If it's a good story with good pacing, it doesn't matter how long it is. That being said, if I'm watching a movie at home, I will pause it to use the restroom, get something to eat, pull laundry out of the dryer, etc. Also, live theater has intermissions during their shows. I shouldn't have to make a choice of either wetting myself or missing parts of the movie

@robertotoole4522

6 ай бұрын

It does get to a point where it feels a little self-indulgent on the directors part. I want to watch their films, so don't make it so difficult haha

@timstokman9763

5 ай бұрын

In the Netherlands, every movie has an intermission which is great

@13ofspades

5 ай бұрын

good point .. killers of the flowers moon isnt a good story though.

@chetanuniyal3428

5 ай бұрын

@@timstokman9763 same in India. But every major film here is like a 3 hour musical so it makes much more sense.

@aussiejubes

5 ай бұрын

We used go have intermission in Australia up until the 90s and I wish they'd bring it back. It makes sense to because cinemas make their money at the snack bar and people will pop out and buy more if there's an intermission. I miss them. I refuse to watch movies over 2 hours at the cinema these days, I don't have it in me.

i think Oppenheimer proved that audiences don’t mind longer movies so long as they are engaged with the content. Also the Lord of the Rings movies were around 3 hours as well

@chipskylark172

6 ай бұрын

As long it’s not Marvel movies all the time and it’s actually good I don’t mind the duration

@Anthonycheesman33

6 ай бұрын

@@chipskylark172end game was 3 hours

@RedEveTillDawn

6 ай бұрын

LOTR is more like 10 hours when watching all three movies with the extended addition

@synsam12345

6 ай бұрын

Oppenheimer was too long.

@chipskylark172

6 ай бұрын

@@Anthonycheesman33and that should’ve been the end of Marvel pumping out all these movies. I liked End Game but every movie is not End Game

Francis Lawrence, the director of the Hunter Games, has stated that he regrets splitting Mockingjay into two parts, and he'd now simply make it one long film. According to him, it's unfair to ask the audience to wait an entire year for the epic climax.

@benmunn7593

6 ай бұрын

If it makes him feel better, I love movies split into 2 parts. Just leaves you guessing as to what's going to happen next and leaves the story spread out

@ninjanibba4259

6 ай бұрын

Considering how bad they are, it wouldn’t have made a difference

@narcisosanz8137

5 ай бұрын

​@@ninjanibba4259I think they're kinda bad BECAUSE the book didn't have enough content for two movies. I love what they did to Catching Fire, all the wandering around the forest and district 12 bits were simplified then we spent more time getting to know the characters and enjoying the Hunger Games. I think the same could be done to Mockingjay.

‘Puss in Boots: The Last Wish’ is one of my top favorite movies of the year. It clocks in at a lean and efficient 1hr 40mins. I think that most movies could be made in the sweet spot between 11/2 to 2hrs

@lorenzovillegas714

5 ай бұрын

Exactly! Look how much a movie like "Trainspotting" or "Fantastic Mr. Fox" can tell in just over 1 1/2 hours

Bring back 90 minute films. A fantastic film that was 90 min was Greyhound. It dropped you right into the story…no build up and then dropped you right back out after the conclusion. Books use this idea still to this day, throwing you right into a situation with little prologue time - usually filling in story gaps through characters.

@maxjohnson6502

6 ай бұрын

Fuck 90 minute movies

@pancakes8539

6 ай бұрын

That’s a weird comparison. I’m not understanding. A book is just as likely to drop you straight into a story as a movie. They might even be less likely since they have a lot more time to work with.

@loley975

5 ай бұрын

Not every story or plot can be sufficiently told within 90 minutes. Also, if every movie is 90 monutes long, they become predictable and ypu can more easily tell the pacing - kinda... do you get what I mean?

@rohansingh6514

5 ай бұрын

nah 90 minutes movie arent really movie

When you watch a really good movie that grasps your attention and you are in the moment, where all characters had the time to be fleshed out and you care for them, it doesn't matter if it is 90 minutes or 300 minutes. But when you cut off that moment to wait a month, year, or more, people are pulled from that moment and it becomes really hard to care for it as you used to.

