A little Rant I have,paying for 85 mintues for a movie

[blankpage]

Recently studios have been bashing out many movies that barely reach the 90 minute mark.I know it is to boost the money for the studios,so more screenings can be hold.Some examples of these are Jurrasic Park III,Men in Black II,Halloween Ressurection,The Master of Disgiuse, and the most recent flop(crittically) Swimfan.

Now this is rubbish in my opinion.Make in the old days most of the films were way over 90 mintues,look at Gone with the Wind.It was almost 4 hours.And it was and still is one of the highest grossing films to date.In fact if your did the numbers right,Gone with the Wind made more then Titanic in today's numbers.

This is usually done by the mainstream movies,but look at My Nig Fat Greek Wedding as well.It was 1 hour and 50 mins.And it made over 100 million.

I think that you don't have to make a movie under 90 mins to make the bis $$$.If it gets good buzz,and good audience reaction,your on easy street.

Anyone else want to share their views on this??

[Nate6]

See, film studios think we're a bunch of know-nothing losers with ADHD. Movies need to be as quick and as satisfying as possible, or so they think, because otherwise we get bored and go back to running on our wheels. Look at Michael Bay, his shots are rarely static for more than a few seconds. It's because they think we should be pandered down to. Unfortunately, some people do need to be pandered down to, so the shorter and faster a movie is for them, the better.

And one way you know a film is bad is that it is likely short. The shorter a bad movie is, the less an angry fan may hate it. It's a logical tactic, I suppose. And it can sometimes be cheaper to make a shorter film, production time should be shorter in most cases.

But I hate paying nine bucks to see a movie that's only an hour and 25 minutes long. It sucks! Even if it's a bad movie, at least try to keep me slightly entertained for the money I pay! Ugh...

[FeverDog420]

I don't think your average A.D.D.-afflicted gum-smacking mallrat is to blame (although they don't help). Hollywood makes its money at the box office, and shorter movies mean more shows per day.

And one way you know a film is bad is that it is likely short.

I disagree. A movie's length doesn't dictate its quality; there're plenty of suckass movies that run at least two hours: Armageddon, The Postman, Patch Adams, Batman & Robin, Battlefied Earth, The Bodyguard, Last Action Hero, Showgirls, The Lost World, Heaven's Gate, Wyatt Earp, Christopher Columbus: The Discovery, Mommie Dearest...and the mother of them all, Pearl Harbor.

And there's loads of good movies that are under ninety minutes long. Think of the Airplane! and Naked Gun movies, and the Evil Dead trilogy. Pi and The Blair Witch Project. Run Lola Run. Animated favorites, Disney and otherwise. Best in Show, Wet Hot American Summer, and, of course, Pootie Tang. ;)

Yes, comedies work better if they don't wear out their welcome, but, generally, an "epic" film can suck (just ask Kevin Costner).

And, BTW, films made pre-television were an average ninety minutes long. They became longer to compete with the newfangled boob tube.

[Moviefan1234]

I don't have a problem with shorter movies. I do have a problem when they make movies shorter just to get more times in per day. I think if the movie will be best at 95 minutes then make it at 95 minutes. If it will be best at 110 minutes make it 110 minutes and not shorter.

[Country1969]

Movies should be between 90 -120 minutes. Let us get our money's worth. I find movies that are less hen 90 minutes to be an insult to us movie watchers. Many people also bitch longer movies saying,"I like the movie but it was too long." People should be happy for longer movies. Why would you want to hand over your money for a short time of entertainment. I can't figure people out. I know I get mad when I watch a good tv show and the next thing you know is over or a "To BE CONTINUE". We want length.

[tbone]

Not all short movies are awful. Look at Hitchcock's The 39 Steps which clocks in around 87 minutes. 39 Steps is a very exciting movie that if it went on any longer it would have gotten boring pretty quickly. Even look at Planes, Trains, and Automobiles which was a great comedy. I rather spend money on a great 90 minute movie then waste it on a 150 minute movie which will also waste my time.

[the movie guy]

I think most movies should run at 100 minutes in length, while epics and huge, plot-filled movies should run anywhere from 100 to 210, but no longer before putting "To Be Continued".

Any idea for a movie that can't fill up 100 minutes of film, but is longer than 80 minutes (meaning, not a "short film") probably shouldn't be made nowadays. Some movies made before the 90's are an exception, i.e., my favorite movie. :D

I believe 80 minutes is the minimum length a "feature-length film" can be in Hollywood, but I think it should be, at the very LEAST, 90.

