It bugs me when people say films are too long, or should have been cut.

Karl Hungus

It's something that I do hear a lot of lately. People will often seem to just aim a "Too long" criticism at a film, and never really back it up. I kind of think that says something about modern audiences and their expectations and preconceived notions of how long a film should run for regardless of the story that's being told.

I remember when I went to see Avatar with my sister and some friends. My sister said that it was good, but that it should have been cut by half an hour. I asked her what she thought should have been cut from the film; "I don't know, I'm not the director" she said. I challenge her on this, you're the one saying it should have been cut, what scenes would you have removed, or what scenes did you feel weren't needed? She really didn't have anything, no reason why the film was too long, or why she thought it needed to be cut, but she was still extremely adamant that the film was too long.

That's an attitude I come across a lot lately, and any time I've questioned people on other messageboards when they say a film should by cut by 20 or 30 minutes or however long (and I've seen some pretty extremely examples of this, some people saying that a film should have been cut by an hour), I never get anything much beyond "I don't know". That to me seems like people are saying "A film should be x length and no more. You need to tell your story in that length of time, or don't bother."

I'm reminded of a thread on Rock & Metal, Will "Classic Rock" ever return. There's a lot of mention of the radio format, as in your song has to be around the 3 minute mark to get airplay, and if it's too long it doesn't get airplay. Now, from someone who listens to a lot of bands who have songs that are at least 6 minutes, or even 8 or more minutes long. Right at this moment, I'm listening to a song by Porcupine Tree - Anesthetize, which runs at 17:42. Some people I know wouldn't think of listening to songs that are much longer than the average produced for radio/mass consumption length, and I think that's a shame. Something I'd hate to see, and I fear that it is happening now, is that more and more people expect a film to be a certain length and no more. If it's longer than excepted; that's a failing.

This leads me to a criticism of my own: Films these days can be too short.

Here's a question, when was the last time you've seen a mainstream horror film that was longer than 2 hours? When I think of classic horror films, true greats like The Exorcist, The Shining, Rosemary's Baby, Dawn of the Dead, they all have running times of over 2 hours. The only one I can think of recently that had a similar run time was The Mist, and I suspect that if it was a director other than Frank Darabont making the film, it would probably have been edited down considerably.

Most Horror films these days usually run for about 90-100 minutes almost uniformly, sometimes maybe a little longer, but I think it's pretty rare. Now I can't help but wonder, would The Exorcist ever have been the film it is, if it had been chopped down to 90-odd minutes? My biggest criticism of Horror films in general these days are that very often they lack suspense, tension and atmosphere. I do wonder if the length of the films can be a factor here, and if film makers just don't have enough time to build the atmosphere or set up the suspense. The Shining took a lot of time to successfully build up that sense of dread that was there, and if it wasn't for some of those long isolated sequences, would that sense of dread still be there? That's not to say that 90 minutes is bad, it's not, and there's plenty of examples of Horror films that work extremely well at such a length, like Halloween, or the even shorter [Rec].

My point is that a film should take whatever time it needs, and sometimes that 90 minutes is fine, but there's a lot of times when it's not. How many times have we heard the tales of Horror films that have had massive amounts of footage cut, and then that footage lost to the ages never to be restored? Most famously it happened to The Wicker Man, but there's a lot of other cases as well. I do remember reading an interview with a director in some Horror magazine years ago (don't remember who), where he was talking about how his film had been cut to ribbons because the producers felt that nobody wanted to watch a horror film longer than 90 minutes.

One film that I would say should have definitely been considerably longer was Serenity. The pace is extremely fast, it moves from one sequence to the next in quick succession, it's choppy almost, and much to detriment of the film, spends almost no time on the characters. It is excellent, but some of the main characters from the TV series barely have a handful of lines between them, and we're introduced to new characters without a single bit of pretext (

who the **** is Mr. Universe supposed to be anyway?

).

If you've already seen the TV series Firefly, it's a shame to see characters whittled down to one dimensional parodies of themselves (Kaylee just seems like a horny girl, and barely has any role in the film at all), and if you haven't seen the series it gives you absolutely no time to get to know a lot of the characters, which is especially poor because

When Wash dies, it's a massive emotional moment, but he barely has any dialogue in the film at all, so if you've not gotten to know the character by watching the series, the scene has no impact. It's the same with Book, and he's only in 2 scenes.

