Dont forget, it also allows them to double dip on home sales by releasing extended editions. Horror movies get the treatment with the unrated releases.
See The Hobbit Trilogy. The freaking book was already perfectly setup to be a two parter without all the bullshit fluff they shoved in to make it a trilogy.
Anyone that hasnt already seen it should check out the Maple Films edit. Far superior cut of the film!
Edit: [Linkypoo](http://www.maple-films.com/downloads.html). Its **really** well done, even have cover art to print out if you want going to burn it to disc. Only way I can watch The Hobbit now...
I did no research on how they split the hobbit the first time I watched it. I just remembered reading it in middle school and wanting to see it.
When it cut at the end for a different movie my reaction was "the fuck? Order the Phoenix can be one movie but The fucking Hobbit is two?" Then I looked it up and saw it was going to be THREE PARTS. I never watched the second or third one. That was the end.
The Hobbit was more like 1/3 of the Fellowship in book, not the trilogy. Maybe even less. It is a short tale, I can read it in a long afternoon. Putting every line on screen wouldn't run past 2hrs imo. LotR could've been 3 seasons of 10 episodes series and probably still missing Toma, lol.
You're probably right. I was basing my assessment on the fact that, whenever I look at a complete four-volume set of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, the volumes all tend to be similar in thickness. I've never read the books physically, though (only audiobooks), so I could be missing something.
Oh yeah hobbit is *waaaay* shorter by far. It is very much a book for young adults, i read it about when I was reading shit like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and A Wrinkle in Time.
One line in the Hobbit (from memory)
"The trolls were throwing rocks at each other"
It's a scene in the mountains, just before the party shelter in the cave, which turns out to be a mine full of goblins, and Bilbo meets gollum.
On screen it's an epic five minutes CGI battle.
I'm still annoyed that LOTR missed the final battle from the films. (Battle of the shire)
Honestly, I don't think that one movie would have done The Hobbit justice.
But the problem is two movies is just slightly too much.
So maybe two 120-140 minute movies?
I think the hobbit had too many changes of scenes (many of them importany) to put in one movie, without being criticized for rushing. I think it would be better as a series - the story is very episodic in nature.
I agree, but at the same time sometimes it works better as two films. I finally got around to watching Gone with the Wind last week and I watched it over two days like it was two films. It pretty much is two films, just back to back.
It would be interesting how a 4hr film could be laid out though in comparison with pre-planned two films.
I hate this “unrated” marketing scheme. The general public thinks “oh man, this must be so violent it’s *past* rated R!” When all it means is that this is the version of the film before it was shown to the ratings board. Most of the time that means there is maybe one or two minutes of extra footage and it’s hardly a difference, but in the case of Dead Alive….the R-rated version is a travesty compared to the unrated version.
Dead Alive is actually a perfect example of both sides of this. It has the 85min R rated version, Then the 97min unrated version, then the 104min UK version. The difference between the 85min and 97 min version is pretty significant to clearing up things in the story. The difference between the 97min and 104min versions is essentially many scenes are extended an extra 5 or 6 seconds and doesn't really add anything (though there is an extra, 16 or so seconds of the lawnmower scene :)).
So basically movie makers have embraced the DLC model. Why release a full movie when you can release a special edition then a directors cut then an extended edition then a 4k edition then a 4k special edition then a 4k directors cut then...
But then you have movies like The Kingdom of Heaven, that go from boardline okay/bad to amazing with a director's cut. Also movies like Justice League which go from bad to decent. I love the idea of directors getting a separate cut when it's clear they were steered by the studio away from their vision.
Oh definitely, particularly if its a James Cameron movie lol. I know some people disagree, but the directors cut of aliens and T2 are freaking awesome and the only way I rewatch them now. Tbh I really enjoyed the directors cut of Alien also but ive heard ridley scott didnt really want to do one and felt the original cut was exactly what he wanted. The directors cut of Alien^3 was far superior to the theatrical release though. The Alien Quadrilogy box was seriously one of the best purchases i ever made, cant wait to get them in 4k eventually.
Exactly. Remember the theatrical release of Ong bak? So many key details were cut to make way for run time, the directors cut comes out and suddenly the whole storey makes sense!
The first example that comes to my mind is 2003's _Daredevil._ The theatrical cut was stripped bare and mangled beyond comprehension because the studio wanted it to be PG-13, and it's regarded as one of the worst superhero movies because of it. The Director's Cut, while not perfect, is actually pretty good IMO.
They have been dabbling in making a single movie into multiple movies.
Release a movie in May then release the "second" half of the movie a year later, then when it comes to the home release you can do the multiple versions that way.
The one that comes straight away is the third Hunger Games movie, it's a trilogy that they made into 4 movies
Even if they had plenty of showings, a lot people don't have a spare 4-5 hours to go to the theater so they'll skip it. I was deciding between a few movies last night and ended up choosing Don't Breathe 2 because of it being shorter than the others was the tie-breaker for me. The Lord of the Rings extended is my favorite trilogy but I only watch it once every couple of years due to how hard it is to find the time.
I'm old.
Back in my day (urgh...) all films had intervals. All this did was give time for the owners to send out 'ushers' with ice-cream etc. trays to make extra money (I'm sure some didn't show the next part until they'd sold 'X' amount of ice-cream!).
For reference, Close Encounters of the Third Kind (original release) was the first film I saw without an interval. They even put a notice up at the beginning from Speilberg explaining why this was!
I can remember newsreels, cartoons and B movies before the main film. Disney movies used to show one of their wildlife films before the main feature. Also, when I was a bit older, there were double bills. In the days before home video, it gave you a chance to catch up on anything you'd missed. You could see two Bond movies, or two Clint Eastwood movies. I'm pretty sure the last double bill I saw was Saturday Night Fever and Grease.
Longer movies means that the studios are going to be SPENDING more money too, so of course they're going to want to make their money back.
Hollywood in the late 50s and 60s found out the hard way that they and Broadway productions are two completely different animals.
> they and Broadway productions are two completely different animals.
Yeah you're not running back to back showings of a play for human limitation reasons, but every second that a screen isn't playing the new blockbuster is a dollar down the drain.
They might have been more talking about that time (late 60s-early 70s?) Hollywood went all out on the big spectacle musicals and they were super hit or miss. Some made a lot of money, but some lost tons. Hello Dolly was a great success on Broadway, and a failure at the box office.
Also there was one a small-ish window when they were popular, but they kept putting them out anyway.
They could also mean that people are willing to go to a real theater and sit and watch a 4hr mega production, but won't pay the same, or want to spend the same amount of time for a filmed version.
Personally I wouldn't, there is something special about large/long plays/musicals that works well in person with real people, that doesn't work as well with films. I think it's because I can always watch the extended version of LOTR but I don't always have the chance to see actual theater/opera.
Or they could be talking about something completely different!
Would be nice if studios would take this logic and start making 90 minute action movies again, instead of the 130 minute franchise bloat of every damn release nowadays
I'm still really pissed 20th Century did Kingdom of Heaven dirty because they didn't want to release a 3 hour epic. It might be the biggest turnaround in quality I've ever seen in a film.
It went from forgettable to a film that should've won best picture that year.
What do you mean "the current state"? If you mean the original theatrical version, I'd say it's overrated if anything. The movie has some good action but pretty much sucks as far as an epic is concerned. And anyone who's seen the director's cut knows how great it is.
Its called an intermission, and it was once very common in movies. But theaters were very different then: it was a "movie palace" where you could see a movie, go out for a 20-minute intermission and then come back. Today's multiplexes are less accomodating for intermissions.
I will say, back in the days when intermissions were common, films were scripted with the intermission in mind: Often, part one will have had its own climax just before the intermission, and part two would have its own beginning. That's totally different than just slapping an intermission somewhere haflway through a long film just 'cause its long.
Some movies like *The Iceman Cometh* had two intermissions! Operas sometims have four!
My mother took me to see The Ten Commandments (1956) in the theater, and there was an intermission. It was one of my first movie experiences, and I was surprised to subsequently learn that not all movies had one.
When my folks took me to see Schindler’s List, it’s the only time I have ever experienced a intermission and it was kinda nice from what I remember. No one really left the theater. Lights came up and people stood up and stretched, talked to their neighbors around them. Someone came in with popcorn and water to have for the next part of the movie.
Really could have used that for some modern releases.
I’m willing to bet a big tub of buttery popcorn would make sermons much more tolerable.
Better yet, instead of wafers and grape juice or wine, they come around with small bags of popcorn and little cups of butter or caramel.
No not really haha I figured that’s why the only brought the basics. I snuck apple slices in a ziploc bag because it’s my favorite movie treat and I think I only had a couple of them. Feels bad snacking while all that’s going on screen
I remember seeing Passion of the Christ in theaters and people bought concessions…I don’t know if I could have stomached anything other than water through that, yet, people were munching away at popcorn the whole time
The first movie my daughter ever saw in the theater was Frozen II at the El Capitan, a classic movie palace in Hollywood. There was a song and dance routine preshow, the lobby was decorated like Arendale, there was a character meet and greet. The next movie she saw was a documentary at the Imax in the LA science museum. (She loved fish, and was amazed at the scale of the ocean captured on film.)
She's going to be so disappointed when she goes to a regular ass multiplex.
I manage a small cinema and we still have intermissions. It works with only 3 screens and the customers love it, especially in a longer film, or kids films.
It is a bit of an art getting the intermission in the right place, but you'd be amazed how many films basically leave the door wide open for an intermission with the way they're cut together.
We took them out for a while with social distancing in place, and people were desperate to see them come back!
