Weekend Thread (8/11-13) | Demeter 750K Previews

[WorkingonaName]

Best 3 hour movie is Babylon.

[Brainbug]

11 minutes ago, eeetooki said:

My favourite 3 hour movies will forever be the LOTR trilogy. Pretty sure I have watched them back to back quite a few times too.

 

4 Hour movies.

 

Special Edition supremacy.

[grim22]

2 minutes ago, WorkingonaName said:

Best 3 hour movie is Babylon.

 

[M37]

Anecdotally, I do think movies are getting longer of late. There were times pre- and post-pandemic where only 0-2 of the top 10+ films in release were under 2 hours

 

Mostly I believe the shift has to do with trying to distinguish a theatrical release from those of streamers: bigger budgets, longer running time, often letting a director run with their vision; ie worth paying the $10-$20 for. The genres that are consistently on the shorter side were family films, comedies, and horror/thriller ... and the first 2 of those 3 are on a downturn theatrically (other than Illumination).

 

There is perhaps a cyclical, sinus curve to the box office in terms of quantity and length, even down to a genre level, alternating between periods of a GA/pop-culture wave producing higher volume, eventually progressing to a period of more competition outside of theaters, and resulting in fewer but longer, sweeping epic films.

From 1991-2001, Oliver Stone, Spike Lee, Spielberg, Cameron, Paul Thomas Anderson, Peter Jackson, and even Michael Bay were all given the greenlight to release a 3 hour major release, a passion project of some kind. Previously we saw a similar boon in the late 70s into early 80s (Godfather II, Right Stuff, Reds, Gandhi, Deer Hunter, etc). We're probably just in the midst of another such "epic" boon, with Tarantino consistently pushing close to 3 hours, while the Russos, Cameron and Nolan among those who have crossed it. I guess Jordan Peele and Greta Gerwig will have one sooner rather than later?

Edited August 13, 2023 by M37

[eeetooki]

22 minutes ago, Brainbug said:

 

4 Hour movies.

 

Special Edition supremacy.

Love watching all the special features and commentaries.

[Napoleon]

If a big budget movie has a shorter runtime these days is almost a bad sign that it has been taken over from the director - examples being The New Mutants, Dark Phoenix, Justice League, Morbius, Fantastic Four, Aeon Flux, Chaos Walking, The Mummy... all plagued by reshoots. Star Wars movies are usually an exception - Rogue One, Solo, The Rise of Skywalker kept a long running time.

[reddevil19]

13 minutes ago, M37 said:

Anecdotally, I do think movies are getting longer of late. There were times pre- and post-pandemic where only 0-2 of the top 10+ films in release were under 2 hours

 

Mostly I believe the shift has to do with trying to distinguish a theatrical release from those of streamers: bigger budgets, longer running time, often letting a director run with their vision; ie worth paying the $10-$20 for. The genres that are consistently on the shorter side were family films, comedies, and horror/thriller ... and the first 2 of those 3 are on a downturn theatrically (other than Illumination).

 

There is perhaps a cyclical, sinus curve to the box office in terms of quantity and length, even down to a genre level, alternating between periods of a GA/pop-culture wave producing higher volume, eventually progressing to a period of more competition outside of theaters, and resulting in fewer but longer, sweeping epic films.

From 1991-2001, Oliver Stone, Spike Lee, Spielberg, Cameron, Paul Thomas Anderson, Peter Jackson, and even Michael Bay were all given the greenlight to release a 3 hour major release, a passion project of some kind. We're probably just in the midst of another such "epic" boon, with Tarantino consistently pushing close to 3 hours, while the Russos, Cameron and Nolan among those who have crossed it. I guess Jordan Peele and Greta Gerwig will have one sooner rather than later?

Meanwhile, Scorsese chilling over there with his last 4 movies at 180, 160, 210 and 200 minutes long (and costing insane amounts of money).

 

One day I do want to do one of the LOTR cinema marathons. Those movies I can just continue watching regardless of which cut it is and how long it runs.

[vale9001]

Nowadays you can watch a movie again the day tomorrow on the internet being too long has not a positive impact for rewatches on a generic audience. 

A Black Panther movie like the sequel, something you go to watch for the only purpose to being entertained, being 20 minutes longer than Forrest Gump 🙃

Edited August 13, 2023 by vale9001

[Eric is Anxious]

 

WHAT THE H*CK

[Brainbug]

6 minutes ago, Eric the Turtle said:

 

WHAT THE H*CK

 

I mean its deserved its a great movie but a 19% drop for a horror movie is ... well UNUSUAL.

[Morieris]

2 hours ago, grim22 said:

Since we are discussing runtimes, this came across my timeline and my immediate thought was "absolutely not"

 

 

 

 

I don't remember there being enough plot for an almost 3 hour movie.

[Celedhring]

2 hours ago, grim22 said:

 

I think it's because everything is spelled out now. One of my go to examples is "The Fugitive", the movie just dives into the murder and goes from there. If it was made or remade now, we will definitely have 10-15 minutes setting up the story of Kimble and his wife before the murder so we can sympathize with them more. The movie decides to let us discover Kimble's personality as it unfolds but now we would need all of that to happen up front.

 

I think my favorite example is Death on the Nile treating us with an extended prologue explaining the origin story of Poirot's moustache.

[Bob Train]

People only bring up runtime when it’s a sequel longer than it’s predecessor.

 

No one is talking about how Creed 3 is a lot shorter than 2, or how Rise of the Beasts is shorter than every Bayformers, or how Thor: Love and Thunder is shorter than Ragnarok. 

 

So people just say “why are all the runtimes so long?” while ignoring the many movies that have runtimes that are similar or shorter to their predecessors.

[Eric is Anxious]

Just now, Celedhring said:

 

I think my favorite example is Death on the Nile treating us with an extended prologue explaining the origin story of Poirot's moustache.

I mean the moustache origin story was the only good thing in that slog of a movie, so I'm okay with that.

[CoolioD1]

Still, it's probably the first year in ages where the two biggest movies of the year are under 2 hours.

[grim22]

11 minutes ago, Eric the Turtle said:

I mean the moustache origin story was the only good thing in that slog of a movie, so I'm okay with that.

 

 

 

[Eric is Anxious]

 

[Eric is Anxious]

 

[emoviefan]

7 hours ago, wildphantom said:

I had no issues with Indy 5 or MI7’s length. They both flew by. Particularly the latter which lived up to Frosty’s ‘fastest 2 hrs and 40 minutes I’ve ever seen’ mantra. 
 

There’s nothing I would cut out of either of them.  

Same here for the most part.  Seen both twice. On second viewing Of Dial I did feel like the middle part had a lot of Voller and his men catch up to Indy, helena, and the kid they escape and then repeat. Could have cut a little of that and tightened it up a bit. As for DR Part 1 Yes on both viewings fastest 2 hrs and 40 minutes I've ever seen. I love John Wick 4 but I felt that movie's length did not feel that for Mission though. 

[Jovan]

15.75M TMNT (-44%)

4.66M Mission: Impossible Dead Reckoning Part One (-29%)

 

Edited August 13, 2023 by Jovan