Movies and TV Shows
General discussion about movies and TV shows.
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain
[spoilers]in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:
::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::
Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!
Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [!thebear@lemmy.film](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)
Related communities: !entertainment@beehaw.org !moviesuggestions@lemmy.world
This is an interesting graph! I think the phenomenon of longer runtimes has two major reasons:
1. Streaming Studios are much less stringent with how long a movie can be since it's less of a concern how many times it can be shown per day/theatre. Also, runtime doesn't matter as much when the viewers can pause and return to it whenever they please. This is encouraged by streaming services because it also increases the overall time spent in the app.
2. The vanishing of medium-budget movies High-profile, high-budget movies by known directors have always been longer on average, because they can afford to do so and are expected to draw large audiences. In recent years the number of mid-budget movies, the likes we are used to from pre-2010, has drastically decreased in favor of big blockbuster productions (here's an article about it). So the average runtime has increased as a consequence of this.
I personally don't like this trend. Although I really enjoy longer movies, most of them wind up with obnoxious amounts of badly written filler-content.
One thing people probably aren't considering is tapes. They had a literal length to them. I remember Titanic was a 2 tape set because it was so long. That meant, movies wanted to meaningfully hit the home market, they had to be short enough to fit on one tape, including any preroll advertisements the studio wanted the squeeze in.
DVDs helped a little, but they took were constrained, and were trying to pack in additional features while they were at it.
Now all bets are off in the home market. Even TV shows have started changing to match the format. Streaming first shows are often variable length per episode. Rather than try to fit a specific size, they run until the story is told, like a movie.
That peak in the early 2000s has to be the extended LOTR trilogy. Which I'm very happy to watch
I prefer to watch films that are good to great, no matter the time as long as the artists know how to use the time well and make the work worth to watch. There is fantastic works that span the whole spectrum, from short films to lenghy films, and there is trash all the way too (Some director compared it to paintings, that range from tiny papers to whole walls). If we really think about it, any anthology series like Black Mirror and The Twilight Zone 1959 are just a collection of short films that share a theme, some recurring stage crew, and etc. If i am short on literal time, i have no problem stopping and taking multiple sections to watch a film (purists have some point that it loses a little of the impact some times, but most of the time it really does not).
I think it is 2 reasons for the trend:
- Cinema-at-home technologies just keeps getting so much better all the time, and it is already pretty great. Streaming and 80 inch 4K OLED TVs are just the latest iteration of a process started in the 1950s with tube TVs, and if VR-AR glasses popularize they will be the next. Cinema Studios and Cinema-at-theater companies had to invent new immersive technologies and art forms to stay competitive, from the rectangle screen form (16:9) until IMAX 4-D etc. They also artificially benefited the cinema-at-theater by having the release window schedule (3 months in theaters, another 6 months to dvd, 1-2 years to tv, etc), that has been diminushed but it still exists (6 weeks to 2 months in theaters i think), and in our FOMO infested culture this might make theaters stay in the long run in some form or another. But overall, home has never been such a sweet place to watch cinema.
- The endless rat-race to keep cinema-at-theater competitive with cinema-at-home has eventually made that only Blockbusters in high tecnology cinemas are attractive enough to most people, and to pay for all this sensorial spectacle that ranges from the theaters to the films themselves, the scale of capital costs in the whole industry has just risen to the roof, and now the tickets are usually very expensive (and foods drinks etc). The average consumer in turn, feels that going to a film in a theater has to be WORTH it, has to be better than home and has to compensate for the high ticket (and foods etc) price. This means that films have to be a Spectacle that is highly sensorial and lasts a lot of time to become a memorable Event in the persons day, week or month. So, longer run times.