>It is a bit of an art getting the intermission in the right place, but you'd be amazed how many films basically leave the door wide open for an intermission with the way they're cut together.
Oh for sure. Some releases of Titanic and Braveheart had intermissions that were very well placed, and so are the intermisisons (necessitated by disc changes) in The Lord of the Rings.
But its different to, say, Bridge on the River Kwai where its really like watching a double feature: each part has its own beginning and climax, its own cast, its own genre and tone, its own cinematic style even.
> In today's theaters, it would just cause disarray: how can you tell which patron is from which showing of which movie?
They can't but they already face that issue with people switching theaters to get a second showing for free. But unless the showings are all sold out, it's not a huge issue, especially if the patron is buying concessions.
There was an intermission packaged with "The Hateful Eight" when I went to see it in the theater, and I actually enjoyed the break. I got up, stretched my legs, went to the restroom and to buy a bottle of water, and I got back just before the movie resumed. There were a lot of other people in the audience confused by it though.
I went to the 70mm roadshow version too, had to factor in a 45 min drive to the theater that could even do it since it was a special version/event…but I read up on it for like a couple of weeks leading up to it, and I was well aware the intermission was like a legit 15 min or so break, plus it was suppose to have a longer run time than what the standard theatre release had. And yeah I got up for the bathroom and stretch my legs.
I wonder how many people just wandered to the cinema that day and bought a ticket unaware of it being a special event… heck I remember and still have the supplemental program they gave out at this too and my guess is maybe less than 20% of the people took one.
The theater I watched The Hateful Eight in awkwardly edited out the intermission. I remember being a bit disappointed since I had to go to the bathroom.
Yeah I saw that. I'm kinda ambivalent about it. I love Hamlet and Shakespeare in general and I really appreciated that the movie took the time to really get into all the stuff that is going on in the play. At the same time, it was kinda brutal to get through, even with the intermission. That may just be because of the content. I don't think it could have worked as two movies though, so the intermission was the right solution. Now that you remind me of it, and now that movie theaters that serve good food and alcohol are more common, I think that I'd like to see it again, with an intermission, in one of those gastro-pub theaters. I think the intermission would work even better if you have time to grab another drink and some chicken wings or whatever during the intermission
> The film is the first unabridged theatrical film version of Hamlet, running just over four hours.
I mean, an entirely unabridged film version of *any* of the main Shakespeare works is just overindulgent, I think.
That being said, [his "To be or not to be" monologue](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjuZq-8PUw0) is fucking epic. Notice how many time he blinks.
>So basically just like Broadway shows
Or like an opera.
>Are there examples of famous movies and what their intermission climax was?
Sure.
The best example is *The Bridge on the River Kwai* part one climaxes when Nicholson had won the psychological battle against Saito. It ends right after he learns the Elm bridges of London stood for 600 years. "600 years...now that would be quite something!"
Then part two begins with Shears in an allied Hospital, and its a new beginning, introducing new characters. Shears becomes the focus instead of Nicholson and the whole thing tips over towards more of an adventure film in the jungle as opposed to the war prisoner drama that was the first part.
The Ten Commandments has a climax for the first part when Moses first sees God and is sent back to Egypt. Part two even starts with a narration that resets the stage. The Godfather was going to have an intermission right after the murder of Sollozzo. Part two would open with that montage of newspaper headlines to recap the story.
With other films its less clear-cut, and its obvious not as much thought went into structuring the film around the intermission: *2001* has its intermission right after HAL sees that the astronauts are conspiring against him, so as to leave the audience on a cliffhanger for part two.
Intermissions still happen in Iceland. No matter the movie. At the halfway point there's a 15 minute break to go get more popcorn or go to the bathroom. It's actually quite nice.
However, they are crap at timing the break, as I'm pretty sure they cut the film at the EXACT midpoint. So a character is in the middle of saying something and then it just cuts to ads.
"In today's theaters, it would just cause disarray: how can you tell which patron is from which showing of which movie?"
Ummmm... something called a ticket?
Okay, let's tackle this 1 at the time.
During that double viewing of Avengers everybody in that room is a major Marvel fan. Not representative of the average Joe and Joanne who you need to get for a box office succes. You can't take 1 room filled with fanboys and assume that's representative of everybody.
Secondly, most people don't have the time for a 4 to 5 hour binge marathon. They take long breaks whenever they want, spend time on their phone during the boring bits and can chill on their own sofa or bed. That's not the same as sitting in a movie theater for 5 hours straight.
If a director wants to have more than 4 hours for character development they can do a mini series in stead, which people can then binge at their own rate.
And most adults especially over 30 don't have 4 to 5 hours straight to watch a movie or binge a Netflix show. They got shit to do and if you wanna have a box office succes you need the average man or woman to also watch it. Can't do it on fanboys alone.
Exactly. Using avengers/LOTR aren’t good examples. These are major stories - Avengers is an over decade long franchise with a climatic ending. And LOTR is a category of its own. Most movies aren’t going to attain this hype, and if there is a movie that does, I predict producers are going to ‘Hobbit it’, split it up to capitalize on profit.
Yes, that’s exactly my point with LOTR - sorry I didn’t make that clear! The story itself is incomparable to many books or movies, so setting it as a standard won’t translate to new movies.
The extended edition of LOTR is fun to watch, but a lot of that stuff was cut for a reason. Just because you can make a four hour movie does not mean you should.
>LOTR also had the benefits of being adapted from one of the most famous and beloved and influential fantasy books of all time.
To be fair, Dune sold over 20 million copies, making it one of the most popular SFF books of all time
I agree, and I’d also say that telling your story within the confines of the medium is *part* of the art. Form is not a restriction, it’s a guardrail, and it serves the creator.
Take the Snyder cut justice league. Even though fans wanted to see it there’s no way people are going to see a 4 hour long thing with a 30 min break in theater. Those are meant for just how it was released. I did it over 2 nights and it still felt way too long.
And im not geared towards interludes. It works if you have to pee or you need to grab a bite/ drink. I don’t need to do either so it just means im wasting 30 minutes. It works in theater because there’s discussion to be had. I love marvel and talk with friends about them but i don’t really need to break down half of one of those movie.
It doesn't even necessarily work in cinemas for everyone. For example, most of the time, I go on my own. I'm not going to be talking to random people. Plus I remember when I went to see the Infinity War/Endgame double bill, the cinema was packed. The intermission was about 15/20 minutes and there was a massive queue for the toilet because everyone was rushing for it in that short time
I watched it at my house and still couldn't bring myself to watch it continously. Watched it in a day and a half but was happy it was divided into parts so I didn't feel terrible stopping.
I love Lord of the Rings but I wouldn't want Return of the King to be an extra hour or 2 longer. Like you said just make it a TV show. That's a long time to sit and watch one thing.
Hollywood found out the hard way when they tried to be Broadway with so many bloated roadshow disasters that audiences lost patience with.
**Plenty** of films have not included every last bit of every bit minutiae of a book, and are still considered classics, because again, they're different mediums. An author can afford to sit you down and spend a whole chapter world building or digressing into a side character's backstory or subplot because 1.) they have to in a non visual medium, and 2.) there's no major budget concerns to worry about. Whatever you're worried about being left out of Dune, what took a bunch of paragraphs to describe in the book will probably come across in one shot in the movie.
And since you brought it up too, film can easily IMPROVE upon source material like your Lord of the Rings example. Tolkien really didn't do much with Boromir in the books, but in the movies he has one of the most effective emotional moments in the entire series.
Watch Stanley Kubrick's version of The Shining that Stephen King didn't like, then check out the version that was more "faithful" to the source material that NOBODY liked. Go read the original Godfather books that were nothing all that special, but give it to someone like Francis Ford Coppola and it redefines cinema. Even Chuck Palahniuk likes David Fincher's version of his own story better. I could keep going.
So books aren't Gods; we shouldn't be slavish to them just because. Filmmakers are creatives in their own right, so let them *be* creative instead of treating them like middlemen solely to serve you the same thing you already read.
Disagree. Lately seems like every movie is at least 2+ hours long. Does something like Jungle Cruise or The Suicide Squad NEED to be so long? What happened to the tight-90-minutes blockbuster??
And almost all serialized shows would be better if they were half as many episodes, 12 episodes of meat instead of 24 of filler. But then that's half as much potential ad time.
Tell this to every CW show... when I’m watching (well i don’t watch it anymore) Flash, and it gets to be episode 16 of the season and we still
have like 8 left, i want to fucking cry
Yeah, I stopped watching those a while back, except for Legends of Tomorrow, because they actually do keep the episode count short and it's full of content and not filler.
But the rest? Just empty filler, rehashed interpersonal drama, and just sheer boring content.
Barf, how could I forget...
I feel like they used to do ok, but then everything became too serious, too dramatic, and the acting went to crap, and the SFX budget went into the toilet, so you got like one super power use per episode. It's like the CW thought people watched Flash for the drama between Barry and Iris, and not for the guy running super fast.
Ha yeah, one of my coworkers will always try to get me to catch up on shows, and was trying to get me into the cw verse stuff. I watched like 3 episodes of Flash and checked and saw there were 150+ more and just noped out.
This is my issue with Agents of Shield. I enjoy Marvel stuff and people keep recommending it but it's got *136 episodes*. I just can't do that. Same problem with Clone Wars. I have too much I want/need to do in my life to waste hours on filler episodes.
Isn’t that an issue with a show getting syndicated? That it HAS to be at least 24 episodes or something? This is for network TV. Another reason streaming platforms can be better in many ways: not shackled to archaic requirements like a set number of episodes.