Now I can't help but think that if it was about 10-15 minutes longer, if a little more time was spent on the characters, it would have been a much better film and wouldn't have been so choppy.

Another example I could give is Kingdom of Heaven. The theatrical cut is mediocre rubbish, where as the 3 hour director's cut is an absolute masterpiece. Or lets take Sergio Leone's Once Upon A Time In America, a film that had been cut to pieces by the studio and went on to receive a very poor reception from critics. But the film as we see it today, nearly 4 hours, is widely praised as one of the greatest films of all time. There's just so many examples out there, where a film is edited and cut down and turns out far worse than the longer version.

On the flip side to that, I don't think there's ever been a film where I've had the criticism that it's too long. I don't think I've ever said "Well, it could do without x scene, and y scene is completely redundant, nothing at all happens in z scene..." and if I do have criticisms about a film's length, it's usually about being too short.

Hell, I love a good long film. (And a long post, as some might say upon reading this.)

In another thread on here, someone had mentioned that Clint Eastwood's films feel like they're from another era. I look at films like Unforgiven, Changeling, Mystic River or Letters from Iwo Jima, and I think that's correct, they don't feel like other films produced in the same year. Now I absolutely love Eastwood as a director, I feel he's made some of the best films of decade, and something that's extremely true about his works is that they go at a slower, more deliberate pace to others. I suppose I'd say that he allows his films to breathe more, if you pardon the crude analogy, other films don't really have any breathing space between scenes. Gran Torino has a great, consistent pace throughout.

Anyway, I don't know if it's just me, maybe I'm more absorbed in films from another era myself than other people my age? But honestly, it does get my tits up when people just blurt out "They could've easily chopped off half an hour from that film, it was just too long" and never back it up. I don't like the idea that films could become more uniform in their running times, or that people won't accept them if they're too long.

Thoughts?

Too long, didn't read.

bonerm

Thread should have been cut by about 5 paragraphs.

BTW, most of these new comedies that are aiming for legitimacy (eg The Hangover, Rolemodels, all the Apatow stuff) should definetly be cut by 20mins. They seem to have a formula of 90mins of "antics" (like a typical comedy) but then a 20-30 minute wrapping-it-up section, the latter of which is usually unenjoyable, out of place and worst of all completely unnecessary. In most cases it sinks the movie.

saltie

bonerm wrote: »

Thread should have been cut by about 5 paragraphs.

lol

niallon

That post was way too long! I kid, I kid.

I agree in certain aspects Karl, particularly the Music and Horror side of things. Horror films are as generic as they now are mainly because when watching one you can easily tell by the runtime where the next twist is due, where the next major character is going to die, where the big face off is coming etc. As for music, it's just a pity. Unfortunately I doubt that will ever change, in the quick track skip/no time to live society of today, the shorter the better.

As for the length of films in general though, I would say that I myself have seen a few crop up over the last five to ten years that could have done with a trim for proper directorial reasons. Granted there's plenty that had nothing wrong with them but were still complained about. I cannot speak of Avatar as I haven't seen it (nor do I wish to for that matter) but the obvious choices such as Alexander, Return of the King, Funny People, Master and Commander and more stand as films that could have been helped by the director stepping back for a second and seeing the hidden cracks in the film.

Running time or people's ability to sit in a theatre seat has no effect on it however. The main problem is lack of narrative focus. Return of the King contained some insignificant moments throughout but the worst was the general montage that the ending turned into, a slight over indulgence on Jackson's part. On the other hand, look at Inglorious Basterds, a long old film that nevertheless kept me enthralled from start to finish.

Definitely though, the wrong films have gotten shorter, bring back epic horror!

Busi_Girl08

The best example I can think of that was just too long and drawn out.....Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

A lot of the scenes went on way too long, and were just unnecessary padding.

On the other hand, some movies like the Lord of the Rings movies, they got it about right. They used the time well, made it pass by much better.


My friend just invited me to see Avatar tomorrow, and commented that it's "pretty long" 2 and 2/3 hours.
That was one of the (many) criticisms I've heard about it, that it's way too long, etc.

