People Who Boo Hoo About How Long A Movie Is

[Hey Man]

Let me just start out by saying that I LOVE the 3 hour movie and hate it when a movie is just 90 minutes long when more often than not - I could still watch more of the story or they could have expanded a bit on characters/scenes to my liking anyway.

Having said that, I hate people who boo hoo about how long a movie is. I constantly read reviews from people where two hours seemed too long to them and this is for a movie they liked. If you recall - most movies in the 70's and 80's were often two hours plus, but have we now become a generation instant everthing - that we just don't have time anymore for a movie longer than 87 minutes?

I am always very happy when a movie that interests me lists the runtime on whatever website and it's two hours +. Now I am not saying that a story can't be told in 90 minutes and sure maybe Heat could have been 90 minutes long removing some of the various storylines, but that's not a movie I want to see. Let me stress that there are many perfect 90 minute movies, but as a film enthusiast - I could have watched more.

Now we come to Funny People - which I have not seen yet, but across the board - people are complaining how long it is and I just don't get that. If Apatow or any filmmaker feels that there movie needs to be a certain length to tell the story they want to tell - then so be it. Just because it's a comedy doesn't mean it's not worthy of being over two hours as if only serious drama's and epic films are reserved for the over 2 hour mark. Do you have somewhere you gotta be and can't watch an over two hour comedy? Got some texting to do?

[bigred760]

I agree. Some of my favorite movies are over 2.5 hours along. For the most part, I think the longer a movie is, the better. The more there is to it and the more detailed it can be.

[The Postmaster General]

I don't know. You are kind of talking about two different things here. Sometimes movies are too long because there's fat that needs to be trimmed. Then separate from that, there are people who just don't like to watch long movies. Watchmen was like 3 hours long, and my problem with that was I thought it should have been longer (I learned Gilliam wanted to make it a 5 part miniseries, and it reminded me why I love the guy...) ---- On the other hand, Pineapple Express, there were some scenes where they'd repeat the same joke over and over, and it wasn't that the movie was too long, it was that they should have cut some of the scenes shorter. Actually, it's funny you mention Apatow because I love all his movies, but off the top of my head, I've described all of them as being "longish".

So, I agree that it's stupid to deride a movie solely because of length, but feel that it's fine to deride a movie on the grounds of feeling there was too much fat. I don't think Apatow feels his movie needs to be a certain length, I think he feels that he doesn't need to cut down his actors improvisations at times.

I'm also not sure about this idea that movies were longer back in the day and now they are shorter. There's a lot of long 2+ hour movies nowadays.

[Abbie Normal]

I agree. Good rant. I love the 4hr version of Dances with Wolves better than the shorter one.

It pisses me off when people say that the third and fourth Pirates movies were too long!

[The Postmaster General]

So this really isn't a rant about people making broad complaints about movies? You guys genuinely think there's no reason to think a movie is too long?

[Abbie Normal]

So this really isn't a rant about people making broad complaints about movies? You guys genuinely think there's no reason to think a movie is too long?

No, I would rather see a 5 hour Harry Potter movie than one that is short and shitty. Screw all those who complain. I want more info.

[The Postmaster General]

No, I would rather see a 5 hour Harry Potter movie than one that is short and shitty. Screw all those who complain. I want more info.

No to which part? You think there's no valid reason for saying a movie is too long, or no this rant isn't about people using length to make a broad generalization?

I'm not sure how Harry Potter fits into my question, but to discuss, like I said earlier, I had the same feelings on Watchmen, that it felt like it should have been longer and fleshed out more of the story.

[Hey Man]

I don't know. You are kind of talking about two different things here. Sometimes movies are too long because there's fat that needs to be trimmed. Then separate from that, there are people who just don't like to watch long movies. Watchmen was like 3 hours long, and my problem with that was I thought it should have been longer (I learned Gilliam wanted to make it a 5 part miniseries, and it reminded me why I love the guy...) ---- On the other hand, Pineapple Express, there were some scenes where they'd repeat the same joke over and over, and it wasn't that the movie was too long, it was that they should have cut some of the scenes shorter. Actually, it's funny you mention Apatow because I love all his movies, but off the top of my head, I've described all of them as being "longish".

So, I agree that it's stupid to deride a movie solely because of length, but feel that it's fine to deride a movie on the grounds of feeling there was too much fat. I don't think Apatow feels his movie needs to be a certain length, I think he feels that he doesn't need to cut down his actors improvisations at times.

I'm also not sure about this idea that movies were longer back in the day and now they are shorter. There's a lot of long 2+ hour movies nowadays.

But what you deem to be fat that could be trimmed might be what I want to see more of for example. But it's not really about that - it's about people these days that just seem to have a problem with a movie that is two hours or more based on having to sit that long.

Movies were longer back in the day absolutely. Practically every classic movie from the 70's is 2 hours plus. 90 minutes wasn't the general standard as it seems to be now with studios wanting to have as many showings as possible at the theatre.

[Hey Man]

No to which part? You think there's no valid reason for saying a movie is too long, or no this rant isn't about people using length to make a broad generalization?

I'm not sure how Harry Potter fits into my question, but to discuss, like I said earlier, I had the same feelings on Watchmen, that it felt like it should have been longer and fleshed out more of the story.

When people need to warn you about how long any movie is in their movie review even if they liked the movie - that is a problem. I can't tell how many times I have read something like this:

In conclusion, even though it was too long and they could have cut out such and such, the movie was great.

That is fucked to me.

[someguy]

Movie lengths aren't an issue unless the movie is just ridiculously long and becomes boring/dragged out because of it or if the movie is so short it leaves a lacking feeling at the end. Overall though I don't really factor it into why I like or dislike a movie, but it certainly helps if the time is right.

[John Galt]

People have less of an attention span nowadays and will simply text when they get bored.
Their understanding of what 'escapism' is, is for shit.

That being said; there are certain movies that have good, long build-ups but a shitty payoff and are therefore very anticlimactic as a result. There's a ton of 'em.

But I definitely loathe truncation in my storytelling and/or composition. I want the author/artist/filmmakers FULL vision in order to appreciate it fully.

That is why the LOTR: Extended Editions are FAR superior to the theatrical.

It should only be as long as the artist deems is necessary to tell his/her story.

[Abbie Normal]

That is why the LOTR: Extended Editions are FAR superior to the theatrical..

I can't even watch the shorter versions.

[The Postmaster General]

But what you deem to be fat that could be trimmed might be what I want to see more of for example. But it's not really about that - it's about people these days that just seem to have a problem with a movie that is two hours or more based on having to sit that long.

Yeah, but that's why it's a criticism. I'm saying something I don't like about the movie, and in this case parts were dragged out. It could have been a shorter, tighter movie. That's my criticism. What I deem to be bad acting might be what someone else deems good acting. What you deem to be a washed up director, others may deem to be a genius. That's how criticism works, right?

Movies were longer back in the day absolutely. Practically every classic movie from the 70's is 2 hours plus. 90 minutes wasn't the general standard as it seems to be now with studios wanting to have as many showings as possible at the theatre.

I think you are wrong. Can you name me some classic 90 minute movies from the last 10 years?

I've heard nothing but people saying movies are getting longer. Look at the Batman franchise. Star Wars. They are all getting longer.

Here's what I came up with after about 10 seconds on Google...


b3ta newsletter 332 calls for an average film-length graph.
This idea sounded exciting to me and because I have nothing
to do anyway in the weekends, I tried to accomplish this
with IMDB, Notepad, Excel, Notepad, Collectorz Movie
Collector and Excel (in that order). Here are the results
and how I did it.

First I went to IMDB to get a list of best voted titles of
every decade from 1910 to 2009. The newsletter says top 100,
but I think the top 50 (500 titles in total) is enough and I
couldn’t find a top 100. Then, I copied the table to
Notepad, imported the txt into Excel and copied the ‘title’
column back to notepad, so I could import it into Collectorz
Movie Collector. Once imported into Movie Collector, it
searches the IMDB info for every movie automatically,
including ‘year’ and ‘film length’. Sometimes it needs a
little push when there are several titles with the same
name, but overall this isn’t nearly as time consuming as
having to do it manually. Once I had done this for every
decade, I had all the data I needed. On to the science
stuff!

...

In Excel, everyone’s favourite spreadsheet, I imported the
numbers again and sorted the ‘Running time’ column to get a
good look. I had to replace all the ‘mins’ with ” because
otherwise Excel doesn’t get it. Divide by zero et cetera, I
guess. Now I could finally make a sum and calculate the
average film-lenghts through the decades.

Here’s a graph of it:

10s ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 79 minutes
20s ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 98 minutes
30s ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 96 minutes
40s ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 109 minutes
50s ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 114 minutes
60s ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 127 minutes
70s ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 125 minutes
80s ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 129 minutes
90s ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 127 minutes
00s ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 129 minutes

CONCLUSION
Yes, this sort of confirms everyone’s hypothesis that movies
have become longer. From an average of 79 minutes to a
whopping 129 minutes. That’s an increase of 63 percent!
We’re now on par with the 80s, but with a little luck there
will be a few more blockbusters this year, making it 130
minutes. However, don’t count on it, because it’s 128,64
(2000s) against 129,4 (1980s) to be precise. Of course, you
could also vote more on looong boring movies.

- http://www.infinitypoint0.com/60/imdb-film-length-project/


When people need to warn you about how long any movie is in their movie review even if they liked the movie - that is a problem. I can't tell how many times I have read something like this:

In conclusion, even though it was too long and they could have cut out such and such, the movie was great.

That is fucked to me.

Well that's just bad writing. I like how Maltin puts it and have opted his style when just saying "it was a bit longish in parts."

I just think running time issues are pacing issues, and there's no reason why pacing issues are some facet that is untouchable by criticism. To me it just comes back to putting some weight behind it. Like to me saying "It was too long" is along the lines of saying "It had subtitles" -- because you aren't telling me anything about the movie that I can use to decide for myself, because like a lot of people I don't mind long movies.

[BakeTheMooCow]

I just think running time issues are pacing issues, and there's no reason why pacing issues are some facet that is untouchable by criticism.

Yeah, it's not really that I have a problem with long movies (my favorite films of 2007 and 2008 are There Will Be Blood and The Dark Knight and my favorite of all time is Pulp Fiction; all over 150 minutes). It's that some movies feel longer than they are because they are paced poorly and don't flow properly. That's one issue I had with Funny People - it's really messy and meandering for long stretches.

[Mr.HyDe807]

I thought it was fine in Funny People, it really got the ability to establish characters and storylines. It does become a bit muddled in the end with one storyline overwhelming the rest, but it was still immensely enjoyable.

For me, I always get a hoot when a movie is more than two hours long. Don't get me wrong, Ill check out movies that are 90 minutes and such, and its probably a good thing for said movie to have the run time because it doesn't need to be too long. Yet, a movie that has a long run time just feels like I'm getting my money's worth for some reason. It's weird. :D

The only movie this year where the movie actually felt overlong for me was Transformers 2, but that's because I had my own gripes with it.

[Tweek]

I agree with those who talk about pacing. Even a 90 minute movie could feel like 3 hours if it's badly paced. There are some movies that are 2 1/2 to 3 hours long that I think seem to end too quickly.

I was wary of Funny People's runtime because I was thinking back to Knocked Up. I liked it but I thought that it lagged quite a bit. I'm considering going to see it today, though.

[Bourne101]

Criticism of runtime is valid if there are specific reasons (creates a narrative lull in parts, crates pacing issues, etc.), but there are plenty of people who will criticize a film just because it is over 2 hours long. I have had friends and acquaintances who I have recommended films like Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction and The Godfather to, and they refuse to watch them because of their length.

[Natty]

I also think the issue is with pacing, some of my favourite films are over 3 hours long and I have no problem with watching them. However, when I complain that shorter films are too long, I simply mean that some of it feels unneccessary and that the film is less absorbing as a result of the director not being able to sort out a suitable running time.

