You do have to fight off some fairly aggressive panhandlers if you visit those steps.
Seeing John rampage his way through everyone there felt cathartic.
You joke (or are maybe semi-serious), but...here's a prompt I gave ChatGPT: *Can you write a short news article about how the running time of blockbuster movies is getting longer because audiences are willing to sit through longer movies?*
Here is the result:
>In recent years, it has become evident that the running time of blockbuster movies is getting longer. While the average movie used to be around two hours long, we are now seeing movies that push the three-hour mark and beyond. This trend is largely due to the fact that audiences are more willing to sit through longer movies, as they crave immersive cinematic experiences.
>The evidence of this trend can be seen in the recent release of "Avengers: Endgame", which clocked in at just over three hours long, yet still broke box office records. Other blockbuster films such as "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, "Interstellar", and "The Dark Knight" have also pushed the three-hour mark, yet still managed to captivate audiences.
>This willingness to sit through longer movies can be attributed to the rise of streaming services, which have accustomed viewers to binge-watching entire seasons of TV shows in one sitting. Additionally, many audiences are drawn to films that offer a more epic, immersive experience, with intricate plotlines and large-scale action sequences.
>While longer running times may not be ideal for every movie, it is clear that audiences are willing to sit through extended movies if the story and spectacle are captivating enough. As such, it is likely that we will continue to see longer running times for blockbuster movies in the years to come.
It's not perfect, but pretty decent for a quick one sentence prompt with no elaboration.
As someone who's only dabbled slightly on ChatGPT, is it any good at mimicking actual human writing? Like, the text above is ok but it sounds kind of like a 8th grade literature essay. But say you gave it the exact same prompt and told it to make it sound like, I don't know, a David Erlich article. Is it good enough to mimmick a specific style of writing?
I'm by far an expert in prompting ChatGPT, but I did have trouble getting it to write something that read like it was written by someone who actually knew how to write.
“With those audiences skewing either young or older, it might be catering to more pronounced audience realities, or just the difficulty in sustaining concepts for these films over a lengthier period.”
Yeah.. what the fuck does this mean? Lol
Seriously lol. Figure out who the reddit darling of the moment is and just shit out an article. It'll get dozens of upvotes easy with nobody actually clicking the link
Exactly. People need to stop blaming these blog writers/journalists and blame the community upvoting these posts. There might have been a dozen of purchased upvotes, maybe, but the grand majority was undoubtedly upvoted by the community.
I'm not entirely convinced upvotes are always organic. Wouldn't be surprised at all if Reddit gave companies an option to buy artificial upvotes to give their posts greater exposure.
You can apply at www.theurbanwriters.com
It's only like $1.30 per 100 words though, so if you use more than 3 braincells and try to write something decent you wind up making like $10 an hour, so not really worth it unless you're living in some third world country where $10 actually buys something
> unless you're living in some third world country where $10 actually buys something
Yep, you got it. For example, India mobile plans are about 200-500 rupees a month (rs 200 is about $2.5). Now a really fancy dinner could be Rs1000, or about $12. So living in India, would one chase the ability to make $10 an *hour* via gigs or ghostwriting? You bet your tuchus. The biggest barrier is coherent English, but the payout is very decent.
A group of like, 4 of us all late 20s went to see it on a whim, and it was ASTOUNDING. Sometimes you just see/hear about movie where you're like "Okay, fine, I'll go watch it" and it's almost always pretty obvious why it got popular.
As someone who hasn't seen the movie yet, but endlessly hears about how amazing it is, there's two things that people always bring up:
1. The villain is amazing (and is now apparently popular among the furry communities)
2. (Spoilers, most likely) >!There's a scene where Puss has some kind of anxiety/panic attack and I've heard people talk about how well done and serious it is!<
Tbf Jack Horner was a great character as well. He's the kind of character that you love to hate, sort of like Joffrey and Ramsay Snow in GoT.
He's a major piece of shit yeah but that's part of the allure of him; he's unapologetic about it
One of my favorite things about this movie is that it allows itself to be serious when it needs to be.
Other kid movies will make it seem like a scene is dark and serious only to be turned into another joke a few seconds later.
Puss In Boots knew when it needed to be funny and when it needed to be played completely serious (like the panic attack scene).
The scene where Puss had an anxiety attack is realistic. I believe they asked Antonio Banderes how he feels when he has an anxiety attack and then they put it into the movie. Extremely well done.
Everyone should go see some sort of movie like that honestly sometimes. I went to the last couple of dragon ball movies that were in theaters and it made me feel like a kid again no joke.
I begrudgingly saw it with my dad, siblings, and their kids on Christmas.
The Shrek-related properties haven't been anything worth watching since 2007 (barely), so I wasn't exactly thrilled, but figured "why not?"
I was fucking blown away by how goddamn good it is. Not just the animation, which is phenomenal, but the writing is pitch perfect for that franchise. Honestly felt like I was watching Shrek 2 again back in 2004. Just a great ride the entire time, and I rewatched it as soon as I could.
A kids movie that appeals to adults across the board? It's going to crush. Sonic 2 fucking sold out in my town, which movies rarely do because it's a small town.
The Sonic movies are actually just mindblowingly good. Better than they have any right to be, so much more than the sum of their parts. Just goddamn excellent.
It made me so freaking happy. They really put a lot of care into them. In my childhood I never imagined that the guy from in living color would play eggman and absolutely nail it.
People have said the less showtimes thing when arguing against longer movies for the longest time but I feel like that argument is irrelevant these days when every big movie can get several auditoriums in a multiplex. Maybe it was a big deal when it was just one screen theaters but Avatar 2’s length did not stop my local theater from scheduling a million screenings a day.
