comes of any thread where "meme" surfaces

― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, June 16, 2010 6:24 PM (6 months ago) Bookmark

once more Jagger faps the hivemind (symsymsym), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 15:42 (3 years ago) Permalink

The end-credits is a good point--wouldn't be surprised if they account for most of the seven-minute difference between '79 and '09. I'm often hanging around right till the end of the credits to get the name of some song that caught my ear, and they go on forever. It doesn't even have to be a film with lots of special effects, very few of which I see--it applies to all films.

clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 15:53 (3 years ago) Permalink

I have no idea what if anything I have learnt from this chart, but really I just wanted to see if I could web-scrape the data off IMDB, which I could, with 3 lines of Perl

(data is in a Google Docs spreadsheet here; some years have <50 rows of data because some movies didn't have a length showing up; data scraped from e.g. http://www.imdb.com/search/title?year=2010%2C2010&title_type=feature&sort=moviemeter%2Casc which uses imdb's own questionable "MovieMeter" ranking but the box office data gets pretty shaky the further back you go so eh)

bauble metropolis (a passing spacecadet), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 16:37 (3 years ago) Permalink

looks about right to me. my guess is the average length hasn't changed that much, but there are currently (like in the last 5 years) a lot more 2.5 hour+ trashy movies.

caek, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 16:41 (3 years ago) Permalink

So if that is about right then I dunno if it's more true to say that the 00s and the 60s had a lot of really long films or that the 70s and 80s had a lot of short films.

Anyway, I have a short attention span and grew up with 80s films, so if the plunge downwards right at the end means the trend is turning round again then I'm all for it.

(I don't trust the data here a whole bunch btw)

bauble metropolis (a passing spacecadet), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 16:49 (3 years ago) Permalink

that imdb moviemeter thing is sketchy, but i'd be surprised if the top 50 were a particularly biased sample of successful mainstream movies. i can totally buy that there isn't a gross trend in running length. imo this thread inspired by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias although i agree that there are probably more really dumb long movies than there used to be.

i wouldn't trust any results based on a year that hasn't finished though, especially with award season to come, which will boost (usu. longer) oscar-type movies into the top 50.

caek, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 16:56 (3 years ago) Permalink

the issue here, comparing the 1950s with the present, is b-movies, i.e. second features. they were shorter than the main feature because duh. but now we don't have b-movies so.

moholy-nagl (history mayne), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 16:57 (3 years ago) Permalink

Would all those musical-overture segments (which I assume were included in running times) from the big prestige roadshow films from the '60s make a difference? Not sure if there were enough of them to matter, but they seemed to run two or three minutes.

clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:02 (3 years ago) Permalink

Of course, those films were already three or four hours long, so probably not.

clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:04 (3 years ago) Permalink

well we're in difficult territory with that. there is a question of whether you would have had to endure them when the film got rolled out into regular cinemas. i genuinely dk. but those films were relatively rare -- this is about whether your average programmer is longer now.

moholy-nagl (history mayne), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:07 (3 years ago) Permalink

data doesn't matter. NO comedy/thriller/romance type movie that isn't some kind of visually stunning epic or intensely contemplative and/or suspenseful masterwork should EVER be over 120 minutes, and preferably not over 100 minutes. Whether there are more films like this than there used to be, all of them are too long.

I can take a youtube that's seldom seen, flip it, now it's a meme (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:13 (3 years ago) Permalink

otm

moholy-nagl (history mayne), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:16 (3 years ago) Permalink

I bet that 90% of the films that check in at 150 minutes+ aspire to one or more of those things; how many actually achieve it, obviously many fewer.

clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:18 (3 years ago) Permalink

This is actually a significant factor in my cinema going now. I refused to see Avatar because of the length. I always ask how long something is before agreeing to go unless it's a new Coen Bros or something on that level.

I can take a youtube that's seldom seen, flip it, now it's a meme (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:19 (3 years ago) Permalink

A four-hour Pauly Shore film? I'm guessing that's a pass for you.

clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:22 (3 years ago) Permalink

# of very long movies (over 130 minutes), by decade:

1950s — 58
1960s — 121
1970s — 72
1980s — 55
1990s — 97
2000s — 112

# of very short movies (under 86 minutes), by decade:

1950s — 84
1960s — 48
1970s — 38
1980s — 26
1990s — 35
2000s — 13

(wanted to do a medium-length one for comparison purposes, but couldn't decide what range to use — there actually seem to be two separate frequency peaks within "medium-length", one in the mid-90s, another in the low 110s)

Egyptian Raps Crew (bernard snowy), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:23 (3 years ago) Permalink

(all drawn from spacecadet's google spreadsheet data, in case that wasn't clear)

Egyptian Raps Crew (bernard snowy), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:25 (3 years ago) Permalink


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