Comments on: Open Forum Friday: Are Movies Too Long Nowadays?

By: LOLfunnyguy

LOLfunnyguy — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:45:14 +0000

Hey

Im new here and just wanted to say yoo, hello, hey, or ne other forms of it……..

By: Glendon

Glendon — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:37:32 +0000

I 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.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:06:13 +0000

I’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!

By: rick

rick — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:56:32 +0000

I’ll agree with you on that one dave.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:41:47 +0000

I 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.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:58:06 +0000

This 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.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:19:21 +0000

If 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.

By: rick

rick — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:37:46 +0000

i 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.

By: Byron

Byron — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:21:41 +0000

A good film is never too long.

By: Tord S Eriksson

Tord S Eriksson — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:16:51 +0000

I 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!

By: Hugo

Hugo — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:35:58 +0000

Some 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.

By: Cipher

Cipher — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:12:11 +0000

The 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.