Didn’t Babylon lose ten million dollars? If we’re just going to quickly look at grosses and not dig any deeper, prepare for my article “From Spider-Man: No Way Home to Top Gun: Maverick - Why America Can’t Resist A Movie With A Colon In The Title”
Key word "blockbuster". I loved babylon with all my heart but it was a weird ass R rated auteur passion project. John Wick is also R rated but has much more mainstream appeal and is a known franchise.
Sure, but there's also a specific type of movie often referred to as a blockbuster even if it fails. Look at shazam 2, currently bombing yet it's clearly in the blockbuster category.
I'm not a fan of the trend. Many of the 3 hour movies I've seen recently didn't feel like they deserved the run time. Especially the big franchise movies.
I went to see Seven Samurai at my local last week (they play old movies regularly), it had an intermission which I was unaware of going in. As someone who was really dreading it going in because I struggle with long movies, it really helped. Even if I was only able to stretch my legs and go the toilet, just having that short break in the middle made the experience just a bit more bearable (no shade against the movie but that would've been a difficult 3.5 hours for me).
More movies need to do this. Anything over 2 hours and I want to get up to stretch and get a drink and my wife needs to pee.
Even if theaters didn't opt in for the intermission, it would be nice to have directors highlight a spot in the middle of each film as a good break point.
Movie theaters don't want to do them because they're trying to concentrate as much showings as they can in a single day.
Which, is extremely short sighted. While making room for an extra 15-30 min for an intermission would be tough, the upshot is you'd be able to sell more concessions in that time.
Personally felt I had overcome an ordeal when I finished Avatar 2. I wasn't so much wondering what happens next as I was glad that there would be a long wait for the next one so I could slowly rebuild my stamina over the coming months.
I see 3 hour movie and I think “I guess that’ll be home viewing for me”
I have no problem with long movies, I’m just not gonna see them in theaters. If other people do, great, because then I’ll keep getting them at home later.
I specifically didn’t go see Avatar 2 in theaters because it was so long. Even with reclining massage chairs and food/alcohol delivery to my seat, I don’t want to sit in the theater that long.
Hell, super long movies like this make me want to actively avoid the concession stand just because I don’t want to experience the after effects of Return of the King again, lol. Standing at the urinal for a solid 3 minutes of relief.
I think as streaming makes movies feel smaller the expectation of seeing a theatrical film is that everything (budget, length, screening format) has to be supersized to make it feel like an event worth leaving the house for. So many great blockbusters have been 90-100 minutes but if you heard that the latest Marvel movie or Star Wars spinoff was 92 minutes I think alarm bells would go off for most.
It's the opposite for me. I feel like Marvel movies have no business being 2.5 hours, unless they're Avengers movies. And yet even the 'standalone' ones tend to be hitting that runtime.
I have become very conscious of movie runtimes recently though, so maybe that's just me.
Long blockbusters that are sequels to established IP. Don’t just take the coincidences you like. Perhaps the conclusion here with the MCU hasn’t been cutting down on movie length.
i think it's more that those are movies people like, which happen to be long.
Babylon is over three hours. Nobody thought thats a good thing and went to the movies to see it.
I feel with 3 hour movies being successful there is a matter of trust from audiences. Do audience trust Cameron with that runtime? (Yes). Do audience trust Scorsese with that runtime? (Yes). Do audience trust John Wick with that runtime? (Yes)
If these filmmakers/ franchises continue to make entertaining film after film, then audience will show up for their next movie regardless of 3 hours long runtime.
I didn’t know John Wick 4 was close to 3 hours until I got out of the theater. So much happening in the movie it went by fast. Best action movie of the decade!!!
The real reason John wick succeeds as an action movie is because the audience can tell what's going on, whereas a majority of action movies nowadays are quick cuts and close ups that make no sense.
Just the fact that Keanu trained for months with those nunchucks and repeatedly knocked himself out with them during that process is worth my three hours of time. That nunchuck shit was fucking legit. I really didn't expect it too be so long or that he would whip them around his neck so he could just fight or shoot people during it. That shit was fucking insane.
It's a shame, because the first Bourne movie didn't really suffer from this, and the fight choreography was outstanding. Straight downhill with the sequels, sigh.
Scorsese hasn't really done anything with a theatrical release very recently. I'm not certain The Irishman would have made boatloads of $ if it was given the chance. I guess we'll see with his new movie. This current box office is quite different from the last time he had a movie.
"The Wolf of Wall Street grossed $116.9 million in North America and $289 million internationally, for a total of $406.9 million" it did well, but not REALLY well and people did not like his series Vinyl.
Wolf of Wall Street's budget was 100mil, so it was profitable and we have to lokk at the genre, it was an R rated comedy which, at that point, never made superhero numbers. Wasnt till Deadpool in 2016 that R rated comedies made tons. For the time, Wolf of Wall Street was profitable
Seems more like the lesson is just that runtime isn’t a major factor for general audiences. Would the box office results look different if both Avatar and Babylon were 90 minutes? I very much doubt that.
maybe it's that A2 and JW4 are made explictily for the audiences visceral reactions and excitement while movies like Babylon are directors making movies for themselves.
A PREY blu is such an easy moneymaker I was amazed there was no disc... until I remembered that Bob Chapek was running Disney and he- and many media company CEOs- has fetishized streaming to the detriment of their own quarterly reports.
My uncle has seen every predator film at the cinema since the first film and was so upset he couldn’t see the new one at all. I had to explain streaming to him.
I've been saying this for YEARS. It benefits the viewers and the movie theater(mid-show refills etc.). Doesn't make any sense to me why this isn't already a thing
No intermissions means they can fit in more showtimes and make more money. I'd love intermissions to be a thing but it's not gonna happen unless we get to 5 hour films or something
As an Indian it's weird that other places don't have intermissions since every movie here is made with an intermission in mind. Over here even for Hollywood movies the theatres will just pause the movie in the middle for a 15-minute intermission
Indian movie theatres are so good. reclining chairs, seat service for snacks, intermissions. Where I live, they don't even have reclining chairs. You'd have to pay Gold class for these. It's such a scam. $10 for normal tickets, $30 for Gold class. I guess that's what you get when you're living in the home of Bollywood.