The problem with bloated runtimes is pacing, a lot of recent movies have severe pacing issues, in the 90's I remember when I was a teenager movies at the theaters and on home video used to run mostly for roughly 90 mins with the exception of a few, movies back then had way better pacing, the movie said and showed what it needed for the story and then it was over, without bloating the runtime. Also another issue is because the enormous amount of movies releasing in the last couple of years if you're a movie buff that wants to watch everything like I do it's pretty difficult to make time in the day because of the amount of movies and their bloated runtimes.

@aussiejubes

5 ай бұрын

So many movies have a natural ending but we're forced to sit through one or two more endings. I cannot stand that & that's actually why I stopped going to the cinema. If they keep self indulgently going, my adhd ratchets up to 1000 & I need to go before I explode lol. Poor screenwriting

@robertobuatti7226

5 ай бұрын

@@aussiejubes Yes definitely, they just don't know how to end movies today, with films today going on and on, back in the past movies used to wrap nicely with it not slowing the pace down or being bogged down by the ending or slow meaningless scenes.

@Mickey-1994

5 ай бұрын

The 1990's was the last great decade for American movies. Most of the best movies from that decade were under 2 hours. Some great movies were about 2 in half to 3 hours like Heat, Braveheart, Goodfellas, Saving Private Ryan and Pulp Fiction but those movies go by fast and they justify being that long. I enjoyed The Batman and Mission Impossible 7 overall but both those movies were a least 30 mins too long.

@robertobuatti7226

5 ай бұрын

@@Mickey-1994 Yes definitely, movies today are just way too long, movies from the 90's as you said earned they long runtime, and didn't feel bloated and boring like a lot of movies today.

I saw the Hateful 8 in 70mm and it had a built in intermission into the show, while I have watched it since then in a literally single sitting the intermission provided a nice break. Tarantino clearly has an understanding about how to manage pacing and runtimes. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with long movies there has to be some form of thematic reason to it. As for the idea of sitting and binging 5 hours on the couch or going to a live show, I can't think of a single situation where there wasn't a point where I either got up from the couch and briefly paused what I was watching or in a live performance there being an intermission at some point

I've skipped a lot of movies due to their length. If I'm ambivalent about seeing a film in the first place then a long run time puts the nail in the coffin.

The artificial intermission being such a talking point is very interesting to me because the local cinema were I grew up inserted artificial intermissions in *all* showings. It was just long enough to give you a pee break and get some additional snacks. I was actually surprised that this wasn't standard in other cinemas when I moved out.

@madprophetus

5 ай бұрын

Most film distributors force cinemas to agree to show the movie without an intermission or face legal penalties.

@undercoverduck

5 ай бұрын

@@madprophetus Yeah I think the crux here is that it's the only (non art house) cinema in the area, so they have an effective monopoly on the local market

@madprophetus

5 ай бұрын

@@undercoverduck Yep - i think it's cool that they do it, but I think in most places, the other cinemas will rat you out to the distributor if you do it.

@YourBestie17

2 ай бұрын

In Iceland every movie shown in the cinema has a 10-15 min intermission... with full on local music and advertisements... for long movies great , for shorter annoying

for me it isn't the length of the film that bothers me. It's the lack of an intermission to go pee. I don't like holding it in, if i miss an important point in the movie. Also holding it in, can be painful and taxing and is a factor, that takes away the attention you're trying to give to the movie

More movies should follow the _Kill Bill_ playbook by having a good, coherent, self-contained story that rewards paying attention and has impressive spectacle and interesting fight scenes.

I saw Logan (2017) in a Portugese cinema. There was an intermission, even though it is only 137 minutes long. It is normal there for movies to have an intermission. At first I was confused, but it did not change the experience.

@maryjanerx

6 ай бұрын

Sounds amazing to be able to use the restroom halfway thru and not miss anything

@harikiranmanjeshwara2945

5 ай бұрын

This is very common in Indian Cinemas and movies. Even today, movies have designated Intervals.

We could definitely use intermissions in modern movies. It’s rare that I have the endurance to last an entire movie without peeing at least once.

Sometimes, I like a movie to be really long. Like when I'm watching an Epic like Seven Samurai or Lord of the rings, but generally a good short but sweet 80-minute long movie is just what the doctor ordered.

Watching Wonka I couldn't help but point out numerous scenes that could/should have been cut out to make it a tight 90 minutes. The previews are way too long; don't tell me my movie start time is at 11 then it doesn't actually start playing until almost 12... that throws off my whole plans for afterwards.

@jesustovar2549

6 ай бұрын

The movie isn't even that long.