[PackBacker]

Easy to solution to your problem- don't go see the film. As movie admission prices continue to soar I think people will probably become even more selective on what they see. IMDB.com can give you the specs of the film and if you don't fancy dropping $8 on 82 minutes of the latest awful Halloween cop-out then wait until it comes to the discount theater or as a rental.

[TheHitcher2]

Originally posted by Nate6
See, film studios think we're a bunch of know-nothing losers with ADHD. Movies need to be as quick and as satisfying as possible, or so they think, because otherwise we get bored and go back to running on our wheels.

Adding onto Nate's fine statement...it's interesting because if you ask the general public (not just movie fans) about the quality of the films that hit theaters nowadays, a vast majority will tell you that there have only been a few good movies in the last few years. They'll still pay to see "Hollywood A-List" in "Star Vehicle" every Friday, but they'd probably rather see "Hollywood A-List" in "Good Movie".

So, in theory, wouldn't Hollywood's big studios make more money by taking the time and effort to sort through the shitty concepts and rewrites to find an ACTUAL QUALITY SCRIPT?

Just my opinion at least.

[Raena]

I thought less time just meant that they could show the movie more. Capitalism at its finest.

[NobodySpecial]

Exhibitors (ie movie theatres) prefer shorter movies to longer ones because it allows them to have more showings per screen, which means more people get in the door, which means more people buy popcorn and drinks (that's how they make money). So there's a lot of pressure from exhibitors to keep films short. Unless the film is going to knock the audiences socks off (LOTR) it's in the best interest of the studio to cut the film down to as short as possible (within reason).

I can understand the logic, but I prefer 90-120 minute movies myself. Anything shorter and I feel cheated. Anything longer and I get bored. But that's just me.

[Ronaldinho]

I'd rather see 85 minutes of great cinema than 110 average minutes, and I'll take too short over too long any day.

[Moviefan1234]

Originally posted by Ronaldinho
I'd rather see 85 minutes of great cinema than 110 average minutes, and I'll take too short over too long any day.

Same here.

[AgentSmith]

Well, since some people have the attention spans of 5 seconds.. This explains why movies are so damn short...

[blankpage]

I know there is preasure,but fuck.These fat cats get enough money as it is,charging you for the tickets and such.I'd rather see a three hour movie,have my ass sore and sleepy,and come out smiling.Then sit for what is like 2 mintues and have a waste of money.In my opinion the system is fuck.Back in the day,things weren't like this.They were allowed to make long movies,and they brought in the big bucks.Because they liked the movie!.An 85 minute flick can debut at no1,but then go down to number8 like that!Though a longer movie which are usually good,gets people coming back,and back.

It just pisses me off how the system works sometimes.

[Sugar Magnolia]

At least if it's bad you're out quickly.

[TheHitcher2]

Originally posted by Sugar Magnolia
At least if it's bad you're out quickly.

What about XXX?

[Ronaldinho]

Originally posted by blankpage
I know there is preasure,but fuck.These fat cats get enough money as it is,charging you for the tickets and such.I'd rather see a three hour movie,have my ass sore and sleepy,and come out smiling.Then sit for what is like 2 mintues and have a waste of money.In my opinion the system is fuck.Back in the day,things weren't like this.They were allowed to make long movies,and they brought in the big bucks.Because they liked the movie!.An 85 minute flick can debut at no1,but then go down to number8 like that!Though a longer movie which are usually good,gets people coming back,and back.


People still make three hour movies--or did you somehow miss Titanic and Boogie Nights and Magnolia and... I could go on. AOTC was 2:20. LOTR was close to three.

With the exception of animation, any time under two hours is really all about the same to the studio. Much longer than that and the theater gets fewer screenings per night, which is a problem. But they don't make more money on an 85 minute movie than they do on a 95 minute one.

Most of the time when you see an 85-minute non-animated movie, the reason is simply that the writer struggled to come up with enough meaningful plot elements to fill up a longer film. Stuff got cut in the editing room. Stuff played faster than was anticipated at the script stage.

Generally, movies that are expected to open slow are given more lattitude when it comes to legnth. With advertising-campaign driven films, the distributors want to maximize the return on their advertising, so they want as many screenigns as possible on the first couple of weekends. But beyond this, quality really doens't factor into it.

And there were plenty of 90 minute movies made in the "old days."

