Strange. 3 hours doesn’t seem overly long IMO but 1.5hrs is a very short movie. I would have assumed the Tarantino’s rep. would have filled the cinemas one way or the other.
Also I really want to see the Asian cut
do miramax really not credit anyone with an attention span of longer than 90 minutes? after all, nobody went to see titanic because it was 3hrs 15mins did they?
arseholes.
did tarantino not have any say in this either?
im constantly bewildered at movie companys ignorance of the viewing public. do they have any fucking idea of the audience demographics for tarantino films
gaaa!
Uh… no. It used to be the stanard, and probably makes for better movies in most cases. The editin must be tighter, and that forces directors to be smarter about what they cut and include, which would have been a good idea in the case of “Matrix: Reloaded”. Three hours is definitely too long for a movie. Even The Lord of the Rings didn’t go that far.
I know that 1.5 use to be standard but most movies that I see now are over 2. I’d have no problem with a 3+ movie but then again I sat through all of Gettysburg in one day 
Actually, the Lord of the Rings was only just under 3 hours and the special edition was 3 and a half. Still, two 90 minute films sound a lot better for a martial arts movie where I can see people getting tired of 3 hours of fight scenes.
Plus they come out within a couple of weeks of each other so it’s not like the Matrix movies where you have to wait months or the LOTR movie where there’s 3 years between the first and 3rd movies.
I like Tarantino. I loved Jackie Brown, which a lot of people thought was too long. I haven’t read the script of the movie in question, but this really seems like an invitation to produce a bloated mess.
So, I’m supposed to buy two tickets instead of one to see the same goddamned movie. Brilliant.
Considering this movie only cost $55 million to make this is a pretty major coup for Miramax. If the first part is any good (I imagine it will be) anyone who saw it will have to see the 2nd part. Miramax should theoretically bring in twice the revenue.
I kinda of hope he does some reshoots to make a 3.5 hour or 4 hour biliogy.
MtM
Actually, didn’t most movies use to be an average of two hours long? Citizen Kane was not hour-and-a-half little job. And there have always been epics like Ben Hur, Sparticus, and a slew of other movie’s names I’m sure I could misspell. 3 hour long movies are nothing new, and if it’s a good movie, the length shouldn’t matter.
Of course, a three hour long kung-fu movie may be a bit much…but Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon wasn’t some short little film, and I could have done with that being a bit longer, so who knows? If it’s good, it should be kept whole. If not, well…I’d much rather only waste money on one ticket to find out.
I like Tarantino’s movies, but something about this movie says “stinker” to me. Uma Thurman in the previews looked very inappropriately cast. I had no believability that she knew anything about martial arts. She looked like she was just doing the steps: move left, move right, crouch, jump,…
But Tarantino’s a great director so maybe the previews don’t do it justice. I’ll wait a few weeks after it comes out to decide if it’s worth seeing.
filmore that’s the kind of thing that has me a bit worried about the movie. I hope they’re not panicking and trying to make the movie more approachable due to it’s shitness.
I’m looking forward to King Bill in a big way as I’m a huge JT fan. If this means two good movies then that’s fine and dandy if a little strange IMO but if it’s a fire fighting exercise to try and “fix” a bad movie I’ll be very disappointed.
Of course, you don’t get any of this benefit by making one three-hour story into two 90-minute halves. I know that’s not what you were saying, but I just wanted to point it out.
QT not JT for feck sake.
Thanks. It was confusing the hell out of me.
And normally I’m not one to pay for one movie then sneak into another, but somehow I don’t see myself being above buying a ticket for one movie and sneaking into the second half of the movie. I like QT movies and all, but not enough to pay $17-$23 (depending on where I see it; parking’s expensive in Seattle) to see one damn 3 hour movie.
From the linked article:
There are two issues here. First, “too long” from an audience standpoint: some people really will avoid movies that they think are too long, but really that’s secondary. “Too long” in this context more likely means from an exhibitioner standpoint. Theater owners and managers really dislike three hour movies, because it means two showings on evenings instead of three. If the movie is selling out every showing, that means 50% less revenue from the lost showing.