Its so refreshing to watch some movies from the 90s / early 00s. Compared to movies of today. Sometimes I just check the time and realise "holy crap they've developed the plot and the characters so damn much and its only been 20 minutes" It has a feeling like a freight train. The movie is moving, and you better keep up. The momentum of the movie is part of the excitement. Modern movies are often bloated with stuff that just does not serve a character or plot development/arc in any meaningful way. They often are not 3 hour freight trains, they are a steam boat taking too long to get to the next bend in the river. Now there are absolutely cases where a 3 hour endurance test of a movie makes sense, part of the emotion an author is trying to convey can be one of frustration, boredom, etc. But it shouldnt be the norm as it has become for the hollywood "blockbuster" types.

@wafflepenguin4440

5 ай бұрын

When I watch kids movies/animated films that are only 1 hour and 30 minutes I’m amazed by how they can tell the story so quickly in comparison to other films.

@Mickey-1994

5 ай бұрын

Most of the longer movies from the 90's go by fast and they justify being that long like Braveheart and Heat.

Im always of the belief that a film should take however long it needs to effectively tell its story

@madprophetus

5 ай бұрын

Key word: effectively.

i saw seven Samurai (right around 3 hours) in the theater earlier this year and i was very happy with the built in intermission. i almost always have to get up to pee during a movie and have started to choose my seat with minimizing the time and maximizing the ease of getting up. overall I'd say time is less of an issue than pacing, but that being said, tightening up a movie is certainly a part of controlling pacing. I've def watched short movies that dragged and long movies i almost never took my senses off of. but also, intermissions are great. much better than trying to balance guessing when it's a good spot to get up vs just how badly i need to go and just having my attention in the movie diverted by having to think about it so much

Maybe the solution is to have long movies edited in a way that makes it easier to add an intermission. Like one scene that ends with a fade to black followed by 2 - 3 seconds of blank screen before the next scene begins. That way every cinema that adds an intermission can just put it in the blank frames without being too disruptive.

@jasonblalock4429

5 ай бұрын

In Ye Olden Days, blockbusters of the 1950s and 60s would regularly add intermissions - and usually at key points to either A)create a cliffhanger, or B)give the audience a breather after a particularly intense or act-ending sequence. Even auteur directors did it. 2001 had an intermission, originally! Like the video jokes about inserting an intermission into the ending of Endgame, but given its episodic nature, there are several points one could be inserted cleanly. Like a perfect spot would be after Natasha's sacrifice. Give the audience a few minutes to process that *Black Widow just died* (and go to the bathroom) before diving back into the story.

@wafflepenguin4440

5 ай бұрын

2 to 3 seconds of blank screen isn’t even nearly enough time for people to walk off and use the bathroom.

@Niall-hp7th

5 ай бұрын

@@wafflepenguin4440 i mean 2 to 3 seconds where a cinema could make a cut and insert a 15 minute intermission into.

@PinkMonkeyBird

5 ай бұрын

The argument has nothing to do with their not being a proper spot for it, but rather that the pacing of the film is not designed around an intermission. So adding one randomly, resets the audience and emotionally divests them from what's going on, especially in the middle of act 2, when you're trying to build towards your finale

People watch theatre and symphony for 3.5 hours but there is an intermission! A film like RRR got it right by putting an intermission in the middle and then starting up again with a pivotal flashback. It can be an artistic choice if you think it through!

@harikiranmanjeshwara2945

5 ай бұрын

Its not an artistic decision. Its the way most Indian films are. Intervals are pretty much a part of Indian cinema.

@Scott_Silver

5 ай бұрын

@@harikiranmanjeshwara2945I get that it is normal, but it did allow them to shift to a very important scene and the short break perhaps elevated that. So my point is Hollywood directors could learn something from that. That intermissions don't have to hurt their films.

@Player5xx

5 ай бұрын

@@harikiranmanjeshwara2945 And as a result the movie was made with that in mind and they picked an artistic place to put it when they designed the movie. Directors act too much like you are ruining my movie by putting one when they could just plan from the start to put one and choose where it is and then nothing would be ruined. With how complicated making a movie is, selecting a single point somewhere near the middle to pause for 10-15 minutes should not be a hard task especially considering the level of directors that are the ones making these 3-4 hour movies. If Nolan can make a whole movie told backwards he should be able to find a good pausing point in him other films.