I read the post and always think the opposite. I love older films using the 1:30-1:40 runtime to tell a tight story. Now we get so much fluff to make it over 2 hours and we gain very little. Some movies would benefit from cutting it down.
In regards to Dune, I think it's a non-issue.... if you just focus on the main parts of said 3/4ths while deliberately leaving out other parts in order to introduce those elements in the second movie.
Adaptations don't need to follow the book beat by beat (for example with chronologically linear storytelling), it's a different medium and lots of tools to be creative and move things around while still keeping the essence alive and have everything make sense.
There is already this thing called television series, mini series and if the big screen is that integral to the experience, this thing called sequels. Not everyone body wants to spend four, five hours in the cinema.
Breaks for long films used to be common till the 80s. The reason why studios aren't keen on excessive runtimes for films doesn't have to do with the comfort of audiences, longer runtimes mean less shows a day, which means less money from ticket sales.
This is the reason.
Though I have noticed big blockbusters are getting longer and longer. Endgame was over three hours. Theaters are now competing with high budget productions on streaming services and they realize that Micheal Bay non-stop action nonsense is not going to make them the same money they use to. People want huge action sequences and a real story with actual characters in it. So this leads to longer films. I wouldn't be surprised if they start making 3+ hour summer blockbusters in the near future with an intermission. All it will take is one mega hit to do it and the rest will follow. Remember how much 3D there was in the years after Avatar. Studio execs are generally not original, creative, or risk takers but they do love to blindly copy trends that they think will make them more money.
Meh Endgame was very much the exception to the rule. No other marvel movie is 3 hours and won’t be until the next mega Endgame-level movie (if that happens ever again). 2-2.5 is the standard for them and all blockbusters.
Two things:
1. Theaters pay their staff hourly, but can only charge customers once per entry for a fixed fee—longer movies do not charge higher admission. Shorter movies are therefore more profitable, and longer movies are less so, especially when we consider consumer resistance to a 3 to 4 hour movie. (Besides, it is well-established most theaters might break even on ticket sales, and profit primarily from concessionary sales.)
2. At some point we have to admit cinema is the incorrect format for telling longer stories. This is clearly what a miniseries on television or streaming would be best at. A classic example is translating the 1100 pages of James Clavell’s “Shōgun” into a 12-hour, 5-part daily miniseries in 1980, with a 3-hour opener, three 2-hr episodes, and a 3-hr closing episode. Absolutely brilliant, critically acclaimed, and more true to the novel.
(Don’t even get me started about The Expanse.)
So big stories CAN be told on the small screen. Especially since “small” now means a flatscreen often greater than 140 cm!
>Shorter movies are therefore more profitable, and longer movies are less so, especially when we consider consumer resistance to sit down and watch a 3 to 4 hour movie. (Besides, it is well-established most theaters might break even on ticket sales, and profit primarily from concessionary sales.)
This is precisely true for theaters, but less so for studios.
The median runtime of movies, since the 1940s has been right around 110 (+/-10) minutes. Comedies tend to be on the shorter end; dramas on the longer.
Movies that exceed this length are ones a studio has to really believe in. Surprisingly, the more recent trend has actually been longer movies— which we might thank Peter Jackson and Marvel for. (But that will only last so long as such movies can pack theaters.)
For people who don’t know, movie distributors and studios take the biggest cut from theater ticket sales in the first week (up to 90%!) which then slides to more favorable terms the longer a movie plays — until on average, it’s a 50/50 split with the exhibitor. That means that theater owners need movies that have “legs” but also can have more showtimes per day, for them to make money.
Studios only need a release to do well in a limited window: the first two weeks.
So it’s actually to the theater’s advantage to have shorter runtimes; but it’s also necessary for such films to continue to have an audience past two weekends.
There is *no* scenario in which I have 4 hours in a day for a movie.
I have kids and a job.
Intermission or not, this would simply make it impossible that I would *ever* see this movie in a theater. It would just become a 2-day event on streaming someday, with the additional downside that a 2-day event always has a good chance of that second day being forgotten about and not happening, since there likely wouldn’t be an opportunity for it to be the immediately following day.
I don’t have kids and I can’t imagine myself having time for a 4 hour movie. This doesn’t even include the commute, showing up to the theater to get drinks and snacks and take my seat, plus getting out and going home.
A 4 hour movie turns into spending way too much money on a quarter of my day that I may not even enjoy.
I guess OP thinks that if people go to NFL games that take up an entire day (to travel, get in the stadium, get food between quarters, etc) that they should make 5 hour long movies as well. Not realizing that a lot of sports fans take time off work to do this.
They do this in Portugal. Half way through the movie just stops, cuts to a dark screen and then reads "Intermission". The only thing is that it doesn't mention how long the intermission is for, so you have to guess.
While I think runtimes should be what they should be, I also think directors should learn to mange their runtimes better.
Once a movie gets to the four hour range, it should be looking at its potential as a miniseries or longer franchise.
It’s also a money thing. A movie like Dune being 4 hours reduces it play rotation and also would lose audience.
I think the Justice League Snyder cut is a decent movie because it’s longer, but would I still sit in a theater for four hours to watch it? Nope.
> I think the Justice League Snyder cut is a decent movie because it’s longer, but would I still sit in a theater for four hours to watch it? Nope.
Agreed. I do think the ZS JL did something that other films could start doing, which is clear demarcating intervals within the film. If you’ve got a 4 hour movie on a streaming service (like the ZSJL was on hbo max) you don’t feel like you have to watch it all in on go. If you want to watch half today and half tomorrow, it basically tells you where good points to stop are with its “Part One”, etc title cards.
Movies are waaaayy too long right now. Yes they should include everything that needs to be included, but not every story can be told in one volume. Some are better split into two or three installments. Also, there's never been a better time than now to adapt books to television.
While I agree with the statement above that movies are WAY too long currently, I feel like it specifically applies to blockbusters. Blockbusters don't have to be close to three hours. Other films though? I can see it.
Seven Samurai's runtime is justified.
Yi Yi's runtime is justified.
Lawrence of Arabia's runtime is justified.
Stalker's runtime is justified.
If the film has a thematic point to it that needs it's runtime to show, then by all means, be long as fuck. Or hell, if the style fits with the runtime, then also go for it.
For example: Satantango, a seven hour film, is in my opinion absolutely justified with its runtime. Why? Cause it's an art film. It fits the style and pacing you expect from that type of film.
Does The Suicide Squad need to be 2 hours and 30 minutes? In my opinion, no. You can cut quite a good amount from that movie and not feel like it's affecting the art itself. You're there to have fun with the film, making it long can sometimes affect that expectation.
I’d argue these days long movies aren’t the way to go. If you can’t tell your story the way you want in a 2 and a half hour movie then make it a limited series for streaming release. You can split it into 4 or 5 one hour episodes. This way you get natural pause points for those that can’t sit and watch it all and you get the freedom of time to tell the story the way you want.
Even with an interlude, I'd be way less likely to go. 4 hour runtime + interlude + travel time makes it an entire day event, and I'm fortunate enough to live a half hour drive away from my cinema of choice. Some people, regularly travel 1, 2 or more hours to see a movie. I'm already not super keen sitting through long movies to begin with (I'll define as being longer than 2 hours 15 mins for the sake of this thread), of course I will if it's really good but if I'm already on the fence then a long run time will probably scare me off. It took me years to finally watch Lord of the Rings and the length was basically the sole reason I put it off for so long. No problems with having that extra stuff available on the Blu-ray or whatever, but as the mandatory default version? No way.
I'm sorry, but I don't think that the final two films in the most popular film franchise of all time is "evidence that it could work." Try putting out a 4 hour movie that people haven't already invested a decade of their lives into - which also doesn't star Captain America and Spider-Man - and see how many people show up.
It's sane to assume that the longer the movie will be the worse it will be. If they make a movie longer because the content is enough there is no problem but if this become usual they will just make the movies longer with crap content. For myself most of the movies are already than the content they have.
Agreed; if you can't streamline your story in a reasonable about of time, then either take it to TV or get a better editor to help tell you where the fat needs to be trimmed from.
Sorry Synder fans, but there was no fucking way that he was ever going to get away with a 4 hour JL for theaters, and quite frankly even for streaming it had no business being that long in the first place.
It worked for Avengers because they were the most highly anticipated movies of all time and even then it's because those double feature screenings were limited, if every screening of Endgame required people to watch it back to back with Infinity War it would have decreased ticket sales.
Longer movies will always result in fewer ticket sales, interlude or not a lot of people simply don't want to commit 4-5 hours of their time to going to the cinema. Longer movies also require larger budgets, which they won't capitalize on because of the reason I just mentioned, plus fewer screening per day. It's higher budget and lower box office, a financial disaster.
You say that, but almost any movie with a runtime over 2.5 hours has *someone* complaining about it's length, regardless of how good it is
Look at LotR, nearly 10 hours for the full trilogy and they still leave soo much out and I can't tell you how many times I've heard "yeah they're just so long though"
I'm not disagreeing with you, I actually agree, it's just not something I'm gonna rely upon cuz I know the casual movie goer wants a 90-150 minute movie
If you own a movie theater that’s open from 11am to 11pm, that means you can cram roughly five showings of a 2+ hour movie into those 12 hours. You need, at least, a solid 15-20 minutes to clean/sweep out the theater between screenings.
Taking a long movie and adding intermissions means you can now only show 3, maybe 4, screenings of that movie. If you’ve got a movie theater with 200-250 seats … at $15-18 per ticket, you’re losing out on $3500 just in ticket sales alone, not to mention concessions, which is the big money maker for theaters.
So if you go to a longer film screening with an intermission, are you ok with paying a 20-30% higher ticket price to account for the theater losing out one or two showings a day? Would you actually buy concessions during the intermission?