Also, as others have pointed out, by splitting it into two pictures, they get two premier weekends, two tickets to see it all, two popcorn and coke purchases at $10, etc. This seems much more like a top-down financial decision than a practical length decision.
From a purely artistic standpoint, a movie should be long enough to tell the story it needs to tell, but no longer. If this is three hours, so be it. Any minute cut from Lawrence of Arabia (about 3:50) would diminish it. Adding anything to the typically 70 min. long Thin Man movies would diminish them. I’d prefer to have a single 3 hour showing, but I’d also prefer two 90 minute versions to a single “chopped up to fit a time slot” version.
But we have to remember that most movies are a business first and an artform second, and when the former clashes with the latter, the former wins out. Anyone who views deleted scenes with director commentary has heard the “this scene was cut for length” comment many times. The goal for a typical movie is usually about 1:40 to 1:50 minutes. A movie that is this length is long enough that viewers don’t feel cheated, and allows for three showings on Friday and Saturday nights, plus 5 minutes of commercials, 10 minutes of trailers, and 10 minutes to clear and clean the theater.
This isn’t the first time this has been done. Back to the Future 2 and 3, Manon of the Spring and Jean de Florette, and currently The Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions are all basically one movie split into two. LOTR is really one eight hour movie split into three. I suspect that if Lawrence of Arabia could be made today, it would be split into two separate exhibitions.
We’ll almost certainly get a three hour+ Asian version on the dvd with “a bit of the old ultra-violence”.
From the linked article:
There are two issues here. First, “too long” from an audience standpoint: some people really will avoid movies that they think are too long, but really that’s secondary. “Too long” in this context more likely means from an exhibitioner standpoint. Theater owners and managers really dislike three hour movies, because it means two showings on evenings instead of three. If the movie is selling out every showing, that means 50% less revenue from the lost showing.
Also, as others have pointed out, by splitting it into two pictures, they get two premier weekends, two tickets to see it all, two popcorn and coke purchases at $10, etc. This seems much more like a top-down financial decision than a practical length decision.
From a purely artistic standpoint, a movie should be long enough to tell the story it needs to tell, but no longer. If this is three hours, so be it. Any minute cut from Lawrence of Arabia (about 3:50) would diminish it. Adding anything to the typically 70 min. long Thin Man movies would diminish them. I’d prefer to have a single 3 hour showing, but I’d also prefer two 90 minute versions to a single “chopped up to fit a time slot” version.
But we have to remember that most movies are a business first and an artform second, and when the former clashes with the latter, the former wins out. Anyone who views deleted scenes with director commentary has heard the “this scene was cut for length” comment many times. The goal for a typical movie is usually about 1:40 to 1:50 minutes. A movie that is this length is long enough that viewers don’t feel cheated, and allows for three showings on Friday and Saturday nights, plus 5 minutes of commercials, 10 minutes of trailers, and 10 minutes to clear and clean the theater.
This isn’t the first time this has been done. Back to the Future 2 and 3, Manon of the Spring and Jean de Florette, and currently The Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions are all basically one movie split into two. LOTR is really one eight hour movie split into three. I suspect that if Lawrence of Arabia could be made today, it would be split into two separate exhibitions.
We’ll almost certainly get a three hour+ Asian version on the dvd with “a bit of the old ultra-violence”.
I really think that if Back to the Future Parts 2 & 3 were combined it would seem artificial.
One thing I’ve always wondered is why cinemas don’t charge more for some films than for others. Seeing Lord of the Rings and 40 Days and 40 Nights playing next to each other for the same price seems way silly to me. If one is selling out and one is 90% empty, it seems like they’d make more money by adjusting the prices accordingly. I understand that the economics are a little unique, with concessions and everything, but I still don’t get it.
Nitpick: Actually it’s just two years. The Fellowship of the Ring came out in December of 2001. Followed one year later by The Two Towers in December of 2002. The Return of the King comes out this December (2003).