Harry Potter shouldn't be lumped in with the cash grab splits, it had narrative reason to be two parts. Fans of the series admitted from the day the book was released that the film adaptation would have to be several hours long in order to capture all the key elements. It was only after that two part release netted well over $2 billion that the other YA book series decided to milk their finales.

@Chalo122790

6 ай бұрын

I agree the content of the last book was too much for what it was normal run time at the release date , and what we expected to get was not a 1 movie material

@jeffnicholas6342

6 ай бұрын

That’s a great point. My issue was I thought the book could have been cut down considerably, but that’s JK’s problem not the filmmakers adapting the source material

@taliamason7986

6 ай бұрын

It really didn't. Part 1 already told the bulk of the story which left Part 2 with very little left to tell that was anywhere near as interesting and thus why it falls so flat as a film. It could have very easily been one film with a slightly over 3 hour run time in the hands of a much better Director such as for example Alfonso Cauron who actually knows how to properly break down a book. The other big problem is why in the world didn't Goblet of Fire or Order of the Pheonix have two parts when the books they were adapted from are considerably bigger than Deathly Hallows.

I think the issue is that many TV series is going to 1 hour episodes and so the difference between film and TV were converging. Films have been getting too long for a while though, anything more than 2 hours can usually mean not enough time in the editing room or just too long for a single showing. I think ~100 minutes is about right.

@ninjanibba4259

6 ай бұрын

No, 90 is

@alexprach

5 ай бұрын

@@ninjanibba4259 90 is also a good number

I'm a bit torn on this topic. There are movies where i appreciate that they take the time and properly flesh out characters or important plot points but other movies (and subjectively this is more common in recent years) feel too long, like the two Scorsese movies mentioned in this video that, even though they are good movies, sometimes really felt like a drag to me. On the "Kill Bill - Treatment": In my opinion it's reasonable to split movies, or better said, have multiple installments, as long as each of these movies can stand on it's own, like the Kill Bills do. Oh, and the argument comparing a 3,5 hours movie in the cinema to 5 hours in front of the TV at home is simply stupid. At home you just hit pause or use the commercial breaks to use the bathroom.

If movies are gonna be that long we need a timed intermission placed during a lull in the film with a timer easily seen for when it'll start and when it'll end. That way if I gotta pee during a movie I know when it's safe to without missing anything. Otherwise I'm just gonna watch them when they come out and I can pause it whenever

Nerdstalgic has been missing lately. Those "endurance tests" were all engaging experiences and I enjoyed that time was taken to get the characters and story right.

@thebigdawgj

5 ай бұрын

>lately Bruh they miss more than they hit.

I find it funny that you quoted the AMC video 😂

The switch to digital movies is partly the reason. When a film was projected on film, a cinema was limited in how many showings they could fit in a day. You could only show the average film maybe four times a day, five if you pushed it. So the studios sometimes mandated that films had to be a certain length to maximise revenue. But now everything is on a DCP. As a result a cinema can now take one copy of a film and show it on multiple screens. Oppenheimer for instance had six showings a day at my local cinema. As a result the studios don't need to restrict running times anymore

Last great 90 minute film? I can’t remember. However I think Chris Stuckmann said it best, “A film is as long as it needs to be.” Zack’s Justice League is 4 hours and it mostly uses that run time effectively. We’ve seen what happens when it’s shorten too much. So yes, I agree with Chris’ statement

@ninjanibba4259

6 ай бұрын

You’re not seriously citing the same guy that called Disney plus shows great Just no, dude has lost himself many years ago and Snyder is a complete hack

It is good to complain on long time if it runs on. If its engaging, people can sit and enjoy it.

We went from aroudn 2000 where movies would get butchered to adhere to an arbitrary length limit, to now where absolutely nothing is cut. A super long movie definitely makes it likely that I won't bother to go to the theater, even if I would "waste" a similar amount of time at home, the point is I could stop whatever I was doing at home. But I will admit I'm not really a movie afficianado, so I recognize I'm likely not hte target audience anyway. As it is, I've been saying for awhile why don't they just put a damn intermission in the things? If Scorcese wants to jerk off with the live theater comparison, go for it, THEY HAVE INTERMISSIONS.

In Zurich all theaters do an intermission, it is the standard operating procedure. First time i was confused, I thought the projector had broken or something, jajajaja.

Wolf of Wall Street is great long movie, you get so much in the movie and it’s so captivating after the scene and of course Margot Robbie😮‍💨

@denickart

5 ай бұрын

Good movie but it could've been shorter. It took me 3 days to finish.

