Are Movies Too Long For Modern Society? Is 120 Minutes Too Long To Sit Through?

[B.A.R.]

Last night, HBO aired "Little Miss Sunshine" and "Best In Show" back-to-back. BOTH movies finished in a little over 3 hours, and were rich, and nuanced, and funny and delightful. The FIRST thing I look at when considering going to the movies anymore is run time. Movies exceeding 2 hours are generally filled with unnecessary scenes designed to make the director look like an artist rather than to enhance the storytelling.

Peter Jackson, I am talking about you. Am I the only one who feels this way?

[darkstar965]

Good topic! We're big film/movie fans even to the point of regularly including festivals in vacation plans. I'm with you in being annoyed with movies that run three hours. Great storytelling (the most important aspect of a film for me) can be done in two hours or even less time. There are rate exceptions of a longer film I thought fine, given the story/material but, nearly always, I think filmgoers emerging from a 3-hour odyssey are more likely to be talking about the run time than the story. And, that says something I think.

All said, despite knowing the industry somewhat, I had to lookup Peter Jackson. And, that's because I've never seen any of the Hobbit or Lord of the Rings movies. Much prefer independent, foreign, documentaries, smart drama and comedies (that actually are funny-a small subset of the huge genre). By and large, haven't noticed creeping run times as a problem or trend within those genres.

[Pool Boy]

It really depends on the subject of the film. Some movies take longer, some less. Cutting up the Hobbit in to 3 movies is nuts, but forcing the 3 lord of the rings books in to single films seems slightly criminal, but I am a fan of the stories, so I may be a bad judge.

I have to say, I rarely watch movies anymore. The reason? I refuse to split up a movie over a few nights to watch it, because my weekday tolerance for watching TV style entertainment is about 60 to 90 minutes. Most movies are 90 to 150 minutes. So the only time I would watch movies would be on the weekend, but I'm so used to other content (TV shows) now that I end up watching more of the shows on my to do list than take a break and watch a movie.  Stupid, I know. And I grew up on and still love movies!

[DonRocks]

Good thing you all didn't live in the 1700-1800s and had to suffer through opera!

A work of art - or a story - should be its own length, whatever that length is, and should not be engineered to fit within certain parameters. That's my opinion.

That said, a typical Hollywood film is designed to fit within a two-hour period, or thereabouts. I think that, with the advent of home viewing, longer films are more easily tolerated; it's sitting in a chair for 3.5 hours that makes me squirm (that's actually why I stopped seeing operas about ten years ago).

My biggest complaint about the movie industry right now is that you don't know what's computer-generated, and what's not - I've gotten to the point where I assume that everything is, and that everything is just a glorified cartoon which is a huge turn-off (literally) to me. This merits a separate thread.

I have to say, I rarely watch movies anymore. The reason? I refuse to split up a movie over a few nights to watch it, because my weekday tolerance for watching TV style entertainment is about 60 to 90 minutes. 

You've obviously never watched "Shoah."

Which reminds me: I haven't watched the entire film either, and I promised myself that one day I would - this important work also merits its own thread.

[B.A.R.]

You've obviously never watched "Shoah."

Which reminds me: I haven't watched the entire film either, and I promised myself that one day I would - this important work also merits its own thread.

I have tried watching the HBO documentary "Night Will Fall" on three separate occasions. I have never gotten past minute 20.

Good thing you all didn't live in the 1700-1800s and had to suffer through opera!

...

A work of art - or a story - should be its own length, whatever that length is, and should not be engineered to fit within certain parameters. That's my opinion.

I'm not saying all movies should be edited down to 90 minutes because I lack the ability or time to sit through anything longer. I am saying that too many movies (to me) seem to run on, and on, and on, and on and much of it is unnecessary CGI bullshit or sweeping camera shots that add nothing to the story but sure do make the Director look cool.

There are plenty of great movies that have long run times.

[DonRocks]

I don't know how to multi-quote.

 

[Click "MultiQuote" for each post you want to quote (in the order that you want them to appear), then follow the directions on the bottom-right - it's just about as easy as single-quoting.]

I'm not saying all movies should be edited down to 90 minutes because I lack the ability or time to sit through anything longer. I am saying that too many movies (to me) seem to run on, and on, and on, and on and much of it is unnecessary CGI bullshit or sweeping camera shots that add nothing to the story but sure do make the Director look cool.

