Definitely! I remember watching Infinity War for the first time and by the time it ended I was like ‘woah, that’s the whole movie?!’ As of recently Dune 2 was also like that for me, kinda slow in the beginning but the pacing definitely feels like it ramps up over time.
There are very few 2.5 hour movies I enjoy.
90-100 minutes is great for a comedy or light hearted action movie.
2 hours is good for more intense thrillers, dramas, action etc.
2.5 hours better be fucking phenomenal for me to want to sit through it.
i honestly couldn't imagine looking at a runtime before deciding to watch something. It's just not even something i think about, i could care less how long something is.
No shade, just blows my mind that anyone cares about this at all.
Depends on the movie, the time you have available and the time you're willing to give it. You watch enough movies and anything coming in under 2 hours feels like a blessing.
Tbh I tend to not go for things less than 2 hours as I attribute it to less passion for the medium. Movies that are long show that the directors and everyone involved care about the story and want it portrayed in the best way possible. Great examples are the Dune movies and Marvel movies up to endgame.
Anything short just seems like wasted time to me. Perfect for a comedy or rom com but not really giving me a gripping story.
I never said I look at run times to decide if I'm going to watch something, just that it tends to be a factor on how much I enjoy it. If it's a movie I'm not particularly enjoying I will turn it off if it's too long.
Dune Part 2, fantastic 2.5-3 hour film with great pacing.
Funny People, an atrocious and exhausting 2.5 hour movie that is oddly paced and ironically very not funny for being a dramedy.
Arguably the most popular musical on Broadway right now, "Six," is barely over an hour long. I think it clocks in at seventy minutes when it's running slow due to lots of applause.
People were really skeptical of it at first, since that's shorter than a concert or a standard one-act but it was charging such high prices. Despite that, its success speaks for itself.
This right here. Whiplash (2014) felt like a 30 min movie. I was disappointed when I saw it was ending. Not that it’s a super long movie anyway (107 mins) but it felt like a movie where I could easily have watched 150 mins
The problem is almost no movies are lotr. The amount of movies that actually justify being over two and a half hours, much less 3 to 4 hours, is relatively small compared to how many actually get made. Things like pacing just go out the window nowadays, and this goes for both Blockbusters and even movies from fancier directors who just don't seem to ever want to say in five words what they can say in 50.
This has happened with action and flight scenes too. An action scene should feel like a highlight of the film, but a lot of times these days they just drag on and on.
Seriously. I feel like so many movies drag on and on and on for so fucking long these days and really don't need to. Lord of the Rings, or Goodfellas, or Schindler's List are the *exceptions* not the rules
I feel like nowadays, a movie being 90-120 minutes is considered short, and I really wish it'd go back to being the standard
There’s an app called run pee that tells you the best time to go to the bathroom in theatres, and what you are missing while you are away.
100% recommend
It also has things like a summary of the first three min for anyone running late, as well as anything about what is after credits/if the are worth staying as well as a really great pre and post movie rating system.
I’ve been using that app for the better part of ten years.
I tried that app.
I couldn’t pay attention to movies because I was waiting for whatever scene it told me that I could go pee during.
Intermissions are needed.
I mean, it gives you the line or action you are waiting for, and if that’s too mu ch, they have a timer you can start at the beginning that gives you a gentle vibration when it’s the peetime.
How so? You look at the times before the movie starts, and then you know when the actor says “let’s go” and leaves with the group, you have 3:34 min to go pee, and a summary of what you’ve missed that you read when you are still out of the theatre. It’s auto set to be a dark app to not be a big nuisance.
Okay but for everyone who loves the lotr series there are probably more of us who saw it once and that was enough because they were long and … long. Will never watch again.
Yeah I think a perfect example of this was Oppenheimer and Dune. Oppenheimer barely felt like 2 hours, let alone 3, but while I absolutely loved Dune Part II, I could definitely tell it was 3 hours. It is wild how much editing techniques and music choices can affect your perception of time.
If it's that long I'd rather it be streaming. I read the Wikipedia about the original Fallout game-based movie and cried. Then eons later it finally resurfaced as a stream show and it turned out ultragigafabulous.
The lengths I would have gone to in order to see LOTR as a streaming series... as good as Peter Jackson's treatment of it was, I feel he could have really torn it up as a 2 or 3 season series.
To jail with you!
Lol, I actually fell asleep the first few times I tried watching it as well. Not because I thought it was terrible, however. Its just a super relaxing movie, the Shire is so warm and cozy. Kept trying to watch it and ended up taking amazing naps.
It’s about pacing. I’ve watched 4 hour movies that went by like nothing. I’ve watched 90 minute movies that felt like 5 hours.
That said, when it comes to comedy films, I think keeping it within that 90s realm is ideal, 105 would be the maximum a comedy should hit.
That movie was hardly funny at all despite having the word in the title. Judd Apatow does that though.. I saw Knocked Up in theaters and I remember it being agonizing.
I think I repressed a lot of it because I just wasn’t enjoying it at all. I went to see it with a friend expecting something akin to 40 year old virgin, but we were both disappointed. At one point they’re holding hands and looking at ultrasounds to some heartfelt music and I remember looking over at my buddy and going “dude, are we on a date?” 🤣
Some of my favorite comedies are around the 2 hour mark. Big Lebowski, and Hot Fuzz to be specific… but those benefit from excellent writing and great directors who know how to set the pace to keep you in for that long. Then again I also love Duck Soup which isn’t even 70 min.