The time frame of movies for the longest time was dictated by the major studios. Since the 60s thru the late 70s, ALL movies were earmarked at 90 minutes: 1 and 1/2 hours. I discovered thru research that this was because during this time and theater distribution restrictions, was because the execs of the studios believed the movie public could not sit thru nor understand a story line exceeding this time period. Also, what few movies actually hit the 2 hour mark or more HAD to have an intermission to allow movie goers time to go to the bathroom and the lobby snack counter. I was personally offended by this ordered time structure. As a lot of the commenters here have stated, as long as the story is compelling and the actors can deliver the story, time frames are of no consequence. It appears the major studio and distribution houses still control this evolving time frame build process even today.

6:30 OK, now _that_ made me laugh.

I think and its just the balance view point , the movie should be as long as it needs to be to tell its story, if it needs to be split sure no reason not to, but so many movies bloat the run time , and other just cut important content , just to fit in a run time that it hurts the film.

Great content as always!...but Ghost was in 1990. 7:09

I think with the examples you gave of YA films splitting final films of their series, it is money but also it is the source material and wanting to get everything in from the books while catering to a younger audience, only as you made it sound like it was just for money

Ask that to all the people complaining that Across the Spider-Verse "wasn't a complete movie" 😆

Avatar 2 reminded me of those promo films you get at TV shops to show off the TVs. It was a really simple story padded out with 2 unnecessary hours of ocean nonsense.

If the movie is good I can sit for as long as they want. Just make it worth our time.

Gangs of Wasseypur Part 1 and 2 is a prime example of what you mentioned the second part starts where the first part ended and the second part released 2 months after the first part.

This video should've been 3 hours long, Nerdstalgic!

I will make up my mind after seeing the Part 2 version of this video

Gotta agree, at least in general. I just don't bother going to see long films at the cinema any more... they normally get in the way of either my dinner, my sleep, or rob me of precious time out in the world. That last Mission Impossible movie would (IMO) have been much improved if it had been edited into a tighter presentation, with a second part following quicker behind it. Though it's 110 minutes, the first M:I movie was a great example of good editing and pacing... there's no fluff and nothing unecessary in that story. The best 90-minute movie I (re)watched recently was a Nightmare before Christmas: It always strikes me how brilliantly paced it is.

Most of the films should be only one movie. But sometimes, a thing that is big should be a two parter, but a good one. Without some nonsense - ending that is a half of the scene. Dead Man's Chest ending is an example of a good ending of part one. At World's End isn't that good, but as a two parter, those movies are good.

I recently watched Metropolis (1927) in a cinema. It's a 2.5-hour silent movie and has a better narrative than half the movies I have seen this year. If the story lends itself for a longer story sure but half the movies could have been cut in half...

@jesustovar2549

6 ай бұрын

And there are different cuts of the movie, just like with Napoleon (1927) which is 5 hours, or the different versions of Apocalypse Now.

@disappointedcucumber

5 ай бұрын

Weirdly enough, Metropolis actually isn't supposed to be a 2.5-hour movie. I remember hearing this a while back but I think the frames per second were increased to make it shorter since audiences at the time found it boring to sit through, so the actual runtime would have been something like 3 hours and 15 minutes. EDIT: I found it, it's the 16 frames per second version. You can find it by searching up "metropolis restoration 16 fps."

Has Dune part two finally settled on a release date?

@TheCaptainjuicy

6 ай бұрын

March 1st of next year

Films should be exactly as short a duration as is required to tell the story of the film-maker, not a moment more. Some stories take 90 minutes to tell, others 360. When the latter is so, those in charge of production have the difficult decision of potentially detrimental brevity or splitting the film. If bloated runtimes are an issue, then directors are failing an essential skill of their craft.

@-ThatGuy-

6 ай бұрын

Exactly. And unfortunately Hollywood and big studios want to milk as much run time as possible. So they will kinda push longer and longer stories even when it's unnecessary. I'd rather a 45 minute movie or special that tells a great story in that time even leaving me wanting a bit more vs having a 4 hour movie that has a load of fluff no one asked for.

@jesustovar2549

6 ай бұрын

​@@-ThatGuy-They already did this back in the 50s, television was the new rival (like streaming), movies became BIGGER, BIGGER SCOPE, MORE COLOR, STELLAR CASTS, but they had intermissions, even overtures and "music to exit" like if it was an opera or ballet.