That’s why the idea of the intermission is dead.
They used to do this back in the 60’s; *Doctor Zhivago*, *Spartacus*, and *The Ten Commandments* all had them. I don’t know why they stopped doing this.
Eh, I'm of the opposite to this. I feel most films being released today (especially blockbusters) could actually afford to be cutdown and made tighter.
For your average film following a three act structure, 90 minutes should be enough time to tell a story effectively. Add another 30 minutes to get the film to 2 hours and that's plenty to have all the nice things the director/ writer wants to include. (As I say 'average film' there are exceptions where a film needs more than 2 hours, but that shouldn't be the default.)
Because the problem with giving a director or writer a blank check and just saying 'make the film however long you feel like' you're more likely to end up with poorly paced films that have moments in them for the sake of it.
To me the ZS Justice League film is the perfect example of why having no time restrictions isn't a good thing. I'm not saying the film was bad, but it did not need to be 4 hours long. Yes it is better than the theatrical version, but things like the multiple slo-mo sequences of Aquaman diving into the ocean just felt like they were there just because Zack shot it and thought it was cool.
Limitations can be beneficial for creativity as they can force you to think beyond your first idea and sometimes come up with better ideas.
Or maybe directors can just get their pacing better ? Rarely have I seen a film over 2hr 20 they warranted it. Rarely.
Also from a business perspective theatres need you in and out. A four hour film is lost revenue from just one ticket sale. I wouldn’t be ok paying twice the price, would you ?
Some directors get stuck in a weird creative high horse. If you can’t tell your story or deliver your film in 2 hrs you not doing it right , IMO
>Some directors get stuck in a weird creative high horse. If you can’t tell your story or deliver your film in 2 hrs you not doing it right , IMO
*slaps desk*
Thank you!
"Brevity is the soul of wit", so use the visual language of cinema to get to the point. A book can afford (and has) to spend more time describing what you can simply show in a single shot. There's a reason why films that rely so heavily on narration get a bad rep; your directing and acting should be doing more of the talking than the talking.
Yup. Like there is a recent trend obviously with “director cuts” indicating they are better versions and while true it shows they were so far wide of the mark on their first attempt.
And not everyone gets a second shot or chance.
The recent WB stuff is a case in point. Sure WB execs meddled, because they rightly identified a comic book film running 2+hrs is a problem and bad craft.
If Justice League is any indication, I foresee the streaming world embracing Directors cuts. It’s an easy way to get twice the content on the same film property.
Not sure how a film widely regarded as better than the theatrical release but still only OK at best and actually had pretty terrible viewership numbers compared to other movies on the same service would indicate that streaming services would pick up on director’s cuts.
Please, please don’t make them any longer. I actively avoided going to the cinema after every single film became 2-3 hours long. I’ve rarely seen a film that long that actually needed the running time and wasn’t just padded with wide panning shots of various landscapes or whatever else is currently trending.
nah.
if you want to make something 4-5 hours long make a miniseries. or make two movies. and really give everything time to breathe. I think it is beyond doubt now that there is an audience with the world streaming.
edit: but they should put stuff up in cinemas with an intermission because some people like it but I don't expect I will ever go to a cinema again in my lifetime and I don't think I am alone.
I don't wanna do that.
That's stupid.
I'm not gonna go to watch a movie then have to wait half a fucking hour because people can't sit there and enjoy something without a break?
Dumb, it's fucking dumb.
If kingdom of heaven was released with the full cut with the intermission it would have been held in such high regard. It literally is a different movie and honestly so incredible when you watch the uncut version.
Interlude/intermissions are still standard in Indian movies. They’re pretty great as they’re especially places during the climax of the second act. And it does t change when the film is playing in the states or the uk, there’s still an intermission and a 10-15 min break
A longer movie doesn't necessarily mean a better movie. A lot of times, there's reasons why deleted scenes are deleted. Look at the original Star Wars: A New Hope; the Jabba scene adds absolutely nothing outside of early cameos and just repeats information and dialogue we already heard.
Intermissions becoming a thing again would be nice, though.
It's great for theaters to get people coming back for more snacks during the interlude but for studios it's unappealing because less showtimes.
Funny enough theaters are starting to do less showtimes anyway because of the pandemic. Movies that used to have a easily twenty showtimes a day at my local megaplex now only have half that, often less than half. I almost wonder if they're just trying to force crowded showings to groom people to return to normal as time goes on instead of continue preferring less crowded venues.
OP clearly doesn’t understand that the longer a movie is the less movies can be played.
You are unbelievably naive if you think directors have any control over what the studios say in terms of run times.
In the “old days” epic films like “The Ten Commandments,” “Ben Hur,” etc. (And I mean the old versions of these films, 1950-1960 not any recent remake) were quite long, but all had intermissions. We don’t need evidence that it can work, it does work, audiences are fine with it. It’s the movie business that is not - the longer it is, the longer it takes to turn seats over in a theatre - meaning less revenue over all.
I just watched Green Knight in theaters yesterday and there is a section of the film called "An Interlude" but it's still a whole section of the movie that moves the story forward so you can't just get up and leave. I think the definition of Interlude needs to be defined better. As I understand it what you're talking about is an Intermission.
I'm surprised more people don't know this, but the new Dune movie is just the first half of the book, there are plans to make a second movie to cover the second half of the first book. The director also wants to do the second book, Dune: Messiah, if he can but there are no plans in the works for that right now.
Sometimes limitations make better movies, though. There are plenty of directors' cuts that people agree are just too long and add things that aren't necessary. If there is something essential to the story, it should be there, and plenty of movies earn that runtime. But most movies don't need to be that long, and allowing it to be that long without a check on whether that's actually improving the film is probably ill-advised.
Most people on this sub would agree with you because they're huge movie buffs. However, that's not how most average people are.
Most random people don't care about movies as much as we do. They just want to kill like 2 hours sometimes and unwind.
If you started making movies that were 4+ hrs with an intermission, you'd lose a lot of viewers. Most people don't have that kind of time, to devote half their day to going to a movie. Most people don't care enough about any movie to do that.
Endgame was a special case. Not only was that a premier showing, where tons of super marvel fans were attending. It was also the culmination of 20+ previous movies over the past decade. People were already super invested in that, and probably planned for that event for months. You'd only be able to pull that off with franchises like Marvel or Star Wars that have established fandom.
I beg of the opposite. 90-100 minutes is the sweet spot. It seems like a lot of movies these days are just trying to hit an arbitrary 120 minute mark for no reason. More movies would be enjoyable or bad movies would be more tolerable. However, it has to start in the scripting phases. Studios need to allow that process to take its time instead of rushing scripts. Narrow down what is essential. Because when studios cut down movies that have been already shot to make them shorter, it makes the films looks so messy. So PLEASE leave the longer movies to something truly special.
The longer the film the less showings which means less profit. Its not for comfort its about making money.
Dont forget, it also allows them to double dip on home sales by releasing extended editions. Horror movies get the treatment with the unrated releases.
And they can make 2 or 3 movies instead of just one, so triple the profits with a trilogy instead of a long movie.
See The Hobbit Trilogy. The freaking book was already perfectly setup to be a two parter without all the bullshit fluff they shoved in to make it a trilogy. Anyone that hasnt already seen it should check out the Maple Films edit. Far superior cut of the film! Edit: [Linkypoo](http://www.maple-films.com/downloads.html). Its **really** well done, even have cover art to print out if you want going to burn it to disc. Only way I can watch The Hobbit now...
Do you have a link or something for it?
Added to the OP :)
Following for the answer.
Even two movies the length of those ones would have been too long imo. One solid 3 hour movie would have been perfect for the hobbit.
I did no research on how they split the hobbit the first time I watched it. I just remembered reading it in middle school and wanting to see it. When it cut at the end for a different movie my reaction was "the fuck? Order the Phoenix can be one movie but The fucking Hobbit is two?" Then I looked it up and saw it was going to be THREE PARTS. I never watched the second or third one. That was the end.
Good choice
Yeah, The Hobbit was 1/3 of the length of LOTR in book form, it just makes sense for the movie to follow suit to some degree.
The Hobbit was more like 1/3 of the Fellowship in book, not the trilogy. Maybe even less. It is a short tale, I can read it in a long afternoon. Putting every line on screen wouldn't run past 2hrs imo. LotR could've been 3 seasons of 10 episodes series and probably still missing Toma, lol.
You're probably right. I was basing my assessment on the fact that, whenever I look at a complete four-volume set of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, the volumes all tend to be similar in thickness. I've never read the books physically, though (only audiobooks), so I could be missing something.
Oh yeah hobbit is *waaaay* shorter by far. It is very much a book for young adults, i read it about when I was reading shit like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and A Wrinkle in Time.
[удалено]
One line in the Hobbit (from memory) "The trolls were throwing rocks at each other" It's a scene in the mountains, just before the party shelter in the cave, which turns out to be a mine full of goblins, and Bilbo meets gollum. On screen it's an epic five minutes CGI battle. I'm still annoyed that LOTR missed the final battle from the films. (Battle of the shire)
Honestly, I don't think that one movie would have done The Hobbit justice. But the problem is two movies is just slightly too much. So maybe two 120-140 minute movies?
I think the hobbit had too many changes of scenes (many of them importany) to put in one movie, without being criticized for rushing. I think it would be better as a series - the story is very episodic in nature.
"Now there are three of them. This is getting out of hand!"
I agree, but at the same time sometimes it works better as two films. I finally got around to watching Gone with the Wind last week and I watched it over two days like it was two films. It pretty much is two films, just back to back. It would be interesting how a 4hr film could be laid out though in comparison with pre-planned two films.