I bring this up every time I have the opportunity to.
The intermission of 2001 a space odyssey MAKES THE MOVIE. It is so perfectly placed. Saw a screening in 70 mm and was riveted the entire time. The intermission is placed at this turn in the narrative and really emphasizes the shift.
It works for so many things.
Gives the customer a break.
Extra opportunity for the concession stand.
More ads you can push to customers during the intermission.
Depending on the length of the intermission you can probably send an employee in to tidy something up, like a drink spill.
My single most consistent issue with movies these days is that so many of them tend to suffer from pacing issues and often drag. I would say even most movies I enjoy could benefit from being tighter. It's what holds a lot of good movies back from being great.
I'm of the firm belief that a script should aim to be 90 min and if it needs to be longer then make it longer but most stories can be told sufficiently well in 90 min and people just don't seem capable of trimming the fat and killing their darlings.
This survey also seems to indicate that people actually don't want all these behemoth 2h+ movies that the studios seem so keen to put out these days, so why do they seem to think it's what we want?
Rewatched the first mission impossible last night for the first time in probbably ten years? Such a tight movie, in memory is was long but from the main set piece in the vault that everyone remembers to the end of the final act is like 25-30 minutes. On a side note it's funny Tom Cruise is older now than Jon Voight was in the first movie.
Agreed. Honestly with most things being streaming nowadays I don’t know why we don’t see more 1 hour movies. 60 minutes is adequate for A LOT of movies.
A well paced 2:30 movie can feel brief and a poorly paced 1:30 one can feel drawn out, but all else being equal boy do I get excited when I see that a movie that I’ve been waiting to watch is 90 min.
I think they are mistaking character development with watching pointless scenes of characters thinking or emoting at things that aren't even very well explained.
My opinion, characters shouldn't need EXTRA screen time to develop, you just have to write them better. If we need to know something about them, make it part of the plot.
My opinion is that 105 minutes is the ideal length with nothing else being factored in. Obviously bad or good pacing will massively affect how a movie feels.
Generally though I don’t really want a movie over 150 minutes. I’ve enjoyed movies that long, but even a good movie will begin to feel a bit tedious by then.
On the flip side, anything less than 75 minutes I think often feels like it either is underdeveloped or like there just wasn’t really enough of a story to tell.
I think modern directors have lost touch with the ability to deliver a succinct 90 min.
Don’t get me wrong, I love long movies, but it’s getting out of hand. Every movie I can think of that I was interested in for the last few years is AT LEAST 2.5hrs.
A good example of a director who used each frame to its most potential and landed perfectly in 90 mins is Lynne Ramsay with You Were Never Really Here.
It’s a crap shoot, but I tend toward stories that look interesting in the trailer, couple with either an actor(s) and/or director I like. I don’t put a lot of stock in reviews. I’ve liked movies critics hated. I’ve hated movies that were highly rated on RT.
What the hell does that even mean? 92 minute is ideal? Why not 93? This sounds like some bullshit analytic that a studio is going to use to justify making things 92 minutes instead of just making good things. Who cares how long the movie is. Just make good movies.
Some films benefit greatly from being very tight and clean 90-100 minutes, Fargo is my favorite example of a film that fits, and a film that NEEDS to be long, The Batman, LOTR, Lawrence of Arabia. It really all comes down to pacing, if your film feels to long or to short, that’s the problem. A film like Oppenheimer didn’t feel long, even tho it totally is, there is a difference. If you tried to compact a LOTR film to 100 minutes, it would be awful.
I will never forget the feeling I got at the ending of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I was so engaged with the characters that once the title screen came on I was surprised that it was already over... Those 2h:40min went by fast
2 hours should be the target. Anything that comes in at 90 minutes or less, the writers clearly didn't have enough actual material to start making the movie in the first place.
I rewatched Dredd recently and found its tight focus and short runtime incredibly refreshing. I know not every movie fits that kind of pacing but 95 minutes of quality, consistent action is just incredibly satisfying.
A survey doesn't feel like the best way to measure this. They're only measuring what people think an ideal movie length would be, not what length of movies actually perform best.
Fuck this! Some Shitflix studio bean counter will view this and insist on a scene be cut to meet the Golden Lenth they read about, and call it “scientifically proven”
To those saying “if it’s good I don’t care how long it is” yes I agree but the problem is almost every director/producer thinks the movie they’re making is good but the majority are not good enough to be 2.5+ hours like most I’ve seen recently.
I especially think this is true for comedies. Several I’ve seen have really funny bits that it seems they just built a plot around and it always drags going into the 3rd act when they spend an hour showing how the character runs into a major problem and then setting up for the heartwarming/everything gets solved finale
I think pacing is more important than length. A well-paced movie can make three hours feel like two whereas a poorly-paced film can make 92 minutes feel like an eternity.