@-ThatGuy-

5 ай бұрын

@@jesustovar2549 So they made it more palatable. Even if the movie wasn't incredible the intermission made it still worth staying and watching cause you got a break.

I think it somehow do with the tempo (or the information?) of the film. Some film offer enough information and development to engage the audience, but some just don't. Like The Batman and Oppenheimer, it sure can be shorter, but in general, the part that seem to drag the story only appear in few minutes and it scatter across the whole film. I can imagine some of the film I watch before (which is wonderful in cinemetrography + focus on the tension between character) will be bad if is 3h+ long.

I remember watching Rye Lane, a lovely and thoroughly enjoyable romcom, which was just 90 minutes long. So good and really worked with the time used

Keep the length. Bring back the intermission.

I have watched long movies (3+ hours) and enjoyed them. But there are many longer films that really could have been shorter. I would have loved Oppenheimer at 2 1/2 hours - some parts just seemed to drag. There is a tendency recently to make films longer than they need to be - to add points or characters that don't need to be there. Many of these scenes are well done and enjoyable on their own, but add little to the story the film is telling. Long movies are great if all of it needs to be there to tell the story. Tell the story that needs to be told, whether it is 90 minutes or 240 minutes, nothing extra.

Here in Italy literally all the movies in the cinema are shown with a 5 minutes intermission in the middle, and it has been like that always 😅

I'm an avid cinema-goer and I always feel like the sweet spot is around 2 hours. These things need to feel like events. There's supposed to be a sense of wonder and expectation with it, but id you're in and out of there within an hour it doesn't quite feel like we're getting our money's worth. Whereas movies over 3 hours long have forced me to limit any beverage consumption during the runtime in fear of an enforced break.

I was super shocked when a Haunting in Venice was less than two hours when the previous two in the series were longer. It was nice

They're leaving money on the table by making these long films. I worked in movie theaters in the early 90's. Part of the reason runtimes rarely pushed past 120 minutes with no more than 10 minutes of trailers was to increase the amount of showings you could do in one day. More showings = more seats to sell. It's how we ended up with the multiplex. On weeknights, we were able to do two showings of a film and get people in seats with a showing around 7 and the next one around 9:30. On weekends, you could fit even more showings throughout the day. Modern movie theaters have moved to larger recliner-style seating which means less seats in the theater to sell. And then you top that off with long run times and your potential to make money drops substantially on every front from ticket sales to concessions.

please can you do a video explaining color theory surrounding red and green? like i get kinda confused by with stuff like tie fighter's shooting green lasers and x wings shooting red, expelliarmus is a red beam and avada kedrava is green, kai from kung fu panda 3 is green too and the antagonist, and there are probably more examples of red being symbolised for good and green for bad despite typical color theory? like if ya don't wanna that's cool but it could be a cool and interesting video that could teach a lot of people a weird thing

@jesustovar2549

6 ай бұрын

It's weird, especially when you consider Jedi uses green lightsabers (good) and Sith uses red (bad). But I had a doubt about Harry Potter too, I had those Star Wars vibes seeing Harry and Voldemort fighting.

I'd be happy if my local movie theater started doing intermissions with 2h+ movies.

This is why we have things like Theatrical & Directors Cuts. The theatrical release is easier to digest for the masses and the DC is for the hardcore fans who want to see the original vision. There are countless examples, take my fav movie Apocalypse Now

@jesustovar2549

6 ай бұрын

That's why I appreciate Ridley Scott, he knows people can't bother with so long, as much as I felt Napoleon left too much out, I'm really waiting for the extended cut, usually those are better than the theatrical cut.

"Your not busy, you get bored easily"

Ultimately, it comes down to one thing - if the movie is good, it doesn't matter if it's short or long. If it's bad (eg Justice League, or Marvels), it'll stay bad no matter its length.

If the movie has good pacing and the content is really engaging, then you can endure the runtime, but on the other hand, Robocop, one of the greatest movies ever made is just 90 minutes, it poignant, concise and straight to the point, no overdressing things, it keeps the plot in a tight laser focus just like Robo's aiming systems. So, if possible, make shorter movies, or at least accept, that you may need to take some concessions or people will just take a trip to the concession stand regardless.

