• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Perfect movie length?

sparkchaser

Administrator and Stuntman
Staff member
I know Lynch hated it but I actually liked the "inner thoughts" that were added in the Smithee version.
 

zen

New Member
i think a person still needed to have read Dune to really understand what was going on in the movies, long or shorter versions.. it remains one of my favourite 'classic' movies..
 

beer good

Well-Known Member
Having seen The Hobbit, yes, there's definitely such a thing as an overlong movie. This might have made a brilliant 3-hour movie, or even a fun 6-hour one, but as the first third of a 9-hour movie... I really don't know how you can add so much padding to a movie and still have it feel stressed. If they wanted to fill time, they could have just added more world-building or explored the different characters more - but nah, let's just add a whole bunch of fight scenes to show off the 3D. Which is impressive, sure, but will be nothing special 3 years from now.

Freeman and McKellen are good as ever, though, and Christopher Lee remains one of the heaviest actors alive, screen-presence-wise.
 

Warrigal

New Member
When it came out in 1992, Heimat 2: Chronicle of a Generation was the longest film ever exhibited in a mainstream release. I love all twenty-five hours of that masterpiece, but I wouldn't expect anyone to believe me until they've seen it themselves (ideally in the 13 parts it was later released in, as I wouldn't advise staying up for twenty-four hours...).

Stanley Kubrick's favourite film was the first Heimat(A Chronicle of Germany), which in itself was over ten captivating hours long, but Stan's sense of pacing unfortunately wasn't quite as consistent in his own work. Spartacus(which Kubrick all but disowned), A Clockwork Orange, and The Shining were exemplary demonstrations of how big a role editing plays in making the hours fly by. But somehow the great director's painstaking attention to detail was less surefooted in Eyes Wide Shut(that never needed to be over two hours long), 2001: A Space Odyssey(I hope I never see that last half hour ever again), and the atypically humourless adaptation Barry Lyndon. It's all about maintaining a rhythm that virtually makes the running time irrelevant to the experience.
 

Karen C

Member
Same rule for movies as for books:
Start telling the story; when finished, stop.
Exactly. Couldn't have put it better myself.

I don't actually mind how long a movie is and it's not something that I've ever really thought about before as being all that important. I do, however, tend to watch most movies on DVD rather than in the movie theater so I have always got the pause option for toilet breaks etc. But to be honest as long as it doesn't ramble on too much with unnecessary filler and everything is relevant and crucial to the plot then I don't really have a problem with the overall length of a movie.
 

regdog

Moderator
Staff member
It depends on the story. I prefer the longer versions of LOTR and Harry Potter. They tell the complete story without leaving loose ends.

Other times some one and half movies seem to never end
 

member

Member
In the good old days when people used to enjoy a feature film as their sole means of entertainment, we had Gone With the Wind.
Then came TV and the likes of Emerdale Farm, Daftenders and Simon Bowel's got no Talent.
What this did was foster a generation of viewers who were trained to only be able to concentrate for 15 minutes at a time.
The perfect length of a movie is really determined by the person watching it.
As I see the general public on Televsion from time to time they seem to exhibit the attention span of a goldfish.
Bizarre', I love lengthy blockbusters, but to answer the original question; the main preference is probably around the 7 minute mark at present.


This is of course my opinion, some may feel free to disagree.
 

Peder

Well-Known Member
. . .and Simon Bowel's got no Talent.
What this did was foster a generation of viewers who were trained to only be able to concentrate for 15 minutes at a time.
I see all of your pronouncements spread through your numerous posts. I was wondering what enlightened generation you place yourself in?
 

member

Member
I see all of your pronouncements spread through your numerous posts. I was wondering what enlightened generation you place yourself in?


I joined to give my opinions on books and related subjects Ped.
Getting personal is not helpful to the creative function of the forum.
I will permit more personal questions in private message, but not on the boards.
 

bougti

New Member
I respect films that take their time. Barry Lyndon is one of my favourites. That said, if a film is going over two hours and a half, it better be something special, or I'll be harsher in my evalution of it if it's bad.







Tutuapp 9apps Showbox
 
Last edited:

Lisa McCoy

New Member
Well, the duration of 90-120 mins is ideal for me. I have a vast collection of downloaded movies, and I usually prefer the shorter durations due to time constraints. But that does not mean longer movies are boring or the content needs to be cut to the 'ideal duration'. As long as a film can convey art in the form of excellent direction, performance, screenplay/writing, cinematography, and music, the duration is not an issue. Take for example 'The Godfather'. Also, my personal favorite is Kurosawa's 'Seven Samurai' which is 207 minutes, and I did not feel the slightest of lag due to the superior quality of filmmaking. Kurosawa's 'Rashomon' had a runtime of 88 mins, and it was an epic in its own rights. It all boils down to the director's conviction.
 
Top