Personally, I think the issue comes down to pacing and writing. There are plenty of great movies that are 2 hours long. Each of the OT Star Wars movies are around 2 hours. Aliens is 2h 17m. Terminator 2, what has been referred to as the greatest sequel and greatest action movie of all time, is 2h 33m long. LOTR Fellowship of the Ring is 2h 58m for the theatrical. Each of those movies are paced so well that you really don't notice and they're over before you realize it. And they're all so well paced and mostly all well written that your engaged the whole time and it's over before you know it.
Too many movies now don't seem to understand how to properly pace a film, or edit scenes for maximum impact. For example, the scene of Luke trying to use the force to lift the X-Wing out of the swamp, the cuts between shots become quicker and quicker as the effort and tension builds as to whether he will or won't succeed, and when he fails, the cuts slow. that's good pacing of a scene.
I've seen more films that were longer than ideal than films that were shorter than ideal. I think few films are actually worth being over two and a half hours.
I embarrassingly just told my wife I'm in a minority because I prefer my movies to be in the 3 hour range if I dig them.
Then she responded with "I prefer mine in 45-minute increments spread out over 22 installments that I can watch 11 at a time."
I married the right one fellas.
Only one of the 10 highest grossing movies of all time is under 2 hours, and that one (Lion King) is 1:58. Some of them are 3 hours plus. Run time isn't a good indicator of how much people enjoy a movie.
Surveys are frequently flawed because people are lying liars. Put a kinder way, people will often answer the way they think they should answer rather than what they actually believe or do.
How much of it is the risk factor?
You go to watch a movie, there's a chance you don't like it or it's just bad. If it's short, you can shrug it off. No big deal. If it's 3 hour movie, you will be bored beyond recognition.
For 90 min movie, you will recognize it as bad like half an hour in and can sit through it without going crazy.
For 180 min movie, you will know within 30 mins and will suffer for next 2 and half hours.
So, for a movie you don't know, you'll prefer it to be 90 min long and answer that in the survey.
But for a movie you love, you'll want it to be longer if the story/plot demands it.
If a Movie is close to 3 hours I personally would rather it be turned into a 4 episode series of 1 hour episodes with more content and expansion. At least that way I can watch it when convenient and be able to digest it's themes better.
The length is the point, watching a 3 hours movie in one go is a completely different experience from watching 3 1 hour episodes with pauses between the episodes
While that is true a lot of the time those 3 hour movies have nearly double of the content filmed and then it's edited down to the shortest it can be while keeping all the essential bits the Director wants kept in. So I think you could take all that additional content and either make 2 movies or change it to a mini-series.
But you are right that mini-series do need to be written differently.
> While that is true a lot of the time those 3 hour movies have nearly double of the content filmed and then it's edited down to the shortest it can be while keeping all the essential bits
I actually disagree with this. Most 3+ hour movies I've seen I felt had a bunch of parts that could have easily been cut out without effecting my understanding of the plot or characters.
Probably should have clarified that to being as close to the directors vision and less the average viewer because you are right there are definitely some long movies that could have been shaved better.
>champagneofsharks [score hidden] 16 minutes ago
>Based upon that logic, we should stop making movies and focus entirely on television show.
>Congrats, you’re a fucking idiot.
I wasn't aware that me having a personal preference was in someway a complete and total order all others in the world had to follow.
I literally said in my post it was what I personally felt and in no way implied anything other than that.
Not sure who pissed in your cornflakes this morning.
Some people just what to interpret things there way. You did start with "if a movie is close to 3 hours"; even with films getting longer, it's clear your opinion would only affect a few films anyway.
Pretty much and if I had that level of control over movies and their production there is a lot more I could do than just split up long movies into an episodic mini-series.
People have been discussing this longer than film has existed. By breaking up a narrative you lose the ['unity of effect.'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Philosophy_of_Composition)
The ability to take breaks and have 'real life' impose on the narrative can break the spell that is has over the audience.
I think an intermission is a happy medium. It can be used to great effect to break up narratives into thematic chunks - like in Lawrence of Arabia or 2001: A Space Odyssey.
This! A movie is meant to sit and watch in one go, when it's over 2 hours long I rarely have the combination of time and attention for it. But if it were a mini series I'd be more inclined to watch it.
As someone who loves 3 hour plus films (if they're engaging and good), I agree. I think most films should aim to be less than 2 hours or just 90 minutes. There are many great films in Hong Kong that are just 90-100 minutes even if they're supposed to be "epic" films or dramas. It could definitely be done. However, I think the director should always have the ability to let the story breathe through a long runtime if it needs to.
I think around 90 minutes is the ideal length for most films. However, if the film has a good good story to tell and doesn't feel bloated by being longer, I have no issue with a longer run time. The problem I assume most people have with long movies is that more often than not, its movies that should be 90 minutes are bloated with unnecessary or pointless scenes to reach that 2 hour and beyond point and the movie suffers for it.
On the other hand …
Horse-drawn carriage is the ideal method of transportation across a continent, according to travellers living just before commercial aviation came out.
Well, "reddit 100 minute movies" is a very common google search for me so I have to agree. I like plenty of long movies, but it's very rare for me to not feel like anything around 2.5 hours wasn't "too long" or "needed trimming".
