Running time

[Saitou Hajime]

Is there a mandate keeping the running time of Marvel Studios' films at 120+ minutes max, or is it possible to exceed it and go 130+ and even 15o minutes?

 

[TheVileOne]

Saitou, most studios and distribution chiefs generally like movies to keep them on the shorter side. The shorter, the better.

It's not simply about a mandate. It's about movie showtimes. The shorter the movie is, the more times you can show it at a theater during the day and that's more potential tickets sold. A longer movie can only make up for that at if it's on more screens, but big movie chains want to get the old stuff off the bigger screens and the new ones in ASAP generally.

Also most general moviegoers find movies over two hours to be too long and drawn out. Whenever you go over that length it can become an iffy balancing act, is this movie becoming too long? Things like that.

Also not every movie can be Return of the King or The Dark Knight.

Here's another point Saitou. As I recall, Spider-Man 3 was over your desired length of 140+ minutes. Did it really make the movie that much better? Movie length won't always make it better.

Sure The Ten Commandments might be four hours long, but Raiders of the lost Ark got in and got out in 115 minutes.

 

[cherokeesam]

It's not simply about a mandate. It's about movie showtimes. The shorter the movie is, the more times you can show it at a theater during the day and that's more potential tickets sold. A longer movie can only make up for that at if it's on more screens, but big movie chains want to get the old stuff off the bigger screens and the new ones in ASAP generally.

Also most general moviegoers find movies over two hours to be too long and drawn out. Whenever you go over that length it can become an iffy balancing act, is this movie becoming too long? Things like that.

But that "shorter movies = more screenings" doesn't always translate to bigger box office. In fact, when you look at a list of the top box office draws of all time, the chart-toppers almost always weigh in with epic (2.5 + hours) lengths. If a movie's fun and engrossing, audiences are perfectly willing to sit still awhile longer.

I subscribe to the theory that people go to movie theaters (as opposed to simply waiting to see films in the comfort of their own homes on cable, DVD, blu-ray or whatever) for social purposes. To get together with friends; to have a date; to have a family outing. That makes moviegoing a shared experience; and epic movies make that shared experience so much better. Movies lose so much of their impact when it's just you watching them on a small screen in your house, versus being there in a packed theater where every scene has so much more emotional resonance (whether it be laughs and tears, or thrills and chills) when there's a few hundred other people sharing that with you.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Transformers 3 was 2.5 hours long and made more money than I believe any other movie this year, so why studio's stick to this stupid 'shorter run-time = more screenings' rule just baffles me.

Its ridiculous. And Marvel have been one to do it so far.

 

[WarBlade]

It might seem ridiculous to you, but it's true. Shorter length equates to more sessions per day. More sessions equates to more ticket and concession sales, and these keep businesses floating. Throwing in the epic length movies as a case example to extol the virtue of longer movies is nothing short of a straw man argument. People flock to see some of them because they're entertaining. The good ones succeed. The bad ones fail. The funny thing is studios won't back an epic unless they're sure of it, so many of the epics that make it to the screen are likely to be bankable.

 

[cherokeesam]

It might seem ridiculous to you, but it's true. Shorter length equates to more sessions per day. More sessions equates to more ticket and concession sales, and these keep businesses floating. Throwing in the epic length movies as a case example to extol the virtue of longer movies is nothing short of a straw man argument. People flock to see some of them because they're entertaining. The good ones succeed. The bad ones fail. The funny thing is studios won't back an epic unless they're sure of it, so many of the epics that make it to the screen are likely to be bankable.

It *doesn't* equate to more ticket sales when nobody's going to the movie. Theaters are fighting a losing war against home entertainment --- simply put, most people prefer the convenience of seeing a movie in their own home than going to a theater. Those that *do* go to theaters do so primarily for social reasons --- date night, family night, hanging out with your buds. So when we *do* go to the theater, we want to feel that the shared experience is something special, something fun, something worthwhile. When Hollywood turns the theater into an assembly line and runs audiences through like cattle from the feeding trough to the slaughterhouse, then it totally cheapens the experience, and people don't go.

Scenario A: epic movie with less showings. Packed house. Everyone is on the edge of their seat, everyone is having fun, it's a grand shared experience.

Scenario B: assembly line 90-minute movie at your local multiplex. Showing on eight screens. Each theater is almost empty, because the audience is scattered all across the multiplex at all hours of the day. Nobody laughs at the jokes; nobody jumps at the scary parts; nobody boos the villains; nobody stands up and cheers the ending.

Which scenario would you prefer?