[Hey Man]

Yeah, but that's why it's a criticism. I'm saying something I don't like about the movie, and in this case parts were dragged out. It could have been a shorter, tighter movie. That's my criticism. What I deem to be bad acting might be what someone else deems good acting. What you deem to be a washed up director, others may deem to be a genius. That's how criticism works, right?



I think you are wrong. Can you name me some classic 90 minute movies from the last 10 years?

I've heard nothing but people saying movies are getting longer. Look at the Batman franchise. Star Wars. They are all getting longer.

Here's what I came up with after about 10 seconds on Google...



- http://www.infinitypoint0.com/60/imdb-film-length-project/




Well that's just bad writing. I like how Maltin puts it and have opted his style when just saying "it was a bit longish in parts."

I just think running time issues are pacing issues, and there's no reason why pacing issues are some facet that is untouchable by criticism. To me it just comes back to putting some weight behind it. Like to me saying "It was too long" is along the lines of saying "It had subtitles" -- because you aren't telling me anything about the movie that I can use to decide for myself, because like a lot of people I don't mind long movies.

I am not saying we don't have films that are long today - what I was saying that is that we have a lot more films today that are 85 minutes or 90 minutes long as opposed to 70's or 80's. Classic or not. In that regard, your link is wrong as it's not counting the many many thousands of comedies, independent films or straight to video films that just so happen to end right at the 90 minute mark.

Have you watched many films from the 1970's for example? I ask because for me and my extensive viewing of movies from the 70's - most movies are at the two hour mark or longer. There were very few 90 minute movies as the standard was two hours for a movie at the time. That is where your graph example is useless.

I am also not saying that someone can't mention that a film is long - I have a problem when people feel the need to WARN that the movie is too long and I don't just mean critics, but your average moviegoer. I have been looking at a slew of audience reviews for Funny People and one of the first things mentioned by most of them is the length - before they even talk about the cast, story and even if the movie is good or not.

Do you agree that there are many people out there that for whatever reason - have a hard time watching a movie for two hours - never mind 3 hour movies?

[ilovemovies]

Some of the greatest movies of all time are very long movies. I can name soooooooo many movies that I love that are long.

But a movie CAN be too long just like a movie can be too short as well. I can name several of those as well.


Everything I've heard leads me to believe that the criticism of Funny People being too long is a valid, legit criticism. But I haven't seen the movie yet for myself. So we'll see if I agree with that.

[Hey Man]

Some of the greatest movies of all time are very long movies. I can name soooooooo many movies that I love that are long.

But a movie CAN be too long just like a movie can be too short as well. I can name several of those as well.


Everything I've heard leads me to believe that the criticism of Funny People being too long is a valid, legit criticism. But I haven't seen the movie yet for myself. So we'll see if I agree with that.

The point being is that I don't think most people here would care if a movie was 3 hours or 6 hours if need be, but quite often the general public seem to moan when a movie approaches two hours - unless it is a fantasy type film.

[enver]

I can't even watch the shorter versions.

right there with you on that one.

3 hours of walking.

[ilovemovies]

The point being is that I don't think most people here would care if a movie was 3 hours or 6 hours if need be, but quite often the general public seem to moan when a movie approaches two hours - unless it is a fantasy type film.

Well I have to admit there are a few movies that although I do WANT to see them eventually, I've been avoiding for a whole because of how long they are.

I actually have Gone With the Wind and Lawrence of Arabia. But those movies are just 15 to 20 minutes shy of being 4 hours long. For that reason alone, I haven't seen them yet. Though I intend to eventually.

It's also why I'm probably reluctant to sit through Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet or Das Boot, ect. 4 hours seems a little excessive IMO. But I will see them eventually.

[Hey Man]

Well I have to admit there are a few movies that although I do WANT to see them eventually, I've been avoiding for a whole because of how long they are.

I actually have Gone With the Wind and Lawrence of Arabia. But those movies are just 15 to 20 minutes shy of being 4 hours long. For that reason alone, I haven't seen them yet. Though I intend to eventually.

It's also why I'm probably reluctant to sit through Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet or Das Boot, ect. 4 hours seems a little excessive IMO. But I will see them eventually.

I guess you could watch two hours one day and two hours the next. Genereally speaking - do you have a hard time watching one thing for so long? For example, could you buy the DVD of a TV series that you like and spend the whole weekend watching episode after episode?

[ilovemovies]

Haha. Yeah, though I've never tried it, I could probably a watch a whole season of 24 in 24 hours. :D

[starcat]

I agree with pretty much everything said... but i have to add this:

its also about the type of movie. I dont think comedies should be over 90 to 100 minutes. I'm sorry, but they get to draggy and boring... Most of the funniest movies are only around 90 minutes, there are some exceptions, but for the most part its true.
Horror movies should stay around 90 to 100 minutes too.

Comic book movies, science fiction, and dramas... they are usually the movies that benefit from being longer, cause they are the movies that have stories that can be fleshed out and made great. Most comic book movies fall short because they trimmed too much out. Daredevil for example... should have totally left it longer. Lord of the Rings as well...

However alot of people just dont have time to sit in a theatre for 3 and a half to 4 hours. Work, kids and babysitters, and many other responcibilities hinder that for them as they get older. It sucks, but its true. You finally get a sitter and try to make it to a 10:00 showing after working a grueling week, the movie doesn't let out till 1:30 or 2:00 in the morning... some people just cant do it. Hell, I have even fell asleep before, and nothing pisses me off worse than a $20.00 nap!!!

[The Postmaster General]

I am not saying we don't have films that are long today - what I was saying that is that we have a lot more films today that are 85 minutes or 90 minutes long as opposed to 70's or 80's. Classic or not. In that regard, your link is wrong as it's not counting the many many thousands of comedies, independent films or straight to video films that just so happen to end right at the 90 minute mark.

You could have just said, "I am not saying we don't have films that are long today - what I was saying that is that we have a lot more films today."

Have you watched many films from the 1970's for example? I ask because for me and my extensive viewing of movies from the 70's - most movies are at the two hour mark or longer. There were very few 90 minute movies as the standard was two hours for a movie at the time. That is where your graph example is useless.

yup, I've seen me a few them on the saturday tv movie show. they aren't so bad wit the commercials but the girl who hosts sure is purdy.

Yeah, Hey Man, I would say I've seen many films from the 70s. I remember a lot of 2 hour films because generally my favorite ones were 2 hour films, but an instant exception that came to mind was Superfly. Halloween was pretty short. You are going by this definition of "classic" though that is like a formless mold with tentacles forever reaching through all that is good about discussing movies.

I again ask you, please name me some 90 minute "classics" of the last 10 years. And Son of the Mask doesn't count.

I am also not saying that someone can't mention that a film is long - I have a problem when people feel the need to WARN that the movie is too long and I don't just mean critics, but your average moviegoer. I have been looking at a slew of audience reviews for Funny People and one of the first things mentioned by most of them is the length - before they even talk about the cast, story and even if the movie is good or not.

And I am also not saying that I agree with that style of reviewing. Oh to the contrary my dear Robin, I stated this in plain english on several occasions, you might say I was giving a... extended cut of that specific point.

Do you agree that there are many people out there that for whatever reason - have a hard time watching a movie for two hours - never mind 3 hour movies?

Uh-huh, said so in my first response to you.

I think we understand and agree on everyone. In the end, I think you might have just been confused because there weren't a lot of Wilford Brimley movies in the 70s, so they probably just seemed longer. It's an honest mistake. I'm sorry about all the things I said about you definition of classic being bad.

[QUENTIN]

I am also not saying that someone can't mention that a film is long - I have a problem when people feel the need to WARN that the movie is too long and I don't just mean critics, but your average moviegoer. I have been looking at a slew of audience reviews for Funny People and one of the first things mentioned by most of them is the length - before they even talk about the cast, story and even if the movie is good or not.


I think, on average, mainstream and independent wide release movies released today are longer than they were in the 1970s. I've seen a lot of both and think you're ignoring how many movies came out in the 70s that aren't deemed "classics." It's common to have an altered perception of the quality (or in this case length) of something today in relation to some time in the past, because generally you're aware of all the crap coming out each week in the here and now, but don't bother watching and don't really know of all the crap that came out then because 30 years later we only watch and remember the stuff that stood the test of time. As for the classics, those deemed the 50 best of each decade on IMDb anyway, as the graph demonstrates, they're longer now.

Anyway, if this was instigated by Funny People, I think you're definitely misdiagnosing the problem. It isn't, I don't think, that people thought the film's running time was literally too much. I'm sure that same group ate up the much longer The Dark Knight. The average moviegoer mentions and becomes aware of the length of a movie, and subsequently complains about it, when it is poorly paced and contains excess, unnecessary scenes. The problem isn't that movies or shorter or that audiences won't sit through long movies (Transformers 2 is the top grossing movie of the year and it's 2 1/2 hours), it's simply that Judd Apatow doesn't know how to pace or edit a movie. I think maybe because of his reliance on and love for improv, 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up are both funny, well-written movies that are more than 20 minutes too long because he doesn't know how to cut out what's superfluous and his movies drag and feel long as a result.

[Hey Man]

I think, on average, mainstream and independent wide release movies released today are longer than they were in the 1970s. I've seen a lot of both and think you're ignoring how many movies came out in the 70s that aren't deemed "classics." It's common to have an altered perception of the quality (or in this case length) of something today in relation to some time in the past, because generally you're aware of all the crap coming out each week in the here and now, but don't bother watching and don't really know of all the crap that came out then because 30 years later we only watch and remember the stuff that stood the test of time. As for the classics, those deemed the 50 best of each decade on IMDb anyway, as the graph demonstrates, they're longer now.

Anyway, if this was instigated by Funny People, I think you're definitely misdiagnosing the problem. It isn't, I don't think, that people thought the film's running time was literally too much. I'm sure that same group ate up the much longer The Dark Knight. The average moviegoer mentions and becomes aware of the length of a movie, and subsequently complains about it, when it is poorly paced and contains excess, unnecessary scenes. The problem isn't that movies or shorter or that audiences won't sit through long movies (Transformers 2 is the top grossing movie of the year and it's 2 1/2 hours), it's simply that Judd Apatow doesn't know how to pace or edit a movie. I think maybe because of his reliance on and love for improv, 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up are both funny, well-written movies that are more than 20 minutes too long because he doesn't know how to cut out what's superfluous and his movies drag and feel long as a result.

I was just using Funny People as a recent example - not as the reason for this rant. Having said that, I already mentioned that people seem to accept fantasy movie or epic films at a longer length as per your comments about The Dark Knight and Transformers, but as for comedies and dramas - the general public seems to have a problem if a movie approaches the two hour mark and when they review a movie, they deem it to be a negative.

I think part of the problem is that opposed to film enthusiasts that want more, the average person just wants to go to a movie and be in and out as quickly as possible. They don't have the higher standards that we may have or require the same things from a filmmaker and the story being told. Where we may want more - most people seem to want less.

There are also many more movies being released today in various formats as opposed to the 70's. I can honestly tell you that the majority of movies in the 70's - classic or otherwise are mostly two hours long or more. 90 minute movies were not as common back then as they are now.

[Hey Man]

http://www.filmjunk.com/2009/07/17/open-forum-friday-are-movies-too-long-nowadays/

On an almost weekly basis now, it seems that whenever a new major Hollywood movie hits theatres, one of the major criticisms we inevitably hear from people is that it’s too long. While I know some people will skip a movie as soon as they hear that it’s beyond a certain length, there are some movies that simply need the extra running time in order to do the story justice. On the other hand, there are also plenty of movies that overstay their welcome and end up boring us to tears. But is the overall length of movies really on the rise, or are we just imagining it?

Over at /Film, Peter Sciretta recently took a look at the top 50 movies from 2008 and found that they average out to about 110 minutes (under 2 hours). The IMDB Film Length Project did a similar thing for the past 10 decades and drew the overall conclusion that movies are indeed getting longer. The thing is, if you look at their statistics, that number hasn’t really changed in the past 50 years.

