Do very long movies discourage you?

[alanwalker]

Hii...


I'm watching Blade Runner 2049. Quite frankly, the reason I've set this film aside for a week and a half is because of the length. 2 hours and 43 minutes!! It's been a problem for me admittedly. I'm a firm believer that a good story is a good story regardless of technical aspects like length. But I have to push myself to watch very long movies. I'm not very good at binge watching TV shows like a lot of people because I get fatigued frustratingly easy. I watch 4 episodes at the most. The reason I haven't watched The Two Towers and Return of the King is because they are like 4 hours each! I just bought them on Blu-ray though, so I'm definitely have no choice now.



Anyway, do you think directors should be able to tell a complete story in 2 hours? Or do you think that a 2 hour 40 minute+ movie is exciting if the movie is good?


Thanks..!



I didn't find the right solution from the Internet.

[Hollywood Heidi]

Moderator Note: I edited your first post. It's a good topic so I'm not removing it. I appreciate the attempt to create include a discussion with your advertising, but advertising goes in the Advertising board.


In my opinion, the answer to this question falls under the Quality over Quantity category. Directors shouldn't be limited by time but by how long it takes to tell a good story. That's the key word though. Good story. I personally am not a fan of the Lord of the Rings movies. Yes, I found them to be way too long because to me, they were boring. Lots of walking and talking. But some people really love it and find it intriguing. To each their own.

However, I do feel like they added way too much time to the LotR movies due to the fact that they put way more into the movies than were in the books and most of that stuff was drawn out, boring walking and talking. In that way, I felt like they were unnecessarily drawing out the story just so they could make it into way too many movies.

On the other hand, I felt the Harry Potter series was not too long. The books were huge and rich with story. There's just no way to be able to tell it all in only a few movies under 2 hours. Each movie was based on each book so they definitely warranted more than 2 hours. It might not have been necessary to break the last book into two movies, but I thoroughly enjoyed both and didn't feel like they drew things out unnecessarily.

What it comes down to is that I believe you can't revolve a movie around running time. That should be one of your least concerns. Quality of content is most important. Sometimes you can tell a great story in half an hour, sometimes in four hours.

[Storyteller]

I'm not scared off by running time of a movie. In fact, some of my favorite movies are upwards of three hours (Titanic, Gone With the Wind). I agree with Heidi though- the key to it is content. Taking her LotR example- I actually do like LotR and find the stories interesting. The walking and talking doesn't bother me. But I watched the extended editions with my husband and found the 20+ minute battle sequences mind-numbingly boring. 

I am a total believer in cutting off the fat and only using the footage that best serves your story and characters. If your film does that and is still 3 hours long, so be it! 

I think it also works in the other direction. I love the movie Red Eye and it's only 98 minutes long. But it is a tight 98 minutes in which every scene serves the story or character development.