What\'s with movies?!

[EricJ]

I was just realizing as I sat through the both superman and the pirates movies, that there was NO reason either needed to be 2.5 hours long, and that it feels like it used to be that if a movie was going to go over about 1.5 hours, it had to have a GOOD reason to do so, and even then usually topped out at about 2.

But now days it seems like every other movie is 2.5 hours+. It seems like since LOTR\'s that the studios think we all want to see these huge movies. Except the difference is that LOTR\'s was WELL EDITED, without useless or needlessly long scenes. Even something like Munich which was so aclaimed (and was 2:45 long) could easily have been done in under 2.

Anyone else finding themselves in the theaters lately wading through these not quite to epic - epics?

That\'s my rant at the moment

 

[vincegamer]

Seems to me, if you go further back, movies used to be longer. The 2 hour norm is a relatively recent development.
Though I could be wrong.

 

[Ogrebane]

I agree with ya eric. I dont think there was 2 1/2 hours worth of story in pirates and I wont even bother going to see superman if its that long.

I think its the sign of the times so to speak. Someone did it so if our movie is going to be as good it needs to be as long. I think it stops people from seeing it again if it is too long.

 

[KingM]

Yeah, I\'d agree with that. The first 20 mins of Pirates, the whole thing on the island, was completely unneccesary. It could have been left out completely and the film would have been the better for it

King Kong is a good example - I enjoyed what was there, but there was just way too much of it, you just want the monkey to hurry up and die by the end of it. Wasn\'t the original only 90 mins? Why did PJ need twice as long to tell exactly the same story

Do they think we want to see long films to justify the crazy prices cinemas charge nowadays. They\'re wrong, I\'m quite happy for a film to be shorter to keep out unneccesary material. If you\'ve got a story that takes 90 mins to tell, tell it in 90 mins, not 180 :flame:

</rant>

Matt

 

[EricJ]

yep, it\'s almost like the decision making process about how long a movie should be is completely disconnected and does not take into account the script, plot, etc... Some producer says they want a 2.5 hour movie, and leaves the director/editors to make it happen, regardless of what the story/flow of the movie might suggest would be a better length.

 

[treide]

Although I agree with everything already posted, some movies really need to be longer than they are. A recent example would be the Da Vinci code. I don\'t blame Hanks and Tatou for \"blah\" performance when they had to limp through a butchered storyline. An older and probably better example would be the original Dune movie. It was fine if you had read the book and could fill in the gaping holes, but for others, it was a confusing mess.

Basically, book adaptations really ought to faithfully reproduce the story.

 

[Evil Dave]

I would think by ticket prices they should be longer.

 

[james sequeira]

i like to get my moneys worth but there are exceptions with gap filling nonsence

 

[philologus]

My credit score prevents me from qualifying for ticket purchases.

 

[AinuLainour]

Originally posted by KingM
Yeah, I\'d agree with that. The first 20 mins of Pirates, the whole thing on the island, was completely unneccesary. It could have been left out completely and the film would have been the better for it

I disagree entirely. After seeing the movie twice, I can honestly say that everyone in the theatre BOTH times around loved the physical comedy and the running around, and endless action. Without that island in the movie, it wouldn\'t be worth seeing a second time.

 

[SebastianRushworth]

I agree that movies seem to have become longer in general compared to ten years or so ago. I enjoyed the Lotr movies, but I think that even they are a bit long winded, specially with the new uncut versions that are four hours long. Two hours is pretty much the max amount of time I can sit in and watch a movie, unless it\'s really really good.

 

[DrEvilmonki]

It is telling that Peter Jackson WAS going to edit King Kong down to 90 minutes but the studio requested he left it where it was.

Hollywood are very gutless and after lotr they figured they had to make blockbusters longer.

Having said that I will happily sit through a 3 hour movie if it is well told and in some cases I feel some movies could do with an extra 30 minutes.

 

[Drake Farstrider]

I got to say that I did not mind the length of Pirates. I enjoyed the hell out of it. I plan on seeing it a second time. And I honestly feel that it could of been longer. For the most part I feel that movies often tend to be too short, like the Da Vinci Code.

 

[Ritual]

I don\'t mind long films if they have a story that needs the time to be told and can keep my interest up for the entire length. Seven Samurais, for instance, is never boring even though it\'s nearly four hours and pretty slow in tempo. Hollywood, however, often tries to make the most of something that barely is worthy of being called a script and now, apparently, they think they need to make stuff well over two hours...

If you have something that is weak to start with, it won\'t get any better if you drag everything out and put some more explosions in it. They should hire some good writers, for a change.

:cussing:

Rant over...

 

[Dragonsreach]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
I would think by ticket prices they should be longer.

Nope just better!

Worst example of poor script and over long movie A.I.

 

[freakinacage]

Originally posted by Evil Dave
I would think by ticket prices they should be longer.

not longer but at least some free popcorn and a drink

 

[Ritual]

Originally posted by Dragonsreach
Worst example of poor script and over long movie A.I.

I agree! Yet the most painful thing about it is that kid actor (?) Osment, or whatever he\'s called! Who gave him the idea he should become an actor? ???

 

[EricJ]

Originally posted by Ritual

Originally posted by Dragonsreach
Worst example of poor script and over long movie A.I.

I agree! Yet the most painful thing about it is that kid actor (?) Osment, or whatever he\'s called! Who gave him the idea he should become an actor? ???

I blame Bruce Willis!

And I agree with the sitting thing, especially since the theaters around me all have pretty old chairs and at about 90 minutes my back usually is killing me. I know it\'s a good movie when I go 2+ hours and don\'t notice the pain...but that\'s rare. With Superman, I found myself watching some of the rediculously drawn out scenes and just thinking about the fact I was in pain, and that couldn\'t they learn to edit and or write a script that didn\'t dance around a point for 20 minutes before making it...oh and the 30 second long shots of someones face, making some meaningful expression while dramatic music plays. (x-men 3 did this unbearably often)

Someone needs to read these people shakespear, teach them diologue that gets to the point.

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by Ritual

Originally posted by Dragonsreach
Worst example of poor script and over long movie A.I.

I agree! Yet the most painful thing about it is that kid actor (?) Osment, or whatever he\'s called! Who gave him the idea he should become an actor? ???

He sees dead people, apparently...

 

[Dragonsreach]

Originally posted by EricJ

Originally posted by Ritual

Originally posted by Dragonsreach
Worst example of poor script and over long movie A.I.

I agree! Yet the most painful thing about it is that kid actor (?) Osment, or whatever he\'s called! Who gave him the idea he should become an actor? ???

I blame Bruce Willis!

Personally I blame Robin Williams, H.J.Osment\'s first role was in \"Flubber\".
Then as Forrest Gump\'s son.

Sorry to have to use bad language.