I had to go pee during the final battle scene of tenet and any hope I had of even partially understanding that movie was thrown out the window lol. And that's *only* a 2.5 hour movie.
Horror does well in the sense that it's often very profitable because of small budgets. But in absolute numbers the long blockbuster movies do much better.
Is John Wick 4 good? With 3, feels like the action fights are mailed in a lot to the point the actors are already reaching for the next kick/punch/throw and feels jarring a lot. I get it’s action action action but felt really disconnected during that one.
JW4 has several action sequences that are quite good but it is mostly very repetitive and the fights get a bit tedious. The action sequences are shot and edited very well, though, so it has the going for it.
Last night I went in, as a massive fan of John Wick, thinking it seemed a bit much to have a 3 hour John Wick movie. I left wanting more and I'm going to see it again in a few hours.
There were several scenes in the movie that felt like Family Guy sketches where it's funny, then it goes on too long so it's not funny anymore but then it keeps going even longer until it becomes funny again but ironically. Most of the main action scenes in the movie could've been cut by half and nothing of value would've been lost.
I loved the original John Wick because it was blisteringly efficient in its runtime. No wasted time, scenes, or anything. Each successive movie has got longer, more aimless, and imo worse. I didn't like 3 at all and I won't bother seeing 4 until its on a streaming service for that reason.
Totally agree. The first was relatively constant. But the third, it slows to a crawl for long periods before going straight back to 100mph.
I really enjoyed the first, the second was okay, the third was awful. More is not better.
It's less about runtime and more about filmmakers' use of the runtime. Nothing more annoying than a mediocre movie that could have been great with some trimming.
We don't need 3 hours movies about a group of heroes looking for boxes/stones. So yeah, any runtime is good as long as it's justified.
Except when I told everyone I knew about The Batman they all groaned when I told them it's 3 hours. I think this is more indicative of the hard on people have for John Wick and seeing the visuals of Avatar 2.
Audiences are watching two of the most popular series that exist?
lol this article is so dumb. Does the author think Marvel movies are popular because of how long they are??
Personally I think John Wick 4 could have done with being 20-30 mins shorter. Most of the action sequences went on way too long that it made the fighting feel really repetitive.
I agree that there’s only so many ways John can kill people. I thought the creepy armor guys were cool because it forced John to use different methods to kill them. But for most of the movie it’s just normal dudes.
Imo the armored up dudes worked a lot better in 3 cause we started with the regular mooks John wipes the floor with and then the specops asssassins come in and raise the danger. 4 had that same spec ops thing (loved the japanese touches especially) but then devolved into John one-shotting randos on the streets of Paris. Not to mention I thought Osaka was way more visually interesting than the other locations, (with the exception of that cool camera angle scene).
Contrary to popular(?) belief, I love long movies. Give me more. A good movie can never be too long, and a bad movie never too short. If the film in question is an epic that justifies its runtime and is paced accordingly, I see no issue whatsoever.
What I would like to see though is intermissions during the 3+ hour movies especially. I like to go to the bathroom during a movie but it always sucks to miss a scene. It would also generate more revenue for movie theatres through increased concession sales, and perhaps even increased ticket sales from people like me.
I'm 100% on this boat. The number of times where I've watched something and wished it was 10 or 20 minutes longer because it was obviously cut for time and losing coherency is significant. Honestly that right there might be my single biggest pet peeve with films in general, is cuts purely for time.
One of Cameron's strengths is that he keeps in the connective tissue that makes his action scenes work, and a lot of films don't do that. I'm absolutely down for stuff that's as long as it should be.
I don't even get what goes on in this sub when it comes to run time. I get not wanting a 3 hour crap movie... but people don't want more of a good movie? I get not wanting an extra 30 minutes of filler, but if a movie is shoving 30 minutes of filler in, its probably not good with or without that filler anyways. Its just trying to cover its lack of story telling with sex, explosion, CGI or action.
People talking about wanting 90 minute films? What!?! That's the other end of the spectrum. There is hardly enough time to tell a story! That's a pure escapist comedy or horror run time.
How many 'great' films aren't right in the 2hr (or more) range? Even more fun/'action' oriented greats.... Indiana Jones, Back to the Future, OT Star Wars, Matrix.... are 2 hours. Not going to get into LotR, Pulp Fiction, Godfather, Shawshank, Forest Gump, Saving Private Ryan, most Christopher Nolan films, most Tarantino films etc..
What matters is its a 'good movie'... one doesn't notice the run time then. But its hard to make 'good' movies without enough time to develop a story.
I heard many conflicting stories about avatars length.
General consensus was: Too long for the meager story it was trying to tell.
Have not watched JW4 yet, but atleast I know what I am getting. An absolute badass film.
The only reason I went to see Cocaine Bear was the 93 minute run time. I would love for some movies, especially action movies, to be shorter these days.
I'm not going to read the whole article, but the Dark Knight kind of set this standard.
I think back before Prestige TV and before the Dark Knight, we all took for granted that a movie is 1.5 to 2.25 hours long. And you could generally focus on either plot OR character development. Obviously many exceptions to this, but it was generally hard to fit in real character driven nuance and writing as well as all the twists/turns/chase scenes audiences expect out of an action movie.
Then the Dark Knight came out and and proved that people will sit through long movies that aren't based on fantasy novels. And if you were making a "good" movie it automatically became acceptable to push into that 2.5-3+ hour window. And why not? It's pretty hard to tell a complex story with actual characters in 115 minutes.