Regardless, it does feel like a lot of the major blockbusters have been growing not just in terms of budgets but also duration as well, which may be a result of all these adaptations of books and graphic novels, where no one wants to cut out any of the source material for fear of reprisal from fans. What do you think? Are movies getting to be too long, or are they just not very well-made? Are you less likely to enjoy a movie if it’s over 2 and a half hours long? Should theatres start introducing intermissions?

[MightyCelestial]

It's not how long a movie is that's important,
it what you do with that length that counts.



....or something like that.

[echo_bravo]

Aronofsky is great because he can pack so much into his films even though they are a short runtime.
I dont know all the runtimes of his films but they are usually 90 to 100 minutes.

My beef with Apatow is that he is only hurting himself when he makes his films longer than they need to be. There is so much shit that he could edit out (like too much of Leslie Mann or his kids!), that would do wonders for his films IMO.

[Hey Man]

Aronofsky is great because he can pack so much into his films even though they are a short runtime.
I dont know all the runtimes of his films but they are usually 90 to 100 minutes.

My beef with Apatow is that he is only hurting himself when he makes his films longer than they need to be. There is so much shit that he could edit out (like too much of Leslie Mann or his kids!), that would do wonders for his films IMO.

How is he hurting himself when 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up are huge hits and great comedies? If Funny People turns out to not do as well, does that mean he should shorten his movies?

A movie is as long as the filmmaker feels it should be. We don't tell a band or musician that they have put too many songs on their new album. We don't complain that a book is too long, but yet we complain about movie length. To me, it's all the same thing.

[echo_bravo]

How is he hurting himself when 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up are huge hits and great comedies? If Funny People turns out to not do as well, does that mean he should shorten his movies?

A movie is as long as the filmmaker feels it should be. We don't tell a band or musician that they have put too many songs on their new album. We don't complain that a book is too long, but yet we complain about movie length. To me, it's all the same thing.

Thats very true in regards to Apatow. All his films have been hits so far. I guess its just my personal opinion regarding his films. I've noticed they tend to drag and he leaves in too much unnessacery stuff in it. But if it aint broke, dont fix it I guess.

[QUENTIN]

How is he hurting himself when 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up are huge hits and great comedies? If Funny People turns out to not do as well, does that mean he should shorten his movies?

A movie is as long as the filmmaker feels it should be. We don't tell a band or musician that they have put too many songs on their new album. We don't complain that a book is too long, but yet we complain about movie length. To me, it's all the same thing.

Lots of bad movies are financially successful and vice-versa. I don't think 40YOV or Knocked Up are bad movies, but I don't think financial success is any indication of artistic success (as mentioned, 2009's worst movie is its biggest box-office hit). As for great, many people agree with you, but a very common criticism of Apatow, one I, echo, and it seems many audience members of Funny People have leveled is that his movies are too long. I like his movies so far, but think they'd be much improved by being substantially shorter, cutting out some of the side stuff that goes nowhere, rambling improv, and maudlin drama.

Again, "too long" doesn't mean "This was 128 minutes and I was only willing to sit through whatever was onscreen for 112," it means "There was stuff in there that shouldn't have been and it dragged the movie down."

We do indeed tell musicians there are too many songs on an album if the album has many good songs and then a few crappy ones that diminish its quality. We certainly tell writers their book is too long if it contains lots of plodding, unnecessary passages or chapters. A key component of any good art is its ability to convey things in as succinct a manner as possible. Some movies have epic stories to tell and require 4 hours, Lawrence of Arabia or Once Upon A Time in America are nearly twice as long as any of Apatow's movies and I would argue neither is too long.

So, it's not the length itself, it's the content. Apatow includes entirely superfluous, unfunny, excess scenes in each of his movies that drag down the quality (in my opinion and the opinion of many others, not you) and make them feel long. If you think a movie of his contained scenes that, if cut, would have made for a better movie, it's entirely fair and accurate to say the movie was too long.

It seems this rant started out as a complaint that moviegoers are impatient and movies have gotten shorter as a result, which I think can be shown isn't true, and has become "I like Judd Apatow movies, if he thinks every scene was necessary than every scene was necessary and since they make money, he must be right." Saying we can't complain that a choice of a director's was a poor one, in this case that he included things he should have left on the cutting room floor to the detriment of the film, because "a film is as long as the filmmaker feels it should be" is to discredit the entire notion of criticism.

[Hey Man]

Lots of bad movies are financially successful and vice-versa. I don't think 40YOV or Knocked Up are bad movies, but I'm don't think financial success is any indication of artistic success (as mentioned, 2009's worst movie is its biggest box-office hit. As for great, many people agree with you, but a very common criticism of Apatow, one I, echo, and it seems many audience members of Funny People have leveled is that his movies are too long. I like his movies so far, but think they'd be much improved by being substantially shorter, cutting out some of the side stuff that goes nowhere, rambling improv, and maudlin drama.

Again, "too long" doesn't mean "This was 128 minutes and I was only willing to sit through whatever was onscreen for 112," it means "There was stuff in there that shouldn't have been and it dragged the movie down."

We do indeed tell musicians there are too many songs on an album if the album has many good songs and then a few crappy ones that diminish its quality. We certainly tell writers their book is too long if it contains lots of plodding, unnecessary passages or chapters. A key component of any good art is its ability to convey things in as succinct a manner as possible. Some movies have epic stories to tell and require 4 hours, Lawrence of Arabia or Once Upon A Time in America are nearly twice as long as any of Apatow's movies and I would argue neither is too long.

So, it's not the length itself, it's the content. Apatow includes entirely superfluous, unfunny, excess scenes in each of his movies that drag down the quality (in my opinion and the opinion of many others, not you) and make them feel long. If you think a movie of his contained scenes that, if cut, would have made for a better movie, it's entirely fair and accurate to say the movie was too long.

It seems this rant started out as a complaint that audience goers are impatient and movies have gotten shorter as a result, which I think can be shown isn't true, and has become "I like Judd Apatow movies, if he thinks every scene was necessary than every scene was necessary and since they make money, he must be right." Saying we can't complain that a choice of a director's was a poor one, in this case that he included things he should have left on the cutting room floor to the detriment of the film, because "a film is as long as the filmmaker feels it should be" is to discredit the entire notion of criticism.

The difference between movies and books or music is that the general audience - not movie freaks like us - will often not even go see the movie in the theatre if they aware of how long it is. That same audience won't avoid listening to an album or reading a book that interests them because reports are that the album has too many songs or that the book is long. That is the point.

Movies have gotten shorter compared to the 70's if you go beyond epics and fantasy films. Hell, some films don't even make the 90 minute mark and end at 87 minutes. You are also avoiding straight to video, independent films and other lower budget films that usually end at the 90 minute mark. As indicated above - the average movie is 140 minutes long today - compared to most films in the 70's that came to or crossed the 2 hour mark.

I am not saying you can't complain - the rant was and still is about people who already view a long movie to be a negative and I only brought up Funny People because people seem to be more focused on the length before really talking about the movie. I have also read positive reviews for Funny People where they also mention the length after saying how great the movie is and they may even say that a few minutes could have been shaved off, but they don't make it the focus of the review like many people have been.

Let me give you another example. There are plenty of people on this board that call Heat a masterpiece - myself included. But then there are other posters on here that say it's too long and they could have dropped a few of the additional storylines and in all actuality - Heat could have been an hour and 45 minute movie. Maybe it could have been, but I don't want to see it.

[Jig Saw 123]

I think it really depends on the film and how much story needs to be told within a movie for it to be complete and somewhat standalone. Spider-Man 3 for example was too long and attempted to squeeze in too much while on the other hand a movie like The Dark Knight was just as long and did a better job at executing it. Simply some movies need to be 2.5 hours or more while others don't.

[QUENTIN]

The difference between movies and books or music is that the general audience - not movie freaks like us - will often not even go see the movie in the theatre if they aware of how long it is. That same audience won't avoid listening to an album or reading a book that interests them because reports are that the album has too many songs or that the book is long. That is the point.

Hmm. I'm not sure if this is the case as I haven't really experienced it and there's unlikely a way to categorically determine if a majority of people think this way. I certainly know people who would be more hesitant to watch a three hour movie than a two hour movie, but I think they'd be much more hesitant to read a 1,000 page book or listen to a three hour album. I also think if they could be assured that the movie would most likely be great, either via positive consensus or a familiarity and interest in the subject (as with Dark Knight, the LOTR movies, Transformers 2, etc) then the length would no longer concern them. If what you're complaining about is that the general population doesn't devote enough time to art, I can maybe agree with you there, but I think it's actually least prevalent in terms of movies, so I feel you're missing the mark.

Movies have gotten shorter compared to the 70's if you go beyond epics and fantasy films.

No, I don't think the facts are on your side here. So far everything we've been able to find from a variety of sources indicates precisely the opposite.

Hell, some films don't even make the 90 minute mark and end at 87 minutes. You are also avoiding straight to video, independent films and other lower budget films that usually end at the 90 minute mark.

These also existed in the 70s, or whatever prior time you want to point to. Not straight-to-video obviously, but tons and tons of quickly and cheaply made movies designed to turn a quick profit. In fact, the 1970s are more known than the 2000s for such exploitation pictures, which almost uniformly had short running times. Like I said, I think you are actually being overly selective and exclusive about what films you are considering from the 1970s and choosing to compare them to in the present day.

I'm not sure how we were defining movies, so earlier I qualified my comparison to "mainstream and independent wide release movies" and assumed we were discussing American films too. But now that you bring in other independent, straight-to-video, and low budget films, I'm thinking you mean all movies. In that case, you are certainly wrong. India produces considerably more movies each year than any other country and their Bollywood features are much longer than American movies, averaging 160-200 minutes. Bollywood has only become more productive and prolific since the 1970s.

If you are to take the total average running length of all movies either released or semi-professionally made throughout the 1970s and compared that to the total average running length of all movies either released or semi-professionally made in the 2000s, I am sure that the running time this decade is longer.

As indicated above - the average movie is 140 minutes long today - compared to most films in the 70's that came to or crossed the 2 hour mark.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, unless it's our point? That the average movie today is 2 hours and 20 minutes (which doesn't seem right at all to me) and that in the 70s they were 2 hours? Your quoted source from earlier came to the conclusion based on a study of movie lengths that we did, that movies are getting longer and have been over the last 5 decades, not the opposite that you seem to keep claiming.


I am not saying you can't complain - the rant was and still is about people who already view a long movie to be a negative and I only brought up Funny People because people seem to be more focused on the length before really talking about the movie. I have also read positive reviews for Funny People where they also mention the length after saying how great the movie is and they may even say that a few minutes could have been shaved off, but they don't make it the focus of the review like many people have been.

Perhaps it's just a problem with the example you cited, if your example was meant to be arbitrarily selected. I just think Funny People is a perfect example of a movie that's (based on Apatow's history anyway, it being my main criticisms with his other films) too long. So as I said when I initially posted here, I think you were misdiagnosing the problem of "Judd Apatow movies need more trimming" to "audiences today won't sit through long movies", the former of which I think is true and the latter of which I don't. I can't attest to this anti-long movies sentiment you seem to feel is out there among the genera populace, because I haven't felt it and moviegoing trends seem to indicate the opposite.

Let me give you another example. There are plenty of people on this board that call Heat a masterpiece - myself included. But then there are other posters on here that say it's too long and they could have dropped a few of the additional storylines and in all actuality - Heat could have been an hour and 45 minute movie. Maybe it could have been, but I don't want to see it.

Hmm. Well I think Heat is a masterpiece and I'm with you that it's not too long. It's well-executed emphasis on the characters rather than just the action, coupled with its superbly crafted action sequences, are what make it stand head and shoulders above your average cops-and-criminals movie. I would be less interested in seeing a truncated version as well.

But I can totally understand the other side of that argument. I can see how reasonable and fair it is to feel that the whole Natalie Portman subplot is unnecessary and superfluous to the story, that the romantic problems with Venora, Brenneman, and Judd are boring, sidetrack and bloat the movie and bring it down. I don't agree, but that doesn't make the criticism any less valid. So what we're left with is arguing about what people like, whether they found certain scenes in Funny People or Heat or anything else compelling and interesting or boring and extraneous. But none of that has anything to do with length, and is instead about the subjective appreciation of content.

