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? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.
Comments (29)
I’m glad this topic was posted and am curious to see what other people have to say.
Honestly, I’m a big fan of movies that run, you know 90-100 minutes. I like them short and sweet. The problem with the longer movies these days (and I’m specifically thinking of the painful 2 and a half hours of Transformers 2 and Terminator’s almost 2) is not necessarily the length, but the fact that nothing -happens- DURING that period of time. Would Transformers 2 have been a better movie if it had come in around 90 minutes or so? Well, who knows. But a rambling story line that tacks on extra minutes does nothing to help interminable run lengths.
I’m all for 2+ hour films if I’m into it. But once you start checking your phone/watch/whatever then forget about it. In general, though, I’d like to see writers learn to condense their blockbuster scripts. Maybe it could save the story, maybe not…
Posted by Falsk on July 17th, 2009I don’t think movies have gotten any longer than they used to be. If you look back at the 50s and 60s you’ll find all sorts of epic length movies like Ben-Hur and whatnot.
Personally I like more of a good thing and I’m sick of the ADD mentality which makes people complain about the length of movies that aren’t even two hours long. If I’m enjoying the movie I’ll probably enjoy it for three hours, and if I can’t enjoy it for two hours I probably won’t like it much better at 90 minutes. Tranformers was going to be stupid at any length, and if Che had been 90 minutes long I would have only felt like I was being robbed of a lot of good material.
Posted by MJS on July 17th, 2009certain films require the length, but 90% of those aren’t blockbusters.
Posted by Mitch on July 17th, 2009I agree that there is a problem in Hollywood that is a by-product of the current simple concept, blockbuster films. Hollywood has created a monster because the big blockbusters concentrate on huge opening weekends and need to make the film an “event”, therefore, the budget and length get blown way out of proportion. I think Jay summed it up best saying that these current “tentpoles” are the B movies of the eighties and by design should be shorter. Somewhere, the suits justified wasting their own money on to many set pieces and multiple endings. Or, maybe the problem is they shot all of the action to cover lack of story or endings.
As an audience we are to blame too because some of the old flicks would never survive today with their slow pacing. I’m always amazed at watching something I really liked from the 80s and how noticeably slow it is by today standards.
Posted by rus in chicago on July 17th, 2009Bring back the intermission. And also, yes The Never Ending Story was under 2 hours. They knew what they were doing in the 80’s.
Posted by Ian on July 17th, 2009I don’t mind the length of a movie if it is engaging, but it does get annoying when a movie over stays its welcome.
I’ve seen plenty of 80 minute movies that seem to just go on forever.
Posted by Nick D on July 17th, 2009Looks like I might be in the minority… here goes… I wish a lot of movies were longer.
Boom. I said it.
I like my movies epic. It’s hard to do epic in 100 minutes. For example, I watched Valkyrie last night. I’ll confess to not knowing the length or bothering now to look it up, but it felt short. It should have been epic. It was about a one armed, one eyed, Nazi trying to assasinate friggin’ Hitler for God’s sake. It should have been EEEEEEEEEEEEEPIC!!! It wasn’t. Why? Not enough time to craft the tale properly (and I think it was directed by Micahel Bay?).
You make more money with Shorter movies because they can play more often in theaters. Similarly, maninstream musical artists songs rarely exceed 3 minutes so that the station can squeeze in more advertisers.
Posted by Shut-Up Ed on July 17th, 2009I don’t think it matters how long a movie is as long as it is an enjoyable experience and things are happening.
Running time and pace are two separate things.
It makes sense for movies to be shorter during times when people aren’t off work. People tolerated the lengths of Lord of the Rings because they were out around time Christmas when days could be set aside especially for that.
Money wise it makes sense for a movie to be shorter.
Why was The Dark Knight so long for me? Because I thought it was so fucking cheesy, full of bad dialogue, and crappy side characters. For one of the highest grossing movies in the world, it has no memorable scenes or iconic moments for the casual film goer.
Posted by David Wilson on July 17th, 2009If a movie has to be 2 and half hours long to tell its story, then I have no issue with it. Unfortunately alot of movies dont need to be 2 and half hours long. Transformers could easily be done in an hour and half, 2 hours. I suppose it all comes down to story being told.
Though, its interesting, TV is now starting to pump out film quality productions on a weekly basis for an hour per show. I suppose movies do have to make it seem like it’s worth the money you are forking over, and length is a way of doing that? Maybe?
Posted by Captain N on July 17th, 2009Length isn’t an issue for me. I think the problem most people have when they say a movie is “too long,” is rather that the editing could have been a little tighter. I have no problem with watching a very long movie if every scene is there to serve a purpose. If it takes five hours to tell the story properly, I’m fine with sitting and watching it. If it takes an hour and change to tell the story, but its been padded with a bunch of stuff that should have been cut, then its “too long.”
Posted by James on July 17th, 2009I wish more movies were longer. Not the shitty Hollywood big-budget action movies, but the independent films that need that extra push.
I saw Che, and it was brilliant. I had absolutely no problems sitting in the theater for 4 hours to watch that, because that’s how long the movie needed to tell it’s story.
Magnolia is one of my absolute favorite movies. It is in excess of 3 hours.
Posted by Alex on July 17th, 2009“Length isn’t an issue for me.”
Me either. Hi-yo!
Posted by Shut-Up Ed on July 17th, 2009I am one of those few praying that the almost 4-hour cut of ‘The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford’ is sometime released. So I suppose that illustrates my feelings regarding long films. If a film can maintain my interest for that long and not become derivative or repetitive than why not?
Posted by Booma on July 18th, 2009“Are Movies Too Long Nowadays?”