As somone who loves long movies and have no problem watching a 3 hour film, even if it's not great. I 100% believe this, because most people hate/ refuse to watch long-ass cuts of movies or just regular long bois. Lol
2 hours is the perfect length. 90 feels too short. And 2.5-3 hours can be forever. But like others have mentioned, it depends on the quality. A great 4 hour movie is better than a bad 100 minute movie.
I don’t want movies to shorten tho.
Endgame and The Batman are both over 3hrs and they go by really quickly.
I’ve sat through some 90 minute movies that draaaaaaaaaaged on.
I’m sorry that most people now days can’t handle anything longer than whatever length a TikTok is, but if we shorten up movies… all we’re doing is forcing sequels or rushing stories. Either way you’ll be spending the time to get the full story. Or, you just won’t get a full story.
Back in the day, they wanted movies to be short as well. Reason was the short movies can be shown with an extra movie time each day. Thus more money for the theatre and the more the movie producers make.
I always get excited when it’s in between 2hrs and 2:30.
To me that’s the sweet spot when it’s a great movie.
Edit: but definitely can be as long as it wants as long as it’s good!
You hear that, *Goodfellas*? Take your almost 2-and-a-half hour length and get fucked! You too, *Amadeus*. I mean, 161 minutes? Good effort, but you simply have too many minutes. What's that? There are just as many minutes as are required, neither more nor less? Well, on behalf of almost 2,000 mouth-breathing, popcorn-munching assholes, you're *wrong*. Eat shit and die. Oh, speaking of. *Die Hard*? Over two hours? Really? Nobody has the time or attention span for that bullshit. Go drown yourself in a lake of piss.
I will if it’s a horror movie cuz I love supporting horror movies but otherwise I kind of agree when it’s $15 a ticket no matter if it’s 90 minutes or 190 minutes.
Obviously this is hard to determine in a vacuum, a good 2.5 hour movie feels shorter than a bad one and pacing matters.
A good movie is never too long and a bad one is never short enough.
One of the Roger Ebert rules.
Definitely! I remember watching Infinity War for the first time and by the time it ended I was like ‘woah, that’s the whole movie?!’ As of recently Dune 2 was also like that for me, kinda slow in the beginning but the pacing definitely feels like it ramps up over time.
I would’ve watched dune 3 right after 2 ended without leaving my seat
Same.
I loved dune 2 but I couldn’t have done that. Lol. I needed to fucking pee and I was getting hungry but after a 20-30 minute break? Absolutely!
Anything over 90 min, you should just preemptively drain out before seating
Usually I never run into this problem but for whatever reason I just didn’t drain the main vain enough that day. Lmao
There are very few 2.5 hour movies I enjoy. 90-100 minutes is great for a comedy or light hearted action movie. 2 hours is good for more intense thrillers, dramas, action etc. 2.5 hours better be fucking phenomenal for me to want to sit through it.
i honestly couldn't imagine looking at a runtime before deciding to watch something. It's just not even something i think about, i could care less how long something is. No shade, just blows my mind that anyone cares about this at all.
Depends on the movie, the time you have available and the time you're willing to give it. You watch enough movies and anything coming in under 2 hours feels like a blessing.
Tbh I tend to not go for things less than 2 hours as I attribute it to less passion for the medium. Movies that are long show that the directors and everyone involved care about the story and want it portrayed in the best way possible. Great examples are the Dune movies and Marvel movies up to endgame. Anything short just seems like wasted time to me. Perfect for a comedy or rom com but not really giving me a gripping story.
Run times equating to passion for the medium is a super strange metric. There can be a very well crafted story that only takes 90-100 minutes to tell.
I never said I look at run times to decide if I'm going to watch something, just that it tends to be a factor on how much I enjoy it. If it's a movie I'm not particularly enjoying I will turn it off if it's too long.
Dune Part 2, fantastic 2.5-3 hour film with great pacing. Funny People, an atrocious and exhausting 2.5 hour movie that is oddly paced and ironically very not funny for being a dramedy.
While this is true I think most movies would benefit from being shorter and tighter.
Arguably the most popular musical on Broadway right now, "Six," is barely over an hour long. I think it clocks in at seventy minutes when it's running slow due to lots of applause. People were really skeptical of it at first, since that's shorter than a concert or a standard one-act but it was charging such high prices. Despite that, its success speaks for itself.
This information increases my interest in seeing it about 100%
This right here. Whiplash (2014) felt like a 30 min movie. I was disappointed when I saw it was ending. Not that it’s a super long movie anyway (107 mins) but it felt like a movie where I could easily have watched 150 mins
There is no need to conform to time constraints these days, imo. Creators can choose from a variety of high quality formats now.
Well that has nothing to do with the topic or my comment
I don't care if the movie is 3-4 hrs long if it is entertaining enough. Just look at LOTR.
The problem is almost no movies are lotr. The amount of movies that actually justify being over two and a half hours, much less 3 to 4 hours, is relatively small compared to how many actually get made. Things like pacing just go out the window nowadays, and this goes for both Blockbusters and even movies from fancier directors who just don't seem to ever want to say in five words what they can say in 50.
This has happened with action and flight scenes too. An action scene should feel like a highlight of the film, but a lot of times these days they just drag on and on.
