Movies are too fucking long these days imho

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

philosophical angle - "why are so many shitty movies dragging these days"

"No good movie is too long, and no bad movie is short enough." – Roger Ebert

marley and me: 115min
the bounty hunter: 110min

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

movies never gonna cut it at that rate

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

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.

Why dont movies just have a 10-min intermission?

Gandhi did. The movie theater even had some old reel they put on, with candy-stripes and big white capital letters that said "INTERMISSION".

historias extraordinarias had TWO intermissions!

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.

Lots of movies have an intermission, but it always seems to be taken out of the DVD?

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).