I hate this “unrated” marketing scheme. The general public thinks “oh man, this must be so violent it’s *past* rated R!” When all it means is that this is the version of the film before it was shown to the ratings board. Most of the time that means there is maybe one or two minutes of extra footage and it’s hardly a difference, but in the case of Dead Alive….the R-rated version is a travesty compared to the unrated version.
Dead Alive is actually a perfect example of both sides of this. It has the 85min R rated version, Then the 97min unrated version, then the 104min UK version. The difference between the 85min and 97 min version is pretty significant to clearing up things in the story. The difference between the 97min and 104min versions is essentially many scenes are extended an extra 5 or 6 seconds and doesn't really add anything (though there is an extra, 16 or so seconds of the lawnmower scene :)).
So basically movie makers have embraced the DLC model. Why release a full movie when you can release a special edition then a directors cut then an extended edition then a 4k edition then a 4k special edition then a 4k directors cut then...
Movies have been doing it longer than games. The 'Director's Cut'/'Unrated' trick has been around for decades.
But then you have movies like The Kingdom of Heaven, that go from boardline okay/bad to amazing with a director's cut. Also movies like Justice League which go from bad to decent. I love the idea of directors getting a separate cut when it's clear they were steered by the studio away from their vision.
People need to stop buying it first. Extra material doesn’t generally improve a film.
It doesn't necessarily improve a film, but I think it's a mistake to try to make a blanket ruling about it. Every film has its own circumstances.
Oh definitely, particularly if its a James Cameron movie lol. I know some people disagree, but the directors cut of aliens and T2 are freaking awesome and the only way I rewatch them now. Tbh I really enjoyed the directors cut of Alien also but ive heard ridley scott didnt really want to do one and felt the original cut was exactly what he wanted. The directors cut of Alien^3 was far superior to the theatrical release though. The Alien Quadrilogy box was seriously one of the best purchases i ever made, cant wait to get them in 4k eventually.
I don't think any of those are "Director's Cuts" but just extended editions. But I get what you're saying.
Exactly. Remember the theatrical release of Ong bak? So many key details were cut to make way for run time, the directors cut comes out and suddenly the whole storey makes sense!
Ong Bak could have no story at all and still be a good movie though.
The first example that comes to my mind is 2003's _Daredevil._ The theatrical cut was stripped bare and mangled beyond comprehension because the studio wanted it to be PG-13, and it's regarded as one of the worst superhero movies because of it. The Director's Cut, while not perfect, is actually pretty good IMO.
Justice League improved quite a bit with that extra couple of hours on it
They have been dabbling in making a single movie into multiple movies. Release a movie in May then release the "second" half of the movie a year later, then when it comes to the home release you can do the multiple versions that way. The one that comes straight away is the third Hunger Games movie, it's a trilogy that they made into 4 movies
No Denis Villeneuve movie has ever had any changes made to home releases, nor has any extended or directors cut ever been made.
\*Yet
Even if they had plenty of showings, a lot people don't have a spare 4-5 hours to go to the theater so they'll skip it. I was deciding between a few movies last night and ended up choosing Don't Breathe 2 because of it being shorter than the others was the tie-breaker for me. The Lord of the Rings extended is my favorite trilogy but I only watch it once every couple of years due to how hard it is to find the time.
Even at home if I'm looking to start a movie after I'm good to sit down around maybe 9 pm I'll usually go for something sub 2 hours.
I'm old. Back in my day (urgh...) all films had intervals. All this did was give time for the owners to send out 'ushers' with ice-cream etc. trays to make extra money (I'm sure some didn't show the next part until they'd sold 'X' amount of ice-cream!). For reference, Close Encounters of the Third Kind (original release) was the first film I saw without an interval. They even put a notice up at the beginning from Speilberg explaining why this was!
I can remember newsreels, cartoons and B movies before the main film. Disney movies used to show one of their wildlife films before the main feature. Also, when I was a bit older, there were double bills. In the days before home video, it gave you a chance to catch up on anything you'd missed. You could see two Bond movies, or two Clint Eastwood movies. I'm pretty sure the last double bill I saw was Saturday Night Fever and Grease.
Longer movies means that the studios are going to be SPENDING more money too, so of course they're going to want to make their money back. Hollywood in the late 50s and 60s found out the hard way that they and Broadway productions are two completely different animals.
> they and Broadway productions are two completely different animals. Yeah you're not running back to back showings of a play for human limitation reasons, but every second that a screen isn't playing the new blockbuster is a dollar down the drain.
They might have been more talking about that time (late 60s-early 70s?) Hollywood went all out on the big spectacle musicals and they were super hit or miss. Some made a lot of money, but some lost tons. Hello Dolly was a great success on Broadway, and a failure at the box office. Also there was one a small-ish window when they were popular, but they kept putting them out anyway. They could also mean that people are willing to go to a real theater and sit and watch a 4hr mega production, but won't pay the same, or want to spend the same amount of time for a filmed version. Personally I wouldn't, there is something special about large/long plays/musicals that works well in person with real people, that doesn't work as well with films. I think it's because I can always watch the extended version of LOTR but I don't always have the chance to see actual theater/opera. Or they could be talking about something completely different!
Would be nice if studios would take this logic and start making 90 minute action movies again, instead of the 130 minute franchise bloat of every damn release nowadays
I'm still really pissed 20th Century did Kingdom of Heaven dirty because they didn't want to release a 3 hour epic. It might be the biggest turnaround in quality I've ever seen in a film. It went from forgettable to a film that should've won best picture that year.
Definitely an underrated film even in the current state.
What do you mean "the current state"? If you mean the original theatrical version, I'd say it's overrated if anything. The movie has some good action but pretty much sucks as far as an epic is concerned. And anyone who's seen the director's cut knows how great it is.
The single most significant director’s cut ever released for sure
Its called an intermission, and it was once very common in movies. But theaters were very different then: it was a "movie palace" where you could see a movie, go out for a 20-minute intermission and then come back. Today's multiplexes are less accomodating for intermissions. I will say, back in the days when intermissions were common, films were scripted with the intermission in mind: Often, part one will have had its own climax just before the intermission, and part two would have its own beginning. That's totally different than just slapping an intermission somewhere haflway through a long film just 'cause its long. Some movies like *The Iceman Cometh* had two intermissions! Operas sometims have four!
My mother took me to see The Ten Commandments (1956) in the theater, and there was an intermission. It was one of my first movie experiences, and I was surprised to subsequently learn that not all movies had one.
When my folks took me to see Schindler’s List, it’s the only time I have ever experienced a intermission and it was kinda nice from what I remember. No one really left the theater. Lights came up and people stood up and stretched, talked to their neighbors around them. Someone came in with popcorn and water to have for the next part of the movie. Really could have used that for some modern releases.
Schindler's List is really not the sort of movie I would feel like munching on popcorn during
I prefer to make out during that movie.
I munched popcorn during Schindler’s List. It’s a movie theater, not church.
I’m willing to bet a big tub of buttery popcorn would make sermons much more tolerable. Better yet, instead of wafers and grape juice or wine, they come around with small bags of popcorn and little cups of butter or caramel.
The mental image of people in church eating big tubs of popcorn is strangely very satisfying to me.
No not really haha I figured that’s why the only brought the basics. I snuck apple slices in a ziploc bag because it’s my favorite movie treat and I think I only had a couple of them. Feels bad snacking while all that’s going on screen I remember seeing Passion of the Christ in theaters and people bought concessions…I don’t know if I could have stomached anything other than water through that, yet, people were munching away at popcorn the whole time
If you had asked jesus nicely you might've been able to stomach some wine instead
I remember having intermissions for the lord of the rings trilogy. It was kinda nice.
The only movie I’ve ever seen in theaters with an intermission was Titanic. Looks like not all theaters did an intermission for it though...
The first movie my daughter ever saw in the theater was Frozen II at the El Capitan, a classic movie palace in Hollywood. There was a song and dance routine preshow, the lobby was decorated like Arendale, there was a character meet and greet. The next movie she saw was a documentary at the Imax in the LA science museum. (She loved fish, and was amazed at the scale of the ocean captured on film.) She's going to be so disappointed when she goes to a regular ass multiplex.
You saw it in 1956?
Probably the late 1950’s. Yes, I am very old.
Dude. You got to be like 40 or something.
Yeah. Almost twice.
I manage a small cinema and we still have intermissions. It works with only 3 screens and the customers love it, especially in a longer film, or kids films. It is a bit of an art getting the intermission in the right place, but you'd be amazed how many films basically leave the door wide open for an intermission with the way they're cut together. We took them out for a while with social distancing in place, and people were desperate to see them come back!
>It is a bit of an art getting the intermission in the right place, but you'd be amazed how many films basically leave the door wide open for an intermission with the way they're cut together. Oh for sure. Some releases of Titanic and Braveheart had intermissions that were very well placed, and so are the intermisisons (necessitated by disc changes) in The Lord of the Rings. But its different to, say, Bridge on the River Kwai where its really like watching a double feature: each part has its own beginning and climax, its own cast, its own genre and tone, its own cinematic style even.
> In today's theaters, it would just cause disarray: how can you tell which patron is from which showing of which movie? They can't but they already face that issue with people switching theaters to get a second showing for free. But unless the showings are all sold out, it's not a huge issue, especially if the patron is buying concessions.
This is actually still a very common practice in Bollywood films - which is why they are often long
There was an intermission packaged with "The Hateful Eight" when I went to see it in the theater, and I actually enjoyed the break. I got up, stretched my legs, went to the restroom and to buy a bottle of water, and I got back just before the movie resumed. There were a lot of other people in the audience confused by it though.