Maybe Bubba already summed things up better than I could:


I just think running time issues are pacing issues, and there's no reason why pacing issues are some facet that is untouchable by criticism.

[Hey Man]

Hmm. I'm not sure if this is the case as I haven't really experienced it and there's unlikely a way to categorically determine if a majority of people think this way. I certainly know people who would be more hesitant to watch a three hour movie than a two hour movie, but I think they'd be much more hesitant to read a 1,000 page book or listen to a three hour album. I also think if they could be assured that the movie would most likely be great, either via positive consensus or a familiarity and interest in the subject (as with Dark Knight, the LOTR movies, Transformers 2, etc) then the length would no longer concern them. If what you're complaining about is that the general population doesn't devote enough time to art, I can maybe agree with you there, but I think it's actually least prevalent in terms of movies, so I feel you're missing the mark.



No, I don't think the facts are on your side here. So far everything we've been able to find from a variety of sources indicates precisely the opposite.



These also existed in the 70s, or whatever prior time you want to point to. Not straight-to-video obviously, but tons and tons of quickly and cheaply made movies designed to turn a quick profit. In fact, the 1970s are more known than the 2000s for such exploitation pictures, which almost uniformly had short running times. Like I said, I think you are actually being overly selective and exclusive about what films you are considering from the 1970s and choosing to compare them to in the present day.

I'm not sure how we were defining movies, so earlier I qualified my comparison to "mainstream and independent wide release movies" and assumed we were discussing American films too. But now that you bring in other independent, straight-to-video, and low budget films, I'm thinking you mean all movies. In that case, you are certainly wrong. India produces considerably more movies each year than any other country and their Bollywood features are much longer than American movies, averaging 160-200 minutes. Bollywood has only become more productive and prolific since the 1970s.

If you are to take the total average running length of all movies either released or semi-professionally made throughout the 1970s and compared that to the total average running length of all movies either released or semi-professionally made in the 2000s, I am sure that the running time this decade is longer.



I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, unless it's our point? That the average movie today is 2 hours and 20 minutes (which doesn't seem right at all to me) and that in the 70s they were 2 hours? Your quoted source from earlier came to the conclusion based on a study of movie lengths that we did, that movies are getting longer and have been over the last 5 decades, not the opposite that you seem to keep claiming.



Perhaps it's just a problem with the example you cited, if your example was meant to be arbitrarily selected. I just think Funny People is a perfect example of a movie that's (based on Apatow's history anyway, it being my main criticisms with his other films) too long. So as I said when I initially posted here, I think you were misdiagnosing the problem of "Judd Apatow movies need more trimming" to "audiences today won't sit through long movies", the former of which I think is true and the latter of which I don't. I can't attest to this anti-long movies sentiment you seem to feel is out there, because I haven't felt it.



Hmm. Well I think Heat is a masterpiece and I'm with you that it's not too long. It's well-executed emphasis on the characters rather than just the action, coupled with its superbly crafted action sequences, are what make it stand head and shoulders above your average cops-and-criminals movie.

But I can totally understand the other side of that argument. I can see how reasonable and fair it is to feel that the whole Natalie Portman subplot is unnecessary and superfluous to the story, that the romantic problems with Venora, Brenneman, and Judd are boring, sidetrack and bloat the movie and bring it down. I don't agree, but that doesn't make the criticism any less valid. So what we're left with is arguing about what people like, whether they found certain scenes in Funny People or Heat or anything else compelling and interesting or boring and extraneous. But none of that has anything to do with length, and is instead about the subjective appreciation of content.

Maybe Bubba already summed things up better than I could:

So quite simply - you don't feel that Joe Popcorn or the majority of casual movie goers have a problem with long movies in terms of length in general regardless of content. That they don't care to sit for 2 and half hours or more. Is that your position.

I even remember people and the media making a fuss about both Brad Pitt movies - Jesse James and Benjamin Button being too long. To me, it has become a criticism that didn't exist so much in the past. I even remember people attacking Warner Bros. for not releasing the four hour version of Once Upon A Time In America.

If The Godfather came out today - people would probably say it's too long too and find something they would cut.

[QUENTIN]

So quite simply - you don't feel that Joe Popcorn or the majority of casual movie goers have a problem with long movies in terms of length in general regardless of content. That they don't care to sit for 2 and half hours or more. Is that your position.

I even remember people and the media making a fuss about both Brad Pitt movies - Jesse James and Benjamin Button being too long. To me, it has become a criticism that didn't exist so much in the past. I even remember people attacking Warner Bros. for not releasing the four hour version of Once Upon A Time In America.

If The Godfather came out today - people would probably say it's too long too and find something they would cut.

Right. I think you're totally missing the mark and instead they could mostly care less about length and care instead about content. I think this is demonstrated by the fact that movies are indeed longer today, the opposite of what you were claiming, and a great many of the most successful and popular movies each year are particularly long. I think most audiences don't notice the length of a movie while they're watching it if they're engaged, and that you only start thinking "This is long" when the movie is poorly paced or you're no longer captivated by what's happening onscreen.

All of your examples end up kinda further indicating to me that you're misdiagnosing this problem. I think Benjamin Button and Jesse James both should have been trimmed. The former had at least 25 minutes of pointless and detrimental scenes that made the film a worse product than it would have been otherwise, the whole Katrina-era framing device was a poor decision I think that subverted many of the movie's dramatic goals. It's still good and it was still popular, but both times I saw it, I sure thought it felt long because there were these bad, unnecessary scenes that hurt the movie. With James, there were less substantial things I had a problem with but I had little concern for some of the secondary's character's diverting misadventures and that was a slowly-paced art film, hardly the kind of thing general audiences like regardless.

Joe Popcorn doesn't like slowly paced films, regardless of length, like the 80-minute Wendy and Lucy or 90-minute Goodbye Solo which didn't crack a million dollars and would likely put them to sleep. They like fast paced films, regardless of length, like the 200-minute Return of the King or 150-minute Dark Knight which made a billion dollars combined and are the most beloved movies of the decade.

I think you're wrong about The Godfather too. I think that movie is even more well-regarded today than it was in 1972, probably being the single most-cited answer you'll get from adult Joe Popcorn's if you asked them their favorite movie. It's universally recognized as a great movie without any real fat, people still love that.

Like has been said, I think this has everything to do with pacing and nothing to do with length and that having a problem with a movie's pacing is an entirely legitimate criticism.

[Hey Man]

Right. I think you're totally missing the mark and instead they could mostly care less about length and care instead about content. I think this is demonstrated by the fact that movies are indeed longer today, the opposite of what you were claiming, and a great many of the most successful and popular movies each year are particularly long. I think most audiences don't notice the length of a movie while they're watching it if they're engaged, and that you only start thinking "This is long" when the movie is poorly paced or you're no longer interested in what's happening onscreen.

All of your examples end up kinda further indicating to me that you're misdiagnosing this problem. I think Benjamin Button and Jesse James both should have been trimmed. The former had at least 25 minutes of pointless and detrimental scenes that made the film a worse product than it would have been otherwise, the whole Katrina-era framing device was a poor decision I think that subverted many of the movie's dramatic goals. It's still good and it was still popular, but both times I saw it, I sure thought it felt long because there were these bad, unnecessary scenes that hurt the movie. With James, there were less substantial things I had a problem with but I had little concern for some of the secondary's character's diverting misadventures and that was a slowly-paced art film, hardly the kind of thing general audiences like regardless.

Joe Popcorn doesn't like slowly paced films, regardless of length, like the 80-minute Wendy and Lucy or 90-minute Goodbye Solo which didn't crack a million dollars and would put them audiences to sleep. They like fast paced films, regardless of length, like the 200-minute Return of the King or 150-minute Dark Knight which made a billion dollars combined and are the most beloved movies of the decade.

I think you're wrong about The Godfather too. I think that movie is even more well-regarded today than it was in 1972, probably being the single most-cited answer you'll get from adult Joe Popcorn's if you asked them their favorite movie. It's universally recognized as a great movie without any real fat, people still love that.

Like has been said, I think this has everything to do with pacing and nothing to do with length.

You keep picking fantasy type films Like Lord of The Rings or The Dark Knight to make your case. Don't - because fans of those characters would watch an 8 hour movie if it was fed to them. Why not talk more about dramas and other movies without a built in fanbase that cross over the two hour mark and audiences reaction to those films. There Will Be Blood is a good place to start or Che.

Another factor that you have ignored is box office. Studios have tried to keep most movies shorter, so that it can play more times in the theatre and hopefully make more money.

The fact of the matter is that we also have a generation of people who seem to have ADD problems. These people are not going to see 3 hour movies. I have known people who have said that they haven't watched classic movies from the 70's - because of how they were as if there are intimidated.

[LordSimen]

The fact of the matter is that we also have a generation of people who seem to have ADD problems. These people are not going to see 3 hour movies. I have known people who have said that they haven't watched classic movies from the 70's - because of how they were as if there are intimidated.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

I don't know about you, but I can pick out more movies over 2 hours and/or near 3 hours long on that list than I can 90 minute movies...

[Hey Man]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

I don't know about you, but I can pick out more movies over 2 hours and/or near 3 hours long on that list than I can 90 minute movies...

Ya and the majority of them are fantasy films, sequels or movies with a built in audience. You are proving my point for me.

[LordSimen]

Ya and the majority of them are fantasy films, sequels or movies with a built in audience. You are proving my point for me.

Titanic was not a fantasy, a sequel or a film with a built in audience- How do you explain that, sir?

[Hey Man]

Titanic was not a fantasy, a sequel or a film with a built in audience- How do you explain that, sir?

1. That is why I said majority.

2. Women would have watched a 10 hour Leonardo DiCaprio Titanic - so in a sense there was a fan base for that movie.

[LordSimen]

2. Women would have watched a 10 hour Leonardo DiCaprio Titanic - so in a sense there was a fan base for that movie.

A fan base created after the movie was made... So not a built-in fan base.


I gotta side with Quentin on this, it has less to do with the actual length of the movie as it has to do with the pacing of the movies.

[Hey Man]

A fan base created after the movie was made... So not a built-in fan base.


I gotta side with Quentin on this, it has less to do with the actual length of the movie as it has to do with the pacing of the movies.

The fan base is Leo fans.Do you really think Titanic would have done the same with Christian Slater?

[LordSimen]

The fan base is Leo fans.Do you really think Titanic would have done the same with Christian Slater?

Oh, really? Then how come his other films did not do nearly as much bank as Titanic?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=leonardodicaprio.htm

[Hey Man]

Oh, really? Then how come his other films did not do nearly as much bank as Titanic?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=leonardodicaprio.htm

Please tell me you are kidding with that question?

[LordSimen]

Please tell me you are kidding with that question?

I'm not kidding you. If Leo has such a built in fan-base automatically that insured Titantic the amount of viewings it got, how come none of his other films have not done nearly as well?

[QUENTIN]

You keep picking fantasy type films Like Lord of The Rings or The Dark Knight to make your case. Don't - because fans of those characters would watch an 8 hour movie if it was fed to them. Why not talk more about dramas and other movies without a built in fanbase that cross over the two hour mark and audiences reaction to those films. There Will Be Blood is a good place to start.

Well, fantasy is one of the most successful genres. Star Wars had no built-in fanbase and was a minor studio production expected to fail until it became the most successful franchise in cinema history, despite all of its features being over two hours. One of the principle reasons people go to the movies is to see something unfamiliar and exciting that they can't see in their daily lives, which fantasy most clearly fulfills. But I wasn't looking for fantasy films, just the most popular, financially and otherwise, movies this decade and it turns out they're both over 2 1/2 hours. As is this year's top film.

But sure, we can avoid fantasy films. There Will Be Blood is a terrible place to start, I think you know and assume that's why you chose it, because it is a very methodically-paced film about an unlikable character. Your average audience member is uninterested in the content of that film.