Yes.
Posted by Wintle on July 18th, 2009There’s nothing better than a real epic movie. The extended versions of the three LOTR films were far superior in my opinion,and have a further three hours of footage between them. It’s difficult to see how Star Trek or Watchmen could have been cut. There’s no excuse for padding out rubbish though; so I guess some films will be too long, some too short and some will be just right; it’s at the discretion of the director and the studio should keep out of it.
Posted by Paul Andrews on July 18th, 2009I think they are too long. Transformers 2 could have edited out alot of useless crap and still would have made as much sense as the film did(if any), “The Dark Knight” IMO could have ended after the hospital scene, and don’t even get me started on how too long “King Kong” was.
Posted by Matt Keith on July 18th, 2009I do not think that movies are getting too long. It is the fact that the filmmakers somehow got the idea that a good movie needs to be long, so they extend the story with irrelevant events and side characters.
Therefore, I think poorly written stories, are the core of the problem. If someone just could remind them of the golden rule, if there is a gun on the mantel in Act I, it must go off in Act III.
Then maybe we could enjoy more movies, which would be captivating enough, so that we forgot all about time.
Posted by Ken on July 18th, 2009The question should be “are bad movies too long nowadays?”
and the answer is Fu** yeah.
Good movies have always been long(with some exception) and they will always be, because when a movie is good time doesn’t matter.
Posted by Cipher on July 18th, 2009Some need length and others don’t. I think transformers 2. Would have been great at about 90 mins or 100 mins. Not the 2 1/2 hours it was. There was a good hour in the movie that was pointless.
I still wish that I could back 6 hours from LOTR.
Posted by Hugo on July 19th, 2009I once worked at a film club of sorts (Hagabion, Gothenburg, Sweden) and it had very old projectors, with forced us to have an intermission, in which tea, or coffee was served, while others relieved themselves, and the film, so far, discussed. Was a delight in every way, not least if the film was a wee bit long, like The Band, or 2001.
Long films have been around a long time though, like Around the World in 80 days, and Sound of Music, but in the old days they always had intermissions!
Posted by Tord S Eriksson on July 19th, 2009A good film is never too long.
Posted by Byron on July 20th, 2009i think weather or not the movie is to long or to short depends on the interest of the story being told and how well you like the movie at the time. Loved the dark knight (though the ending seemed to drag a little bit)so i didn’t mind sitting in the theater for all that time. Loved Transformers 2 as well. And i didn’t mind the length
Where as Titanic, 2001 space oddesy, Sahara etc….Then i couldn’t wait for the movie to be over and thought it never would be.
So i don’t think that the movie is to long, i just think your personal interest in the movie is to week.
When lord of the rings came out with all the bonus deleted scenes dvd’s people rushed and bought them. They didn’t care about length. Each movie being around 6 hrs. long each. But nobody cared because they each wanted to have more of the story. To not miss out on anything, so time became irrelevent when the interest in the story is entact.
To tell you the truth i wish each hp movie was split into two like the upcoming 7th movie (except for 1 and 2 they were to short). I’m a die hard fan of HP and could easily sit in the theater for 4 or 5 hours as long as they covered the full validity of the story and put everything in leaving nothing inexplained. HP 6 only cements my belief in that. Bring back the intermission. Make two seperate movies for people to go see, one with everything in it, and one cut for standard viewing time. Because they left out so much and explained nothing that besides being a great movie it was pointless. must be making it from a perspective that fans know and people who havnt seen the movie wouldn’t know that they don’t know so ignorence is bliss.
long post short, if your interested in the story being told then length is not a concern.
Posted by rick on July 20th, 2009If the Lord of the Rings trilogy can be that long and most of us weren’t even looking at our watch, then it’s obvious that a good story can be a long movie. A bad story (cough…Transformers 2) can’t be a long movie.
Posted by Chris on July 20th, 2009This would have to be argued on a case by case basis, each story requires different lengths to tell it. The movies that are getting the “LONG” treatment lately, are the blockbuster barely-even-a-story-there movies which certainly are not worthy of indulgent runtimes.
Magnolia was mentioned above as a good example of a great long movie. Ditto most of Sergio Leone’s epic films. I’d love to see the 4+ hour version of GREED, or the much lengthier and less hacked up version of GANGS OF NEW YORK. But Three Pirates of The Caribbean flicks that get longer with each entry? No Thanks.
I have a strong dislike of Ridley Scott’s trimmed “ALIEN” from 2003, the longer version established the mood better.
A number of art house films could do with a little trimming (Solyaris 1972 anyone?), but I can think of many other films that I’d have liked to be longer, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Posted by Kurt on July 20th, 2009I think a more pertinent argument should be about whether or not audience attention spans are getting shorter. On several occasions have I seen reviews on the Internet questioning things about a film that could be easily answered if the reviewer were paying better attention.
Posted by Dave on July 20th, 2009I’ll agree with you on that one dave.
Posted by rick on July 20th, 2009I’m of the believe that general audiences have always had short attention spans and suffer from a lack of attention.
That is the hump of the bell curve in every culture during every time.
/elitist snob!
Posted by Kurt on July 20th, 2009I like my movies to breathe, so I love long (but good) movies. I wonder how people today would react to an old movie like Bridge On The River Kwai. That movie takes its time and is still enjoyable. If a movie is long it allows me to “hang” with the characters, like Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown. However, when a long movie can breathe AND have a hyperactive pace, like Boogie Nights, then you have something special.
Posted by Glendon on July 21st, 2009Hey
Im new here and just wanted to say yoo, hello, hey, or ne other forms of it……..
Posted by LOLfunnyguy on July 23rd, 2009Leave a Reply