40
votes
Why are so many movies super long now?
Was recently discussing this with someone after we saw Dial of Destiny: lots of movies the past few years have been much longer than they need to be. DoD was 2 and a half hours, Spiderverse 2 made the jump from under 2 hours to almost 2 and a half hours. Is there some incentive for studios to make movies longer that we're not seeing?
Are they getting longer? The movie It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World was released in 1963, and it's 2 hours 40 minutes. The Godfather was released in 1972 and runs 2 hours 50 minutes. Titanic was released in 1997 and runs 3 hours 15 minutes. Haven't big budget films always run on the longer side?
Don’t forget Lawrence of Arabia (1962) at 3h to 3h40min depending on cut and Ben Hur (1959) at 3h32min
Cleopatra famously clocks in at 3h 53m. There's plenty of examples of very long epics.
Those movies are all the exception. These days, though, it seems every movie I go to is consistently 2:30, and the types of movies that used to push 2:30 are now 3 hours. Look at John Wick 4; longest movie in the series at 2:49 (previous movies were 1:41 to 2:11). Then my Spiderverse and Indiana Jones examples. Oppenheimer is Nolan's longest movie at 3 hours.
I think the case of Apocalypse now might actually serve as some sort of study of the subject, in how it has had many releases and re-cuttings over the years.
Most of these are, to my understanding, Coppola reaching different decisions when having different constraints.
This. Those were exceptions for the most part... until now.
There's always Apocalypse Now with it's delightful set of cuts and versions, starting off "low" at the 139 minute mark, through multiple versions in the 140s-150s-160s, to high ends at 202 and 289 goddamn minutes.
The 1927 silent movie Napoleon at 5h30m is quite a watch.
Sure, but you're talking about epics. Some movies are supposed to be long. Others are not.
Long epics like that used to be pretty rare though, right? Nowadays it seems like almost every blockbuster is pushing at least 2h30m - I would love to see a breakdown of stats or something though, I bet somebody out there has made one
One source scraped IMDB up to 2018 and their conclusion, including some analysis of top movies, was there was no trend (post 1940):
Another source from more recent years said the top 10 movies were longer:
The thing I find interesting is the inclusion of choice of the viewer. If you look at the question as "what is the average length of movie a person watches in year X" you weigh it by the popularity of the movie, and the popularity of the movie depends on the choice of the person. So in that sense it might not be that all movies have gotten longer, but that people are putting up with or attracted to longer movies?
It definitely feels like the big blockbuster movies that gets most of the attention are tending to be longer. Especially with the super hero popularity the last few decades where most of those are over 2 hours. Genres like horror and comedies have also decreased quite a bit in popularity, which are genres that tends to be shorter. There are plenty of sub 2 hour movies produced, but they don't get the same level of marketing.
My uneducated impression is that at some point in the 70s or 80s Hollywood brass got the impression that movies had to be under two hours to make lots of money, so they'd cut it until it was less. Enough movies broke that that mold that they are now less adamant about it.
However, non-big budget films were less held to the under two hour rule that the average wasn't all that bad.
The only movie I've ever seen that had an intermission was The Hateful Eight, which has a runtime of 2h48m. Yet as @EmperorPenguin points out, so many movies releasing now have runtimes like that but none of them have intermissions... I'm totally with you about it though, I really don't think you can make a movie that is closer to 3h than 2h30m and not have an intermission. I will genuinely skip watching movies in theaters because of it as it's no fun feeling like your bladder is about to burst for the last hour of the movie...
My main concern with movies (seemingly) getting longer is the lack of an intermission in modern times. 2+ hours can be a long time to sit relatively still and focused. I would think theaters wouldn't mind them coming back as it would lead to more spending on concessions but maybe there's a reason I'm missing as to why they haven't returned. Fitting in more screenings is more profitable than the extra concession sales I suppose?
I am in my 40s and sometimes it hard to make it through the previews (and commercials) before the movie starts without hitting the bathroom. There is zero chance I would make it 3 hours, especially after drinking my 64oz soda and slobbering down a tub of popcorn.
I don't wanna be rude, but have you considered not drinking almost 2 liters of liquid when you go to the movies? :P
That is more than what we get in our household when we get pizza for three people.
Same age here and I'll deliberately dehydrate myself when I'm going to watch a film in the theaters these days. When my wife asks me if I want a drink at the concession I usually feel like shouting "what, are you crazy, woman!?"
I’ve been getting the same way lately. During the lndiana Jones movie I actually had to get up twice to pee.
The lack of intermission is a really killer for me because I have to use the bathroom more frequently than most people.
In a similar vein, I do a rewatch of the extended editions of the Lord of the Rings trilogy every year or two and they are LONG (3:28, 3:43, 4:11). I usually have to watch each film in two parts.