I'll get back to ye tomorrow if I think they are right

faceman

A film that is too long could be suffering from bad pacing or scenes that are really just filler.

bonerm

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Anyway, I don't know if it's just me, maybe I'm more absorbed in films from another era myself than other people my age? But honestly, it does get my tits up when people just blurt out "They could've easily chopped off half an hour from that film, it was just too long" and never back it up. I don't like the idea that films could become more uniform in their running times, or that people won't accept them if they're too long.

Also, irrespective of what they say they don't mean it's too long. They're mean it's too boring (eg I have seen 3hour films that felt shorter than some 90min films) and in the case of Avatar (for the most part) they are correct.

Skerries

A film that they added back the missing scenes and extended but didn't work was the Alan Smithee version of Dune and i can see why Lynch took his name off of it as it just didn't hang together as well
whereas Blade Runner was a masterpiece only improved by having the voiceover and end scene removed

L31mr0d

Karl Hungus wrote: »

The only one I can think of recently that had a similar run time was The Mist, and I suspect that if it was a director other than Frank Darabont making the film, it would probably have been edited down considerably.

Imo, The Mist should have been 5 minutes shorter

Some films, personally, could of ended with a greater impact had they been cut short. AI for example should of ended before the cut to the future.

Personally though, when a person says a film should of been "cut shorter" I don't take that literally, what I hear is that they are saying "this film bored me to point of being aware of the passage of time"

Kess73

Karl Hungus wrote: »

It's something that I do hear a lot of lately. People will often seem to just aim a "Too long" criticism at a film, and never really back it up. I kind of think that says something about modern audiences and their expectations and preconceived notions of how long a film should run for regardless of the story that's being told.

I remember when I went to see Avatar with my sister and some friends. My sister said that it was good, but that it should have been cut by half an hour. I asked her what she thought should have been cut from the film; "I don't know, I'm not the director" she said. I challenge her on this, you're the one saying it should have been cut, what scenes would you have removed, or what scenes did you feel weren't needed? She really didn't have anything, no reason why the film was too long, or why she thought it needed to be cut, but she was still extremely adamant that the film was too long.

That's an attitude I come across a lot lately, and any time I've questioned people on other messageboards when they say a film should by cut by 20 or 30 minutes or however long (and I've seen some pretty extremely examples of this, some people saying that a film should have been cut by an hour), I never get anything much beyond "I don't know". That to me seems like people are saying "A film should be x length and no more. You need to tell your story in that length of time, or don't bother."

I'm reminded of a thread on Rock & Metal, Will "Classic Rock" ever return. There's a lot of mention of the radio format, as in your song has to be around the 3 minute mark to get airplay, and if it's too long it doesn't get airplay. Now, from someone who listens to a lot of bands who have songs that are at least 6 minutes, or even 8 or more minutes long. Right at this moment, I'm listening to a song by Porcupine Tree - Anesthetize, which runs at 17:42. Some people I know wouldn't think of listening to songs that are much longer than the average produced for radio/mass consumption length, and I think that's a shame. Something I'd hate to see, and I fear that it is happening now, is that more and more people expect a film to be a certain length and no more. If it's longer than excepted; that's a failing.

This leads me to a criticism of my own: Films these days can be too short.

Here's a question, when was the last time you've seen a mainstream horror film that was longer than 2 hours? When I think of classic horror films, true greats like The Exorcist, The Shining, Rosemary's Baby, Dawn of the Dead, they all have running times of over 2 hours. The only one I can think of recently that had a similar run time was The Mist, and I suspect that if it was a director other than Frank Darabont making the film, it would probably have been edited down considerably.

Most Horror films these days usually run for about 90-100 minutes almost uniformly, sometimes maybe a little longer, but I think it's pretty rare. Now I can't help but wonder, would The Exorcist ever have been the film it is, if it had been chopped down to 90-odd minutes? My biggest criticism of Horror films in general these days are that very often they lack suspense, tension and atmosphere. I do wonder if the length of the films can be a factor here, and if film makers just don't have enough time to build the atmosphere or set up the suspense. The Shining took a lot of time to successfully build up that sense of dread that was there, and if it wasn't for some of those long isolated sequences, would that sense of dread still be there? That's not to say that 90 minutes is bad, it's not, and there's plenty of examples of Horror films that work extremely well at such a length, like Halloween, or the even shorter [Rec].