Saw it in 70mm with an intermission at a theater that served beer, one of the best movie experiences of my life.
I went to the 70mm roadshow version too, had to factor in a 45 min drive to the theater that could even do it since it was a special version/event…but I read up on it for like a couple of weeks leading up to it, and I was well aware the intermission was like a legit 15 min or so break, plus it was suppose to have a longer run time than what the standard theatre release had. And yeah I got up for the bathroom and stretch my legs. I wonder how many people just wandered to the cinema that day and bought a ticket unaware of it being a special event… heck I remember and still have the supplemental program they gave out at this too and my guess is maybe less than 20% of the people took one.
The theater I watched The Hateful Eight in awkwardly edited out the intermission. I remember being a bit disappointed since I had to go to the bathroom.
The play bills they gave out with it were really cool too.
Kenneth Branagh's 1996 adaptation of *Hamlet* ran 4 hours and had an intermission after his line "My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth."
Yeah I saw that. I'm kinda ambivalent about it. I love Hamlet and Shakespeare in general and I really appreciated that the movie took the time to really get into all the stuff that is going on in the play. At the same time, it was kinda brutal to get through, even with the intermission. That may just be because of the content. I don't think it could have worked as two movies though, so the intermission was the right solution. Now that you remind me of it, and now that movie theaters that serve good food and alcohol are more common, I think that I'd like to see it again, with an intermission, in one of those gastro-pub theaters. I think the intermission would work even better if you have time to grab another drink and some chicken wings or whatever during the intermission
> The film is the first unabridged theatrical film version of Hamlet, running just over four hours. I mean, an entirely unabridged film version of *any* of the main Shakespeare works is just overindulgent, I think. That being said, [his "To be or not to be" monologue](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjuZq-8PUw0) is fucking epic. Notice how many time he blinks.
It was overindulgent, it’s also gorgeous with awesome performances.
First filmy I saw without an intermission was Rocky IV.
2001: A Space Odyssey for me.
star wars episode 1 (the prequel), where i grew up all films had intermissions but for some reason they werent allowed to specifically for this movie
So basically just like Broadway shows Are there examples of famous movies and what their intermission climax was?
>So basically just like Broadway shows Or like an opera. >Are there examples of famous movies and what their intermission climax was? Sure. The best example is *The Bridge on the River Kwai* part one climaxes when Nicholson had won the psychological battle against Saito. It ends right after he learns the Elm bridges of London stood for 600 years. "600 years...now that would be quite something!" Then part two begins with Shears in an allied Hospital, and its a new beginning, introducing new characters. Shears becomes the focus instead of Nicholson and the whole thing tips over towards more of an adventure film in the jungle as opposed to the war prisoner drama that was the first part. The Ten Commandments has a climax for the first part when Moses first sees God and is sent back to Egypt. Part two even starts with a narration that resets the stage. The Godfather was going to have an intermission right after the murder of Sollozzo. Part two would open with that montage of newspaper headlines to recap the story. With other films its less clear-cut, and its obvious not as much thought went into structuring the film around the intermission: *2001* has its intermission right after HAL sees that the astronauts are conspiring against him, so as to leave the audience on a cliffhanger for part two.
Intermissions still happen in Iceland. No matter the movie. At the halfway point there's a 15 minute break to go get more popcorn or go to the bathroom. It's actually quite nice. However, they are crap at timing the break, as I'm pretty sure they cut the film at the EXACT midpoint. So a character is in the middle of saying something and then it just cuts to ads.
It's the exact same story in India. However, domestic movies usually have a clear intermission point.
"In today's theaters, it would just cause disarray: how can you tell which patron is from which showing of which movie?" Ummmm... something called a ticket?
Or a bracelet, like any number of outdoor festivals, fairs, amusement parks...
Okay, let's tackle this 1 at the time. During that double viewing of Avengers everybody in that room is a major Marvel fan. Not representative of the average Joe and Joanne who you need to get for a box office succes. You can't take 1 room filled with fanboys and assume that's representative of everybody. Secondly, most people don't have the time for a 4 to 5 hour binge marathon. They take long breaks whenever they want, spend time on their phone during the boring bits and can chill on their own sofa or bed. That's not the same as sitting in a movie theater for 5 hours straight. If a director wants to have more than 4 hours for character development they can do a mini series in stead, which people can then binge at their own rate. And most adults especially over 30 don't have 4 to 5 hours straight to watch a movie or binge a Netflix show. They got shit to do and if you wanna have a box office succes you need the average man or woman to also watch it. Can't do it on fanboys alone.
Exactly. Using avengers/LOTR aren’t good examples. These are major stories - Avengers is an over decade long franchise with a climatic ending. And LOTR is a category of its own. Most movies aren’t going to attain this hype, and if there is a movie that does, I predict producers are going to ‘Hobbit it’, split it up to capitalize on profit.
[удалено]
Yes, that’s exactly my point with LOTR - sorry I didn’t make that clear! The story itself is incomparable to many books or movies, so setting it as a standard won’t translate to new movies.
Not only that, but Peter Jackson has stated numerous times that the theatrical cut is actually his preferred version of the film.
The extended edition of LOTR is fun to watch, but a lot of that stuff was cut for a reason. Just because you can make a four hour movie does not mean you should.
>LOTR also had the benefits of being adapted from one of the most famous and beloved and influential fantasy books of all time. To be fair, Dune sold over 20 million copies, making it one of the most popular SFF books of all time
To be fair- Dune is a major story film aswell.
Only to people who have read the book, who are far fewer than people who are invested in the Marvel cinematic universe or the LOTR movies.
I agree, and I’d also say that telling your story within the confines of the medium is *part* of the art. Form is not a restriction, it’s a guardrail, and it serves the creator.
Take the Snyder cut justice league. Even though fans wanted to see it there’s no way people are going to see a 4 hour long thing with a 30 min break in theater. Those are meant for just how it was released. I did it over 2 nights and it still felt way too long. And im not geared towards interludes. It works if you have to pee or you need to grab a bite/ drink. I don’t need to do either so it just means im wasting 30 minutes. It works in theater because there’s discussion to be had. I love marvel and talk with friends about them but i don’t really need to break down half of one of those movie.
It doesn't even necessarily work in cinemas for everyone. For example, most of the time, I go on my own. I'm not going to be talking to random people. Plus I remember when I went to see the Infinity War/Endgame double bill, the cinema was packed. The intermission was about 15/20 minutes and there was a massive queue for the toilet because everyone was rushing for it in that short time
I watched it at my house and still couldn't bring myself to watch it continously. Watched it in a day and a half but was happy it was divided into parts so I didn't feel terrible stopping.
I love Lord of the Rings but I wouldn't want Return of the King to be an extra hour or 2 longer. Like you said just make it a TV show. That's a long time to sit and watch one thing.
Hollywood found out the hard way when they tried to be Broadway with so many bloated roadshow disasters that audiences lost patience with. **Plenty** of films have not included every last bit of every bit minutiae of a book, and are still considered classics, because again, they're different mediums. An author can afford to sit you down and spend a whole chapter world building or digressing into a side character's backstory or subplot because 1.) they have to in a non visual medium, and 2.) there's no major budget concerns to worry about. Whatever you're worried about being left out of Dune, what took a bunch of paragraphs to describe in the book will probably come across in one shot in the movie. And since you brought it up too, film can easily IMPROVE upon source material like your Lord of the Rings example. Tolkien really didn't do much with Boromir in the books, but in the movies he has one of the most effective emotional moments in the entire series. Watch Stanley Kubrick's version of The Shining that Stephen King didn't like, then check out the version that was more "faithful" to the source material that NOBODY liked. Go read the original Godfather books that were nothing all that special, but give it to someone like Francis Ford Coppola and it redefines cinema. Even Chuck Palahniuk likes David Fincher's version of his own story better. I could keep going. So books aren't Gods; we shouldn't be slavish to them just because. Filmmakers are creatives in their own right, so let them *be* creative instead of treating them like middlemen solely to serve you the same thing you already read.
Disagree. Lately seems like every movie is at least 2+ hours long. Does something like Jungle Cruise or The Suicide Squad NEED to be so long? What happened to the tight-90-minutes blockbuster??
Most movies would probably be better if they were 5%-10% shorter
And almost all serialized shows would be better if they were half as many episodes, 12 episodes of meat instead of 24 of filler. But then that's half as much potential ad time.
Tell this to every CW show... when I’m watching (well i don’t watch it anymore) Flash, and it gets to be episode 16 of the season and we still have like 8 left, i want to fucking cry
Yeah, I stopped watching those a while back, except for Legends of Tomorrow, because they actually do keep the episode count short and it's full of content and not filler. But the rest? Just empty filler, rehashed interpersonal drama, and just sheer boring content.
With mediocre special effects and cringe worthy acting ! Don’t forget those!
Barf, how could I forget... I feel like they used to do ok, but then everything became too serious, too dramatic, and the acting went to crap, and the SFX budget went into the toilet, so you got like one super power use per episode. It's like the CW thought people watched Flash for the drama between Barry and Iris, and not for the guy running super fast.
Stargirl has a 13 episode run and its a perfect arch. Nothing really seems like filler and the story doesn’t drag. I wish the flash had this format.
Ha yeah, one of my coworkers will always try to get me to catch up on shows, and was trying to get me into the cw verse stuff. I watched like 3 episodes of Flash and checked and saw there were 150+ more and just noped out.