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Scenario B: assembly line 90-minute movie at your local multiplex. Showing on eight screens. Each theater is almost empty, because the audience is scattered all across the multiplex at all hours of the day. Nobody laughs at the jokes; nobody jumps at the scary parts; nobody boos the villains; nobody stands up and cheers the ending.

Which scenario would you prefer?

unfair question. I'd prefer a good movie with appropriate legth were the audience doesn't interrupt the viewing experience by making unnecessary noises like cheering, laughing or booing. I mean, what are they? 6 year olds? ******s? the people on the screen can't hear them. the other people in the audience can hear them...instead of whatever happens on the screen. people who behave that noiseful in the cinemas are the same that clap on a plane...shoot them. shoot them all!

 

[cherokeesam]

unfair question. I'd prefer a good movie with appropriate legth were the audience doesn't interrupt the viewing experience by making unnecessary noises like cheering, laughing or booing. I mean, what are they? 6 year olds? ******s? the people on the screen can't hear them. the other people in the audience can hear them...instead of whatever happens on the screen. people who behave that noiseful in the cinemas are the same that clap on a plane...shoot them. shoot them all!

No offense, but you sound like a real bore.

Yes, we know that the people on the screen can't hear us; but the people in the theater *can.* And if I leave a packed movie knowing that everyone in it was cheering, laughing, booing, applauding, etc. at key moments, I'll know that they had a great time with this film. If I leave a theater (packed or empty) with everyone filing out in grim silence, with not one peep out of anyone the entire time they were watching, I'll assume that they had a *lousy* time with this film, and/or were bored to death.

Which scenario do you think would lead to a higher score in that all-important word-of-mouth factor....?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

It might seem ridiculous to you, but it's true. Shorter length equates to more sessions per day. More sessions equates to more ticket and concession sales, and these keep businesses floating. Throwing in the epic length movies as a case example to extol the virtue of longer movies is nothing short of a straw man argument. People flock to see some of them because they're entertaining. The good ones succeed. The bad ones fail. The funny thing is studios won't back an epic unless they're sure of it, so many of the epics that make it to the screen are likely to be bankable.

Ahem, all 4 Pirates movies, all 3 Transformers movies, Titanic, Avatar, Gladiator, TDK, and countless other movies that run well over 2 hours say hi. This isnt some of them, movies of this length make regular bank and its normally because they offer more value for money. So the more sessions equates to more money=******** in my eyes.

 

[TheVileOne]

Yeah those are all long movies but those movies are also hugely budgeted and they cost a ton. Studios like taking those big risks less and less. And you can find just as many longer movies that flopped and did not do well.

These big long movies that are epic huge blockbusters might make a lot, but they also cost a lot. Then you have these short micro-budgeted horror flicks that make a fortune. That's what studios want right now. They are divisions of large corporate conglomerates right now. That's why Disney made Cars 2.

 

[cherokeesam]

Yeah those are all long movies but those movies are also hugely budgeted and they cost a ton. Studios like taking those big risks less and less. And you can find just as many longer movies that flopped and did not do well.

These big long movies that are epic huge blockbusters might make a lot, but they also cost a lot. Then you have these short micro-budgeted horror flicks that make a fortune. That's what studios want right now. They are divisions of large corporate conglomerates right now. That's why Disney made Cars 2.

Which ones?

Here's a nice handy Wiki-list of what are considered to be the biggest box-office flops of all time, with their losses adjusted for inflation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biggest_box_office_bombs

Out of that Top 20, the only ones with runtimes over 2 hours (give or take ~5 minutes) are The Alamo, Heaven's Gate, and The Postman. In fact, that Top 20 gives rise to another theorem that shoots down the "epic = flop" theory: and that is that a lot of those films failed precisely because they *were* epics that came in under 2 hours. Cutthroat Island, Sahara, The 13th Warrior, Green Lantern, Supernova, Battlefield: Earth, Inchon, Raise the Titanic, Treasure Planet, Red Planet....these are all movies that dealt with epic stories/subject matter, and yet their short runtimes made them far less than epic in feel and scope.

Something to consider when people discuss worries about The Avengers' runtime.

 

[WarBlade]

Scenario A: epic movie with less showings. Packed house. Everyone is on the edge of their seat, everyone is having fun, it's a grand shared experience.

Scenario B: assembly line 90-minute movie at your local multiplex. Showing on eight screens. Each theater is almost empty, because the audience is scattered all across the multiplex at all hours of the day. Nobody laughs at the jokes; nobody jumps at the scary parts; nobody boos the villains; nobody stands up and cheers the ending.