If we want to look about dramas without a built-in fanbase that cross the two hour mark and audiences' reaction to those films, how about Titanic, the most financially successful and one of the most popular films ever made? Braveheart? Saving Private Ryan? Forrest Gump? All 2 1/2-3 hours, all huge popular successes.

In this decade we've also got The Departed, a 2 1/2 hour adult crime drama that won Best Picture, grossed over $100 million, and was wildly popular with audiences. Million Dollar Baby, a 2 hour and 12 minute movie that pulled off the same hat trick. Ditto both A Beautiful Mind and Gladiator.
No Country for Old Men only made 75 million (300% of its budget), but it took up Best Picture too and was pretty popular among audiences. I know a lot of people didn't like the end, but I certainly don't recall anyone complaining about the length.

That was just looking at Oscar movies too because you asked for fantasy-free adult dramas. The fact is, the most popular movies of each year this decade have all been over 2 hours and there are dozens more popular, critically and commercially over-2 hour releases each year.

Add this to the fact that movies aren't shorter now than they were in the 70s, but in fact the opposite is true, and movies continue to draw in large audiences, make lots of money, and be well-regarded and I can't see how you can conclude that most people don't like long movies.

It's still your position that Joe Popcorn will not like, avoid, or dismiss a movie based on its length, and that content and pacing aren't the determining factors?

[Hey Man]

I'm not kidding you. If Leo has such a built in fan-base automatically that insured Titantic the amount of viewings it got, how come none of his other films have done nearly as well?

So you don't acknowledge that women kept on going back to see Titanic because of the sweeping love story that featured Leo dying. Apparently you don't recall women swooning and crying over Leo.

I don't think Leo has done too many of those movies, but having said that - James Cameron mixed with Leo made Titanic what it is. I ask again - do you feel it would have done the same with Christian Slater?

[LordSimen]

So you don't acknowledge that women kept on going back to see Titanic because of the sweeping love story that featured Leo dying. Apparently you don't recall women swooning and crying over Leo.


Key point there was KEPT GOING BACK TO SEE TITANIC. Meaning, they became fans AFTER the movie was made and this "built in fan base" you're speaking of doesn't really exist, and if it does, it's not nearly as big as you seem to think it is seeing as his other "romantic" ventures, such as Romeo+Juliet, didn't do nearly as well.

I don't think Leo has done too many of those movies, but having said that - James Cameron mixed with Leo made Titanic what it is. I ask again - do you feel it would have done the same with Christian Slater?

Who knows. You're asking a what if question that no one can rightly answer considering it didn't happen.

[QUENTIN]

I was replying to you while LordSimen entered into this and also used Titanic, the perfect example.

DiCaprio was a no-name when Titanic came out. A fanbase is something that exists before a movie comes out.

I'm not sure how or why fantasy films or those with a fanbase are being excluded either, except that they further disprove your argument. They're really long, people still flock to them, in fact more than any other films, so...

You've also edited your post to include Che, another obscure little indie film that never even got a real theatrical release and is a methodically-paced art film about a character most Americans reflexively dislike. They would not like the content and the pacing of that film, its length is irrelevant. As I mentioned, there are just as many very short films with slow paces that audiences ignore or hate, like Wendy and Lucy, Goodbye Solo, or a great many art films.

You also added this:

Another factor that you have ignored is box office. Studios have tried to keep most movies shorter, so that it can play more times in the theatre and hopefully make more money.

I think we both "ignored" this, but I am aware of it. I know that the studios want to keep their biggest movies' lengths down to up profits, but it seems to have had relatively little effect on their running times as a whole considering movies are longer today than they've ever been.

The fact of the matter is that we also have a generation of people who seem to have ADD problems. These people are not going to see 3 hour movies. I have known people who have said that they haven't watched classic movies from the 70's - because of how they were as if there are intimidated.

I agree that this generation seems to have short attention spans and ADD issues, which I think has led to much more swiftly paced films than in the 1970s. So for instance the Transformers movies, epically long and hugely popular pictures, contain very rapid editing and a surplus of action scenes. Or to use a non-fantasy example, The Departed and Aviator, big commercial and popular successes, have lower average shot lengths than say Mean Streets or Taxi Driver. But the fact is, "these people" are going to 3 hour movies as evidenced by the most popular movies of recent times being on the order of 3 hours. I can't speak for the people you've known, but they're not representative of the majority of they avoid movies for being 3 hours long. They might be like a lot of people though who avoid older movies because they tend to be more slowly paced.

There are lots of factors you can come up with, I'm sure, to explain all the reasons movies are shorter these days and audience members won't put up with long movies like they used to, the problem is that none of those reasons, no matter how compelling they may be, change the reality that movies are longer today than they've ever been and the most successful modern films are very long.

[Hey Man]

Well, fantasy is one of the most successful genres. Star Wars had no built-in fanbase and was a minor studio production expected to fail until it became the most successful franchise in cinema history, despite all of its features being over two hours. One of the principle reasons people go to the movies is to see something unfamiliar and exciting that they can't see in their daily lives, which fantasy most clearly fulfills. But I wasn't looking for fantasy films, just the most popular, financially and otherwise, movies this decade and it turns out they're both over 2 1/2 hours. As is this year's top film.

But sure, we can avoid fantasy films. There Will Be Blood is a terrible place to start, I think you know and assume that's why you chose it, because it is a very methodically-paced film about an unlikable character. Your average audience member is uninterested in the content of that film.

If we want to look about dramas without a built-in fanbase that cross the two hour mark and audiences' reaction to those films, how about Titanic, the most financially successful and one of the most popular films ever made? Braveheart? Saving Private Ryan? Forrest Gump? All 2 1/2-3 hours, all huge popular successes.

In this decade we've also got The Departed, a 2 1/2 hour adult crime drama that won Best Picture, grossed over $100 million, and was wildly popular with audiences. Million Dollar Baby, a 2 hour and 12 minute movie that pulled off the same hat trick. Ditto both A Beautiful Mind and Gladiator.
No Country for Old Men only made 75 million (300% of its budget), but it took up Best Picture too and was pretty popular among audiences. I know a lot of people didn't like the end, but I certainly don't recall anyone complaining about the length.

That was just looking at Oscar movies too because you asked for fantasy-free adult dramas. The fact is, the most popular movies of each year this decade have all been over 2 hours and there are dozens more popular, critically and commercially over-2 hour releases each year.

Add this to the fact that movies aren't shorter now than they were in the 70s, but in fact the opposite is true, and movies continue to draw in large audiences, make lots of money, and be well-regarded and I can't see how you can conclude that most people don't like long movies.

It's still your position that Joe Popcorn will not like, avoid, or dismiss a movie based on its length, and that content and pacing aren't the determining factors?

But even your other 3 hour choice movies have a more commerical factor to them and thus that is why people are willing to sit through them. So we have determined that Joe Popcorn is willing to sit through built in audience movies and Hollywood blockbusters that are 3 hours long. But what do you say to independent movies that are long - that generally audiences ignore.

[Bourne101]

Though it isn't really relevent, I thought I'd bring up that the Titianic was not successful because Leonardo DiCaprio was the star. He was barely even a star at that point. Titanic was the movie that made him a star. And the success of the film is due to much more than just women. EVERYONE saw Titanic (well, obviously not everyone, but a large majority of people young and old). It's one of the most interesting and talked about disaster events in history and was a well-made film that received a great word of mouth from general audiences. That's where its success stems from.

[Hey Man]

Though it isn't really relevent, I thought I'd bring up that the Titianic was not successful because Leonardo DiCaprio was the star. He was barely even a star at that point. Titanic was the movie that made him a star. And the success of the film is due to much more than just women. EVERYONE saw Titanic (well, obviously not everyone, but a large majority of people young and old). It's one of the most interesting and talked about disaster events in history and was a well-made film that received a great word of mouth from general audiences. That's where its success stems from.

I am not saying people went to see Titanic because of Leo. I am saying that people went BACK numerous times BECAUSE of Leo. He became a star overnight and that is the bottom line.

The studio wanted Ryan O'Neal or Burt Reynolds for Rocky. It would have failed with any other actor. Rocky is Rocky because of Sylvester Stallone and his performance. I believe Titanic is the same situation.

[Bourne101]

I don't think there is any substantial evidence that points to people going to see Titanic numerous times because they enjoyed DiCaprio's looks and/or performance. The film was successful because it appealed to mainstream audiences as well as big time movie buffs. It was a very well-made film that was extremely well-paced, depicted the sinking of the ship very well and incorporated a dramatic love story that was very appealing to a lot of people. I remember I saw Titanic three times in theatres, and I know many males and females, old and young that went to see the film multiple times for reasons other than the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio.

[LordSimen]

You're basically saying that the fan base was created because of the movie itself- Which is the exact opposite of a built in fan base...

[QUENTIN]

But even your other 3 hour choice movies have a more commerical factor to them and thus that is why people are willing to sit through them. So we have determined that Joe Popcorn is willing to sit through built in audience movies and Hollywood blockbusters that are 3 hours long. But what do you say to independent movies that are long - that generally audiences ignore.

Wait... so now you're arguing that general audiences only like movies with a "commercial factor"? Uh-huh. This is known and accepted by everyone. That's what makes them commercial movies. By definition, a commercial movie is one designed to appeal to a mass audience. Having commercial factors means it's aiming at being a commercial success. Without those factors, success is highly unlikely. This has absolutely nothing to do with length.

As I've pointed out, general audiences ignore independent movies period, with a couple of exceptions a year maybe, again regardless of length. The average moviegoer didn't avoid Che because it was 4-hours long, they avoided Che because they could give a fuck about what some Bolivian dude did in the jungle of a country they've never heard of 40 years ago (and it didn't even get a proper limited theatrical release). Just as they couldn't give a fuck about what happens to some poor girl trying to get to Alaska in the 80-minute Wendy and Lucy. General audiences would be bored by those stories and their slow pacing, it clearly has nothing to do with length.

Now you're disqualifying "Hollywood blockbusters" and non-independently-produced dramas intended to appeal to adults from consideration because they demonstrate your argument doesn't hold?

Dude, I feel like you don't even know what your argument is anymore.

So far, we have established that movies are longer, not shorter, than they were in the 1970s and the most popular movie 7 of the last 9 years has been over 2 hours, most of those nearly 3 hours, as are a majority of the ten highest grossing movies each year.

I feel like you've relented none in light of these facts that directly contradict your previous claims and instead pressed on with the same argument, moving goalposts as you go. In spite of all this stuff that clearly says otherwise, you're still trying to argue that movies are shorter than they've ever been and general audiences avoid long movies because they don't have the patience for them.

And this, as far as I can tell, is because you disagree with other people's opinions on the relative merits of Funny People, Heat, and a handful of indie flicks they've never seen.

[Hey Man]

Wait... so now you're arguing that general audiences only like movies with a "commercial factor"? Uh-huh. This is known and accepted by everyone. That's what makes them commercial movies. By definition, a commercial movie is one designed to appeal to a mass audience. Having commercial factors means it's aiming at being a commercial success. Without those factors, success is highly unlikely. This has absolutely nothing to do with length.

As I've pointed out, general audiences ignore independent movies period, with a couple of exceptions a year maybe, again regardless of length. The average moviegoer didn't avoid Che because it was 4-hours long, they avoided Che because they could give a fuck about what some Bolivian dude did in the jungle of a country they've never heard of 40 years ago (and it didn't even get a proper limited theatrical release). Just as they couldn't give a fuck about what happens to some poor girl trying to get to Alaska in the 80-minute Wendy and Lucy. General audiences would be bored by those stories and their slow pacing, it clearly has nothing to do with length.

Now you're disqualifying "Hollywood blockbusters" and non-independently-produced dramas intended to appeal to adults from consideration because they demonstrate you're argument doesn't hold?

Dude, I feel like you don't even know what your argument is anymore.