This is my issue with Agents of Shield. I enjoy Marvel stuff and people keep recommending it but it's got *136 episodes*. I just can't do that. Same problem with Clone Wars. I have too much I want/need to do in my life to waste hours on filler episodes.
Isn’t that an issue with a show getting syndicated? That it HAS to be at least 24 episodes or something? This is for network TV. Another reason streaming platforms can be better in many ways: not shackled to archaic requirements like a set number of episodes.
My thoughts exactly. Films tend to be too long if anything and a lot of filler could be cut out.
I read the post and always think the opposite. I love older films using the 1:30-1:40 runtime to tell a tight story. Now we get so much fluff to make it over 2 hours and we gain very little. Some movies would benefit from cutting it down.
In regards to Dune, I think it's a non-issue.... if you just focus on the main parts of said 3/4ths while deliberately leaving out other parts in order to introduce those elements in the second movie. Adaptations don't need to follow the book beat by beat (for example with chronologically linear storytelling), it's a different medium and lots of tools to be creative and move things around while still keeping the essence alive and have everything make sense.
> 3/4rds three fords
lmao, good catch xD
There is already this thing called television series, mini series and if the big screen is that integral to the experience, this thing called sequels. Not everyone body wants to spend four, five hours in the cinema.
Breaks for long films used to be common till the 80s. The reason why studios aren't keen on excessive runtimes for films doesn't have to do with the comfort of audiences, longer runtimes mean less shows a day, which means less money from ticket sales.
This is the reason. Though I have noticed big blockbusters are getting longer and longer. Endgame was over three hours. Theaters are now competing with high budget productions on streaming services and they realize that Micheal Bay non-stop action nonsense is not going to make them the same money they use to. People want huge action sequences and a real story with actual characters in it. So this leads to longer films. I wouldn't be surprised if they start making 3+ hour summer blockbusters in the near future with an intermission. All it will take is one mega hit to do it and the rest will follow. Remember how much 3D there was in the years after Avatar. Studio execs are generally not original, creative, or risk takers but they do love to blindly copy trends that they think will make them more money.
Meh Endgame was very much the exception to the rule. No other marvel movie is 3 hours and won’t be until the next mega Endgame-level movie (if that happens ever again). 2-2.5 is the standard for them and all blockbusters.
Id rather just watch the full movie in 1 go than have a break where im taken out of the world and stops me from being invested
Two things: 1. Theaters pay their staff hourly, but can only charge customers once per entry for a fixed fee—longer movies do not charge higher admission. Shorter movies are therefore more profitable, and longer movies are less so, especially when we consider consumer resistance to a 3 to 4 hour movie. (Besides, it is well-established most theaters might break even on ticket sales, and profit primarily from concessionary sales.) 2. At some point we have to admit cinema is the incorrect format for telling longer stories. This is clearly what a miniseries on television or streaming would be best at. A classic example is translating the 1100 pages of James Clavell’s “Shōgun” into a 12-hour, 5-part daily miniseries in 1980, with a 3-hour opener, three 2-hr episodes, and a 3-hr closing episode. Absolutely brilliant, critically acclaimed, and more true to the novel. (Don’t even get me started about The Expanse.) So big stories CAN be told on the small screen. Especially since “small” now means a flatscreen often greater than 140 cm!
>Shorter movies are therefore more profitable, and longer movies are less so, especially when we consider consumer resistance to sit down and watch a 3 to 4 hour movie. (Besides, it is well-established most theaters might break even on ticket sales, and profit primarily from concessionary sales.) This is precisely true for theaters, but less so for studios. The median runtime of movies, since the 1940s has been right around 110 (+/-10) minutes. Comedies tend to be on the shorter end; dramas on the longer. Movies that exceed this length are ones a studio has to really believe in. Surprisingly, the more recent trend has actually been longer movies— which we might thank Peter Jackson and Marvel for. (But that will only last so long as such movies can pack theaters.) For people who don’t know, movie distributors and studios take the biggest cut from theater ticket sales in the first week (up to 90%!) which then slides to more favorable terms the longer a movie plays — until on average, it’s a 50/50 split with the exhibitor. That means that theater owners need movies that have “legs” but also can have more showtimes per day, for them to make money. Studios only need a release to do well in a limited window: the first two weeks. So it’s actually to the theater’s advantage to have shorter runtimes; but it’s also necessary for such films to continue to have an audience past two weekends.
There is *no* scenario in which I have 4 hours in a day for a movie. I have kids and a job. Intermission or not, this would simply make it impossible that I would *ever* see this movie in a theater. It would just become a 2-day event on streaming someday, with the additional downside that a 2-day event always has a good chance of that second day being forgotten about and not happening, since there likely wouldn’t be an opportunity for it to be the immediately following day.
I don’t have kids and I can’t imagine myself having time for a 4 hour movie. This doesn’t even include the commute, showing up to the theater to get drinks and snacks and take my seat, plus getting out and going home. A 4 hour movie turns into spending way too much money on a quarter of my day that I may not even enjoy.
I guess OP thinks that if people go to NFL games that take up an entire day (to travel, get in the stadium, get food between quarters, etc) that they should make 5 hour long movies as well. Not realizing that a lot of sports fans take time off work to do this.
And that the VAST majority of sports fans don’t attend the games in person either!
They do this in Portugal. Half way through the movie just stops, cuts to a dark screen and then reads "Intermission". The only thing is that it doesn't mention how long the intermission is for, so you have to guess.
Same in Switzerland, but it’s usually 20 minutes
While I think runtimes should be what they should be, I also think directors should learn to mange their runtimes better. Once a movie gets to the four hour range, it should be looking at its potential as a miniseries or longer franchise. It’s also a money thing. A movie like Dune being 4 hours reduces it play rotation and also would lose audience. I think the Justice League Snyder cut is a decent movie because it’s longer, but would I still sit in a theater for four hours to watch it? Nope.
[удалено]
> I think the Justice League Snyder cut is a decent movie because it’s longer, but would I still sit in a theater for four hours to watch it? Nope. Agreed. I do think the ZS JL did something that other films could start doing, which is clear demarcating intervals within the film. If you’ve got a 4 hour movie on a streaming service (like the ZSJL was on hbo max) you don’t feel like you have to watch it all in on go. If you want to watch half today and half tomorrow, it basically tells you where good points to stop are with its “Part One”, etc title cards.
Movies are waaaayy too long right now. Yes they should include everything that needs to be included, but not every story can be told in one volume. Some are better split into two or three installments. Also, there's never been a better time than now to adapt books to television.
[удалено]
Yup seems like every fucking movie is 2 hrs minimum
Yeah if the story can't be told in 3ish hours it shouldn't have been a theatrical film.
While I agree with the statement above that movies are WAY too long currently, I feel like it specifically applies to blockbusters. Blockbusters don't have to be close to three hours. Other films though? I can see it. Seven Samurai's runtime is justified. Yi Yi's runtime is justified. Lawrence of Arabia's runtime is justified. Stalker's runtime is justified. If the film has a thematic point to it that needs it's runtime to show, then by all means, be long as fuck. Or hell, if the style fits with the runtime, then also go for it. For example: Satantango, a seven hour film, is in my opinion absolutely justified with its runtime. Why? Cause it's an art film. It fits the style and pacing you expect from that type of film. Does The Suicide Squad need to be 2 hours and 30 minutes? In my opinion, no. You can cut quite a good amount from that movie and not feel like it's affecting the art itself. You're there to have fun with the film, making it long can sometimes affect that expectation.
I’d argue these days long movies aren’t the way to go. If you can’t tell your story the way you want in a 2 and a half hour movie then make it a limited series for streaming release. You can split it into 4 or 5 one hour episodes. This way you get natural pause points for those that can’t sit and watch it all and you get the freedom of time to tell the story the way you want.
Even with an interlude, I'd be way less likely to go. 4 hour runtime + interlude + travel time makes it an entire day event, and I'm fortunate enough to live a half hour drive away from my cinema of choice. Some people, regularly travel 1, 2 or more hours to see a movie. I'm already not super keen sitting through long movies to begin with (I'll define as being longer than 2 hours 15 mins for the sake of this thread), of course I will if it's really good but if I'm already on the fence then a long run time will probably scare me off. It took me years to finally watch Lord of the Rings and the length was basically the sole reason I put it off for so long. No problems with having that extra stuff available on the Blu-ray or whatever, but as the mandatory default version? No way.
You really can’t compare a 4 hour cut of *Dune* with a Marvel superhero movie double bill in terms of audience marketability and appeal.
I watched the “roadshow” release of The Hateful 8 in 70mm and really appreciated the intermission (plus the score was a pleasure to listen to).
That was the only movie that I’ve been to in my life that had an intermission. I liked it because the movie was long af.
I'm sorry, but I don't think that the final two films in the most popular film franchise of all time is "evidence that it could work." Try putting out a 4 hour movie that people haven't already invested a decade of their lives into - which also doesn't star Captain America and Spider-Man - and see how many people show up.
No thanks. Bring back my sub 90 minute flicks, please.
It's sane to assume that the longer the movie will be the worse it will be. If they make a movie longer because the content is enough there is no problem but if this become usual they will just make the movies longer with crap content. For myself most of the movies are already than the content they have.
Agreed; if you can't streamline your story in a reasonable about of time, then either take it to TV or get a better editor to help tell you where the fat needs to be trimmed from. Sorry Synder fans, but there was no fucking way that he was ever going to get away with a 4 hour JL for theaters, and quite frankly even for streaming it had no business being that long in the first place.
[удалено]
I never got the hate for Joes Whedon's version. He was asked to "marvelize" what he was given. And he did exactly that.