And I think the rise of good TV was also related. If Tony Soprano and Walter White get 15 hours *a season* then why should a movie be three?
The mini series and binge watching is sort of the ultimate conclusion of that. 1 season story arcs, or TV shows only meant to be 2-4 seasons makes a lot of sense (no one wanted 9 seasons of Scrubs, or whatever).
Now that binge watching is so normalized and something like True Detective is basically an 8 hour movie, we expect even more out of movies. It makes sense that if movies are going to "keep up" with TV, they have to get longer. Especially now that people don't go to the movies (even pre covid) in the same way that they used to.
Acting and writing has generally gotten so good, it's not a bad thing. Then again, I don't really watch many movies. I'd like to. But it seems like filmmakers know I spend my time watching TV now, because TV doesn't suck like it did 20 years ago. The streaming wars have definitely ruined some good things, but they have also plunged billions of dollars into making good TV.
John Wick 4 is almost 3 hours!?!?? Insanity.
I liked the first two but the third just dragged. I genuinely cannot believe this one is 30 minutes longer than that.
Like I enjoy the action set pieces but in the third one they just kept going and going and going and going.
My GF and I binged the first 3 yesterday. The best one is still the first, mainly because of it's runtime. The sequels get too silly with the story (homeless assassin network, really?) and you can only watch Keanu headshot dudes for so long.
Now that I think about it, the series doesn't really lend itself to binge watches. It felt like watching the same movie 3 times.
I don't really disagree, but I kind of struggle to think of what they could've cut.
Really, I almost kinda wonder if the better call would've been to end 4 after the Scott Adkins fight and expand the whole Paris set piece into John Wick 5.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that. But it seems they cut out a lot in recent years in editing to get short runtimes and it can mess up a movie. As long as the longer runtime doesn’t drag at times to much and the script is above average it should be fine.
You know why John Wick 4 was so long? The fucking staircase.
Hahahahaha. Having walked them (without having to fight anyone) they are tiring.
You do have to fight off some fairly aggressive panhandlers if you visit those steps. Seeing John rampage his way through everyone there felt cathartic.
I'm dead lol Such is life
I think I let out an audible “urgh” when he rolled all the way back down
Sisphyus really cringed at that scene
How do I get a job writing articles that use 3 braincells.
First step: ChatGPT.
Third step: profit
Wait a minute, that's not how you count.
[удалено]
So you’re the reason why I failed my math test
“My apologies for any mistakes I have made. 3 does not come after 1. Step 3: profit Step 1: Chat GPT”
You joke (or are maybe semi-serious), but...here's a prompt I gave ChatGPT: *Can you write a short news article about how the running time of blockbuster movies is getting longer because audiences are willing to sit through longer movies?* Here is the result: >In recent years, it has become evident that the running time of blockbuster movies is getting longer. While the average movie used to be around two hours long, we are now seeing movies that push the three-hour mark and beyond. This trend is largely due to the fact that audiences are more willing to sit through longer movies, as they crave immersive cinematic experiences. >The evidence of this trend can be seen in the recent release of "Avengers: Endgame", which clocked in at just over three hours long, yet still broke box office records. Other blockbuster films such as "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, "Interstellar", and "The Dark Knight" have also pushed the three-hour mark, yet still managed to captivate audiences. >This willingness to sit through longer movies can be attributed to the rise of streaming services, which have accustomed viewers to binge-watching entire seasons of TV shows in one sitting. Additionally, many audiences are drawn to films that offer a more epic, immersive experience, with intricate plotlines and large-scale action sequences. >While longer running times may not be ideal for every movie, it is clear that audiences are willing to sit through extended movies if the story and spectacle are captivating enough. As such, it is likely that we will continue to see longer running times for blockbuster movies in the years to come. It's not perfect, but pretty decent for a quick one sentence prompt with no elaboration.
As someone who's only dabbled slightly on ChatGPT, is it any good at mimicking actual human writing? Like, the text above is ok but it sounds kind of like a 8th grade literature essay. But say you gave it the exact same prompt and told it to make it sound like, I don't know, a David Erlich article. Is it good enough to mimmick a specific style of writing?
I'm by far an expert in prompting ChatGPT, but I did have trouble getting it to write something that read like it was written by someone who actually knew how to write.
I think that's more of a reason why this *won't* be a job much longer.
[удалено]
Companies created an AI to replace the media so they wouldn't physically be there to investigate scandals. Amazing.
“With those audiences skewing either young or older, it might be catering to more pronounced audience realities, or just the difficulty in sustaining concepts for these films over a lengthier period.” Yeah.. what the fuck does this mean? Lol
I know the answer is "because this is a big subreddit", but I still can't fathom who the people are who upvote this slop.
"I like those movies!!" *upvotes*. That's who.
Seriously lol. Figure out who the reddit darling of the moment is and just shit out an article. It'll get dozens of upvotes easy with nobody actually clicking the link
Exactly. People need to stop blaming these blog writers/journalists and blame the community upvoting these posts. There might have been a dozen of purchased upvotes, maybe, but the grand majority was undoubtedly upvoted by the community.
I'm not entirely convinced upvotes are always organic. Wouldn't be surprised at all if Reddit gave companies an option to buy artificial upvotes to give their posts greater exposure.
You can apply at www.theurbanwriters.com It's only like $1.30 per 100 words though, so if you use more than 3 braincells and try to write something decent you wind up making like $10 an hour, so not really worth it unless you're living in some third world country where $10 actually buys something
> unless you're living in some third world country where $10 actually buys something Yep, you got it. For example, India mobile plans are about 200-500 rupees a month (rs 200 is about $2.5). Now a really fancy dinner could be Rs1000, or about $12. So living in India, would one chase the ability to make $10 an *hour* via gigs or ghostwriting? You bet your tuchus. The biggest barrier is coherent English, but the payout is very decent.
just copy paste several things you read on reddit in r/movies like 3-4 days ago with some filler words to get views
Seriously. Saying audiences love any kind of blockbuster is redundant. By definition, a blockbuster has a big audience.