My point is that a film should take whatever time it needs, and sometimes that 90 minutes is fine, but there's a lot of times when it's not. How many times have we heard the tales of Horror films that have had massive amounts of footage cut, and then that footage lost to the ages never to be restored? Most famously it happened to The Wicker Man, but there's a lot of other cases as well. I do remember reading an interview with a director in some Horror magazine years ago (don't remember who), where he was talking about how his film had been cut to ribbons because the producers felt that nobody wanted to watch a horror film longer than 90 minutes.

One film that I would say should have definitely been considerably longer was Serenity. The pace is extremely fast, it moves from one sequence to the next in quick succession, it's choppy almost, and much to detriment of the film, spends almost no time on the characters. It is excellent, but some of the main characters from the TV series barely have a handful of lines between them, and we're introduced to new characters without a single bit of pretext (

who the **** is Mr. Universe supposed to be anyway?

).

If you've already seen the TV series Firefly, it's a shame to see characters whittled down to one dimensional parodies of themselves (Kaylee just seems like a horny girl, and barely has any role in the film at all), and if you haven't seen the series it gives you absolutely no time to get to know a lot of the characters, which is especially poor because

When Wash dies, it's a massive emotional moment, but he barely has any dialogue in the film at all, so if you've not gotten to know the character by watching the series, the scene has no impact. It's the same with Book, and he's only in 2 scenes.

Now I can't help but think that if it was about 10-15 minutes longer, if a little more time was spent on the characters, it would have been a much better film and wouldn't have been so choppy.

Another example I could give is Kingdom of Heaven. The theatrical cut is mediocre rubbish, where as the 3 hour director's cut is an absolute masterpiece. Or lets take Sergio Leone's Once Upon A Time In America, a film that had been cut to pieces by the studio and went on to receive a very poor reception from critics. But the film as we see it today, nearly 4 hours, is widely praised as one of the greatest films of all time. There's just so many examples out there, where a film is edited and cut down and turns out far worse than the longer version.

On the flip side to that, I don't think there's ever been a film where I've had the criticism that it's too long. I don't think I've ever said "Well, it could do without x scene, and y scene is completely redundant, nothing at all happens in z scene..." and if I do have criticisms about a film's length, it's usually about being too short.

Hell, I love a good long film. (And a long post, as some might say upon reading this.)

In another thread on here, someone had mentioned that Clint Eastwood's films feel like they're from another era. I look at films like Unforgiven, Changeling, Mystic River or Letters from Iwo Jima, and I think that's correct, they don't feel like other films produced in the same year. Now I absolutely love Eastwood as a director, I feel he's made some of the best films of decade, and something that's extremely true about his works is that they go at a slower, more deliberate pace to others. I suppose I'd say that he allows his films to breathe more, if you pardon the crude analogy, other films don't really have any breathing space between scenes. Gran Torino has a great, consistent pace throughout.

Anyway, I don't know if it's just me, maybe I'm more absorbed in films from another era myself than other people my age? But honestly, it does get my tits up when people just blurt out "They could've easily chopped off half an hour from that film, it was just too long" and never back it up. I don't like the idea that films could become more uniform in their running times, or that people won't accept them if they're too long.

Thoughts?

Too long, didn't read.

If you stepping down as a mod in a number of forums means a return to posts like this, then it is a bloody shame you did not step down sooner.

Hank_Jones

The fact is that certain films should be cut to a shorter running time.
This shouldn't be decided by studios though as they generally mess things up, Kingdom of Heaven being a perfect example of this.
If they has just left it at the original running time Ridley Scott wanted the film would have done much better.
I have no problem with long films, I do have problems with filmmakers adding in stuff that adds nothing to the story though.
King Kong should have been cut, down to around 0 minutes... :cool:

^^The Jackson one, not the original^^

Karl Hungus

niallon wrote: »

The main problem is lack of narrative focus. Return of the King contained some insignificant moments throughout but the worst was the general montage that the ending turned into, a slight over indulgence on Jackson's part. On the other hand, look at Inglorious Basterds, a long old film that nevertheless kept me enthralled from start to finish.