So far, we have established that movies are longer, not shorter, than they were in the 1970s and the most popular movie 7 of the last 9 years has been over 2 hours, most of those nearly 3 hours, as are a majority of the ten highest grossing movies each year.

I feel like you've relented none in light of these facts that directly contradict your previous claims and instead pressed on with the same argument, moving goalposts as you go. In spite of all this stuff that clearly says otherwise, you're still trying to argue that movies are shorter than they've ever been and general audiences avoid long movies because they don't have the patience for them.

And this, as far as I can tell, is because you disagree with other people's opinions on the relative merits of Funny People, Heat, and a handful of indie flicks they've never seen.

Becuase your examples continue to be the exception and not the rule. Of course people are going to sit through a 3 hours Steven Spielberg film, but are they going to sit through a 3 hour Paul Thomas Anderson movie or any number of not so high profile films that surpass the 2 hour mark.

[LordSimen]

Becuase your examples continue to be the exception and not the rule. Of course people are going to sit through a 3 hours Steven Spielberg film, but are they going to sit through a 3 hour Paul Thomas Anderson movie or any number of not so high profile films that surpass the 2 hour mark.

This is just getting silly. Of course the average film goer is going to sit through a 3 hour Spielberg film. The man was one of the directors who pretty much shaped what it means to be a modern commercial success and has done so for the past 30 years. Just because they won't sit through a 3 hour PT Anderson movie, which in and of itself has a small nich audience as it is, does not mean they won't sit through a 3 hour movie. It just means they'll sit through a 3 hour movie that appeals to them, and there ain't nothin' wrong with that.

[Hey Man]

This is just getting silly. Of course the average film goer is going to sit through a 3 hour Spielberg film. The man was one of the directors who pretty much shaped what it means to be a modern commercial success and has done so for the past 30 years. Just because they won't sit through a 3 hour PT Anderson movie, which in and of itself has a small nich audience as it is, does not mean they won't sit through a 3 hour movie. It just means they'll sit through a 3 hour movie that appeals to them, and there ain't nothin' wrong with that.

You just don't get it - people are willing to endure more for something they really like - but for something new to them, taking a chance on something that is 3 hours long is less likely of a possibility. If Spielberg directed Boogie Nights (as utterly impossible as that would be due to content) - people would have gone to see it. PTA - not so much.

[Heisenberg]

If people whine about the running time beforehand, then they are idiots.

If they whine after seeing the movie, then they can. They just saw the movie and thought it was too long, so what?

[LordSimen]

You just don't get it - people are willing to endure more for something they really like - but for something new to them, taking a chance on something that is 3 hours long is less likely of a possibility. If Spielberg directed Boogie Nights (as utterly impossible as that would be due to content) - people would have gone to see it. PTA - not so much.

Actually, I get it very well. You wish for the average joe to expand their horizons and see films beyond their own demographics. I get it. Except I am confused as to what this ultimately has to do with people seeing lengthy movies or not.

You're using P.T. Anderson as an example- Yet his LEAST successful film was ultimately his shortest, and that's the 90 minute Punch-Drunk Love and his most successful was his two and a half hour character piece There Will Be Blood. His shortest film had the least draw, amazingly enough. P.T. Anderson, in general, is a nich director with a cult following that gets occasional main stream recognition through the awards he receives. His lack of a huge main stream success has very little to do with his lengthy films as much as it has to do with his overall style and content.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=paulthomasanderson.htm

[QUENTIN]

Becuase your examples continue to be the exception and not the rule. Of course people are going to sit through a 3 hours Steven Spielberg film, but are they going to sit through a 3 hour Paul Thomas Anderson movie or any number of not so high profile films that surpass the 2 hour mark.

I feel like you're totally missing the point then. People aren't going to sit through a 90-minute Paul Thomas Anderson movie even when its centered on the biggest and most popular comedy star in the country, as Punch-Drunk Love demonstrated when it couldn't even make back it's 25-million dollar budget.

If people avoided movies because they were long, they'd avoid them even when Spielberg was at the helm. Or at the least, longer Spielberg movies would make less money than shorter ones. This doesn't happen. The reason the relative lengths of Punch-Drunk Love and Saving Private Ryan had no effect on their success is because people don't think of length as a determining factor. They don't like PTA movies, they like Spielberg movies. Both of those statements prove true, via the results of how their movies do, regardless of their vast differences in run time. Though the most successful movies, for both, were over 120 minutes.

You're right that I'm using "exceptions" in the sense that I'm pulling the most successful films, but that's both because those are the ones you remember and look to (and they uniformly contradict your assertion) and because for some middling throwaway and forgotten February-April release I don't think, nor believe it can be demonstrated, that whether it's 100 or 130 minutes is gonna have any impact on its success. For the movies people flock to see and the movies people avoid in droves, length cannot be shown to be a motivating factor one way or the other. Story and spectacle still seem to be the biggest draws, with name talent probably next. This is true now as it was in the 70s or any other period you want to point to.

You're basically ascribing all these various other factors that determine what people do and don't like to length, and I'm not sure why because you haven't really explained it yet in any way that wasn't easily refutable and didn't have a ton of evidence that showed otherwise. Holding things up to scrutiny, if you get every movie that gets released in a year and have it on a graph comparing length to success, I don't think you're going to find any correlation, except perhaps the inverse of what you're saying because the most successful movies are longer than average.

And so far, in support of your idea, all I'm seeing is that general audiences or your friends thought some movies were too long that a whole lot of people, including critics and hardcore movie geeks, also thought were too long, some other people disagreed with you about Heat and avoided some of the best independent movies of the year, as they always have, and a whole lot of assumptive speculation that it's much easier to find evidence discrediting than proving.

I'm trying to understand the basis of your argument here, but every time I feel like I'm getting closer, it just seems to slip further away.

[Hey Man]

Actually, I get it very well. You wish for the average joe to expand their horizons and see films beyond their own demographics. I get it. Except I am confused as to what this ultimately has to do with people seeing lengthy movies or not.

You're using P.T. Anderson as an example- Yet his LEAST successful film was ultimately his shortest, and that's the 90 minute Punch-Drunk Love and his most successful was his two and a half hour character piece There Will Be Blood. His shortest film had the least draw, amazingly enough. P.T. Anderson, in general, is a nich director with a cult following that gets occasional main stream recognition through the awards he receives. His lack of a huge main stream success has very little to do with his lengthy films as much as it has to do with his overall style and content.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=paulthomasanderson.htm

Punch Drunk Love wasn't successful for one reason only - Adam Sandler wasn't acting like a fucking moron for his usual audience of Mensa candidates. Once word got out that this wasn't the usual Sandler movie, it died.

[QUENTIN]

LordSimen keeps replying while I'm in the process of posting and we end up making some of the same points.

I gotta say this:

Actually, I get it very well. You wish for the average joe to expand their horizons and see films beyond their own demographics. I get it. Except I am confused as to what this ultimately has to do with people seeing lengthy movies or not.


is exactly how I see your argument as well.

I'm with you, as I imagine a lot of schmoes are, that I wish general audiences saw the movies we think are better like There Will Be Blood and Che instead of Transformers. I wish the movies that were most successful were those with the most artistic merit. But this is mostly unrealistic because what we movie geeks look for in a movie is different in a lot of ways from what your average person is looking for. It is a shame that this is the case, but I think it's true for any mass media.

What I don't get is what any of that has to do with a movie's running time.

[Hey Man]

LordSimen keeps replying while I'm in the process of posting and we end up making some of the same points.

I gotta say this:



is exactly how I see your argument as well.

I'm with you, as I imagine a lot of schmoes are, that I wish general audiences saw the movies we think are better like There Will Be Blood and Che instead of Transformers. I wish the movies that were most successful were those with the most artistic merit. But this is mostly unrealistic because what we movie geeks look for in a movie is different in a lot of ways from what your average person is looking for. It is a shame that this is the case, but I think it's true for any mass media.

What I don't get is what any of that has to do with a movie's running time.

Well don't you feel more people might take a chance with There Will Be Blood or Che if they were 82 minute movies? People do read movie reviews and any critic is going to point out how long a movie is - if it is a 3 hour movie. There are people that get turned off by this unless as I said - it's a movie they are already dying to see as opposed to taking a chance on.

I would like a response to my point about Punch Drunk Love:

Punch Drunk Love wasn't successful for one reason only - Adam Sandler wasn't acting like a fucking moron for his usual audience of Mensa candidates. Once word got out that this wasn't the usual Sandler movie, it died.

[LordSimen]

LordSimen keeps replying while I'm in the process of posting and we end up making some of the same points.


Hehehe. I'll just let you reply then, you word it better than I could anyway. :D

[Heisenberg]

Punch Drunk Love wasn't successful for one reason only - Adam Sandler wasn't acting like a fucking moron for his usual audience of Mensa candidates. Once word got out that this wasn't the usual Sandler movie, it died.

Adam Sandler wasn't acting like a fucking moron in Click, but I still remember that making a good ammount. Click was a preatty heavy movie, nearly had me in tears.

[Hey Man]

Adam Sandler wasn't acting like a fucking moron in Click, but I still remember that making a good ammount. Click was a preatty heavy movie, nearly had me in tears.

Are you seriously putting Click and Punch Drunk Love into the same boat. Click is another no brain required Sandler movie.

[QUENTIN]

Well don't you feel more people might take a chance with There Will Be Blood or Che if they were 82 minute movies?


Not really, no. That's why I offered Goodbye Solo and Wendy and Lucy as a couple examples, but there are dozens of independent films released each year (and hundreds that don't see a release) that are around or under 90 minutes that mainstream audiences never see and if they did, almost certainly wouldn't like. If anything, independent films tend to run shorter than Hollywood ones due in part to budget constraints. These appeal to a niche audience, who sees them regardless of length, and not Joe Popcorn, who doesn't regardless of length.

People do read movie reviews and any critic is going to point out how long a movie is - if it is a 3 hour movie. There are people that get turned off by this unless as I said - it's a movie they are already dying to see as opposed to taking a chance on.

The amount of people who read movie reviews, as a percentage of the movie going public, is miniscule. As in sub-10%. This subsection of the audience is in large part the same niche group who go to see independent films too, also regardless of their length but based on things like story, who made it, and what the critics think. Most people go to movies based on their trailers and marketing campaigns and that's generally about all they know about a picture. Ad campaigns rarely if ever mention the length of a film.


I would like a response to my point about Punch Drunk Love:

Punch Drunk Love wasn't successful for one reason only - Adam Sandler wasn't acting like a fucking moron for his usual audience of Mensa candidates. Once word got out that this wasn't the usual Sandler movie, it died.

I agree completely with your point, but don't see how you fail to recognize it only bolsters our argument and diminishes yours. The reason the general public, who routinely see whatever crap Sandler puts out, didn't see PDL was because they found out it was some kinda art movie and he wasn't playing a passive-aggressive overgrown child. The fact that it was a short movie didn't incline them to see it one more iota. It was all about the story and style, which were off-putting and uninteresting enough to compensate for the fact that based on star wattage it was a movie they might have otherwise seen.

In other words, length isn't a factor.

[Hey Man]

Not really, no. That's why I offered Goodbye Solo and Wendy and Lucy as a couple examples, but there are dozens of independent films released each year (and hundreds that don't see a release) that are around or under 90 minutes that mainstream audiences never see and if they did, almost certainly wouldn't like. If anything, independent films tend to run shorter than Hollywood ones due in part to budget constraints. These appeal to a niche audience, who sees them regardless of length, and not Joe Popcorn, who doesn't regardless of length.



The amount of people who read movie reviews, as a percentage of the movie going public, is miniscule. As in sub-10%. This subsection of the audience is in large part the same niche group who go to see independent films too, also regardless of their length but based on things like story, who made it, and what the critics think. Most people go to movies based on their trailers and marketing campaigns and that's generally about all they know about a picture. Ad campaigns rarely if ever mention the length of a film.




