Movies with longer running time: Good idea?

[Waylaid]

Are movies with longer running time, like say four, six or ten hours good or bad?

Can audience these days handle a few more hours of runtime beyond three in a movie, even if their stories are good?

What are the advantages of movies with longer runtime?

[Elven Moon]

Unless we got some kind of break, I don't think I could handle sitting in the theater for 5+ hours :ack:

[Waylaid]

Yeah, I should've mentioned intermissions. Would you watch a longer runtime hour movie even with intermissions?

[Darth-geister]

Not a chance. I didn't last much on the LOTR movies how can i resist more hours.

[TheMecca]

I think intermissions should've been introduced a while ago, especially with stuff like the Harry Potter movies (I won't be suprised if they chop the 5th one in half) and the fact that King Kong is 3 hours long. Rhyme not intended.

[Lord Dalek]

Yeah, I should've mentioned intermissions. Would you watch a longer runtime hour movie even with intermissions?Yeah but in today's market that isn't possible. The experience of going to movies is now been replaced by corporate greed.

What was the last film with an intermission, Branaugh's Hamlet?

[Sharklady]

I remember a time when longer movies (ex, 1982's 'Ghandi') did have intermissions.

One explaination I've heard for why they were phased out: the theaters were concerned breaks would give people an opportunity to sneak in without paying.

Me, I suspect someone who'd rather watch half a movie for free, than pay to see the whole thing, is unlikely to buy a ticket anyway. So breakless theaters may not do significantly more buisness, and could be getting less from folks who'd rather wait for the video than sit for three hours straight.

[Conan-san]

My arse says: No.

[Lonestarr]

Sure, longer movies are a good idea...that is, if you possess a bladder made of solid titanium. Otherwise, I'd say not.

[Enrique]

I don't think today's society could bear anything longer than 3 hours because every year we have a shorter attention span. Anything longer will force us to actually remember what's going on.

Even on DVD I'm wary of watching anything longer than 2.5 hours... I can't watch Lord of the Rings at home because between pausing the movie, the use of "ye olde english" and the lulls in story and action, I get lost and by the time the movie climaxes I find myself asking a lot of questions.

If a movie's going to make me sit for 3+ hours, it better be the most captivating movie ever.

[Dirtbag]

Yes and no. For the theater experience, probably not. Sitting in even the most comfortable theater chair can be a chore after three plus hours, not to mention not being able to pause and use the restroom whenever necessary.

For the DVD market, it's a much better idea. For example, with TV-on-DVD I'll quite often set aside one of my days off and watch almost an entire series in 1-3 sittings. A 3-4 hour movie would be nothing compared to that.

But with that said, it still has to be a good movie. Kong shouldn't have been three hours, and if the director's cut/extended edition/whatever is pushing four I'm going to be annoyed.

[eJm]

If the film is by Peter Jackson, yes.

If not, no.

[mookie75]

The experience of going to movies is now been replaced by corporate greed.I've racked my brain and I can't figure out what you're referring to here. What does corporate greed have to do with whether or not theaters can have intermissions? If anything, I would think greed would moviate theaters to HAVe intermissions because there's more of a chance of people going out and spending more money on food. I suppose intermissions could cut down on the number of showings per day...but intermissions were fairly brief back in the day weren't they? :confused:


In reference to the topic of this thread, I think it would be rough going past 3 hours unless the movie is really interesting...and even then it might be hard. I seem to recall checking my watch on the LOTR movies and I really liked those movies. I did the same with King Kong last night. In fact, I figured out how Jackson could have shortened that movie without sacrificing any of the plot. It's quite simple. All he had to do was shorten and/or cut out some of those loooooooooonnnnnnnnng sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeping zoooooooooming closeups of various characters looking at something/someone with awe/wonder/love/surprise/fear/terror. Now, I like a good dramatic closeup as much as the next person, but for some reason they got annoying in Kong. I'm not sure if it was the frequency or the duration, but whatever it was it got my attention from time to time.