Return of the King suffered from the trimming of a lot of plot details in favour of focus on battle sequences. On the whole, I feel it was something that suffered from leaving too much out, rather than having too much left in. The ending is the worst aspect as well, because of the Scouring of the Shire being completely cut from script, it lacks the closure and doesn't bring the story full circle as the books do. It just leaves us feeling unsatisfied I think.

Interesting point on Lord of the Rings in general though, because I think that the extended editions are far superior, and as well as that, don't actually feel as long as the theatrical versions. The pace of the films are just much better, and all the focus on action is tempered by the plot detail that's added in the longer versions. They just move at a better pace, and honestly, all the extended editions felt shorter compared to the theatrical versions.

niallon wrote: »

Definitely though, the wrong films have gotten shorter, bring back epic horror!

Yeah, I'd really love to see another film like The Shining.

Busi_Girl08 wrote: »

The best example I can think of that was just too long and drawn out.....Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Now there's a film that no amount of editing would fix. The PotC sequels were incredibly rushed out, to the point where At Worlds End started filming before the script was finished. You could send that film to 50 different editors, and never get a coherent film like the first one was, it was a mess right from the get go, and what we got in cinemas was probably as shiny as they could polish the turd.

So yeah, not a problem with length at all, it's dire script problems there.

JohnK

L31mr0d wrote: »

Personally though, when a person says a film should of been "cut shorter" I don't take that literally, what I hear is that they are saying "this film bored me to point of being aware of the passage of time"

I think for the most part this sums it up nicely. If a movie is keeping you entertained then the actual length of it isnt really all that relevant but if you end up looking at your watch then its a bloody bad sign.

Saying that though I think a long movie can put people off just down to not wanting to invest the time in seeing it. Personally I have been guilty of wanting to see a movie, taking a look at the running time then saying “feck that” as I just didnt want to spend 2.5 or 3 hours in front of the tv or in the cinema.

lizardfudge

Avatar felt way to long for me because:

A) I've seen the same fecking story dozens of times before.

and

It's really uncomfortable wearing those stupid glasses over your own glasses for that length of time.

If you're going do a gimmicky 3D movie with a paper thin plot (and I'm not knocking 3D, I do enjoy it) then take a page out of Final Destination's book and make it about 70 or 80 minutes long... don't drag it out over almost 3 hours!


I'd also be of the opinion that The Dark Knight was too long... or could have at least used the time it did have better... we really didn't need all that guff with Batman traveling to Singapore to get that guy back. Any related plot points could have been resolved far quicker and simpler than all that.

But in general if I'm enjoying a film then I don't want it to end... like pretty much any enjoyable thing.

Karl Hungus

L31mr0d wrote: »

Some films, personally, could of ended with a greater impact had they been cut short. AI for example should of ended before the cut to the future.

Actually, come to think of it, one film I could say that would have greatly benefited from the ending being snipped was Saw.

If they had cut it just before the big twist that it was the dead body all along

, it would have been a much better film.

L31mr0d wrote: »

Personally though, when a person says a film should of been "cut shorter" I don't take that literally, what I hear is that they are saying "this film bored me to point of being aware of the passage of time"

You might indeed have a point there, but generally talking to people who said a film should have been cut, the criticism is still squarely "Too long" rather than "it bored me" or such. Shorter films can be extremely boring as well, and I don't see any 'could've been cut shorter' criticisms with those, but when you see a criticism about the length aimed just at films over the 2 hour mark or so, it just seems that it's a problem with people's expectations of a more standard run time.

Kess73 wrote: »

If you stepping down as a mod in a number of forums means a return to posts like this, then it is a bloody shame you did not step down sooner.

Wow, thank you.

Karl Hungus

lizardfudge wrote: »

I'd also be of the opinion that The Dark Knight was too long... or could have at least used the time it did have better... we really didn't need all that guff with Batman traveling to Singapore to get that guy back. Any related plot points could have been resolved far quicker and simpler than all that.

Now here's an interesting standpoint. But I have to ask, is resolving plot points fast and simple really the best way to go about things? I mean, are films about getting the plot across in the fastest, most efficient way possible? Or the way that suits the film best. Because I think Serenity did that, they fired all the plot points at the audience as quickly as possible, and really, I don't think it worked.