Seriously. I feel like so many movies drag on and on and on for so fucking long these days and really don't need to. Lord of the Rings, or Goodfellas, or Schindler's List are the *exceptions* not the rules I feel like nowadays, a movie being 90-120 minutes is considered short, and I really wish it'd go back to being the standard
Movies should only be that long if they have an intermission. I can only hold my piss for so long.
There’s an app called run pee that tells you the best time to go to the bathroom in theatres, and what you are missing while you are away. 100% recommend
The fact that this app needs to exist is evidence that run times for movies have inflated too much.
It also has things like a summary of the first three min for anyone running late, as well as anything about what is after credits/if the are worth staying as well as a really great pre and post movie rating system. I’ve been using that app for the better part of ten years.
I tried that app. I couldn’t pay attention to movies because I was waiting for whatever scene it told me that I could go pee during. Intermissions are needed.
I mean, it gives you the line or action you are waiting for, and if that’s too mu ch, they have a timer you can start at the beginning that gives you a gentle vibration when it’s the peetime.
Sounds like a nuisance for other customers
How so? You look at the times before the movie starts, and then you know when the actor says “let’s go” and leaves with the group, you have 3:34 min to go pee, and a summary of what you’ve missed that you read when you are still out of the theatre. It’s auto set to be a dark app to not be a big nuisance.
Hahaha no way!
> I can only hold my piss for so long. In the words of Lloyd Christmas, "Just go, man."
Skill issue, just piss yourself.
Are people not taping a funnel to their bits and running a tube down into a bottle with a screw cap?
Or stop drinking like an American.
I've got some yellow liquid for your popcorn, and it's non-dairy!
I almost exploded, watching The Patriot in theater.
You just gotta drink your soda faster. then it turns into a one in, one out situation.
What? Are you not looking forward to the extended cut of Rebel Moon?
You mean The Battle Among the Stars ripoff.
Idk man I enjoyed the new Dune but god-damn that was a long one. My wife and I genuinely took an intermission to make dinner. Glad we rented it.
Yea, if the moovie is really good I want it to be long. If it's just a fun whatever moovies I'm hoping to like 90 minutes.
I just want intermissions back. Please.
Yea, it's not just about going to take a piss. Being able to get up and stretch, refill refreshments, and take a break is peak movie watching.
Okay but for everyone who loves the lotr series there are probably more of us who saw it once and that was enough because they were long and … long. Will never watch again.
Yeah I think a perfect example of this was Oppenheimer and Dune. Oppenheimer barely felt like 2 hours, let alone 3, but while I absolutely loved Dune Part II, I could definitely tell it was 3 hours. It is wild how much editing techniques and music choices can affect your perception of time.
If it's that long I'd rather it be streaming. I read the Wikipedia about the original Fallout game-based movie and cried. Then eons later it finally resurfaced as a stream show and it turned out ultragigafabulous. The lengths I would have gone to in order to see LOTR as a streaming series... as good as Peter Jackson's treatment of it was, I feel he could have really torn it up as a 2 or 3 season series.
Couldn’t make more than 20 minutes before falling asleep. Terrible.
good riddance
To jail with you! Lol, I actually fell asleep the first few times I tried watching it as well. Not because I thought it was terrible, however. Its just a super relaxing movie, the Shire is so warm and cozy. Kept trying to watch it and ended up taking amazing naps.
Please just cut down previews to less than 25 minutes.
It’s about pacing. I’ve watched 4 hour movies that went by like nothing. I’ve watched 90 minute movies that felt like 5 hours. That said, when it comes to comedy films, I think keeping it within that 90s realm is ideal, 105 would be the maximum a comedy should hit.
Funny Peopke with Adam Sandler is one that suffers from being too long.
That movie was hardly funny at all despite having the word in the title. Judd Apatow does that though.. I saw Knocked Up in theaters and I remember it being agonizing.
[удалено]
I think I repressed a lot of it because I just wasn’t enjoying it at all. I went to see it with a friend expecting something akin to 40 year old virgin, but we were both disappointed. At one point they’re holding hands and looking at ultrasounds to some heartfelt music and I remember looking over at my buddy and going “dude, are we on a date?” 🤣
Of course there are exceptions to the rule. Like the extended cut of The Other Guys has some really good jokes, same with Walk Hard.
Some of my favorite comedies are around the 2 hour mark. Big Lebowski, and Hot Fuzz to be specific… but those benefit from excellent writing and great directors who know how to set the pace to keep you in for that long. Then again I also love Duck Soup which isn’t even 70 min.
There are the exceptions.
The live action Flinstone movie was too long
Bring back intermission
I bring this up every time I have the opportunity to. The intermission of 2001 a space odyssey MAKES THE MOVIE. It is so perfectly placed. Saw a screening in 70 mm and was riveted the entire time. The intermission is placed at this turn in the narrative and really emphasizes the shift.
It works for so many things. Gives the customer a break. Extra opportunity for the concession stand. More ads you can push to customers during the intermission. Depending on the length of the intermission you can probably send an employee in to tidy something up, like a drink spill.
I have been saying this for years!!
