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 (2 years ago) Permalink
Of course, those films were already three or four hours long, so probably not.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:04 (2 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 (2 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 (2 years ago) Permalink
otm
― moholy-nagl (history mayne), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:16 (2 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 (2 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 (2 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 (2 years ago) Permalink
# of very long movies (over 130 minutes), by decade:
1950s — 581960s — 1211970s — 721980s — 551990s — 972000s — 112
# of very short movies (under 86 minutes), by decade:
1950s — 841960s — 481970s — 381980s — 261990s — 352000s — 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 (2 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 (2 years ago) Permalink
― I can take a youtube that's seldom seen, flip it, now it's a meme (Hurting 2), Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:13 PM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― clemenza, Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:18 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
i think the premise of this thread is that that's not true. 2.5 hour action movies and 2+ hour comedies that obviously don't aspire to much are not huge outliers any more.
― caek, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:33 (2 years ago) Permalink
I upped it to 150 minutes before making that statement--I see few action films, unless it's something like Inception or The Dark Knight, both of which obviously have artistic aspirations, whether you think they get there or not. But you might be right, I honestly don't know.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:45 (2 years ago) Permalink
More action films without artistic aspirations plz
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:46 (2 years ago) Permalink
On the basis of those two, I'd agree. I'd still prefer the aspirations, though, in hopes of lucking onto something like the second Spiderman or Batman films, both of which I liked a lot.
― clemenza, Wednesday, 29 December 2010 17:53 (2 years ago) Permalink
Hurting rlly consistently a foole this week
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 29 December 2010 19:00 (2 years ago) Permalink
don't wanna get dragged into that people-showing-up-at-random-during-the-middle-of-films-at-the-cinema-in-the-olden-days argument again but check this out
― piscesx, Saturday, 21 April 2012 13:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
it was a well known gimmick of Hitch's, don't think i've seen that poster before tho
― aboulia banks (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 21 April 2012 13:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
IIRC that gimmick was used with Psycho only, because it was advertised as a Janet Leigh movie, and Hitchcock was afraid that people turning in late might miss her part of the movie.
― Tuomas, Monday, 23 April 2012 11:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/dec/12/is-the-hobbit-too-long
― piscesx, Thursday, 13 December 2012 11:47 (6 months ago) Permalink
it's amazing how they made the bold creative decision to make it into three movies. really makes me excited for the results.
― Heterocyclic ring ring (LocalGarda), Thursday, 13 December 2012 11:53 (6 months ago) Permalink
169 minutes! holy Christ.
― piscesx, Thursday, 13 December 2012 11:54 (6 months ago) Permalink
All too many other potentially great movies, from Titanic to Out of Africa
stopped reading here
― Ward Fowler, Thursday, 13 December 2012 11:59 (6 months ago) Permalink
haha
― piscesx, Thursday, 13 December 2012 13:01 (6 months ago) Permalink
This IS 40; 133 minutes for a comedy.
― piscesx, Saturday, 16 February 2013 16:37 (4 months ago) Permalink