I think The Dark Knight had the perfect length and pacing for the story it told. Did Batman need to travel to Singapore? (Wasn't it Hong Kong?) Maybe, maybe not, but it did establish how Batman had a far greater reach than the police, wasn't bound by the red tape that they were, and got things done as quick as they needed to be done. Maybe this could've been established another way, but it is a sequence with something to say, it serves the plot, and overall it has some great scenes in it.

Or, another super hero movie example, Iron Man. The whole sequence of Tony designing his next suit when he gets back home, that could have all been summed up very quickly, because really, what does the whole sequence tell us? Tony builds a new suit. But all those scenes are some of the best of the film. Sure, they could have given us the jist of it far quicker, but we'd be losing out on one of the most entertaining portions of the film. What happens in the film then would be that he gets back from the middle east, then flies back again to fight bad guys right away, after it's quickly established he builds a new suit, and it's more or less over then and we're left with half the film we had before. So really, is establishing plot points in the fastest, simplest way the best thing to do? I think a film like that needs a little downtime between action, it gets in some great humor and character moments, and that's great before it gets back into the action sequences again.

johnny_ultimate

I agree with you in one sense Karl - at the end of the day, we aren't the director of these films, and in many cases there are probably a number of reasons why a film is as long or as short as it is. However... (there's always a however )

A film should take the audience into consideration, and their attention span is only so high (less and less these days). I'd say unless you have very valid reasons for extending your running length, try and keep it relatively reasonable. Personally (and I'm sure with many others here) I'd have no problem with a two and a half, three hour running time. I saw a four hour film recently which I think benefited from the meandering nature of a movie that long (although my bladder thanks the intermission :pac:). However, once a film hits a certain length, it becomes harder and harder to stay invested in the story IMO. Take Akira Kurosawa's films like Ran, Kagemushua or Seven Samurai for example - I love them, but I often feel the need to take a ten minute break in the middle too. He is an extremely talented director, and the running time is usually filled with important narrative and character details, so I can accept that, even if I do tend to get hungry around the 120 minute mark.

However, if a film isn't doing anything particularly important with an ever increasing running time, then I think a director should perhaps stand back and reevaluate the pacing of their movie (as someone else pointed out here). You may really like a certain scene, but if you look at it and it doesn't add quite as much to the pacing, flow or overall experience as much as others, then maybe there is a way to handle it more efficiently. Funny People (already mentioned too, and rightly so) is a film that just drags from around the halfway point. The scenes where the main character visits his ex are insufferably long (although Eric Bana livens things up somewhat). They just keep on going back and forth over the same old material and themes, and I personally think that if Judd Apatow was less insistent on having his wife and children on screen for as long as possible the same sequences could've been cut down quite considerably to keep the audience involved.

I'd say the same thing about the ending of Return of the King (please, don't attack me!). If they had the attack of the Shire sequence in there, I wouldn't complain that it added another say twenty minutes to the running time, because it would be worth it. As it stands though, I think the film ends around three times, but then keeps on going, repeating the same themes, and sending off characters that have already got scenes that would've acted as quite suitable send-offs (it has been quite a while since I've seen the film, so I can't go into specifics, I just remember fidgeting in my seat quite a bit during the last half an hour or so).

I think l3rmr0d hit the nail on the head saying it could've been cut is an alternate way of saying 'I was bored'. Director's should take that into mind sometimes - as much as they want their personal vision on the screen (and that is indeed one of the constant goals of filmmakers that creates such a fascinating artform) you are making a film for others. If you are going to test the patience of audience, then be sure you need to test their patience.

(Also, on films being 'too short': I personally feel 90 minutes or less is perfect for a visually energetic, vibrant movie. Constant excitement can become somewhat overwhelming!)

Also also: post 4000! Woo! (wanders off to get life)

magma69

A film should be as long as it needs to be. Many films have stories and characters that are over developed or under development rendering the movie too long or too short. Your post was excellent and the comparison to radio music is hits the nail on the head. There are many asinine guidelines to making movies these days that producers enforce on directors because that is what they think the average movie goer wants. The length of the movie is one of the main ones and that is why we see so many Director's Cut versions of movies on DVD these days. The uncompromised versions..

I agree with you point about Serenity. I had not seen any of Firefly previously to watching the movie and sensed that the film was progressed too fast. Still an enjoyable movie.