There are plenty of great movies that have long run times.

I know you weren't saying that, and I wasn't trying to bust your chops - you started a legitimate, thought-provoking topic that's worth discussing.

[Al Dente]

You've obviously never watched "Shoah."

Wikipedia's list of long-ass movies. Wanna watch a 10-day long flick? That's a lot of popcorn. But that was an "experimental" film that never seemed to Finnish.

For regular old "cinematic" films, "Shoah" comes in 5th, while "Resan" is over 14 hours. Seems a bit excessive.

[DonRocks]

For regular old "cinematic" films, "Shoah" comes in 5th, while "Resan" is over 14 hours. Seems a bit excessive.

Shoah's not excessive - it is, in essence, a multi-episode series, like Roots or The Holocaust; excessive is Andy Warhol's "Sleep" or "Empire" which are not dissimilar to Andy Kaufman reading "The Great Gatsby" - it's contempt for the audience under the guise of "art."

[dgreen]

A work of art - or a story - should be its own length, whatever that length is, and should not be engineered to fit within certain parameters. That's my opinion.

In college, the second a professor says that you'll have to write a paper that semester, everyone asks, "How long does the paper have to be?" Most professors would give a range and say something like, "Your paper should be 10-15 pages," and even mention the font size and proper spacing and margins. However, I had a couple professors who gave the correct answer of "However long it needs to be to make your point."

[DonRocks]

In college, the second a professor says that you'll have to write a paper that semester, everyone asks, "How long does the paper have to be?" Most professors would give a range and say something like, "Your paper should be 10-15 pages," and even mention the font size and proper spacing and margins. However, I had a couple professors who gave the correct answer of "However long it needs to be to make your point."

I am incapable of writing "long," and I *hated* it when professors specified length because I couldn't make my papers that long even knowing I had to. Some people are sprinters; others are marathoners - I am a sprinter when it comes to writing.

David Foster Wallace was interviewed about Infinite Jest (1,000+ pages), and he said it was edited down from 1,500+ pages, and was "tight" - he wouldn't have known what else to remove from it. I marvel at people who are able to construct full-length novels in the same way I marvel at people who can dunk a basketball.

[Bart]

It really depends on the subject of the film. Some movies take longer, some less. Cutting up the Hobbit in to 3 movies is nuts, but forcing the 3 lord of the rings books in to single films seems slightly criminal, but I am a fan of the stories, so I may be a bad judge.

I had the exact thought when I read the Peter Jackson comment.  How could he not cover The Scouring of the Shire?!?!!?

[Pool Boy]

I had the exact thought when I read the Peter Jackson comment.  How could he not cover The Scouring of the Shire?!?!!?   

They should have at least filmed it (and the Tom Bombadil bit!) and given it as easter eggs for fans.

[darkstar965]

?..A work of art - or a story - should be its own length, whatever that length is, and should not be engineered to fit within certain parameters. That's my opinion.

...

That said, a typical Hollywood film is designed to fit within a two-hour period, or thereabouts. I think that, with the advent of home viewing, longer films are more easily tolerated; it's sitting in a chair for 3.5 hours that makes me squirm (that's actually why I stopped seeing operas about ten years ago).

My biggest complaint about the movie industry right now is that you don't know what's computer-generated, and what's not - I've gotten to the point where I assume that everything is, and that everything is just a glorified cartoon which is a huge turn-off (literally) to me. This merits a separate thread.

...

To me (and I know I don't represent any majority) "typical Hollywood films" have totally lost their way. I realize they respond to the broader market but great films should be great stories and artistic in composition and presentation. But, story is paramount. I cringe some just at the topic of computer-generated whatever. It has gotten so difficult for small, independent and talented filmmakers here in the US, and from around the world, to ever have their work reach an audience, I'm encouraged by the new web platforms enabling direct-to-consumer distribution. Great films educate, unify, inspire and change minds in a way much, much tougher for television and shorter-form content to achieve. I so wish more Americans would patronize cinemas like the Avalon and even LandMark so we'd have more options to see quality films instead of lamenting the latest closure like West End Cinema in favor of the national multiplex corporations selling synthetic, sci-fi thrillers.