There is a cinema industry that is already more advanced in these characteristics: it's Bollywood, with the Masala genre (i.e. a spectacle that has to please the whole family, and they include at least some romance action drama dance music in every film) and many hours of lengh (4hr is not unusual). Because the average indian is poor, and they go to the cinema rarely, so the indian studios have to make it worth it, an Event for the whole family, like Hollywood has to now. There is also something of a Music Show vibe, where the audience cheers and claps when the stars appears on screen, and actively engages with the film throughout (booing a vilain , lamenting a death scene, etc), it reminds me of the marvel spider man 3, but times 10 and all the time, it's a cinema-at-theater experience also unmatched by home, because of the collective element. Maybe Bollywood is the mirror that Hollywood has to emulate now, instead of the other way.
Intuitively your analysis hits the nail on the head. Studios need to justify the spectacle to compete with home theatre setups and streaming
There's a big difference in a 2 hr plus movie that's all fluff and one that actually has substance/is compelling. I can't sit through modern movies anymore because the story isn't really worth my time or attention.
This. I had no problem sitting through Across the Spider-Verse or Guardians 3 because the story had good pacing and kept me interested.
It's getting to the point where they need an intermission.
Let’s all go to the Lobby,
Let’s all go to the Lobby!
Let’s all go to the Lobby,
And grab ourselves a treat!
I would advocate for the return of intermissions! Theater chains would love it, because it would mean more concessions.
Logistically, theaters could include a timer/notification on an app for patrons to keep track before returning. Not to mention most venues have assigned seating, so no one loses their spot.
I've generally stopped watching movies because they're too long. I prefer the shorter episodes of TV shows.
Every now and then when I'm in the mood for a movie I'm looking for 90 minute movies. Otherwise I doze off
Where did all the 90 minute movies go? I'm up for a longer movie if it can hold my attention (I have the same problem of dozing off) but 90 minutes was the sweet spot. Especially because you could make a late night (10pm or after) snap decision to watch a movie and still be in bed before midnight.
I'm finding harder to even find 90m horror films to watch on Halloween. Used to be every horror film was 90m lol.
Netflix has a 90-minute movie category. Search for it a few times, and it'll show up on your home page.
I don’t necessarily object to longer films, but my small-to-begin-with-and-now-middle-aged bladder sure does. Bring back intermissions!
Yeah. Anything over 2 hours, I’s rather watch it at home so I don’t have to sprint to the bathroom and miss part of the movie.
I believe Peter Jackson has a lot to answer for in this regard. I feel like the LotR films were the watershed films for longlongfilm acceptance, and they are actually worth the watch in their longest forms.
But then The Hobbit films happened. I remember feeling that 3 films sounded ridiculous and that they were all unnecessarily long considering the length of the book and, compared to the original trilogy, they were rather horrible to look at.
20 years ago, give or take 10, VHS video tapes were a major form factor for films and entertainment at home. Of course you could record for 8 hours at trash quality but you could get 2 hours at better quality. So to best accommodate films for VHS they cut them down to 2 hours max (118 mins was a frequent runtime for adult movies and 88 mins for kids movies).
I think its a combination of TV getting better, audiences expecting more and the decline of cinemas.
GOT showed that if you have a truly grand idea you can make billions with a tv show. Audiences want more than the old school "This guy is bad, this guy is good" storylines and who cares if its 3 hours long when most people have 60 inch 5k displays and can pause whenever they want.
Most people have 60 inch 5k displays?
Ah, the things you learn on the internet!
To be fair on the two part movies, Dune was designed to be two parts (and it kinda fits the story). Across the spider-verse is more of a empire strikes back type of situation of setting everything up for the next film.
Across the Spider-Verse Part 1 is one of the year's best movies, but I think it could have benefited by cutting about 15 minutes. The pacing felt very deliberate. Scenes took their time to play out, which taken individually were all fine and justifiable, but cumulatively took their toll. In particular I felt that most of the action set pieces could have been trimmed a little here, a little there. That way, that huge action sequence towards the end, where Miles Morales goes up against the combined forces of spider-men, spider-women and other spider-beings (and which I do NOT think should be cut), would have had more of an impact.
Dune, I'm really pleased to hear, is now a three-part movie, with Part 3 adapting Dune Messiah.
I actually prefer this, I think the John Wick 4 length was perfect, I wouldn't have minded a 3 hour Across the spiderverse runtime.
