Movie Over 2 Hours

[PyroChamber]

Are people nowadays really that unwilling to watch a movie that goes over 2 hours?

One of the few things complained about with Spider-Man 3, Grindhouse, and even POTC: At World's End (from fans and critics) was that they were "too long". It almost makes me wonder if The Godfather were released these days instead of 1972, would people complain about it being 175 minutes.

 

[Mr. Credible]

some movies need to be that long, sure, but normally, 2 hours is perfect.

superman returns didn't need to be that long. at world's end, spider-man 3, lord of the rings? nope. needlessly long. long just for the sake of it, i guess.

 

[Tempest19]

In your opinion. Hey, it's not our fault if you can't sit your ass in the seat for a reasonable amount of time.

 

[Bat Attack]

Obviously people are willing to watch them. Look at the huge numbers Spidey 3 and Pirates are bringing in, so complaints about length (mostly from critics) aren't bothering the studios. I really don't see the problem either, unless you have ADD or something. If you don't want to see a movie over two hours than don't go see it.

 

[Darth Elektra]

I'm sure their are alot of kids who get bored but I like the runtime of two hour movies.

 

[Bat Attack]

I like the runtime of two hour movies.

Me too, I don't care how long it is as long as the story is well developed as well as the characters.

 

[Mr. Credible]

In your opinion. Hey, it's not our fault if you can't sit your ass in the seat for a reasonable amount of time.

how about if you don't be a turd about it, hm? there's no need for that.

3 and a half hours for a movie that could easily be done in 2 is not reasonable. grindhouse had a reason for being that long, even if death proof sucked something fierce, it still justified making the whole thing that long.

pirates 3 and especially all the lord of the rings had no call being that long, at all.

i have no qualms with long movies, as long as there's a reason for it, and they're not boring.

 

[Darth Elektra]

Me too, I don't care how long it is as long as the story is well developed as well as the characters.

Exactly.

 

[Tempest19]

Grindhouse actually didn't have a reason to be that long- I see twenty minutes that should be cut immediately.

But, I don't want fckin' Fox cuts of films that turn out be this length just because some kid has ADD.

Lord of the Rings did NEED it. If you took out more time you would have a fckin' fox cut version of it.

The public has seriously fallen- look at Shakespeare's time. Spending most hours of the day in a theater for a play. Now people complain about 2 hrs and 40-50 minutes max.

They don't film it to be long, it just turns up that way in the editing room. The head of Fox is the kind that says, "audience has ADD, cut it down to bare bones even if most of the actual story is hacked and destroyed." But, a film that is tight enough for the full story to be told- that's great. That's what is needed. Not some hacked story for those viewers who can't sit in the theater for a long time.

 

[PowersOfMind]

I'm sure their are alot of kids who get bored but I like the runtime of two hour movies.

I like movies that are 2 hours or longer. My father, whenever we talk about action movies his first question is "how long is it?". If it over two hours we have a better hope for the film. Sure there are cases where you can get a good story and good action in under two hours but I can't think of many off the top of my head.

all the lord of the rings had no call being that long, at all.

To do those books justice on film those movies NEEDED to be as long as they were.

 

[Tempest19]

Exactly!

Cutting a film/story for run times sake is the most idiotic and Fox move I have ever heard suggested.

A film should be cut around the time it is needed for the STORY to be told, not around the run time!

Daredevil theatrical vs. Daredevil director's cut is the PERFECT example between the differences of the above.

 

[PowersOfMind]

Yeah FOX does love to butcher films. Look at the difference between Kingdom of Heaven(Theater release) and Kingdom of Heaven (Director's Cut). When I saw the Director's Cut I was wondering how they hell they cut out soo much of the movie.

 

[Mr. Credible]

To do those books justice on film those movies NEEDED to be as long as they were.

i don't care if the movies did the books justice or not... the movies were BORING!

half an hour of people walking alone could've been cut from each movie.

i agree that the short "fox" movies are just as aggrivating, though. they're on the opposite end of the spectrum.

 

[Tempest19]

Yeah FOX does love to butcher films. Look at the difference between Kingdom of Heaven(Theater release) and Kingdom of Heaven (Director's Cut). When I saw the Director's Cut I was wondering how they hell they cut out soo much of the movie.

Exactly.

And Mr. Credible all I can say is THANK GOD YOU ARE NOT IN CHARGE OF HOLLYWOOD! t:

 

[Mr. Credible]

whatever.

 

[PowersOfMind]

i don't care if the movies did the books justice or not... the movies were BORING!

The point was for the films to do the books justice. Fans of the book(like myself) would have been very upset if Jackson had done anything less than what he did with those films. To tell the story and tell it well he did and excellent job.

A lot of book-to-film translations get butchered in the process and I'm glad that didnt happen with LOTR.

 

[kytrigger]

There is nothgin wrong with a movie over 2 or 3 hours as long as that time is what the movie needs to tell it's story. Some movies do need that time, but IMO there are many movies now that are just making themselves longer to feel more "epic", like making it longer means it is a better movie, which just isn't true.

Many films can be done in a 2 hour or less timeframe without having to sacrifice anything important.

 

[Drizzle]

I've come to the realization that it's not the movie being long that's the problem. It's the wait. On opening weekends of movies, you have to get there an hour early if you want to get good seats. Then there's the previews, which could take another 15-20 minutes. So you're there for nearly an hour and a half before the movie starts. It didn't bother me with POTC, but I can see why it would aggrivate some people.

 

[The Amazing Lee]

If a movie is great and tells a good story...then it doesn't matter how long it is.

Heck it takes well over 10 hours to tell the whole Lord of the Rings story, even if it is broken down into 3 films.

 

[demitri_vampiro]

some movies need to be longer some don't . sm3 could have been 40 minutes shorter. LotR and pirates had nice runningtimes.

 

[The Amazing Lee]

Nah, Spider-man was fine, I just think that it could have been edited slightly better in places.

 

[Tempest19]

Nope, there was enough story missing as is any more it would look like Fox took it and spit it back out.

 

[The Amazing Lee]

Which film are you talking about?

 

[Spider-Fan]

It depends on the movie. Short runtimes work for some, not so well for others. Same with longer ones.

 

[Tempest19]

Which film are you talking about?

Same post you were replying to dude.