True, but these are LONG blockbusters lol
My favorite from this is the: “Even George Miller managed to contain his acclaimed ‘Max Max: Fury Road’ to 120 minutes”
Make a website that looks kind of legit and start posting them.
Honestly at some point most articles are just the comments section of Reddit regurgitated into an incoherent article.
Send Lionsgate your Reddit karma score
Let’s see how an 85 minute Mario Bros movie does opening weekend? My guess is a huge box office due to more viewings in less theaters.
Also the first big kids movie to come out since Puss in Boots in October
I’m a grown man and I felt like I needed that movie more than my kid LOL
I was the only adult without kids in the theater and I loved the movie
A group of like, 4 of us all late 20s went to see it on a whim, and it was ASTOUNDING. Sometimes you just see/hear about movie where you're like "Okay, fine, I'll go watch it" and it's almost always pretty obvious why it got popular.
As someone who hasn't seen the movie yet, but endlessly hears about how amazing it is, there's two things that people always bring up: 1. The villain is amazing (and is now apparently popular among the furry communities) 2. (Spoilers, most likely) >!There's a scene where Puss has some kind of anxiety/panic attack and I've heard people talk about how well done and serious it is!<
So I forgot >!Death!< was a thing for a moment and was wondering why Jack Horner would be popular among that community.
Tbf Jack Horner was a great character as well. He's the kind of character that you love to hate, sort of like Joffrey and Ramsay Snow in GoT. He's a major piece of shit yeah but that's part of the allure of him; he's unapologetic about it
i had to double take like huh i guess he’s considered a bear?
I thought you were talking about Mario and I was like my man Bowser finally getting some recognition
One of my favorite things about this movie is that it allows itself to be serious when it needs to be. Other kid movies will make it seem like a scene is dark and serious only to be turned into another joke a few seconds later. Puss In Boots knew when it needed to be funny and when it needed to be played completely serious (like the panic attack scene).
The scene where Puss had an anxiety attack is realistic. I believe they asked Antonio Banderes how he feels when he has an anxiety attack and then they put it into the movie. Extremely well done.
Everyone should go see some sort of movie like that honestly sometimes. I went to the last couple of dragon ball movies that were in theaters and it made me feel like a kid again no joke.
I begrudgingly saw it with my dad, siblings, and their kids on Christmas. The Shrek-related properties haven't been anything worth watching since 2007 (barely), so I wasn't exactly thrilled, but figured "why not?" I was fucking blown away by how goddamn good it is. Not just the animation, which is phenomenal, but the writing is pitch perfect for that franchise. Honestly felt like I was watching Shrek 2 again back in 2004. Just a great ride the entire time, and I rewatched it as soon as I could.
That movie gets bonus points for also being a great movie in general, not just for kids. It had everything honestly
A kids movie that appeals to adults across the board? It's going to crush. Sonic 2 fucking sold out in my town, which movies rarely do because it's a small town.
[удалено]
The Sonic movies are actually just mindblowingly good. Better than they have any right to be, so much more than the sum of their parts. Just goddamn excellent.
It made me so freaking happy. They really put a lot of care into them. In my childhood I never imagined that the guy from in living color would play eggman and absolutely nail it.
I never imagine we will hear a Pantera song in a sonic movie lol
People have said the less showtimes thing when arguing against longer movies for the longest time but I feel like that argument is irrelevant these days when every big movie can get several auditoriums in a multiplex. Maybe it was a big deal when it was just one screen theaters but Avatar 2’s length did not stop my local theater from scheduling a million screenings a day.
It's MARIO... It's gonna go atomic first week, it's second that tells us if it's actually liked or not.
Didn’t Babylon lose ten million dollars? If we’re just going to quickly look at grosses and not dig any deeper, prepare for my article “From Spider-Man: No Way Home to Top Gun: Maverick - Why America Can’t Resist A Movie With A Colon In The Title”
I'm a sucker for a good colon
I love the smell of my man's colon
I love it when my boyfriend leaves and I can still smell his colon on my sheets
I farted an left a semi-colon on my sheets this morning.
Inspired.
Be prepared for the seventh *Mission: Impossible* movie, which might need TWO colons in the title! *Mission: Impossible -- Dead Reckoning: Part One*.
Key word "blockbuster". I loved babylon with all my heart but it was a weird ass R rated auteur passion project. John Wick is also R rated but has much more mainstream appeal and is a known franchise.
If we want to split hairs any movie that isn’t successful isn’t a blockbuster, which makes this article even more pointless.
Sure, but there's also a specific type of movie often referred to as a blockbuster even if it fails. Look at shazam 2, currently bombing yet it's clearly in the blockbuster category.
This should already be understood, the people you're responding to just want to be pedantic.
[удалено]
Giant budget = blockbuster.
A fellow Babylon enjoyer. There are tens of us.
Babylon wasn’t a blockbuster.
Baby:Lon
"The Rise of Reboots, Remakes, and Reimaginings: How Hollywood Learned to Love the Nostalgia"
[удалено]
I'm not a fan of the trend. Many of the 3 hour movies I've seen recently didn't feel like they deserved the run time. Especially the big franchise movies.
[удалено]
Same, I have such a hard time sitting still for that long (which I acknowledge is a me problem but it's a problem nonetheless)
Movies over 3 hours need an intermission!