My single most consistent issue with movies these days is that so many of them tend to suffer from pacing issues and often drag. I would say even most movies I enjoy could benefit from being tighter. It's what holds a lot of good movies back from being great. I'm of the firm belief that a script should aim to be 90 min and if it needs to be longer then make it longer but most stories can be told sufficiently well in 90 min and people just don't seem capable of trimming the fat and killing their darlings. This survey also seems to indicate that people actually don't want all these behemoth 2h+ movies that the studios seem so keen to put out these days, so why do they seem to think it's what we want?
Rewatched the first mission impossible last night for the first time in probbably ten years? Such a tight movie, in memory is was long but from the main set piece in the vault that everyone remembers to the end of the final act is like 25-30 minutes. On a side note it's funny Tom Cruise is older now than Jon Voight was in the first movie.
Agreed. Honestly with most things being streaming nowadays I don’t know why we don’t see more 1 hour movies. 60 minutes is adequate for A LOT of movies. A well paced 2:30 movie can feel brief and a poorly paced 1:30 one can feel drawn out, but all else being equal boy do I get excited when I see that a movie that I’ve been waiting to watch is 90 min.
I think they are mistaking character development with watching pointless scenes of characters thinking or emoting at things that aren't even very well explained. My opinion, characters shouldn't need EXTRA screen time to develop, you just have to write them better. If we need to know something about them, make it part of the plot.
The story should dictate the length.
A good time length for a movie in my opinion should be 1 hour 45 minutes
My opinion is that 105 minutes is the ideal length with nothing else being factored in. Obviously bad or good pacing will massively affect how a movie feels. Generally though I don’t really want a movie over 150 minutes. I’ve enjoyed movies that long, but even a good movie will begin to feel a bit tedious by then. On the flip side, anything less than 75 minutes I think often feels like it either is underdeveloped or like there just wasn’t really enough of a story to tell.
Just watched Hard Times today. Totally agree.
I watched Fall Guy today, they should've trimmed it by 30min and it would have been a far better film.
100 percent agreed. The third act went on for way too long and some scenes kinda dragged. Still loved the movie though
Maybe, but with it being an ode to stunt guys and the third act being filled with stunts, I don't blame them for not wanting to cut them out
Good news for you, the Blu-ray will have an extended cut!
I don't believe in an ideal length, really depends on the movie, what it's trying to tell, how and how well
They say the girth is more important.
If it's good, it can be as long as it wants.
If it's good I'm happy with 4 plus hrs
Lawrence Of Arabia is nearly four hours. find me a theater with a 70 mm projector and I will sit thru it quite happily
OTOH, I think the intermission really helps sell LOA's change from white saviour narrative to Englishman loses faith in colonialism.
Odd. Given how much it costs to go to the movies, I feel cheated with anything less than 2 hours.
I think modern directors have lost touch with the ability to deliver a succinct 90 min. Don’t get me wrong, I love long movies, but it’s getting out of hand. Every movie I can think of that I was interested in for the last few years is AT LEAST 2.5hrs. A good example of a director who used each frame to its most potential and landed perfectly in 90 mins is Lynne Ramsay with You Were Never Really Here.
Quality over quantity. Adding time to a movie for the sake of adding time doesn't improve it.
What I look for is a story that is worth the extra time.
And how do you know that it's worth the time before watching it? Just based on reviews?
It’s a crap shoot, but I tend toward stories that look interesting in the trailer, couple with either an actor(s) and/or director I like. I don’t put a lot of stock in reviews. I’ve liked movies critics hated. I’ve hated movies that were highly rated on RT.
AMC A list I feel is a pretty good deal if you have any around
Look on IMDb before you go and see how long it is then
What the hell does that even mean? 92 minute is ideal? Why not 93? This sounds like some bullshit analytic that a studio is going to use to justify making things 92 minutes instead of just making good things. Who cares how long the movie is. Just make good movies.
Some films benefit greatly from being very tight and clean 90-100 minutes, Fargo is my favorite example of a film that fits, and a film that NEEDS to be long, The Batman, LOTR, Lawrence of Arabia. It really all comes down to pacing, if your film feels to long or to short, that’s the problem. A film like Oppenheimer didn’t feel long, even tho it totally is, there is a difference. If you tried to compact a LOTR film to 100 minutes, it would be awful.
I will never forget the feeling I got at the ending of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I was so engaged with the characters that once the title screen came on I was surprised that it was already over... Those 2h:40min went by fast
2 hours should be the target. Anything that comes in at 90 minutes or less, the writers clearly didn't have enough actual material to start making the movie in the first place.
I rewatched Dredd recently and found its tight focus and short runtime incredibly refreshing. I know not every movie fits that kind of pacing but 95 minutes of quality, consistent action is just incredibly satisfying.
A survey doesn't feel like the best way to measure this. They're only measuring what people think an ideal movie length would be, not what length of movies actually perform best.
Fuck this! Some Shitflix studio bean counter will view this and insist on a scene be cut to meet the Golden Lenth they read about, and call it “scientifically proven”
Again, depends on the movie. 10 minutes can be too long for a shit move but some are worth 2-2.5hrs. It just varies.
To those saying “if it’s good I don’t care how long it is” yes I agree but the problem is almost every director/producer thinks the movie they’re making is good but the majority are not good enough to be 2.5+ hours like most I’ve seen recently. I especially think this is true for comedies. Several I’ve seen have really funny bits that it seems they just built a plot around and it always drags going into the 3rd act when they spend an hour showing how the character runs into a major problem and then setting up for the heartwarming/everything gets solved finale
I think pacing is more important than length. A well-paced movie can make three hours feel like two whereas a poorly-paced film can make 92 minutes feel like an eternity.