I really love long movies like 2 hours or 3 hours here's my favorite: - Inception - The Departed - Interstellar - The Shinning - Blood Diamond - The Wolf Of Wall Street - The Godfather (Trilogy) - The Lord Of The Rings (Trilogy) - Avatar & The Way Of Water - Titanic - The Aviator - Blade Runner 2049 - Top Gun: Maverick - Goodfellas - Zodiac - Fight Club - Se7en - Gone Girl - Dune - End Game - Invinity War - The Dark Knight - The Dark knight rises - Saving Private Ryan - Hacksaw Ridge - Scarface - Casino - Taxi Driver - Pulp Fiction - Gangs Of New York - There Will Be Blood - The Shawshank Redemtion - Cast Away - Scindler's List - Django Unchained - Catch Me if You Can And many more...

I get the argument that putting an intermission goes against the artist intention to which my counter is that “someone walking in front of me to go to the rest room isn’t their intention either.”

Shows a clip from the prestige when he says prestige 👌 1:45

in india, 2.5 hour long movies are a standard, and an intermission is expected no matter the run time, even the hollywood movies screened and dubbed in india, in theaters have an artificial intermission inserted in between, I can understand this runtime being a nuance in the US, but here we are used to these longer runtimes. Although I imagine that with the introduction of intermissions as a regular then these longer runtime should not be a problem there too. and it would be good to see this 3 hour long runtime be common in hollywood movies too, gives more time for directors and writers to work with.

I remember being an ADHD riddled kid who could barely sit through a 90 min film. Then the first film I finished was the LOTR extended edition - if it’s good who cares how long it is

@ninjanibba4259

6 ай бұрын

Plenty of people do, why not make it a good tv show at the time? You could flesh out more doing that

@jesustovar2549

6 ай бұрын

Wow, that was the first film you finnished? That's legendary, congrats.

1939 Gone with the Wind: 3h 40 min. 1956 The Ten Commandments: 3h 40 min. 1959 Ben Hur: 3h 42 min. 1962 Lawrence of Arabia: 3h 36 min. 1963 Cleopatra: 4h 11 min.

@jesustovar2549

5 ай бұрын

The golden standards for long movies, people who complain about long movies nowadays, they clearly never watched these, thanks for reminding me Ben-Hur is longer than Gone with the Wind, I never had troubles with their pacing.

One example of it going right until it didn't for me was The Batman. One movie that could've used an intermission was Killers of the Flower Moon.

I find it ironic that a film-buff like Marty doesn't seem to remember that back in the day, really long movies had intermissions. My Fair Lady (2 hours, 50 minutes) has an intermission, Seven Samurai (3 and half hours) has an intermission. One of Martys favourite films, The Red Shoes has an intermssion at 2 hours and 15 min. And East of Eden is under 2 hours (1 hour 58 minutes) and has an intermssion. Yeah, two films that are shorter than The Dark Knight (2008) came with an intermssion. Now, I understand not wanting your movie cut and someone else saying where the intermission should be. But for really long films, I think they should bring back at least the possibility for cinemas to show a version with an intermssion or without one. And that directors and film-makers should plan out where a good intermssion would be placed. As for the lenght of the film, I'm reminded what a critic once said about books; "A bad book is never short enough, a good book never long enough." If the pacing is fine and the story can handle it, a longer story is fine by me. I won't watch/read it as often since I don't have much sparetime now as an adult and there are lots of books, movies, graphic novels, tv-shows etc. that I want to engage with.

Wait, when did Scorsese last go to the theater? Almost all plays have intermissions.

believe it or not, but there's people who like 3 or 4 hour movies. they hit different from movies torn apart at th seams.

I developed a unique narrative structure and one concern I had was can it work with longer movies? It can, but this is a relief to hear that movies should be shorter.

I think it could be fun for director so start playing with intermissions again like in the 1950s. Can see the Netflix app saying “skip intermission” if you wanted to stay in the world.

Never did I think I’d see Nicole Kidmans AMC commercial in a video about Kill Bill 😂😂

Way of Water felt like three separate movies in a row, yet I didn't go to the bathroom either time I watched it in theaters

I don't mind long movies but I WISH they did 10 minute intermissions during cinema screenings like they do in live theatres!!! 😭😭😭!!! I literally ALWAYS have to *"go"* when the movie is at the big battle royale at the end 😡😡😡😂😭

I do enjoy longer movies to the detriment of my wife it's like every movie I wanna watch that's interesting is 2+ hours, I'm talking Knives out, Beau is afraid, Oppenheimer, Snow piercer, dances with wolves, avatar. But maybe it's because I've always wanted to sit and watch the movie.