A great example of a movie which was 15-20 minutes longer than it needed to be was Synecdoche, New York. Over the last half hour there was unnecessary meandering scenes. It could have been chopped down by 20 minutes and told just as much about the characters/plot/theme in a more hard hitting way. I'd recommend watching it by the way, but it may give you a headache! :eek:

Agreed on Once Upon a Time in America too. That was a movie where there was an epic story to be told. The four hours of screen time was necessary.

And on the other end of the scale, I watched a movie called Clean, Shaven not all that long ago. It is about 70 minutes long and didn't need a minute more. It was a short but it contained everything that was needed to tell the story. Watch if you have not seen it. Astounding, cutting edge film making.

Karl Hungus

Great post Johnny.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

However, if a film isn't doing anything particularly important with an ever increasing running time, then I think a director should perhaps stand back and reevaluate the pacing of their movie (as someone else pointed out here). You may really like a certain scene, but if you look at it and it doesn't add quite as much to the pacing, flow or overall experience as much as others, then maybe there is a way to handle it more efficiently.

But in terms of pacing, flow and overall experience, removing scenes can also act against that. Now certainly if there's scenes dragging a film down, and that aren't really necessary, but that's not always the case and in films like Kingdom of Heaven, what was cut was completely to the detriment of the pacing and flow as well as the story. More often than not, when comparing a Director's Cut to an original, rarely see superfluous scenes and unnecessary filler.

You say yourself that constant excitement can be overwhelming. Now that's true, but that's as much an argument to have a longer running time than it is to have a shorter running time in my opinion. An action film can have scenes that give us a breather from the action, scenes that can build character or add to the pacing. 90 minutes is a great time for a lot of action films, but consider that Die Hard, easily one of the greatest action films of all time, runs at 131 minutes, which is about 40 minutes longer than your average action. I'm sure it could be cut down shorter, but would we miss out an all those wonderful little moments, like Hans Gruber talking about suits? Moments where nothing really happens, but it just adds to such an incredible film.

johnny_ultimate

Karl Hungus wrote: »

But in terms of pacing, flow and overall experience, removing scenes can also act against that. Now certainly if there's scenes dragging a film down, and that aren't really necessary, but that's not always the case and in films like Kingdom of Heaven, what was cut was completely to the detriment of the pacing and flow as well as the story. More often than not, when comparing a Director's Cut to an original, rarely see superfluous scenes and unnecessary filler.

You say yourself that constant excitement can be overwhelming. Now that's true, but that's as much an argument to have a longer running time than it is to have a shorter running time in my opinion. An action film can have scenes that give us a breather from the action, scenes that can build character or add to the pacing. 90 minutes is a great time for a lot of action films, but consider that Die Hard, easily one of the greatest action films of all time, runs at 131 minutes, which is about 40 minutes longer than your average action. I'm sure it could be cut down shorter, but would we miss out an all those wonderful little moments, like Hans Gruber talking about suits? Moments where nothing really happens, but it just adds to such an incredible film.

Definitely agree that a longer running time can add those moments that propel a film from being great to something truly memorable. I'm going to use Quentin Tarantino as an example here - not everyone likes the man these days, but Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction shine as a result of those strange, funny asides that don't necessarily propel the narrative forward, but add so much character to the film in the process. On the other hand though, Inglorious Basterds was the opposite - the strange tangents just went on too long, the half hour long dialogue scenes lost their power around the halfway point. The first scene in the farmer's house felt tense and exciting and carefully paced. The scene in the restaurant, however, just felt like it dragged on too long, and you just wanted things to move on. Kill Bill - an episodic film if ever there was one - had the same kind of rambling structure, but Inglorious Basterds felt like it was pushing the Tarantino style that little too far on occasion - what might be fun in brief snippets doesn't quite work over two and a half hours (I liked Inglorious Basterds in parts, but I must say overall it felt a little too ramshackle). Whether the tangents work or not all comes down to the director I guess - Tarantino is one who used to understand this, but does less so these days IMO.

I'd agree on Die Hard too, but it is more the likes of Crank which I feel become less appealing as the hours tick by. Crank was a quick sugar rush (I thought Crank 2 struggled far more to keep the energy level going), and as long as it needed to be. But something like Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas always felt overlong to me - the brain melting stylisation becomes overwhelming for two hours (the book feels positively snappy and consistent in comparison).