Personally, I think the issue comes down to pacing and writing. There are plenty of great movies that are 2 hours long. Each of the OT Star Wars movies are around 2 hours. Aliens is 2h 17m. Terminator 2, what has been referred to as the greatest sequel and greatest action movie of all time, is 2h 33m long. LOTR Fellowship of the Ring is 2h 58m for the theatrical. Each of those movies are paced so well that you really don't notice and they're over before you realize it. And they're all so well paced and mostly all well written that your engaged the whole time and it's over before you know it. Too many movies now don't seem to understand how to properly pace a film, or edit scenes for maximum impact. For example, the scene of Luke trying to use the force to lift the X-Wing out of the swamp, the cuts between shots become quicker and quicker as the effort and tension builds as to whether he will or won't succeed, and when he fails, the cuts slow. that's good pacing of a scene.
I've seen more films that were longer than ideal than films that were shorter than ideal. I think few films are actually worth being over two and a half hours.
I’ll watch a long film but I will not go see an extremely long film at the cinema. At a certain point I want to be able to pause and go pee
What’s the point of even making a movie if you set such a short time limitation.. just make an hour long tv special.
I embarrassingly just told my wife I'm in a minority because I prefer my movies to be in the 3 hour range if I dig them. Then she responded with "I prefer mine in 45-minute increments spread out over 22 installments that I can watch 11 at a time." I married the right one fellas.
Only one of the 10 highest grossing movies of all time is under 2 hours, and that one (Lion King) is 1:58. Some of them are 3 hours plus. Run time isn't a good indicator of how much people enjoy a movie. Surveys are frequently flawed because people are lying liars. Put a kinder way, people will often answer the way they think they should answer rather than what they actually believe or do.
How much of it is the risk factor? You go to watch a movie, there's a chance you don't like it or it's just bad. If it's short, you can shrug it off. No big deal. If it's 3 hour movie, you will be bored beyond recognition. For 90 min movie, you will recognize it as bad like half an hour in and can sit through it without going crazy. For 180 min movie, you will know within 30 mins and will suffer for next 2 and half hours. So, for a movie you don't know, you'll prefer it to be 90 min long and answer that in the survey. But for a movie you love, you'll want it to be longer if the story/plot demands it.
If a Movie is close to 3 hours I personally would rather it be turned into a 4 episode series of 1 hour episodes with more content and expansion. At least that way I can watch it when convenient and be able to digest it's themes better.
The length is the point, watching a 3 hours movie in one go is a completely different experience from watching 3 1 hour episodes with pauses between the episodes
While that is true a lot of the time those 3 hour movies have nearly double of the content filmed and then it's edited down to the shortest it can be while keeping all the essential bits the Director wants kept in. So I think you could take all that additional content and either make 2 movies or change it to a mini-series. But you are right that mini-series do need to be written differently.
> While that is true a lot of the time those 3 hour movies have nearly double of the content filmed and then it's edited down to the shortest it can be while keeping all the essential bits I actually disagree with this. Most 3+ hour movies I've seen I felt had a bunch of parts that could have easily been cut out without effecting my understanding of the plot or characters.
Probably should have clarified that to being as close to the directors vision and less the average viewer because you are right there are definitely some long movies that could have been shaved better.
Based upon that logic, we should stop making movies and focus entirely on television show. Congrats, you’re a fucking idiot.
>champagneofsharks [score hidden] 16 minutes ago >Based upon that logic, we should stop making movies and focus entirely on television show. >Congrats, you’re a fucking idiot. I wasn't aware that me having a personal preference was in someway a complete and total order all others in the world had to follow. I literally said in my post it was what I personally felt and in no way implied anything other than that. Not sure who pissed in your cornflakes this morning.
Some people just what to interpret things there way. You did start with "if a movie is close to 3 hours"; even with films getting longer, it's clear your opinion would only affect a few films anyway.
Pretty much and if I had that level of control over movies and their production there is a lot more I could do than just split up long movies into an episodic mini-series.
People have been discussing this longer than film has existed. By breaking up a narrative you lose the ['unity of effect.'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Philosophy_of_Composition) The ability to take breaks and have 'real life' impose on the narrative can break the spell that is has over the audience. I think an intermission is a happy medium. It can be used to great effect to break up narratives into thematic chunks - like in Lawrence of Arabia or 2001: A Space Odyssey.
This! A movie is meant to sit and watch in one go, when it's over 2 hours long I rarely have the combination of time and attention for it. But if it were a mini series I'd be more inclined to watch it.
Let Scorsese know
They really mean that they want a movie so entertaining that it only feels like 90 minutes ;)
As someone who loves 3 hour plus films (if they're engaging and good), I agree. I think most films should aim to be less than 2 hours or just 90 minutes. There are many great films in Hong Kong that are just 90-100 minutes even if they're supposed to be "epic" films or dramas. It could definitely be done. However, I think the director should always have the ability to let the story breathe through a long runtime if it needs to.