This. I’m all for long movies-but give us an intermission for crissakes. I think hateful 8 did this? And it was awesome?
Mentioned that in another comment, Hateful Eight did indeed have an intermission! I'm 30 years old and it's the only movie I've ever seen that has had an intermission... Safe to say it's not exactly trendy to do intermissions anymore
The extended LotR at least gives us a natural intermission when it displays "The adventure continues; please insert disc 2."
I think most of the ticket sale doesn't go to the theater, so the theater should actually be motivated by concession sales.
I'd guess it's the studios/production companies that don't want intermissions. Theaters probably have contracts that prevent them from adding an intermission themselves.
I think it's more that they have less incentive to make movies shorter. Shorter movies are cheaper to make and can be less daunting for box office viewers and make people more likely to rewatch movies.
I think that movie making has gradually become cheaper due to better technology - these days even Youtubers can afford Red cameras, which are film-level. Digital media makes having footage cheaper in general. VFX only gets cheaper as tech gets better, and VFX is also cheaper than practical effects.
The streaming audience cares even less about runtime, and famously Netflix lets its filmmakers on a loose leash - the Irishman was 3 and a half hours. All movies eventually stream now, it's their legs.
All in all, honestly I'm all for it. I'm glad directors are given more freedom to take as long as they want to tell the story they want, and not artificially chained down by financial restrictions.
TV shows have basically gone the other direction - for similar reasons, you don't need to have filler episodes of TV to stretch things out for revenue's sake, and TV shows now have much tighter seasons - sometimes just 6 episodes.
I don't mind sitting through a 3 hour movie, but I HATE 8-10 episode seasons of TV shows. I lose all interest in a show that has 8 episodes and then takes 18 months off before the next seasons starts. It is probably why I spend all my time watching old TV shows or shows entering their final seasons.
Aw I like them if they're stories in like 8 acts. It gives all of the characters time to shine and allows for more time to play with the themes
But I hate when it's obvious they filmed the intro episode or two and the finale and then have storyless filler in hour long drudges between them.
I am a 180 from you. Most of the stories I have loved in the past decade are from those shows that have the time to develop characters and can play with subtle story lines. I get that the wait can be annoying but the journey in a show like "Better Call Saul" was way worth it even though the wait was tremendous.
I love the short seasons. They're amazing for stuff that's too hard to fit in a movie's runtime (even in a 3 hour movie) and isn't expected to bring in the billions a 3 hour production would need to.
There are multiple movies in the recent years that should've been a 5-6 hour miniseries in the least just to give the material time to breathe.
(I'm secretly hoping that the latest Mission: Impossible movie is a backdoor pilot to a Hayley Atwell -led TV-show in the same world)
I agree that it's great directors with a specific vision which really benefits from a 3 hour film are allowed to do that now. But I worry if some of them end up less discerning in cutting certain scenes which can easily be cut, making the movie less focused, or if they try and one up themselves or other films for length since bigger = better. "This next film will be [famous director]'s longest yet" can help a film make the headlines; I saw it happen for Oppenheimer. Lots of reviews I see for big movies these days always say "scene xyz was unnecessary or dragged on too long, it could've been cut down" and rarely do I see them say "this scene could've been stretched out or given more time to breathe" anymore.
In the end, that's the director's problem, and it will bore out at critics and the box office if it is a problem. It's not like there is any lack of ways a director can make a movie bad - if the director is bad, the movie is guaranteed to be bad. They are the director, after all.
I am of the opinion that restrictions are often helpful in keeping a movie tight and focused and free rein often leads to bloated, soggy films. One of my favorite films l, The Five Obstructions, explores this. Lars Von Trier challenges Jorgen Leth to recreate his own film The Perfect Human five times, each time with different restrictions. The constraints actually help to inspire Leth and challenges him to think outside his comfort zone.
Edit: It’s the same reason The Ren & Stimpy Show is superior to Ren & Stimpy: Adult Party Cartoon, the restrictions of making a kids show made it better than when the creator could indulge in his, ahem, more adult ideas
Even during the black and white era of movies there were films being made with what we would consider these days to be excessive length. The difference is that back then the studio would simply override the director with the finished product and trim it down themselves to a significantly shorter time.
Akira Kurosawa made an adaptation of Dostoevsky's The Idiot that was nearly 5 hours long before it got cut down to 100 minutes by the studio. The original A Star Is Born had half an hour shaved off while the director was overseas. Even Orsen Wells's film The Magnificent Ambersons got 40 minutes chopped off without Wells's involvement.
When studios owned the theaters they had an incentive to turn people over as quickly as possible (balancing keeping the film entertaining enough to draw crowds). I think the "standard" running time is a holdover from that era, even though it's rationale is diminished.
