Movies are too fucking long these days imho

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.

Really? That doesn't sound like people not caring about narrative to me ...

yeah it's a thing. like the surrealists, it is said admiringly, would deliberately turn up midway through films just to vibe on them without knowing what was going on, story-wise.

yeah, but i don't know that surrealists constituted a significant demographic. thing is, although people would once upon a time watch movies in those big stretches (with comedy shorts, newsreels, and a couple features on the card), the films themselves tended to be short. so it was more like watching network tv for an evening than watching a single four hour hobbit epic.

i basically agree, but it varied. the tentpole movies of the 1920s were long as hell too!

ben hur: 143 min
the big parade: 141 min
thief of baghdad: 155 min

mayne, i think sarahel's point is that if people were just "vibing" they would stay til after the point when they came in, or wouldn't care about reaching that point.

it was a real thing - my dad and his brother would show up, stay for awhile, and when they recognized stuff they'd already seen they'd leave. i think many things in the 40s and 50s were much more casual experiences than they are now. sports, for instance. the emotional investment of fans and memorization of statistics was something for a very small group of "nuts". for most people going to the movies or going to a baseball game was like going down to the boardwalk - it was just something to do.

I'm paraphrasing completely, but in one of John Waters' books, he says he leaves almost every movie at 90 minutes in!

TBH I had no problem with the length of Avatar, or at least there wasn't anything in it that should've obviously been cut.

The entire second half imo.

I remember learning in school that Shakespeare built in a lot of redundancy in his plays - repeating the same information a couple of times in different ways - because he was dealing with audiences who didn't catch every word or pay attention the whole way through. Maybe it's the same with the popcorn and mobile phone brigade.

90 min is kind of the perfect movie length imo

movies may have been long, or overlong, in the olden days, but the standardization of the 2.5 hour movie is kind of a new and terrible thing imo

and ya it is probably peter jackson's fault

it was a real thing - my dad and his brother would show up, stay for awhile, and when they recognized stuff they'd already seen they'd leave

My mum would show up, stay for awhile, and if it was an British film they'd leave

Peter Jackson should be blamed for a lot of things, but long movies isn't one of them. Though he should probably have gone with 5 movies tbh.

in what way should this guy not be blamed for long movies - did u see the last LOTR? or the first HOUR of king kong??

I don't blame him for long movies but he deserves some blame for movies that seem longer than they actually are

what about movies that are actually long, like the movies that he makes

i remember reading an interview w/ some movie theater lobbyist type where he kept trying to justify movie ticket prices by comparing the "cinemagoing experience" to, like, sporting events (i.e., its only $10 for a movie but $30 for a baseball game.) probably they want the longer movies because viewers feel like theyre getting "more bang for their buck"--it allows them to justify the high ticket prices and "compete" w/ like football i guess

^ prob'ly true

did u see the last LOTR? or the first HOUR of king kong??

― delanie griffith (s1ocki), 15 June 2010 13:38 (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

(i) Yeah, they left out about 1 hour of good material for brevity's sake

(ii) aw hell no i didn't.

Pulp Fiction - 154 min

that's definitely the main motivaysh behind 3D, which they also charge way more for

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!

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.

Saw one of those P. Jackson hobbit movies in cinema once - not my choice - my arse fell asleep

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, 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

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, 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

movies - 5-6 £/h
books - £2/h?
videogames - £1/h?
albums - 50p/h?

movies never gonna cut it at that rate

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

i emerge from the theater blind and pale and weak

― max, Tuesday, June 15, 2010 2:47 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

jaggeresque

Mick or Louis?

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.

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

i emerge from the theater blind and pale and weak

"You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want..."

Fits with the song

i was fully down with inglourious basterds' running time

people who take little babies to movies are disgusting savages imo

particularly in-flight movies imo

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)

ya i'm just throwing that out there

long wwii epics = fine
long rob reiner-esque romcoms = so not fine

is how i break it down to an extent

otm

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

long middle earth epics = ???
long remakes of classics = ???

think your position is a bit confused here tbh

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?

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.

Titanic is probably a better scapegoat, just on a "well, we spent all this money, might as well put everything we can onscreen" tip.

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

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?

they fuckin drag believe me

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, 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.

haha well i get it if they drag, idk it just seemed more philosophical than that