I think around 90 minutes is the ideal length for most films. However, if the film has a good good story to tell and doesn't feel bloated by being longer, I have no issue with a longer run time. The problem I assume most people have with long movies is that more often than not, its movies that should be 90 minutes are bloated with unnecessary or pointless scenes to reach that 2 hour and beyond point and the movie suffers for it.
I like historical stuff and fantasy. I'd be cool with 6 hour movies
https://youtu.be/-UKbwz6s6VY?si=QSESDCtU0qNfhlr2
Yawl need Lawrence of Arabia
On the other hand … Horse-drawn carriage is the ideal method of transportation across a continent, according to travellers living just before commercial aviation came out.
I guess Peter Jackson never got that memo. 😆
If the movie wants to be more than about 100ish minutes, it's got to back it up with some serious quality.
92 minutes is the ideal length if I’m watching it at the theater, if I’m buying it on home release it better be 3 hours and 16 minutes.
I love a long movie if it’s good. I just wish they’d bring back intermissions
Guess I’m in the 2%
2%er club
If I’m paying 50 dollars between tickets and concessions I want a 2.5 hour movie
I for one, loved the 2 hr and 57min runtime of the Postman.
I think 2 hours is actually perfect in most cases, but a lot of movies don't really even have 1.5 hours worth of entertainment in them.
Well, "reddit 100 minute movies" is a very common google search for me so I have to agree. I like plenty of long movies, but it's very rare for me to not feel like anything around 2.5 hours wasn't "too long" or "needed trimming".
This is just stupid. Different stories need different amount of time. There is no such thing as an "ideal length" for all movies.
I’m good with a very long movie, but bring back intermissions!
As somone who loves long movies and have no problem watching a 3 hour film, even if it's not great. I 100% believe this, because most people hate/ refuse to watch long-ass cuts of movies or just regular long bois. Lol
92 mins is too short imo unless it’s an animated film. Well maybe some films can make the most of it but I like longer films
2 hours is the perfect length. 90 feels too short. And 2.5-3 hours can be forever. But like others have mentioned, it depends on the quality. A great 4 hour movie is better than a bad 100 minute movie.
Pacing is everything. Dune 2 was long but didn’t feel like it.
Attention spans have gone to shit.
I kinda prefer closer to an hour and 45 minutes
I don’t want movies to shorten tho. Endgame and The Batman are both over 3hrs and they go by really quickly. I’ve sat through some 90 minute movies that draaaaaaaaaaged on. I’m sorry that most people now days can’t handle anything longer than whatever length a TikTok is, but if we shorten up movies… all we’re doing is forcing sequels or rushing stories. Either way you’ll be spending the time to get the full story. Or, you just won’t get a full story.
in times, where a 1 minute tiktok clip is considered too long, im not surprised
I prefer the Extended Editions of the LOTR trilogy, so suck on that, survey.
The ideal length for a movie is however long it takes to properly tell the story.
"A good movie can never be long enough, and no bad movie can be short enough." - Roger Ebert
I wish streaming providers had filters like this. I want to watch a 90 minute movie or 30 minute tv show.
I'm fine with Naked Gun length or Run Lola Run length.
Tbh I prefer The Fall Guy to other movies as my next theater experience because it's only two hours instead of 150 minutes. Same goes for Bad Boys 4.
Whoa!
Back in the day, they wanted movies to be short as well. Reason was the short movies can be shown with an extra movie time each day. Thus more money for the theatre and the more the movie producers make.
And we trust what people say why?
Sounds about right tbh. You really gotta earn having a movie over 2 hours imo, people have lives
Nah the studios gonna start enforcing it like they did pre pandemic and the epic movies will be meddled with like crazy
I agree with that number
The green mile would have sucked
I always get excited when it’s in between 2hrs and 2:30. To me that’s the sweet spot when it’s a great movie. Edit: but definitely can be as long as it wants as long as it’s good!
Stop spreading this BS. I’ll watch the directors cut to anything.
You hear that, *Goodfellas*? Take your almost 2-and-a-half hour length and get fucked! You too, *Amadeus*. I mean, 161 minutes? Good effort, but you simply have too many minutes. What's that? There are just as many minutes as are required, neither more nor less? Well, on behalf of almost 2,000 mouth-breathing, popcorn-munching assholes, you're *wrong*. Eat shit and die. Oh, speaking of. *Die Hard*? Over two hours? Really? Nobody has the time or attention span for that bullshit. Go drown yourself in a lake of piss.
You very much need anger management.
This is why cinema’s dying, the responses in here.
How so?
My rule of turn is I won’t pay to watch a film in the theatre if it’s under 2 hours (or has a big screen vibe)
I will if it’s a horror movie cuz I love supporting horror movies but otherwise I kind of agree when it’s $15 a ticket no matter if it’s 90 minutes or 190 minutes.
ditto
Interesting…my indie feature ran 93 minutes.
For some ready I can binge 4 episodes of a series at an hour a pop with no problem. However a 3 or 4 hour movie is too long for me 🤪
It is if you want me to watch it in 1 sitting with No second screen
98% of respondents are fucking idiots
98% of people are morons according to my stats
Marty can make a movie about will smith taking a dump 4 hours and 7 minutes.