Which scenario would you prefer?

Again with the straw man. You're comparing a hypothetical good movie with a hypothetical bad movie and using this comparison to proclaim that epic length movies are inherently more bankable because of their length. Well they're not. They are more bankable because of their quality, or just general likeability.

Ahem, all 4 Pirates movies, all 3 Transformers movies, Titanic, Avatar, Gladiator, TDK, and countless other movies that run well over 2 hours say hi. This isnt some of them, movies of this length make regular bank and its normally because they offer more value for money. So the more sessions equates to more money=******** in my eyes.

You should really read my entire post.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^I did, and you were saying that Marvel's strategy works, were as i disagree with that.

 

[TheVileOne]

What's your point that if they were all two and a half hours they would automatically make more money?

Also, Pirates 3 and 4 made a lot of money but I got to be honest, they weren't that good.

 

[cherokeesam]

What's your point that if they were all two and a half hours they would automatically make more money?

Also, Pirates 3 and 4 made a lot of money but I got to be honest, they weren't that good.

My point is that an epic movie should feel epic. The box office numbers, as shown above, trend towards epic movies with epic (2.5ish or more hrs.) lengths becoming box office gold, while epic movies that sell themselves short with 2 hour or less runtimes wind up becoming notorious bombs.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

My point is that an epic movie should feel epic. The box office numbers, as shown above, trend towards epic movies with epic (2.5ish or more hrs.) lengths becoming box office gold, while epic movies that sell themselves short with 2 hour or less runtimes wind up becoming notorious bombs.

This sums up my point perfectly.

 

[TheVileOne]

Movies can still be epic at two hours. Not every epic extravagnaza has to be two and a half hours.

Also the script was like what? 140 pages? That alone tends to hint at a 2 hour 15 minute or more running time.

 

[cherokeesam]

Movies can still be epic at two hours. Not every epic extravagnaza has to be two and a half hours.

Also the script was like what? 140 pages? That alone tends to hint at a 2 hour 15 minute or more running time.

In general, yeah, 1 page = 1 minute, so you'd be looking at 2:20 for Avengers, which would be just dandy. Still, with Joss, you gotta realize he's going to put a lot of fast-paced dialogue in, so the length could be more reflective of a lot of talking instead of a lot of action.

 

[S. Grundy]

Fanboys need to learn that longer doesn't equal better.

 

[cherokeesam]

Fanboys need to learn that longer doesn't equal better.

Neither does shorter.

 

[TheVileOne]

OK so what? That doesn't mean the movie will be too short or will be under two hours.

I get it. We all want to see an epic 2 and a half plus hour movie like The Dark Knight. That's basically what this all boils down to. I want the movie to give time to spotlight all the characters and breathe as well.

But I mean, I thought Thor was too short and a lot of that deleted footage still wasn't very good.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I thought Thor was too short too but I also thought one or two of the deleted scene's should have been kept in, notably the two before Thor's coronation, the one with Frigga and then the one with Loki.

And it is pretty evident now that longer movies tend to be better than shorter ones, in the past it wasnt, but nowadays I would say that tends to be the case.

 

[S. Grundy]

I thought Thor was too short too but I also thought one or two of the deleted scene's should have been kept in, notably the two before Thor's coronation, the one with Frigga and then the one with Loki.

And it is pretty evident now that longer movies tend to be better than shorter ones, in the past it wasnt, but nowadays I would say that tends to be the case.

It really depends on the director. Look at X2 and First Class, both clock in at 132 minutes. X2 has a terrible pace and just drags at a bunch of points, First Class doesn't really have that problem.

 

[cherokeesam]

It really depends on the director. Look at X2 and First Class, both clock in at 132 minutes. X2 has a terrible pace and just drags at a bunch of points, First Class doesn't really have that problem.

This is where the definition of "epic" comes into play, I think.
XMFC was truly an "epic" story, in that it involved a global crisis and threat of nuclear war (and a historical one at that....hence, a historical epic). X2 was a more personalized story about Stryker kidnapping Prof X and the X-Men and Brotherhood joining forces to rescue him.

X3, on the other hand, *was* an "epic" storyline of a final clash between the muties which had wider implications for the whole world, and....guess what? Ratner/Fox brought it in at 104 minutes, and it was universally panned.

Again: make epic movies *feel* epic, and they work. Try to make non-epic movies feel epic, and you get accusations of being too long and bloated.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Higher runtime doesn't equal more epic. Writing and pacing do. I'd rather have a great 2hr movie than a decent 2.5 hour movie.