Even Dune I thought had a fine runtime. I think I could legitimately sit through a 5 hour Dune 2 / 3rd Spiderverse movie and love every second.
This is generally only applicable to peak content though. I'm not sitting around for 3 hours watching Dial of destiny.
This is generally only applicable to peak content though
This is the main rub. A 3 hour movie that actually needs to be 3 hours can be great. I love all 3 Lord of the Rings movies. But as much as I wanted it to be really good, Dial of Destiny did not need its run time, nor did it use it to add substance
I mean, if they can justify their lenght go for it. The problem is when movies overstay their welcome.
This is something i've been thinking for a while.. whilst some movies i'm really glade to see have a 2 hour plus run time.. i grew up when movies were 1 1/2 hours.. standard.. you could sit down, pick any VHS and know you'd be done in an hour and a half...
I don't go to the cinema much, but the last time i did was to see the sparkly vampire playing Batman.. my fucking god that was a long movie to be sat there for..
I do wonder if it's anything to do with the binge watching that streaming services have brought about for tv shows.. but even then for some reason i'd rather sit and watch 3 episodes of something rather than a 3 hour movie.. maybe it's pacing or the way the story is structured.
Holy shit Oppenheimer will be 3 hours? Guess I shouldn't get a drink.
It's why I've stopped watching movies, it feels like I need to waste most of day with one film.
Bring back 90 minute movies
Good. Maybe people will actually pay attention then.
I think it may be because of all of the high quality shows and films on streaming sites that people are beginning to appreciate nuance again. It's also perhaps a backlash against short form content on TikTok and YouTube.
They have to differentiate from long Tv show episodes. Some TV show episodes are over 2 hours long already. @chickenwing
push back from theaters saying it was too long and made it difficult to have a lot of showtimes
So with the volume of theatre goers and the rise of streaming and VOD revenue this is less of an issue
It makes sense that they are getting longer doesn't it?
It has gotten easier to film more, with digital storage of the film. It has gotten easier to edit. It has gotten easier to transport bigger films around the world.
So with it becoming easier to make longer movies, why wouldn't the makers use that to do more story telling in their movies?
Should maybe the movies then take in to account that people watching the movies might want a break, and make the movies with an intermission intended? sure.
This is why I haven't seen "The Irishman" yet. I like Scorsese, it has a great cast, and I've heard good things about the movie, but I can't find the time to sit down for three and a half hours.
Between work, kids, and just generally trying to keep on top of stuff it leaves little time to commit to a film that long. Recently I've been just watching series'. It's easy to watch an hour long episode, or two, than to strap in for a really long movie.
I have a long list of movies I've been "meaning to catch up on", but the trend of longer runtimes is making that list longer and longer.
What if I told you that you can pause movies after watching for an hour and then come back to it later?
Yep. Recently watched Apocalypse Now Redux with my wife on a Saturday night and we got tired half way through. We just stopped it there and watched the second half on a Saturday night one week later.
Neither of us had seen Apocalypse Now before. Hell of a movie!
I did this with the LOTR trilogy recently. Excellent experience. There's definitely spots where it made sense to pause depending on how much time I had to spare. Watching it in 45-90 minute chunks and stopping at logical transitions made it feasible and enjoyable for me
And then you end up on binging 4episodes and the film would have been shorter.
"Brevity is the soul of wit."
-Wayne Gretzky
Looks like I'm just never watching the right movies. My default understanding is that a movie will be 2hrs long, give or take 12 minutes for the credits. It's felt like they've been trending shorter to me for about a decade now, and I've not been happy about it. Renfield was shockingly good compared to what I expected it to be, but even then, the character development could really have benefitted a lot from that missing 30 minutes.
I watched the godfather for the first time a few months ago.
It might still be playing.
The Lord of the Rings - Extended Edition has a total run time of 11 hours and 22 minutes.
I went to Dead Reckoning the other day and afterward it occurred to me why I don't go to movies very often anymore. With advertisements and travel time both ways, it worked out to a 4 hour commitment. I have kids. I don't often have that kind of time.