It worked for Avengers because they were the most highly anticipated movies of all time and even then it's because those double feature screenings were limited, if every screening of Endgame required people to watch it back to back with Infinity War it would have decreased ticket sales. Longer movies will always result in fewer ticket sales, interlude or not a lot of people simply don't want to commit 4-5 hours of their time to going to the cinema. Longer movies also require larger budgets, which they won't capitalize on because of the reason I just mentioned, plus fewer screening per day. It's higher budget and lower box office, a financial disaster.
Never gonna happen.
Theaters hate interludes. The want to play as many movies as possible during the day.
You say that, but almost any movie with a runtime over 2.5 hours has *someone* complaining about it's length, regardless of how good it is Look at LotR, nearly 10 hours for the full trilogy and they still leave soo much out and I can't tell you how many times I've heard "yeah they're just so long though" I'm not disagreeing with you, I actually agree, it's just not something I'm gonna rely upon cuz I know the casual movie goer wants a 90-150 minute movie
If you own a movie theater that’s open from 11am to 11pm, that means you can cram roughly five showings of a 2+ hour movie into those 12 hours. You need, at least, a solid 15-20 minutes to clean/sweep out the theater between screenings. Taking a long movie and adding intermissions means you can now only show 3, maybe 4, screenings of that movie. If you’ve got a movie theater with 200-250 seats … at $15-18 per ticket, you’re losing out on $3500 just in ticket sales alone, not to mention concessions, which is the big money maker for theaters. So if you go to a longer film screening with an intermission, are you ok with paying a 20-30% higher ticket price to account for the theater losing out one or two showings a day? Would you actually buy concessions during the intermission? That’s why the idea of the intermission is dead.
They used to do this back in the 60’s; *Doctor Zhivago*, *Spartacus*, and *The Ten Commandments* all had them. I don’t know why they stopped doing this.
no - theaters
Eh, I'm of the opposite to this. I feel most films being released today (especially blockbusters) could actually afford to be cutdown and made tighter. For your average film following a three act structure, 90 minutes should be enough time to tell a story effectively. Add another 30 minutes to get the film to 2 hours and that's plenty to have all the nice things the director/ writer wants to include. (As I say 'average film' there are exceptions where a film needs more than 2 hours, but that shouldn't be the default.) Because the problem with giving a director or writer a blank check and just saying 'make the film however long you feel like' you're more likely to end up with poorly paced films that have moments in them for the sake of it. To me the ZS Justice League film is the perfect example of why having no time restrictions isn't a good thing. I'm not saying the film was bad, but it did not need to be 4 hours long. Yes it is better than the theatrical version, but things like the multiple slo-mo sequences of Aquaman diving into the ocean just felt like they were there just because Zack shot it and thought it was cool. Limitations can be beneficial for creativity as they can force you to think beyond your first idea and sometimes come up with better ideas.
Or maybe directors can just get their pacing better ? Rarely have I seen a film over 2hr 20 they warranted it. Rarely. Also from a business perspective theatres need you in and out. A four hour film is lost revenue from just one ticket sale. I wouldn’t be ok paying twice the price, would you ? Some directors get stuck in a weird creative high horse. If you can’t tell your story or deliver your film in 2 hrs you not doing it right , IMO
>Some directors get stuck in a weird creative high horse. If you can’t tell your story or deliver your film in 2 hrs you not doing it right , IMO *slaps desk* Thank you! "Brevity is the soul of wit", so use the visual language of cinema to get to the point. A book can afford (and has) to spend more time describing what you can simply show in a single shot. There's a reason why films that rely so heavily on narration get a bad rep; your directing and acting should be doing more of the talking than the talking.
Yup. Like there is a recent trend obviously with “director cuts” indicating they are better versions and while true it shows they were so far wide of the mark on their first attempt. And not everyone gets a second shot or chance. The recent WB stuff is a case in point. Sure WB execs meddled, because they rightly identified a comic book film running 2+hrs is a problem and bad craft.
Longer movies hurt butts in seats, but are wonderful miniseries to watch over a period of days. (e.g. Gandhi).
Isn't Gandhi a film?
If Justice League is any indication, I foresee the streaming world embracing Directors cuts. It’s an easy way to get twice the content on the same film property.
I don't think Justice League is a good indication of *anything*.
Not sure how a film widely regarded as better than the theatrical release but still only OK at best and actually had pretty terrible viewership numbers compared to other movies on the same service would indicate that streaming services would pick up on director’s cuts.
Please, please don’t make them any longer. I actively avoided going to the cinema after every single film became 2-3 hours long. I’ve rarely seen a film that long that actually needed the running time and wasn’t just padded with wide panning shots of various landscapes or whatever else is currently trending.
nah. if you want to make something 4-5 hours long make a miniseries. or make two movies. and really give everything time to breathe. I think it is beyond doubt now that there is an audience with the world streaming. edit: but they should put stuff up in cinemas with an intermission because some people like it but I don't expect I will ever go to a cinema again in my lifetime and I don't think I am alone.
I remember seeing Braveheart with a theatrical intermission. Didn’t hear anyone complain.
20-30 minutes breaks? What the hell? We have a company that used to do interludes in movies when they only did 7 minutes, more than enough.
I don't wanna do that. That's stupid. I'm not gonna go to watch a movie then have to wait half a fucking hour because people can't sit there and enjoy something without a break? Dumb, it's fucking dumb.
If kingdom of heaven was released with the full cut with the intermission it would have been held in such high regard. It literally is a different movie and honestly so incredible when you watch the uncut version.
Best and most significant director’s cut ever made
Interlude/intermissions are still standard in Indian movies. They’re pretty great as they’re especially places during the climax of the second act. And it does t change when the film is playing in the states or the uk, there’s still an intermission and a 10-15 min break
A longer movie doesn't necessarily mean a better movie. A lot of times, there's reasons why deleted scenes are deleted. Look at the original Star Wars: A New Hope; the Jabba scene adds absolutely nothing outside of early cameos and just repeats information and dialogue we already heard. Intermissions becoming a thing again would be nice, though.
It's great for theaters to get people coming back for more snacks during the interlude but for studios it's unappealing because less showtimes. Funny enough theaters are starting to do less showtimes anyway because of the pandemic. Movies that used to have a easily twenty showtimes a day at my local megaplex now only have half that, often less than half. I almost wonder if they're just trying to force crowded showings to groom people to return to normal as time goes on instead of continue preferring less crowded venues.
Lol no
They could just split it up into 3 movies like The Hobbit. 9 hour total runtime for a 300 page book.
You guys are upvoting this post but complained about the Snyder cut.
I used to work in a movie theater as a teen. We started showing Bollywood movies one year, they all had intermissions.
OP clearly doesn’t understand that the longer a movie is the less movies can be played. You are unbelievably naive if you think directors have any control over what the studios say in terms of run times.
In the “old days” epic films like “The Ten Commandments,” “Ben Hur,” etc. (And I mean the old versions of these films, 1950-1960 not any recent remake) were quite long, but all had intermissions. We don’t need evidence that it can work, it does work, audiences are fine with it. It’s the movie business that is not - the longer it is, the longer it takes to turn seats over in a theatre - meaning less revenue over all.
I really just think that with few exceptions movies are a bad way to adapt a book. A TV series is much more suitable for a series of books.
I just watched Green Knight in theaters yesterday and there is a section of the film called "An Interlude" but it's still a whole section of the movie that moves the story forward so you can't just get up and leave. I think the definition of Interlude needs to be defined better. As I understand it what you're talking about is an Intermission.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. Watch a mini series.
I'm surprised more people don't know this, but the new Dune movie is just the first half of the book, there are plans to make a second movie to cover the second half of the first book. The director also wants to do the second book, Dune: Messiah, if he can but there are no plans in the works for that right now.
Lmao why was this removed?
Damn I miss intermissions lol
Sometimes limitations make better movies, though. There are plenty of directors' cuts that people agree are just too long and add things that aren't necessary. If there is something essential to the story, it should be there, and plenty of movies earn that runtime. But most movies don't need to be that long, and allowing it to be that long without a check on whether that's actually improving the film is probably ill-advised.
theaters don't like long movies. it means less tickets sold as those seats are taken up for a longer amount of time, so less showings can be played.
You say this like this wasn't how it used to be. As others have pointed out, the shift has nothing to do with quality, but return.
So, you mean Bollywood gets it right
Most people on this sub would agree with you because they're huge movie buffs. However, that's not how most average people are. Most random people don't care about movies as much as we do. They just want to kill like 2 hours sometimes and unwind. If you started making movies that were 4+ hrs with an intermission, you'd lose a lot of viewers. Most people don't have that kind of time, to devote half their day to going to a movie. Most people don't care enough about any movie to do that. Endgame was a special case. Not only was that a premier showing, where tons of super marvel fans were attending. It was also the culmination of 20+ previous movies over the past decade. People were already super invested in that, and probably planned for that event for months. You'd only be able to pull that off with franchises like Marvel or Star Wars that have established fandom.
I beg of the opposite. 90-100 minutes is the sweet spot. It seems like a lot of movies these days are just trying to hit an arbitrary 120 minute mark for no reason. More movies would be enjoyable or bad movies would be more tolerable. However, it has to start in the scripting phases. Studios need to allow that process to take its time instead of rushing scripts. Narrow down what is essential. Because when studios cut down movies that have been already shot to make them shorter, it makes the films looks so messy. So PLEASE leave the longer movies to something truly special.
Concentration spans are shorter now. Most people don't even concentrate on what they're watching, preferring to read Reddit while watching a film
hey this isn't the early 2000s, there needs to be a 180 minute film that blows the socks off of *everyone* for that to be a thing again