I agree completely with your point, but don't see how you fail to recognize it only bolsters our argument and diminishes yours. The reason the general public, who routinely see whatever crap Sandler puts out, didn't see PDL was because they found out it was some kinda art movie and he wasn't playing a passive-aggressive overgrown child. The fact that it was a short movie didn't incline them to see it one more iota. It was all about the story and style, which were off-putting and uninteresting enough to compensate for the fact that based on star wattage it was a movie they might have otherwise seen.

In other words, length isn't a factor.

You are totally wrong about movie reviews. I don't know where you live, but where I live - every single newspaper, TV channel and free independent paper have their very popular big Friday section or segment (for TV) to review all the movies coming out that week. People are always saying that so and so movie got 3 stars in the paper today or 5 stars or whatever. In fact, those Friday review sections are a primary factor in keeping those newspapers and independents in business.

My Dad ain't on You Tube looking at movie trailers all day, but he may be reading a movie review online. Fuck, even the movie listings websites give viewers the opportunity to spew their opinion about the movies they have seen. People like reading/watching movie reviews and it's become a huge audience in addition to media marketing.

[QUENTIN]

You are totally wrong about movie reviews. I don't know where you live, but where I live - every single newspaper, TV channel and free independent paper have their very popular big Friday section or segment (for TV) to review all the movies coming out that week. People are always saying that so and so movie got 3 stars in the paper today or 5 stars or whatever. In fact, those Friday review sections are a primary factor in keeping those newspapers and independents in business.

My Dad ain't on You Tube looking at movie trailers all day, but he may be reading a movie review online. Fuck, even the movie listings websites give viewers the opportunity to spew their opinion about the movies they have seen. People like reading/watching movie reviews and it's become a huge audience in addition to media marketing.

I can't speak to your subjective anecdotal experience, I can only tell you that according to newspaper managers at major publications like the Washington Post and The New Republic, less than 10% of a newspaper's readership read movie reviews (this is why critics are being laid off en masse around the country), newspaper readership already being a subset of the populace. If we assume web criticism has a similar audience and add maybe At The Movies viewership (seriously diminished in the absence of Ebert), we're still at less than 10% of the population.

I wasn't referring to people who go on YouTube to watch trailers, which is also a small subsection of the populace. Most people see trailers either before other movies or on TV ads. They see posters and other promotional material. The marketing campaign is what they're aware of. For the majority of the public, this is their only exposure to the film before they see it and it is pretty unheard of for the length to be something advertised.

To be clear: Now your argument is that lots of people read reviews, see the running length of the film in the review, and decide whether or not to see it based on that factor?

[Hey Man]

I can't speak to your subjective anecdotal experience, I can only tell you that according to newspaper managers at major publications like the Washington Post and The New Republic, less than 10% of a newspaper's readership read movie reviews (this is why critics are being laid off en masse around the country), newspaper readership already being a subset of the populace. If we assume web criticism has a similar audience and add maybe At The Movies viewership (seriously diminished in the absence of Ebert), we're still at less than 10% of the population.

I wasn't referring to people who go on YouTube to watch trailers, which is also a small subsection of the populace. Most people see trailers either before other movies or on TV ads. They see posters and other promotional material. The marketing campaign is what they're aware of. For the majority of the public, this is their only exposure to the film before they see it and it is pretty unheard of for the length to be something advertised.

To be clear: Now your argument is that lots of people read reviews, see the running length of the film in the review, and decide whether or not to see it based on that factor?

I think we have to agree to disagree. Most rants posted on here are in direct response to what the poster personally views or experiences even if they may not be your experiences. As someone who does go to numerous sites and will read movie reviews from audiences and critics extensively, I can tell you that from what I have seen and personally experienced - a long movie is considered a negative factor even if it's a movie they want to see.

People just don't seem to have the time or attention span that they used to and I think we can at least agree on that. While there are the exceptions and types of movies that are longer than movies from the 70's and 80's, apparently you still have not noticed any audience dislike towards very long movies just for the sake of length like I have. Fair enough.

Here is an interesting article

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/07/16/by-the-numbers-the-length-of-feature-films/

How Long is the average Hollywood movie? It all started when a friend of mine asked me this exact question. My first answer was just over an hour and a half, because most movies I see hit multiplexes seem to have a running length of around 90 or 100 minutes. But the real answer was much harder to come by.

In my research, I came across the IMDb Film-Length Project, which doesn’t provide the definitive answer I was looking for, but is still interesting. The project averages the top 50 rated films from each decade (500 titles in total), which gives us a good idea of the average length of the popular films from the last century. But the results are also likely skewed towards longer movies (not many of the throw away 90 minute popcorn films rank in the top 50 of any given decade). The graph above shows how movies have grown in length over the last 100 years.

I wanted to come to a better conclusion, so I spent a few minutes tabulating the average running time of the top 50 movies of 2008. While not perfect, I think this gives a much better indication of the now, as opposed to the wow. And that number is 110 minutes.

I’ve always found it strange that everyone I know outside of my film geek circle tends to complain about the length of longer films, especially since the highest grossing films of all time are long. Below is a chart showing the running times of the top 14 grossing lie action films of all time. As you can see, all of the movies run over two hours, with some even running longer than three. The average run time is 159 minutes, or 2 hours and 39 minutes.

[The Postmaster General]

Haha. Christian Slater in Titanic.

[Hey Man]

Haha. Christian Slater in Titanic.

Would have been brilliant.

[QUENTIN]

I think we have to agree to disagree. Most rants posted on here are in direct response to what the poster personally views or experiences even if they may not be your experiences. As someone who does go to numerous sites and will read movie reviews from audiences and critics extensively, I can tell you that from what I have seen and personally experienced - a long movie is considered a negative factor even if it's a movie they want to see.

That's fair enough. Of course if you've experienced something that annoyed you, you're free and welcome to rant on it. The point I was arguing was in part that just because you've experienced something doesn't mean it's widespread or pervasive enough to make generalizations about the movie going public as a whole based on that experience.

People just don't seem to have the time or attention span that they used to and I think we can at least agree on that. While there are the exceptions and types of movies that are longer than movies from the 70's and 80's, apparently you still have not noticed any audience dislike towards very long movies just for the sake of length like I have. Fair enough.

Yep, the attention span is definitely diminished, based on the films anyway (I don't know about you, I wasn't around in the 70s to judge firsthand). This has led to a myriad of changes in films, some for the better like tighter scripting, and some for the worse like hyperactive editing. It just hasn't led to the shortening of films.

I haven't had the same experiences as you when it comes to people complaining about length, and I think when I hear someone talk about length I may be inclined to follow up on why they thought it was too long, and generally what I get then are complaints about elements of the film's content that are really more about pacing than the number of minutes that passed. In my experience, these Joe Popcorns we're talking about are often not film literate or eloquent enough about their own opinions to give an accurate reflection of what they did and didn't like about a movie, but much can be gleaned by asking a question or two in the way of explanation.

Here is an interesting article

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/07/16/by-the-numbers-the-length-of-feature-films/

How Long is the average Hollywood movie? It all started when a friend of mine asked me this exact question. My first answer was just over an hour and a half, because most movies I see hit multiplexes seem to have a running length of around 90 or 100 minutes. But the real answer was much harder to come by.

In my research, I came across the IMDb Film-Length Project, which doesn’t provide the definitive answer I was looking for, but is still interesting. The project averages the top 50 rated films from each decade (500 titles in total), which gives us a good idea of the average length of the popular films from the last century. But the results are also likely skewed towards longer movies (not many of the throw away 90 minute popcorn films rank in the top 50 of any given decade). The graph above shows how movies have grown in length over the last 100 years.

I wanted to come to a better conclusion, so I spent a few minutes tabulating the average running time of the top 50 movies of 2008. While not perfect, I think this gives a much better indication of the now, as opposed to the wow. And that number is 110 minutes.

I’ve always found it strange that everyone I know outside of my film geek circle tends to complain about the length of longer films, especially since the highest grossing films of all time are long. Below is a chart showing the running times of the top 14 grossing lie action films of all time. As you can see, all of the movies run over two hours, with some even running longer than three. The average run time is 159 minutes, or 2 hours and 39 minutes.

That is an interesting article and very germane, I wish I'd found it in my own search for an answer on the subject. It certainly seems he has had the same experiences as you have when it comes to other people complaining about film length. I wonder more than just a little if it's partly a perception of being a film geek though. We tend to stereotype the views of the average filmgoer in more ways than one, but that may not play into it at all for all I know.

I thought his methodology was interesting too, and would indeed give a fuller and more accurate picture of average film length less skewed by the exceptionally successful, so I did the same thing. I figured I've spent this much time already on this topic, I'm curious to see whether some of my assertions did hold up.

So I took 1978 as my example, 30 years before him, and found an average running length for the top fifty films of 1978 (http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Years/1978/total-votes). From a low of 76 to a high of 181, the average running time of a film in 1978 was 107 minutes based on the same procedure. A few minutes shy of the average today, and a minute shy of the same ratio one gets from comparing the top fifty of the two decades as a whole. Perhaps it should be no surprise by now that the single longest film on the list, The Deer Hunter, was also the most widely seen and highest rated.

I certainly can't disagree with your assertion that you've encountered people who may have a problem with or avoid a movie based on its length alone, I just have a hard time believing in light of all I've now discovered on the subject that it's any worse now than it was 30 years ago or that it isn't actually primarily an audience concern with how the minutes are used rather than how many are used.

There's only so much evidence either of us can bring to the table though, and we've probably gone round in circles by now, so I'm happy to just call it an agreement to disagree.

[Hey Man]

That's fair enough. Of course if you've experienced something that annoyed you, you're free and welcome to rant on it. The point I was arguing was in part that just because you've experienced something doesn't mean it's widespread or pervasive enough to make generalizations about the movie going public as a whole based on that experience.



Yep, the attention span is definitely diminished, based on the films anyway (I don't know about you, I wasn't around in the 70s to judge firsthand). This has led to a myriad of changes in films, some for the better like tighter scripting, and some for the worse like hyperactive editing. It just hasn't led to the shortening of films.

I haven't had the same experiences as you when it comes to people complaining about length, and I think when I hear someone talk about length I may be inclined to follow up on why they thought it was too long, and generally what I get then are complaints about elements of the film's content that are really more about pacing than the number of minutes that passed. In my experience, these Joe Popcorns we're talking about are often not film literate or eloquent enough about their own opinions to give an accurate reflection of what they did and didn't like about a movie, but much can be gleaned by asking a question or two in the way of explanation.



That is an interesting article and very germane, I wish I'd found it in my own search for an answer on the subject. It certainly seems he has had the same experiences as you have when it comes to other people complaining about film length. I wonder more than just a little if it's partly a perception of being a film geek though. We tend to stereotype the views of the average filmgoer in more ways than one, but that may not play into it at all for all I know.

I thought his methodology was interesting too, and would indeed give a fuller and more accurate picture of average film length less skewed by the exceptionally successful, so I did the same thing. I figured I've spent this much time already on this topic, I'm curious to see whether some of my assertions did hold up.

So I took 1978 as my example, 30 years before him, and found an average running length for the top fifty films of 1978 (http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Years/1978/total-votes). From a low of 76 to a high of 181, the average running time of a film in 1978 was 107 minutes based on the same procedure. A few minutes shy of the average today, and a minute shy of the same ratio one gets from comparing the top fifty of the two decades as a whole. Perhaps it should be no surprise by now that the single longest film on the list, The Deer Hunter, was also the most widely seen and highest rated.

I certainly can't disagree with your assertion that you've encountered people who may have a problem with or avoid a movie based on its length alone, I just have a hard time believing in light of all I've now discovered on the subject that it's any worse now than it was 30 years ago or that it isn't actually primarily an audience concern with how the minutes are used rather than how many are used.

There's only so much evidence either of us can bring to the table though, and we've probably gone round in circles by now, so I'm happy to just call it an agreement to disagree.

Or maybe the only thing that has changed is that audiences now have a voice with the internet as opposed to the 60's, 70's and 80's. If someone thought Ben Hur was too long - how could he let the world know?