(Of course, that subject would be better placed in the Kong talkback, so don't let me derail the thread here :sweat: )

[purplehairedwonder]

Only if the movie needs that long to tell the story. Lord of the Rings needed those long running times to get the story told. King Kong should have been an hour shorter. Harry Potter needs time to tell its story. Most movies don't really need that long to tell their story, but there are a few exceptions and those I don't mind sitting in for longer. But when they get to be long just for the sake of being long (*coughKingKongcough*) then it is competely unnecessary and ridiculous.

DVDs are a completely different story. Since people can pause the movie to use the bathroom or whatever and the story is extended from the theatrical release or whatever (ala LotR) then I'm fine with it. But still, use the time for story not just to be long.

[Temple Fugate]

Movies don't need to be long. 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 hours runtime is perfectly reasonable for a screenplay plot. If it's adapted from a book, such as LotR or Potter or Narnia or whatever, then extending the time to allow more detail is perfectly acceptable. The occasional 3 to 4 hour epic is fine, AS LONG AS there is no scene that offers nothing to add to the story. I can't speak for Kong since I didn't see it, but that's pretty much a golden rule when writing a screenplay.

You shouldn't go and sit down to write a script and say to yourself "Okay, I want a four hour movie" and then write a script that's four hours long. The length of the movie will appear after you've written your core story and tweaked it for pacing purposes. No matter what you WANT the length to be, there can only be one length which works best for the movie. (Of course, with all the director's and extended cuts we have today that can be argued.)

[Chris Wood]

I think 3 hours should be the upper limit. Any more than that and it becomes an ordeal as much as a pleasure to sit through the film. That said I want my money's worth and with rare exceptions I don't think films should be much less than 2 hours.

The theaters would naturally prefer shorter films since they can cram in more showings per day.

[sdp]

At least until six years ago (not sure if it is anymore) it was a standard in Mexico for an intermission in the middle of the movie on all movies. That is how i was raised, always expected them, it was part of the movie experience, a small break were you could get refreshments or go to the bathroom, they could be sometimes annoying but not really. I do enjoy watching movies uninterrupted but like i said I wouldn't mind seeing intermissions in longer movies. As having longer movies, i also wouldn't mind them, i remember at a Star Wars convention i once went to, they mentined editing the movies together so you would see all 6 movies in one sitting on theaters.


movie theaters would definaly get more profit from this since they make all their money not from ticket sales but their snacks. one less showing but a chance for every other movie they air to have a second 'snack' time would be great for them.

[Hades]

See, I don't understand how some of you can pay $8+ for a movie ticket, and not think it shouldn't be more than 2 hours. As far as I'm concerned, it should be 2 minutes for every penny spent. No more of this "pay $8.50 for a 75 minute movie" BS.

[Toon Capone]

I can barely watch a movie that is 90 minutes anymore, so movies with a longer running time is a bad idea.

[tigerrunner]

I don't think there's a definitive "yes" or "no" for me. It realld depends on what movie it is. If the movie can keep my attention and entertain me, then sure I could bear it if it were 3+ hours, but if it isn't I'd just walk out. I would like to have an intermission, though.

I don't think we'll see a lot, if any, movies go on for more than 3 hours. Maybe a drama, but certainly not an action or comedy movie. They could split up into several movies instead. In fact, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they do that with Kill Bill? I mean, wasn't it intended to be one movie, but it was cut in half due to length?

[EinBebop]

Read on darkhorizons last week that Tarantino wants to rerelease Kill Bill as one film next year, with an intermission. I'm sure he's thinking more nostalgia than anything else.

[Daffy Dork]

I say to let the movie be as long as it needs to be. If a movie honestly needs to be more than 3 hours, then there's obviously something special, or the pacing sucks.

But intermissions might not work because people would probably change seats and get into fights about who was there first and all that crap.

[Dirtbag]

Read on darkhorizons last week that Tarantino wants to rerelease Kill Bill as one film next year, with an intermission. I'm sure he's thinking more nostalgia than anything else.Great. I've been waiting a year and a half for that release on DVD and now I'm going to have to wait even longer because he wants to milk more cash out of the theater? Assuming it happens, I'll go watch it again but I want to have it up on my shelf. That's the one (or two) title I've managed to hold off on until they release the right edition.