Goffe Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 it would only be ok if I could pause the movie, well, when they played these kind of movies in the theaters, the movie had an intermission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Gone with the Wind, the most attended film of all time, need I say anything else? off the top of my head, Lord of the Rings extended editions (they are widely considered better than the already praised theatrical versions) also are 4 hours long. both Lawrence of Arabia and Once Upon a Time in America come real close to 4 hours mark too For your older examples, times have changed. Audiences have a shorter attention span. As for LotR, only uber-fans will sit through the extended versions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kvikk Lunsj Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Maybe the theatrical cut for Exodus should have been 170 minutes. Sure Ridley version would be an hour longer but the theatrical cut would have been close to his version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandrew Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 The audience of 1960 is not the same as the audience of 2014. Not even close. A mainstream 4 hour movie today is a kiss of death, even if there are 'plosions in every scene. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 (edited) Gone with the Wind, the most attended film of all time, need I say anything else? off the top of my head, Lord of the Rings extended editions (they are widely considered better than the already praised theatrical versions) also are 4 hours long. both Lawrence of Arabia and Once Upon a Time in America come real close to 4 hours mark too That s one gigantic list for sure. And those movie had actually an half hour intermission so it was like seing 2 2hours film. Let s face it, 4 h movies just almost never happen and that s a very good thing. 3h, 3h30 is already a lot and plenty enough of time to tell a story. Movies over 3h are pretty rare and movies over the 3h30 mark just don't exist. Wolf of Wall Street first cut was 4h and we know what happened ... Edited December 15, 2014 by The Futurist 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Hey, Nymphomaniac was four hours and that movie kicked Ass at the box office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxOfficeFangrl Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 (edited) For your older examples, times have changed. Audiences have a shorter attention span. As for LotR, only uber-fans will sit through the extended versions. Not really, if you watch TCM, tons of movies from the 1930s and 1940s clock in at under 2 hours or barely 1:30, something like GWTW was an outlier in terms of runtime even then. But I do think theater owners would balk, not to mention studios, they want more showings to get more money, they probably wish every movie was like Gravity, 90 minutes and getting jaded audiences to pony up for 3D surcharges. Edited December 15, 2014 by BoxOfficeChica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goffe Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 For your older examples, times have changed. Audiences have a shorter attention span. As for LotR, only uber-fans will sit through the extended versions. The audience of 1960 is not the same as the audience of 2014. Not even close. A mainstream 4 hour movie today is a kiss of death, even if there are 'plosions in every scene. quality wise, sorry if I didn't make that clear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandias Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 The audience of 1960 is not the same as the audience of 2014. Not even close. A mainstream 4 hour movie today is a kiss of death, even if there are 'plosions in every scene. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goffe Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 (edited) That s one gigantic list for sure. I needed just one movie to prove that it can work And those movie had actually an half hour intermission so it was like seing 2 2hours film. hmm, that's convenient for your argument. For me (and everyone else), it is considered one movie. Edited December 15, 2014 by Goffe Ascending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jandrew Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 (edited) quality wise, sorry if I didn't make that clearBut the thing is, a movie doesnt have to be long to be good. Yes LOTR extended version got praise, but Im sure with the right editing and script, LOTR couldve been just as well recieve with a 2 1/2 hour runtime. Theres a lot of bloat. Did King Kong 2005 really need to be like 3 hours? Did that make it more epic? Nope, it just bloated the movie. KK couldve kicked ass even with a whole hour cut out. It honestly just depends on the movie. Obviously something like LOTR cant work as 90 minutes, while Gravity wouldnt work as 2 and 1/2 hours. WOWS couldve been shortened, but the 3 hour runtime did more justice for it than a 90 minute one would have. Really just depends on the movie. That movie Australia was like 2h 45m and it was a dud. While Guardians was 2h versus the superhero movie usual of 2 1/2 and look at its reception. Really just depends, but no movie needs 3+ hours to be epic. Gravity and Wolf, and then AH in the middle all showed runtime and quality isnt a completely positive correlation. (Sorry, Halba). Edited December 15, 2014 by Jandrew In The Mist 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 We need way more 90 minute blockbusters, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxmoser3 Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 January 2015 will be really solid. It has Taken3, a solid expansion for Selma and American Sniper, the wedding ringer, and many films that have more potential than the awful 2014 schedule I'll say we can have a two 100m grossers and a huge expansion with sniper. A pretty solid month. February aldo looks great with 50shades, spongebob, jupiter ascending or focus. And March 2015? So many strong films there: heart of the sea, home, insurgent, Cunderella, Chapie... 2015 can't come soon enough!! Jupiter ascending will probably bomb and Focus is unclear though I'm interested in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goffe Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 (edited) Yes LOTR extended version got praise, but Im sure with the right editing and script, LOTR couldve been just as well recieve with a 2 1/2 hour runtime. Theres a lot of bloat.eeeh... I'm not sure about that. It honestly just depends on the movie.agreed. Australia was great mmkay Edited December 15, 2014 by Goffe Ascending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxmoser3 Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Are you talking about Exodus? Lol.i eww but I"ll change it because it needs to be over 200 or so million WW because while it does have a 140 budget there is also prints and advertising as well in the budget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAJK Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 I agree that some movies (cough cough King Kong cough) don't deserve to be 3 hours long; but when the story can use the extra time to enhance an experience, for example Braveheart or Titanic (in my opinion), a movie can be well over 2 hours. I personally think historic movies (yes, Exodus counts as "historic" here despite some, well, lets say debatable aspects) should be 2.5h+ epics. I really want to see a new Hollywood production depicting the English Civil War to be honest, and something like that should be a 3 hour movie. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDC1987 Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 i eww but I"ll change it because it needs to be over 200 or so million WW because while it does have a 140 budget there is also prints and advertising as well in the budget Studios don't keep 100% of global box office grosses. Exodus needs to do $400 million to approach a profit at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 In my personal opinion, some movies earn their length by being entertaining throughout and never dragging ( Desolation of Smaug) and others could definitely use some trim because they drag at times (Return of the King could probably cut 30 minutes) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAJK Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 In my personal opinion, some movies earn their length by being entertaining throughout and never dragging ( Desolation of Smaug) and others could definitely use some trim because they drag at times (Return of the King could probably cut 30 minutes) I completely agree with DoS, but not with RotK Extended cut all the way!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezen Baklattan Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 The audience of 1960 is not the same as the audience of 2014. Not even close. A mainstream 4 hour movie today is a kiss of death, even if there are 'plosions in every scene. There were even intermissions in those movies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