How about dune should they have pushed it into one movie or was it a kill bill situation loved dune btw just asking?

For the longest of time many movies were only 90 minutes long. But now with streaming you can stop and start movies at will therefore they're making them longer now.

@jesustovar2549

6 ай бұрын

What about tv and commercials?

Everytime someone complains about how long a film is, I like to use this BEAUTIFUL David Lynch quote, which has little to do with this subject, but greatly demonstrates my feelings and how I feel about people who complain about it: "Bullshit. That's how I feel. Total fucking bullshit"

Best 90 minute film I've seen in a while is legitimately Cocaine Bear. Funny, not too self-serious, "so bad it's good," and it got in and out with a tight 95m. Insidious Red Door was a pretty good flick if you like cheesey horror and it was 107, so not quite a 1.5er, but still a nice tight runtime

@jesustovar2549

5 ай бұрын

Can't believe it's based on a true story, also last film Ray Liotta starred in

Nimona! Probably the most enjoyable film I've seen all year. Official runtime is 101 minutes, but the credits run for a ridiculous 15 min so really only an 85 min movie.

The theatre that I go to always has a break for movies that are over 3 hours long. The last one was with Oppenheimer. Nothing strange really. Gives you time to take a piss, with a 10 min countdown. Movie starts back 1 min where it paused and you're sucked back in again.

@jesustovar2549

6 ай бұрын

You really did experience it the best way, just like the old days, longer movies had intermissions, I remember they did this back when I saw Avengers: Endgame, people thought for a moment that electricity was shut down😂

The runtime of the Snyder Cut was part of the point of its existence. The theatrical cut had been screwed up. The decision was eventually made to give it back to Snyder and the results were way more satisfying. And he built great chapters into the presentation so you could stop it at the end of one of them and dip back in at another time.

The other option is directors could go back to including intermissions themselves. Lawrence of Arabia is a masterpiece, but also nearly 4 hrs, so they included an intermission and let that brilliant score just run over black screen. Was a very nice breather.

It's not exactly 90 minutes but _Kung Pow: Enter the Fist_ was wildly entertaining complete with a mock intermission.

They should have different ticket prices for different lengths of movies, and an intermission or some kind of indicated skippable scene in the middle of longer movies. If they charged half the price for a 90 minute movie, that's a nice night out. Any movie over two and a half hours just seems like a burden that you can wait and watch at home

Napoleon should have been split. My problems with it mostly stem from it being too quick to jump around and get to the next thing, that it is hard to follow. There was also many things it seemed intending to cover in greater depth but never did due to lack of time.

@jesustovar2549

5 ай бұрын

That's why I'm waiting for the extended cut, Ridley Scott movies are better that way.

It feels arrogant, demanding an audience sit for 3-4 hours without a single break. Intermissions were COMMON in the 1950s-60s for exactly that reason! They could even be done creatively. Like, *It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World* had a great gimmick where they played pre-recorded audio over theater PA systems during intermission, continuing the story, to keep the audience immersed. Plus, I really doubt theaters would object to more intermissions, since they encourage concession sales, and that's how theaters actually make money. Frankly, I don't see any good reason to avoid intermissions these days. They SHOULD come back.

Crazy that this movie is 20 years old

in sri lankan movies there is always an intermission. it is pretty much required solving this problem entirely

As an Indian movie watcher our movies are long af. We are used to it hell we even appreciate it.

Zack Snyder's Justice League was a bad call out on this list. Not only was it never in nor ever going to be in theaters, Snyder intentionally build in Chapter Breaks to allow people to break up watching it should they so choose.

if you’re going the theaters you gotta know what you’re signing up for. for the last 4 years or so I been watching movies like they’re shows, in pieces. even if they’re not super long.

They're going overboard with many movies, The Batman was good but had no business being almost 3 hours long. I love the Mission Impossible franchise but the last movie being 2 hours and 45 mins was also pretty ridiculous especially since that is only part 1.

Thank god Dune got split into Part I, Part II

I've stopped going to the theatres for that reason. Yes at home we can watch TV for 5 hours. The watching time isn't the problem, the problem is that there is no intermission, no ability to pause and use the restroom or get a snack. If they refuse to add intermissions or bring the time of a movie down, I refuse to watch movies in the theatres.

One word: Intermission.