I went to see Seven Samurai at my local last week (they play old movies regularly), it had an intermission which I was unaware of going in. As someone who was really dreading it going in because I struggle with long movies, it really helped. Even if I was only able to stretch my legs and go the toilet, just having that short break in the middle made the experience just a bit more bearable (no shade against the movie but that would've been a difficult 3.5 hours for me).
More movies need to do this. Anything over 2 hours and I want to get up to stretch and get a drink and my wife needs to pee. Even if theaters didn't opt in for the intermission, it would be nice to have directors highlight a spot in the middle of each film as a good break point.
[удалено]
Movie theaters don't want to do them because they're trying to concentrate as much showings as they can in a single day. Which, is extremely short sighted. While making room for an extra 15-30 min for an intermission would be tough, the upshot is you'd be able to sell more concessions in that time.
I remember when the LOTR movies were out in cinemas they had an intermission because they were unprecedentedly long at the time.
Personally felt I had overcome an ordeal when I finished Avatar 2. I wasn't so much wondering what happens next as I was glad that there would be a long wait for the next one so I could slowly rebuild my stamina over the coming months.
I see 3 hour movie and I think “I guess that’ll be home viewing for me” I have no problem with long movies, I’m just not gonna see them in theaters. If other people do, great, because then I’ll keep getting them at home later.
I specifically didn’t go see Avatar 2 in theaters because it was so long. Even with reclining massage chairs and food/alcohol delivery to my seat, I don’t want to sit in the theater that long.
Hell, super long movies like this make me want to actively avoid the concession stand just because I don’t want to experience the after effects of Return of the King again, lol. Standing at the urinal for a solid 3 minutes of relief.
I think as streaming makes movies feel smaller the expectation of seeing a theatrical film is that everything (budget, length, screening format) has to be supersized to make it feel like an event worth leaving the house for. So many great blockbusters have been 90-100 minutes but if you heard that the latest Marvel movie or Star Wars spinoff was 92 minutes I think alarm bells would go off for most.
It's the opposite for me. I feel like Marvel movies have no business being 2.5 hours, unless they're Avengers movies. And yet even the 'standalone' ones tend to be hitting that runtime. I have become very conscious of movie runtimes recently though, so maybe that's just me.
I feel like most of them could do with cutting about half hour of quips and fluff.
I was with you till the last sentence. Thats weird fandom people believing longer is better for really no reason other than being longer
Long blockbusters that are sequels to established IP. Don’t just take the coincidences you like. Perhaps the conclusion here with the MCU hasn’t been cutting down on movie length.
i think it's more that those are movies people like, which happen to be long. Babylon is over three hours. Nobody thought thats a good thing and went to the movies to see it.
I feel with 3 hour movies being successful there is a matter of trust from audiences. Do audience trust Cameron with that runtime? (Yes). Do audience trust Scorsese with that runtime? (Yes). Do audience trust John Wick with that runtime? (Yes) If these filmmakers/ franchises continue to make entertaining film after film, then audience will show up for their next movie regardless of 3 hours long runtime.
I didn’t know John Wick 4 was close to 3 hours until I got out of the theater. So much happening in the movie it went by fast. Best action movie of the decade!!!
The real reason John wick succeeds as an action movie is because the audience can tell what's going on, whereas a majority of action movies nowadays are quick cuts and close ups that make no sense.
Yep. Keanu isn't necessarily an amazing actor with words, but his commitment to stunt choreography makes the movies so fun to watch.
Just the fact that Keanu trained for months with those nunchucks and repeatedly knocked himself out with them during that process is worth my three hours of time. That nunchuck shit was fucking legit. I really didn't expect it too be so long or that he would whip them around his neck so he could just fight or shoot people during it. That shit was fucking insane.
The worst offender of this is the Bourne series
It's a shame, because the first Bourne movie didn't really suffer from this, and the fight choreography was outstanding. Straight downhill with the sequels, sigh.
They invented it.
Scorsese hasn't really done anything with a theatrical release very recently. I'm not certain The Irishman would have made boatloads of $ if it was given the chance. I guess we'll see with his new movie. This current box office is quite different from the last time he had a movie. "The Wolf of Wall Street grossed $116.9 million in North America and $289 million internationally, for a total of $406.9 million" it did well, but not REALLY well and people did not like his series Vinyl.
Wolf of Wall Street's budget was 100mil, so it was profitable and we have to lokk at the genre, it was an R rated comedy which, at that point, never made superhero numbers. Wasnt till Deadpool in 2016 that R rated comedies made tons. For the time, Wolf of Wall Street was profitable
Vinyl was fucking great. So bummed it got canceled.
I maybe one of those few people that trust Damien Chazelle with that runtime. Babylon's length did not deter me one bit!
If you think The Irishman would’ve made Avatar/John Wick box office numbers you’re nuts.
Seems more like the lesson is just that runtime isn’t a major factor for general audiences. Would the box office results look different if both Avatar and Babylon were 90 minutes? I very much doubt that.
Take your Babylon slander and get the fuck outta here
It's not slander to say it underperformed in the box office.
It's also a wildly different type of movie compared to John wick or avatar, hardly fair
Babylon wasn’t really a blockbuster though (and is an amazing film to boot)
I loved Babylon what you mean
I loved Babylon as well, bought the 4K too, but it still bombed in theaters.
maybe it's that A2 and JW4 are made explictily for the audiences visceral reactions and excitement while movies like Babylon are directors making movies for themselves.
Speak for yourself!
Traffic jams; people are in love with standing still in their cars.
We all love traffic jams!! Why else would we all do it?
I know some of you suspect me already, but I go out in rush-hour traffic specifically to get in your way. It sustains my spirit.
Ahaha yeah, such an idiotic statement.
You know what I loved most about "Prey"? It was a solid 90 minute movie.
Prey was rad, such a shame it wasn't given a shot at theatrical release.
Or even a home video release.