Nobody is ever going to begrudge a film 10 or 15 minutes (that don't push the running time over two hours) so long as those minutes make the film better.

It when they're empty filler that they end up on the editing room floor.

[AppleHuntr]

My Big Fat Greek Wedding's running time is 95 minutes, INCLUDING credits, so it is a short movie, although I dont really think a movies running time has anything to do with its grosses, I think whoevers decision this was wasnt based on fact that more showings=more money. Most people see the regular shows (the 7's and 9's) anyways, and am I the only one that thinks that is is stupid that theaters are open ALL DAY during the week, how many people will see a noon show on a tuesday anyways? I can understand during the summer but not now.

[Ronaldinho]

Originally posted by AppleHuntr
Most people see the regular shows (the 7's and 9's) anyways, and am I the only one that thinks that is is stupid that theaters are open ALL DAY during the week, how many people will see a noon show on a tuesday anyways? I can understand during the summer but not now.

Well, ask yourself this:

How many people have to see shows to make it worthwhile for the theater to stay open for an extra showing?

You figure that the theater needs maybe three or four employees to run. Somebody to sell tickets, someone to take them. One person behind the counter and a projectionist (with the amount of automation going on, they really only need one projectionist for several screens.)

Say you pay them each $7 an hour. An extra show runs two hours. $7x2hoursx4people=$42 bucks.

If you have enough people coming in the door to make $42 after you pay the studio it's cut, you're making money. Assume the studio takes half of the gate, and nobody buys any candy, that means you need 16 people to come in to make it worth the theater's while. That number will drop as people buy the high-profit items like candy and soda.

If you've got four screens, that's only four people per screen.

(You would never build a theater if you only expected to get 16 people per show, but the point is if you already have the theater and have to pay the same amount in rent anyway, the only costs you have to defray to come out ahead are labor.

[Invincible]

Originally posted by FeverDog420
and, of course, Pootie Tang. ;)

wHaT!? :eek: man you gotta be on serious crack if you think Pootie Tang was great or good! wow! Pootie Tang, what the fudge man!

[blankpage]

Originally posted by Invincible
wHaT!? :eek: man you gotta be on serious crack if you think Pootie Tang was great or good! wow! Pootie Tang, what the fudge man!

Dude,I think he was joking :cool:

[BubbaStrangelove]

There are some good 90- minute movies, and some bad ones.

Punch Drunk Love
wag The Dog

[blankpage]

That is true,it's just when studios cut the film just to make some $$$ and ruin the film that really ticks me off.

[Rocco]

My Nig Fat Greek Wedding

Hahahaha, sorry...

[BubbaStrangelove]

If I'm not mistaken, The Royal Tenenbaums was under 100 minutes.

[flowrchild]

I don't really have any problems with short movies. There was a time there where it seemed like ALL movies being released were a good 30-40 minutes longer than they needed to be.

Short movies can be good because you enjoy the movie and get to leave before you start becoming antsy and it starts losing its oomph. That's how I feel about it, anyway.

[Jason]

Let's not forget the live action film "Inspector Gadget" that clocked in at 77 minutes including credits. Now, that is sad

[AppleHuntr]

Originally posted by Ronaldinho
Well, ask yourself this:

How many people have to see shows to make it worthwhile for the theater to stay open for an extra showing?

You figure that the theater needs maybe three or four employees to run. Somebody to sell tickets, someone to take them. One person behind the counter and a projectionist (with the amount of automation going on, they really only need one projectionist for several screens.)

Say you pay them each $7 an hour. An extra show runs two hours. $7x2hoursx4people=$42 bucks.

If you have enough people coming in the door to make $42 after you pay the studio it's cut, you're making money. Assume the studio takes half of the gate, and nobody buys any candy, that means you need 16 people to come in to make it worth the theater's while. That number will drop as people buy the high-profit items like candy and soda.

If you've got four screens, that's only four people per screen.

(You would never build a theater if you only expected to get 16 people per show, but the point is if you already have the theater and have to pay the same amount in rent anyway, the only costs you have to defray to come out ahead are labor.

I work in a theater(hey, im only 16), so make that an average 5.50 an hour (lol, kinda) and running the theater is very expensive because of the amount of electricity used. My theater is a small one (only 2 screens, and theaters with less than 10 screens a a rarity) and we dont have all day shows on week days (except during the summer) so I dont know how many people would show up on a tuesday afternoon for a movie that could have been out for a few weeks. I dunno what Im talking about, I guess if they keep doing it it must be somewhat profitable.