No one had a place to rant about Sidney Lumet's cop corruption movies being too long with Serpico and Prince of The City or that The Godfather movies were overrated. Thank you Al Gore for the intraweb.

[QUENTIN]

Or maybe the only thing that has changed is that audiences now have a voice with the internet as opposed to the 60's, 70's and 80's. If someone thought Ben Hur was too long - how could he let the world know?

No one had a place to rant about Sidney Lumet's cop corruption movies being too long with Serpico and Prince of The City or that The Godfather movies were overrated. Thank you Al Gore for the intraweb.

Now there's a very good point.

[The Postmaster General]

Agreed on this one. I've said it in relation to other complaints in the "these days" realm.

[corran horn]

For me, length is only an issue in 3 circumstances:

1) When the movie is bad

2) When I attend a late (after 9 PM) showing

3) When I'm in an uncomfortable seat

The first two can be easily be remedied by: 1) avoiding bad movies and 2) seeing longer movies earlier in the day.

It's the last one that can be a real bugger. Now, in Columbus and Toledo, the theater chains (AMC, Landmark, Nat'l Amusements) had comfortable seats, so this wasn't a problem. In Youngstown and Key West, the only theaters are run by Regal Cinemas, which has those horribly uncomfortable seats with no back for a person to rest their head and neck. When you're sitting in one of those for more than two hours, you definitely feel it.

[project 86]

in my opinion it depends on the plot when it comes to 3hour movies like watchmen and lotr those films stories lend itself to a 3 hour movie. When you have a movie with a thin crappy plot like TF2 making it damn near 3 hours long when it should of been in hour shorter is ridiculous.

[God of War]

I saw Red Cliff just a day ago and it was both parts one and two squashed into one 2 hr and 40 minute feature. The proper version is in tow parts each 2 hrs and 40 minutes long. That's well over 5 hrs. So, dvd will hopefully have that version. But I would sit through it all in one go. Yes, I love long good movies.

[QUENTIN]

Well I just saw Funny People. It was 146 minutes too long.

[Bourne101]

Well I just saw Funny People. It was 146 minutes too long.

Bahaha. Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

[Hey Man]

Well I just saw Funny People. It was 146 minutes too long.

Wasn't it already a given that you were not going to like this movie - even before you actually see it? Some people do love it.

[The Postmaster General]

Have we already talked about No Country for Old Men?

[BadCoverVersion]

I agree that PACING is definitely the key word here.

I watched Marley & Me a couple of weeks back and that shit seemed longer than Fanny & Alexander (DC).

[QUENTIN]

Wasn't it already a given that you were not going to like this movie - even before you actually see it? Some people do love it.

Not at all, I make it a habit to avoid any movie I don't think I'll like. I figured maybe I'd think it was 20% too meandering, as I've thought of Apatow's other movies, but I liked 40-Year-Old Virgin, really liked Knocked Up, and had heard from many critics I respect that this was his best movie. I'm not even sure what about the film was supposed to be funny, the theater I saw it with let out 4-5 chuckles the whole time, and it was incredibly fucking pointless while dragging on interminably.

I quite expected to like it and went with people who expected the same, we kept looking at each other the entire second half wondering when anything was going to happen or the movie was going to end. Not just a major disappointment, but the worst movie I've seen this year.

[Hey Man]

Not at all, I make it a habit to avoid any movie I don't think I'll like. I figured maybe I'd think it was 20% too meandering, as I've thought of Apatow's other movies, but I liked 40-Year-Old Virgin, really liked Knocked Up, and had heard from many critics I respect that this was his best movie. I'm not even sure what about the film was supposed to be funny, the theater I saw it with let out 4-5 chuckles the whole time, and it was incredibly fucking pointless while dragging on interminably.

I quite expected to like it and went with people who expected the same, we kept looking at each other the entire second half wondering when anything was going to happen or the movie was going to end. Not just a major disappointment, but the worst movie I've seen this year.

I have yet to see it, so I may agree with you - but I really do like Apatow and apparently this is his attempt at a James L. Brooks type movie, who I also really like. Anyway it seems to have a love/hate thing going for it. People at Ain't It Cool News are praising the film big time for example if that means anything.

[rocknblues81]

I again ask you, please name me some 90 minute "classics" of the last 10 years. And Son of the Mask doesn't count.


The Descent?
Toy Story 2?

[Donnie_Darko]

Movie lengths aren't an issue unless the movie is just ridiculously long and becomes boring/dragged out because of it or if the movie is so short it leaves a lacking feeling at the end. Overall though I don't really factor it into why I like or dislike a movie, but it certainly helps if the time is right.

I agree, and The Dark Knight is a prime example of that. For me, it just went on about 30min too long. Wasn't the length, rather the content. Same goes for the last LOTR flick. It went on, and on, and on.... and on!

I don't care how long a flick is, providing it keeps your interest for the duration. Yea, I love TBWP, and would love to see the 2 1/2hr cut, but the 87min of the theatrical cut keeps my interest for every frame, and that's what's most important.

Another reason for the "90min" movie syndrome, is TV. A LOT of studios demand a 90-95min cut of a flick, for television airing. A 2hr time slot has roughly 30min of commercials, so, do the math. It's not as much of an issue now, but from the mid 80s to early 2000's, it was key to get your flick on TV down the road. Plus, 90min is pretty much the limit for most peoples attention spans.

Rubber ducky, mongoose?

It's true tho, about it being annoying when people bitch going in about how long a flick is. "Oh, it's 2hrs... well, I won't watch it then." Hey, if time is an issue, fine. I've not watched longer flicks from time to time when I've only got 90min or so to jam a flick in, but that's the only time where length is a factor... that's what she said.

[The Postmaster General]

I think we should make a game out of this and for every 2 + hour classic from the 70s Hey Man names, we can name one from the last 10 years.

[Hey Man]

I think we should make a game out of this and for every 2 + hour classic from the 70s Hey Man names, we can name one from the last 10 years.

Well let's be honest here - classics from the 70's far outweigh most "classics" from the the last 10 years.

[Jon Lyrik]

The Descent?
Toy Story 2?

See my avatar.

As for great recent movies under 2 hours long, how about Children Of Men? Let The Right One In? Kung Fu Hustle? Requiem For A Dream? Waltz With Bashir? Hunger? The Wrestler? A good number of those are in the 90-100 minute mark, too.

[someguy]

Well let's be honest here - classics from the 70's far outweigh most "classics" from the the last 10 years.

Well they have a 20 year advantage over the classics from the last decade. People seem to forget that age is a big factor in what determines a classic.

[Hey Man]

Well they have a 20 year advantage over the classics from the last decade. People seem to forget that age is a big factor in what determines a classic.

I don't agree with this for one simple reason - movies and music for that matter are simply not as good as they used to be. While every once in a while, we might get surprised by a great movie or some new band, for the most part Hollywood has run out of ideas and real rock and roll is dead.

[LordSimen]

I don't agree with this for one simple reason - movies and music for that matter are simply not as good as they used to be.

Gotta love nostalgia.

[Hey Man]

Gotta love nostalgia.

It's not nostalgia - it's fact. Unless of course you really dig Nickleback and think that counts as rock.

[LordSimen]

It's not nostalgia - it's fact. Unless of course you really dig Nickleback and think that counts as rock.

It's very clearly nostalgia. You only remember the best from the past because, well, you aren't there right now, you're not being bombarded with the worst. But right now, you can clearly see all the worst since it's right in front of you- So today must be worse than yesterday.

For example, look at the 90's. Everyone was saying the EXACT same shit about this decade in that decade. Now what do people think about when they think of the 90's? They think of Pulp Fiction, Braveheart, Goodfellas, Fight Club, Schiendler's List - Movies that are just as good as the best of the 70's or 80's.

[Hey Man]

It's very clearly nostalgia. You only remember the best from the past because, well, you aren't there right now, you're not being bombarded with the worst. But right now, you can clearly see all the worst since it's right in front of you- So today must be worse than yesterday.

For example, look at the 90's. Everyone was saying the EXACT same shit about this decade in that decade. Now what do people think about when they think of the 90's? They think of Pulp Fiction, Braveheart, Goodfellas, Fight Club, Schiendler's List - Movies that are just as good as the best of the 70's or 80's.

The 70's are still being called the best decade ever for movies. As good as those movies in the 90's are - I have no delusion that they are better than movies from the 70's as a whole decade vs. decade.

Be honest, have you extensively watched movies from the 70's. I ain't just talking about the classics that everyone has seen, but truly digested the majority of the films released in that decade?

[LordSimen]

Be honest, have you extensively watched movies from the 70's. I ain't just talking about the classics that everyone has seen, but truly digested the majority of the films released in that decade?

I haven't even seen a majority of films from THIS decade, there's far too many films to ever see a majority of anything in any decade.

[someguy]

The more Hey Man posts in here the more I believe that he's Robert Evans

[Hey Man]

I haven't even seen a majority of films from THIS decade, there's far too many films to ever see a majority of anything in any decade.

So then your argument has no merit. You can't fall all over yourself telling me how great movies were in the 90's and that it's somehow comparable to the 70's - when NO ONE in their right mind would say that the 90's was a better decade or even close to the 70's for movies. Seeing a handful of classic 70's classics doesn't make your opinion valid.

[Cop No. 633]

I love Robert Evans: The human rectum is almost nightmarishly elastic. I had four Rubik's cubes jammed up there one day on a bet with Brian Dennehy, when a heroin-crazed Rodney Allen Rippy burst into my trailer and punched me right in the solar plexus. I shat out all four cubes and damned if they didn't emerge solved.

[Hey Man]

The more Hey Man posts in here the more I believe that he's Robert Evans

You bet I am.

[LordSimen]

So then your argument has no merit. You can't fall all over yourself telling me how great movies were in the 90's and that it's somehow comparable to the 70's - when NO ONE in their right mind would say that the 90's was a better decade or even close to the 70's for movies. Seeing a handful of classic 70's classics doesn't make your opinion valid.

You're telling me you have seen a majority of films from the 2000's? From the 90's? From the 80's? From the 70's? From the 60's? From the 50's? From the 40's? From the 30's? From the 20's? You telling me you've seen A MAJORITY of the millions of films made and thus you can determine which decade is better than the others?

I doubt even Tarantino has seen a majority of everything.

[Hey Man]

You're telling me you have seen a majority of films from the 2000's? From the 90's? From the 80's? From the 70's? From the 60's? From the 50's? From the 40's? From the 30's? From the 20's? You telling me you've seen A MAJORITY of the millions of films made and thus you can determine which decade is better than the others?

I doubt even Tarantino has seen a majority of everything.

I have seen the majority of movies from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and this decade so far with the exception of horror movies for the most part, because I am not really interested in the genre within exception.

[LordSimen]

I have seen the majority of movies from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and this decade so far with the exception of horror movies for the most part, because I am not really interested in the genre within exception.

Alright, let's take a random year... Let's say... 1972!

http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Years/1972/

IMDB reports about 5217 titles released that year. Granted, there's a lot of television episodes included in there, but even still, can you tell me how much out of that 5000+ titles released that year you can accurately say you have seen in that year alone?

[Hey Man]

Alright, let's take a random year... Let's say... 1972!

http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Years/1972/

IMDB reports about 5217 titles released that year. Granted, there's a lot of television episodes included in there, but even still, can you tell me how much out of that 5000+ titles released that year you can accurately say you have seen in that year alone?

There's a whole lot more than "just a lot" of television episodes there, but ultimately I can't just give you a number. I don't count the movies that I have seen as in 1, 2, 3, 4,5453, 4,5454, etc. But if you actually provide a list of all the MOVIES from 1972, I can tell you what I have seen.

[LordSimen]

There's a whole lot more than "just a lot" of television episodes there, but ultimately I can't just give you a number. I don't count the movies that I have seen as in 1, 2, 3, 4,5453, 4,5454, etc. But if you actually provide a list of all the MOVIES from 1972, I can tell you what I have seen.

Here ya go. (http://www.2shared.com/file/7095742/5bac2147/movies1972.html)