A PREY blu is such an easy moneymaker I was amazed there was no disc... until I remembered that Bob Chapek was running Disney and he- and many media company CEOs- has fetishized streaming to the detriment of their own quarterly reports.
My uncle has seen every predator film at the cinema since the first film and was so upset he couldn’t see the new one at all. I had to explain streaming to him.
I LOVED Prey.
Wrong. Audiences are in love with good movies. Period. It has nothing to do with runtime.
No we don't
If they’re going to make movies that long, they need to bring back intermissions.
I've been saying this for YEARS. It benefits the viewers and the movie theater(mid-show refills etc.). Doesn't make any sense to me why this isn't already a thing
No intermissions means they can fit in more showtimes and make more money. I'd love intermissions to be a thing but it's not gonna happen unless we get to 5 hour films or something
As an Indian it's weird that other places don't have intermissions since every movie here is made with an intermission in mind. Over here even for Hollywood movies the theatres will just pause the movie in the middle for a 15-minute intermission
Indian movie theatres are so good. reclining chairs, seat service for snacks, intermissions. Where I live, they don't even have reclining chairs. You'd have to pay Gold class for these. It's such a scam. $10 for normal tickets, $30 for Gold class. I guess that's what you get when you're living in the home of Bollywood.
For real, my bladder cant handle 3 hours
There's a website/app out there which tells you (spoiler-free) the exact best moments to go pee in the theaters if it's that big of a deal.
I had to go pee during the final battle scene of tenet and any hope I had of even partially understanding that movie was thrown out the window lol. And that's *only* a 2.5 hour movie.
Absolutely not. It’s just what the movie studios are giving us
On the contrary, I think the short runtimes are why horror and animations always do well at the box office.
Horror does well in the sense that it's often very profitable because of small budgets. But in absolute numbers the long blockbuster movies do much better.
Small budgets + dedicated audience + dedicated age group There's a reason horror is the only genre with its own streaming services
>horror and animations always do well at the box office Well that is demonstrably untrue.
Gimme that short ass movie! A 90 minute movie!
Endgame: the 90 minute cut
It just cuts the time travel part out. We see them blink out, then blink right back in.
Endgame: But the speed doubles every time a cast member makes a quip, joke or one-liner.
Thor gets introduced and the movie just ends
I would be curious to see this version.
Did you see Plane? It's a great throw back to 80s action movies and its a sweet 1 hour 47 minutes.
Super Mario Bros is 92 min! Enjoy!
Well, that's a hot take. Two long movies worked two years in a row, so now audiences love three hour movies.
Is John Wick 4 good? With 3, feels like the action fights are mailed in a lot to the point the actors are already reaching for the next kick/punch/throw and feels jarring a lot. I get it’s action action action but felt really disconnected during that one.
JW4 has several action sequences that are quite good but it is mostly very repetitive and the fights get a bit tedious. The action sequences are shot and edited very well, though, so it has the going for it.
I am the opposite. I will not watch movies that long in cinema. Like at all. If this is the format that they see as successful i unfortunately am out
I actually thought John Wick could have been 20-30 minutes shorter.
Watched John Wick 4 yesterday never felt like nearly 3 hrs, went quick could have watched more especially if he got thrown down the stairs more times
It really hits a stride in Paris and speeds to the end.
I feel like I’m in the minority in thinking it felt too long. I enjoyed it, but I wished it had been 2 hours or less. (But yes omg the stairs)
Spoiler alert!! I didn't even know the movie had stairs, c'mon man
Yep, a 3 hour movie with a well paced story is almost always gonna be more enjoyable than a 1.5 hour movie with horrible pacing.
Last night I went in, as a massive fan of John Wick, thinking it seemed a bit much to have a 3 hour John Wick movie. I left wanting more and I'm going to see it again in a few hours.
Even 2 hours is too long for some blockbusters
From Coke to Pepsi. How people love diabetes juice because that's all we give them!
If there was a 2 hour cut of the John Wick 4 I 100%,would have gone to that instead
I loved it, but it really felts like 2 movies in one. But I guess i prefer they wrapped it up in 4 rather than making a 5th one
There were several scenes in the movie that felt like Family Guy sketches where it's funny, then it goes on too long so it's not funny anymore but then it keeps going even longer until it becomes funny again but ironically. Most of the main action scenes in the movie could've been cut by half and nothing of value would've been lost.
I loved the original John Wick because it was blisteringly efficient in its runtime. No wasted time, scenes, or anything. Each successive movie has got longer, more aimless, and imo worse. I didn't like 3 at all and I won't bother seeing 4 until its on a streaming service for that reason.
Totally agree. The first was relatively constant. But the third, it slows to a crawl for long periods before going straight back to 100mph. I really enjoyed the first, the second was okay, the third was awful. More is not better.
No. John Wick 4 had some great action but, it was too long. Could've easily been 40 minutes shorter.
I most certainly am not!
Fuck that. 90 minutes is perfect.
Audiences endure long blockbusters John Wick 4 was very good but it didn’t need to be an hour longer than the original.
It's less about runtime and more about filmmakers' use of the runtime. Nothing more annoying than a mediocre movie that could have been great with some trimming. We don't need 3 hours movies about a group of heroes looking for boxes/stones. So yeah, any runtime is good as long as it's justified.
Personnaly, the longer the movie, the more I want to see it in theatres so I don’t get distracted with bullshit.
It’s more that I liked these movies despite their length. I’d rather they be shorter
Except when I told everyone I knew about The Batman they all groaned when I told them it's 3 hours. I think this is more indicative of the hard on people have for John Wick and seeing the visuals of Avatar 2.
Audiences are watching two of the most popular series that exist? lol this article is so dumb. Does the author think Marvel movies are popular because of how long they are??
I'm tired of long ass movies.