Edit: I should say that studios still do this, but we're also in an era where high profile directors are given more control over their films if they're proven money makers. James Cameron never would have been allowed to make Avatar 2 a 3 hour movie back in the day, but these days studios just give him free reign.
I had no idea there was a film! And Kurosawa too! Thanks! Any additional thoughts about the 5hr version?
Wikipedia; " The original 265-minute version of the film, faithful to the novel, has been long lost." Noooooooo
Look, I've got family these days. Oppenheimer looks good but three hours? Can't do it. Killing of Flower Moon, another three. Fuck. It seems like every movie is part 10 of a series or really long.
Barbie? 114 minutes. Sounds good and Ryan looks good but it's not some "gotta see it in theaters" spectacle. It's gonna look fine on the 65" at home. I haven't watched a mission impossible movie since the USO tent in '10, can't exactly jump into that story now.
I dunno, maybe movies are longer because it's expensive to go to the movies and big families can't really afford the tickets and concessions so they're hitting the younger audience with the disposable income?
Bold of you to assume Mission Impossible has a story...
More a vehicle for Tom to go do stupid stunts then, huh? Unfortunately, the family is less willing to shut off their brain and eat popcorn.
In the era where every movie was film, the longer the movie, the higher the cost of duplication because more reels needed to be produced and shipped to every cinema. The cost of running one reel longer is multiplied by the number of theaters. Each extra 11 minutes would be what, thousand(s) of times the cost of another reel and shipping? But your earnings don't go up.
Now, all stakeholders want longer movies. The theaters sell more concessions and the streaming services keep subscribers subscribed longer. I assume actors and directors want you experiencing their art longer too.
Fun links:
Competing with streaming services and full seasons?
Regardless, I love it, and hope they just keep getting longer.
Yeah, I think it's awesome.
Though I feel like streaming shows have surprisingly short seasons...what do they average, like 8 40-minute episodes per season?
They need to get so long, they require intermissions!
They already have! Every time I see a movie these days, someone in the group needs to use the bathroom mid movie, then they end up missing an important scene. Every movie over 2 hours should have an intermission.
Here in Switzerland, intermissions at movies has been the default for as long as I can remember, and it's great (though the breaks can be a bit jarring). Only recently have I had the displeasure of learning there wouldn't be one in a movie. I fear they're importing the idea that movies should be uninterrupted from the anglosphere now.
I wonder if it's similar to the trend we see with video games where many people and developers perceive that longer = better.
I wonder if it has anything to do with competition with TV/streaming.
It’s not uncommon for a season of a TV show to span 8-10 hours and then run for 4-5 seasons. It seems like my social circles talk more about TV shows they’ve binged than any movies they watched- this is probably true for the last 10 years or so.
A longer movie allows for the telling of a more “complete” story.
This is my hypothesis.
I haven't been to the movies in probably 15 years. There's no benefit. I want to be able to pause and eat my own food in my PJs. My TV is plenty big, and I don't mind waiting.
I also hardly ever have 2 hours in a block to watch a movie.
Now, I have plenty of chances to watch 45-60 minute show before bed. A season on TV is basically a 10 hour long movie with convenient breaks.
The only problem with this TV pattern is that shows don't have an exit strategy. They just go on and on until they get bad, and I stop watching.
We need more "miniseries", as we used to call them. Tell me an epic in short segments that actually has an end, like band of brothers, which is amongst the best ever.
I know my wife and I are only likely to go to see something in the theater if it's an "event" movie, and for the rest we just wait for streaming/rental. I don't believe that we're alone in that. I believe that the push for longer movies is to drive the "event" mentality and bring more people into the theaters. Given that it makes the movies more expensive, I'm not sure what the cost/benefit ratio winds up being overall.
I watch more movies in the theater than the average movie goer (around 15 movies just this year).
I only go see two kinds of movies: The ones I don't want to get spoiled by while waiting for the home release and Event Movies that require the oomph I don't have at home. Stuff like Top Gun: Maverick or Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse.
And I don't go to the tiny local theatre either, I make it a thing and either go see them in IMAX or at a place where the chairs have electric recline functions and I can have a beer while watching.
Stuff that's not worth the money and hassle for either of the above, I just wait until I can either buy the Blu-ray or it's out on streaming.
I've never considered two and a half hours to be long. I fully expect a film with decent pacing to be at least two and a half, ideally three. The Fellowship of the Ring is 178 minutes in the theatrical cut, and that's been my measuring stick since then. (The first Harry Potter film, which came out the same year, is also two and a half hours.) Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is 126.
Honestly, it tends to seem like filmmakers struggle to fit a non-superficial story into a 2-3 hour movie, leaving my preference to serialized shows over movies. Especially for book adaptations.