Forgive me if this is disjointed, I’m writing this while attempting to pay attention to (what I hope is) the last bit of this movie.
My roommate and I are sitting here watching Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and we can’t over how long this movie is. We’re over 2 hours into it and lost interest about three times in the last half an hour. Our disinterest has little to do with the movie itself, which is entertaining enough, but rather with the fact that this movie is just going on and on and on.
When I saw the Da Vinci Code in theaters, I found the last- I don’t know- hour dragging on and on. That movie was a good 45 minutes longer than need be. The Departed is another movie that dragged on for a good two and a half hours.
The roommate and I were just discussing how we don’t remember movies being this long in our youth, but perhaps we’re misremembering? (We aren’t exactly old- 21). Don’t get me wrong, I remember the lengthiness that was Titanic (over three hours), but everyone was talking about just how long Titanic was because movies that long weren’t the regular.
It just seems like every new release I sit down and watch just goes on and on and on and on and on.
Is it me? Am I nuts in thinking movies have gotten longer in general? And am I the only one who thinks this is unnecessary? Or maybe I’m just a product of my generation and our lack of attention span.
I’ve thought about this too and I think that there is some sort of a “content arms race” going on.
Entertainment is constantly striving to be fresh and new and I think that, to some extent, for content to be new it often needs to be more complex. A lot of the simple stuff has already been done before. A more complex storyline is often a longer storyline. Just my HO…
In most cases I’d rather the movie be too long than too short. Movies cost a lot nowadays, and I want my time and money’s worth. I get absorbed into dramas and can usually keep track of a movie like The Good Shepherd (which, if anything, was too short), and I can admire spectacle that’s trying to keep me entertained like King Kong or Casino Royale or, definitely, The Departed.
Why does everyone want to be an editor nowadays? I don’t get it. If you have a short attention span you should probably not watch long movies in the first place. The Departed in no way “dragged,” at any point, so obviously you should never have watched it to begin with.
Tip: Pick your movies by time rather than genre or any other consideration from now on and you won’t have to worry about it anymore.
I’ve noticed this too. There have always been the occasional long movies.
However, back when Lawrence of Arabia was released, theaters still did intermissions. Now there are more and more longer films–but no “breaks.”
I do not consider myself to have a short attention span.
I understand that a story might not necessarily be well-told in 120 minutes.
However, more is not always better.
Director’s cuts can be real yawners, and frankly I do not care to sit on my butt for more than two and a half hours at a time.
The way I handle it is if the film is not an immediate must-see for me, I put it on my Netflix queue and wait the 6 or so months to see it.
Then I can watch it over a couple of nights.
This is a major complaint of mine, too. A LOT of movies are too long. Of course it’s personal, but I do distinguish.
The Departed and The Good Shepherd were not too long.
King Kong was too long by an hour. POTC2 was too long.
The difference is, one type of long movie uses the time to create a complex tale. The other type just uses the time to cram in more junk. Maybe they’re catering to people like Equipoise who “want their money’s worth”.
To me, however, that type of thinking is like getting a desert the size of your head at The Cheesecake Factory. At some point, it’s way past “getting your money’s worth” and just being unappetizing.
However, forget about 3 hour movies for a minute. There are a lot of 2 hour movies that would have been excellent 90 minute movies. I think the fault lies in the studio trying to give people their “money’s worth.” I consider a 90 minute story with 30 minutes of filler a waste of 30 minutes. Quite the opposite of getting my money’s worth.
That is certainly one factor. Although the total cost of making a long movie is higher, the cost per minute is less and – like it or not more people will flock to a long 'un than a short 'un. Books are in the same state. It used to be 60,000 words was a pretty lengthy novel. Today a publisher could sell one of those for $25, or offer 160,000 words for $27. Joe Consumer will look at the longer book for only two bucks more and select it unless there’s a lot of buzz about the smaller work.
Another factor is that going to the movies is done differently now. It used to be you’d see a newsreel, a trailer or two, one feature, get an intermission, see a cartoon or other short, then the second feature. With all that, even with 80 or 95 minute features, you’d be there four hours. A 120 minute feature was worthy of comment. Nowadays all that except the trailers* and an ad or two are gone leaving the one feature to carry the load of making your time spent worth while.
*A lot of trailers. 18 minutes from scheduled start to the actual start of Wild Hogs by my watch.
I’ve been giggling about this for a good five minutes.
It almost seems that some people are a little defensive that I felt The Departed dragged in some points. Overall, I actually really liked the film, I just happened to find myself getting a bit distracted here and there because I felt it dragged at parts. It’s nothing personal, I swear. It also doesn’t mean I lack fundamental taste or anything- movies and art in general are subjective, after all.
And while I can certainly see the “money’s worth” argument, I suppose I just can’t get behind it. Sure, maybe I’m paying $10 for a movie, but I’d rather have an hour and a half of sheer excitement and entertainment than have two and a half hours where I’m regularly getting distracted.
But I mean really, does anyone really check movie times before they go to the theater and say, “Ooooh, this one is long! Let’s go see that one because that way we can get our $9.65’s worth!” I certainly don’t know anyone who does that.
Also like others have said, there are definitely movies that benefit from a great length. There are definitely movies that pull off being two and half hours like no other, making the time pass in what seems like the blink of an eye. And then there’s Pirates of the Caribbean 2. And the Da Vinci Code. And a million other films.
I like long movies…but I come from a background of Bollywood, where all movies are 3 hours minimum. I don’t believe all movies should be that long, but you knew how long it was before you started! No one is trying to hide it from you!
If I go to the theater I quite frankly won’t go at all if the movie is less than 2 hours long. I pay $20 for 2 people here, that’s a lot, and I want my money’s worth.
Watching at home? I don’t even think about it because I can stretch out, get up, watch it over a few days, get a snack, pause it, whatever I want.
Not precisely, but if I look up a movie I may tentatively want to see in the theatre, yes, I will not see it in the theatre if it’s too short. Then it can wait.
Honestly, I think that directors nowadays just want their stories heard and sometimes it takes more and more time to do so. Remember back when directors could tell their stories in an hour and thirty minutes? It’s just not the case anymore. Epic tales need more and more time to come to fruition. I blame it on a sheer lack of creativity.
Or, it could be conflicts with major studios. Perhaps with the normal cut of 1hr30min doesn’t contain the key elements that they want. Sooo, they throw it in there and then the movie becomes much longer.
I’ve no clue, but I have noticed the upswing in long-ass movies lately.
My wild-assed guess is the DVD market. They can release three-hour or even four-hour movies for the home market because people can do their own intermissions whenever they want.
My guess is based on a study from a while back that purportedly showed that longer movies are more likely to get Oscar nominations. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any movies 90 minutes or less that have been nominated recently, other than Good Night and Good Luck (93 minutes), so maybe its a stab at Oscar worthiness. I agree its out of hand, especially when a friggin cartoon like The Incredibles is over two hours.
In the 1930’s if your dime or nickel didn’t get you 3-4 hours of entertainment, (newsreel, cartoon, featurette, short feature, B-picture, A-picture) you’d have felt ripped off. It’s just coming full circle.
Off the top of my head;
The Great Race (1965) 160 minutes
The Great Escape (1963) 172 minutes
Dr. Zhivago (1965) 197 minutes
The Ten Commandments (1956) 220 minutes! ay curumba’
I’ve been giggling about this for a good five minutes.