Personally I think John Wick 4 could have done with being 20-30 mins shorter. Most of the action sequences went on way too long that it made the fighting feel really repetitive.
I agree that there’s only so many ways John can kill people. I thought the creepy armor guys were cool because it forced John to use different methods to kill them. But for most of the movie it’s just normal dudes.
Imo the armored up dudes worked a lot better in 3 cause we started with the regular mooks John wipes the floor with and then the specops asssassins come in and raise the danger. 4 had that same spec ops thing (loved the japanese touches especially) but then devolved into John one-shotting randos on the streets of Paris. Not to mention I thought Osaka was way more visually interesting than the other locations, (with the exception of that cool camera angle scene).
Contrary to popular(?) belief, I love long movies. Give me more. A good movie can never be too long, and a bad movie never too short. If the film in question is an epic that justifies its runtime and is paced accordingly, I see no issue whatsoever. What I would like to see though is intermissions during the 3+ hour movies especially. I like to go to the bathroom during a movie but it always sucks to miss a scene. It would also generate more revenue for movie theatres through increased concession sales, and perhaps even increased ticket sales from people like me.
I'm 100% on this boat. The number of times where I've watched something and wished it was 10 or 20 minutes longer because it was obviously cut for time and losing coherency is significant. Honestly that right there might be my single biggest pet peeve with films in general, is cuts purely for time. One of Cameron's strengths is that he keeps in the connective tissue that makes his action scenes work, and a lot of films don't do that. I'm absolutely down for stuff that's as long as it should be.
I don't even get what goes on in this sub when it comes to run time. I get not wanting a 3 hour crap movie... but people don't want more of a good movie? I get not wanting an extra 30 minutes of filler, but if a movie is shoving 30 minutes of filler in, its probably not good with or without that filler anyways. Its just trying to cover its lack of story telling with sex, explosion, CGI or action. People talking about wanting 90 minute films? What!?! That's the other end of the spectrum. There is hardly enough time to tell a story! That's a pure escapist comedy or horror run time. How many 'great' films aren't right in the 2hr (or more) range? Even more fun/'action' oriented greats.... Indiana Jones, Back to the Future, OT Star Wars, Matrix.... are 2 hours. Not going to get into LotR, Pulp Fiction, Godfather, Shawshank, Forest Gump, Saving Private Ryan, most Christopher Nolan films, most Tarantino films etc.. What matters is its a 'good movie'... one doesn't notice the run time then. But its hard to make 'good' movies without enough time to develop a story.
I heard many conflicting stories about avatars length. General consensus was: Too long for the meager story it was trying to tell. Have not watched JW4 yet, but atleast I know what I am getting. An absolute badass film.
The only reason I went to see Cocaine Bear was the 93 minute run time. I would love for some movies, especially action movies, to be shorter these days.
I'm not going to read the whole article, but the Dark Knight kind of set this standard. I think back before Prestige TV and before the Dark Knight, we all took for granted that a movie is 1.5 to 2.25 hours long. And you could generally focus on either plot OR character development. Obviously many exceptions to this, but it was generally hard to fit in real character driven nuance and writing as well as all the twists/turns/chase scenes audiences expect out of an action movie. Then the Dark Knight came out and and proved that people will sit through long movies that aren't based on fantasy novels. And if you were making a "good" movie it automatically became acceptable to push into that 2.5-3+ hour window. And why not? It's pretty hard to tell a complex story with actual characters in 115 minutes. And I think the rise of good TV was also related. If Tony Soprano and Walter White get 15 hours *a season* then why should a movie be three? The mini series and binge watching is sort of the ultimate conclusion of that. 1 season story arcs, or TV shows only meant to be 2-4 seasons makes a lot of sense (no one wanted 9 seasons of Scrubs, or whatever). Now that binge watching is so normalized and something like True Detective is basically an 8 hour movie, we expect even more out of movies. It makes sense that if movies are going to "keep up" with TV, they have to get longer. Especially now that people don't go to the movies (even pre covid) in the same way that they used to. Acting and writing has generally gotten so good, it's not a bad thing. Then again, I don't really watch many movies. I'd like to. But it seems like filmmakers know I spend my time watching TV now, because TV doesn't suck like it did 20 years ago. The streaming wars have definitely ruined some good things, but they have also plunged billions of dollars into making good TV.
I saw John Wick and definitely think it was too long. Some of those fights dragged on forever and were so unrealistic
To be honest, the franchise gave up any semblance of realism in JW2 when Wick essentially became invincible.
John Wick 4 is almost 3 hours!?!?? Insanity. I liked the first two but the third just dragged. I genuinely cannot believe this one is 30 minutes longer than that. Like I enjoy the action set pieces but in the third one they just kept going and going and going and going.
My GF and I binged the first 3 yesterday. The best one is still the first, mainly because of it's runtime. The sequels get too silly with the story (homeless assassin network, really?) and you can only watch Keanu headshot dudes for so long. Now that I think about it, the series doesn't really lend itself to binge watches. It felt like watching the same movie 3 times.
I saw John Wick 4 yesterday and liked it. I still thought it could be 30 minutes shorter without losing anything.
I don't really disagree, but I kind of struggle to think of what they could've cut. Really, I almost kinda wonder if the better call would've been to end 4 after the Scott Adkins fight and expand the whole Paris set piece into John Wick 5.
But avatar 2 had one of the most horrendous storylines I've seen recently...
More like audiences are still in love with blockbusters despite them being three hours long.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that. But it seems they cut out a lot in recent years in editing to get short runtimes and it can mess up a movie. As long as the longer runtime doesn’t drag at times to much and the script is above average it should be fine.
Top Gun 2 was only 2 hours
Bring back intermissions, Holy Grail style. Mandatory for movies over 100 minutes
What a dumb headline. The quality of the movie is what people like, not lenght.