|
|
Post by Hey Man on Oct 10, 2011 4:46:28 GMT -5
OK so I grew up in a time where most movies were over 2 hours and that included children's films (hell, the credits alone for Superman The Movie were 10 minutes long). So having said that, as a film enthusiast - I like it when a movie is long. I could have watched 3 more hours of Heat, Boogie Nights and many other films. I want to feel like I am watching a movie - not taking a small break.
Now don't get me wrong, I am certainly not begging the studios to give us 3 hour Adam Sandler comedies or that 4 hour cut of Wild Hogs that LED is dying to see, but I don't get this notion that two hours is too long. Maybe it's an ADD thing, but I often hear people and critics that say that a movie was too long and I am surprised to see that the movie was actually two hours or just short of two hours.
I see it like this - 2 hours should be deemed the minimum for a movie - not 90 minutes. Again, I am not saying that all movies should be 2 hours, but I don't think one should really start complaining at the 2 hour mark. If it goes past that, then you may have a reason to complain. For me, a TV show is an hour (if we are talking about a drama for example) - so it makes sense that a movie would be TWO hours - clarifying the difference between movies and TV.
There are so many movies that are over before they really begin and they could have used 10 to even 40 minutes more story to simply make a better film, but often the studio fucks it up and we are left with some 89 minute movie. While I have watched many DVD's with crappy deleted scenes that made sense to cut them, I have watched even more deleted scenes where I wondered why they didn't leave them in the film.
Certainly there are some great 90 minute movies, but I don't think one should strive for that. If it takes 2 hours to tell a story, then so be it. Why the fuck are people even looking at their watches just because it's two hours now? Bored they may be, but do most people prefer short movies to 2 hour (never mind 3 hour) epics?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vandelay Industries on Oct 10, 2011 10:58:30 GMT -5
those days of 2-hour movies being the norm & not the exception are gone. i'm not in the biz, but i bet it's less of an ADD thing & more of a "longer movies = fewer screenings = less $$$$ coming in" thing....
|
|
|
|
Post by R&ROVER on Oct 10, 2011 11:16:05 GMT -5
The original Halloween is PERFECT the way it runs now, just a tad under 90 I believe? I wouldn't add or subtract a moment from it. It all depends.
I think movies tend to run too long. Editing is a bit of a lost art with many films. I find more needlessly longish than disappointingly (or dysfunctionally) short.
That said, I also wouldn't edit too much out of Apocalypse Now (actually enjoy the even longer director's cut!!), the Lord Of The Rings films (also better longer, IMO), etc. Depends entirely on the story to be told and the people invovled I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Oct 11, 2011 6:11:20 GMT -5
I agree with that. My favorite film is Taxi Driver and that runs slightly under 2 hours. Though it does seem a lot of dramas these days take the easy way out and have the characters spouting off exposition rather than having a movie flow naturally. Worst De Niro film ever. |
|
|
|
Post by lugnut on Oct 11, 2011 10:27:44 GMT -5
I tend to take R&ROVER's position that most films these says seem too long if anything. If it's a truly great movie, I don't have a problem with it running over 2 hours...but usually (lately) the long ones aren't that great.
How long do the Transformers flicks run, like 2-and-a-half hours? It really takes that long to tell a story about robots from outer space? And the ones that really get me are comedies. The 40-Year Old Virgin was already a long movie for what it is, but the director's cut on DVD runs like 2:15. For a silly sex-joke comedy that's borderline audience abuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by R&ROVER on Oct 11, 2011 10:44:47 GMT -5
I like Taxi Driver. However, I'll say that I have a penchant for later Scorsese films.
As influential, say, as Mean Streets has been (no doubt), Scorsese and others have done that very film much better since. I think that film gets too many back pats, personally. The acting is fine...but the story is about an hour's worth of an episode of Homicide Life On The Streets stretched into 2 or more hours...and not half as interesting as a better Paul Attanasio story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Oct 11, 2011 11:20:05 GMT -5
Can I ban you? You got that mixed up with those Meet The Fockers movies... You just can't appreciate art can you? |
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Oct 11, 2011 11:23:01 GMT -5
I tend to take R&ROVER's position that most films these says seem too long if anything. If it's a truly great movie, I don't have a problem with it running over 2 hours...but usually (lately) the long ones aren't that great. How long do the Transformers flicks run, like 2-and-a-half hours? It really takes that long to tell a story about robots from outer space? And the ones that really get me are comedies. The 40-Year Old Virgin was already a long movie for what it is, but the director's cut on DVD runs like 2:15. For a silly sex-joke comedy that's borderline audience abuse. While I agree with you in theory about Transformers, the same can be said for a guy in a batsuit - does it really need to be 2 and a half hours long? I say yes, but certainly others may say that a Batman movie doesn't need to be that long. Totally disagree about Virgin - love the directors cut of that and Knocked Up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2011 13:22:17 GMT -5
I agree that it's really a case by case scenario. Really the bigger point is the idea that a story should be told in whatever amount of time it takes to properly tell the story, NOT in the amount of time that some studio exec thinks audiences will respond to.
And if its a bad movie to start with then no amount of editing or adding will fix it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Oct 20, 2023 11:42:46 GMT -5
This seems appropriate to revisit since directors are making longer movies these days. I have no problem with the 3 hour movies coming out these days. This isn't to say that they couldn't be some editing down of some of those movies, but I support the director's vision. I don't complain like some people do just hearing how long the movie is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joma on Oct 20, 2023 11:48:39 GMT -5
I don't mind a really long movie if it's really good, but it's gotta be really good or it just feels like they shoulda edited it down. Not that I need 90 min...two hours is fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by kissoff on Oct 20, 2023 22:35:40 GMT -5
I agree with that. My favorite film is Taxi Driver and that runs slightly under 2 hours. Though it does seem a lot of dramas these days take the easy way out and have the characters spouting off exposition rather than having a movie flow naturally. Worst De Niro film ever. I agree. Very disappointed after finally seeing it. I basically thought it sucked. Was nothing like I imagined was going to be like. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 21, 2023 0:00:35 GMT -5
I'm teaching myself to write screenplays at the moment (by adapting classic ghost stories from the late 19th and early 20th centuries if anyone cares) and, as a beginner, I stick very firmly to ninety pages, ninety minutes.
That may change as my understanding of the format grows and I develop more confidence. For now I feel most of the longer movies I watch would lose nothing if their makers cut twenty minutes or half an hour. Smile is a good two hour film that would make a great 90 minute one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 21, 2023 0:05:14 GMT -5
I have no problem with the 3 hour movies coming out these days. This isn't to say that they couldn't be some editing down of some of those movies, but I support the director's vision. Oppenheimer is very impressive and Messrs Murphy and Downey Jr are magnificent and magnetic in their roles, but I felt the structure and pacing weren't all they could have been. The last act feels ponderous and anti climactic compared with what comes before. I would have interspersed more of that material with the earlier scenes at Los Alamos and had the storylines run in parallel. Nolan is no stranger to this sort of narrative and, to be frank, I'm a little disappointed he chose a straightforward, linear approach. Memento did the opposite and was all the better for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Oct 21, 2023 0:15:25 GMT -5
I'm teaching myself to write screenplays at the moment (by adapting classic ghost stories from the late 19th and early 20th centuries if anyone cares) and, as a beginner, I stick very firmly to ninety pages, ninety minutes. That may change as my understanding of the format grows and I develop more confidence. For now I feel most of the longer movies I watch would lose nothing if their makers cut twenty minutes or half an hour. Smile is a good two hour film that would make a great 90 minute one. Oh of course. If one is just starting out or trying to do an indie film, you are not writing a 3 hour movie out of the gate. The project I was doing was over 90 minutes, but closer to that vs. a full two hours. Sometimes it becomes a case of just not wanting to take out scenes that you love - even if they may not technically be essential to the story, but they still add to the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by kissoff on Oct 21, 2023 0:22:08 GMT -5
I'm teaching myself to write screenplays at the moment (by adapting classic ghost stories from the late 19th and early 20th centuries if anyone cares) and, as a beginner, I stick very firmly to ninety pages, ninety minutes. That may change as my understanding of the format grows and I develop more confidence. For now I feel most of the longer movies I watch would lose nothing if their makers cut twenty minutes or half an hour. Smile is a good two hour film that would make a great 90 minute one. Oh of course. If one is just starting out or trying to do an indie film, you are not writing a 3 hour movie out of the gate. The project I was doing was over 90 minutes, but closer to that vs. a full two hours. Sometimes it becomes a case of just not wanting to take out scenes that you love - even if they may not technically be essential to the story, but they still add to the movie. What was your film about. |
|
|
|
Post by Hey Man on Oct 21, 2023 0:27:34 GMT -5
Oh of course. If one is just starting out or trying to do an indie film, you are not writing a 3 hour movie out of the gate. The project I was doing was over 90 minutes, but closer to that vs. a full two hours. Sometimes it becomes a case of just not wanting to take out scenes that you love - even if they may not technically be essential to the story, but they still add to the movie. What was your film about. It was an indie mafia type film. |
|