I highly recommend Love Exposure by the way - the strangest 4 hour Japanese religious satire you'll ever see. The wildly uneven nature of that film gives it a unique and vibrant edge. The only other 4 hour film I've ever watched - the full cut of Che - showed up the repetitive nature of the second film though. All those scenes of jungle guerilla combat really dragged, and is a good argument for splitting such films in two (I'd say Kill Bill would be the same)

Karl Hungus

magma69 wrote: »

I agree with you point about Serenity. I had not seen any of Firefly previously to watching the movie and sensed that the film was progressed too fast. Still an enjoyable movie.

Oh it is certainly a very enjoyable film, and my criticism isn't to bash it. I've watched it quite a few times on DVD, but it is far from perfect. It's an example of what I mean though, a lot of the characters were cut down to the point where they were unnecessary, and that to me is a stage where something being cut down ends up making things pointless. Still extremely enjoyable of course, but as you say yourself, progressed too fast.

magma69 wrote: »

And on the other end of the scale, I watched a movie called Clean, Shaven not all that long ago. It is about 70 minutes long and didn't need a minute more. It was a short but it contained everything that was needed to tell the story. Watch if you have not seen it. Astounding, cutting edge film making.

Oh definitely, I'm not saying that films in general should be longer when they don't need to be. As I mentioned before, [Rec] is a perfect example of this, running at a fairly brief 78 minutes, it's an extremely tightly paced film, and it works incredibly well, continually cranking up the tension at a steady and even pace. I don't think there's anything that could have been added to that film that wouldn't have ruined the steadily building tension. Great film, and it's just so perfectly paced at 78 minutes.

As you say yourself, a film should be as long as it needs to be. Be that 70-odd minutes, or 4 hours.

mike65

I'll disagree (or possibly not), the problem is filmakers apparently feeling obliged to ramp up everything for the sake of the presumed appitite for "epicness". We all know most Bond flicks could happily be done and dusted within 2 hours (fortunatly there seems to be shift back towards shorter durations), if the material can geuinely support
a running time then great, if not get the scissors out - Stanley Kubrick was happy to do this for example.

Karl Hungus

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Definitely agree that a longer running time can add those moments that propel a film from being great to something truly memorable. I'm going to use Quentin Tarantino as an example here - not everyone likes the man these days, but Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction shine as a result of those strange, funny asides that don't necessarily propel the narrative forward, but add so much character to the film in the process. On the other hand though, Inglorious Basterds was the opposite - the strange tangents just went on too long, the half hour long dialogue scenes lost their power around the halfway point. The first scene in the farmer's house felt tense and exciting and carefully paced. The scene in the restaurant, however, just felt like it dragged on too long, and you just wanted things to move on. Kill Bill - an episodic film if ever there was one - had the same kind of rambling structure, but Inglorious Basterds felt like it was pushing the Tarantino style that little too far on occasion - what might be fun in brief snippets doesn't quite work over two and a half hours (I liked Inglorious Basterds in parts, but I must say overall it felt a little too ramshackle). Whether the tangents work or not all comes down to the director I guess - Tarantino is one who used to understand this, but does less so these days IMO.

Fair point on Tarantino there, that's often got me off on a few tangents of my own. You're a sneaky one for bringing him up and getting me to agree with you completely, if it's anyone who does over indulges on nonsense dialogue, it's QT. Kill Bill I felt was stretched out because it was originally meant to be one film, so the whole story got some padding in order to get 2 films out of it.

Inglourious Basterds is possibly one of my favourite of Tarantino's. It's definitely got a lot of crap in it though, so much time is spent commenting on film itself, loads of superfluous dialogue about German expressionism, which I read as Quentin saying "Look at me, I know about film history!" and horrible ego-stroking lines like "I think this might be my masterpiece". Yeah, there's plenty of films that can be referential to other films, and celebrate the artform without the ego, just take a look at Millennium Actress for example.

Damn you, you got me. :pac:

jaykhunter

I guess if you're thinking "how long is this film" then it's not enthralling you/moving fast enough for you, and so you think they could've fitted the story into a shorter time frame. Maybe you think it's a waste of time or specific things aren't necessary to flesh out. I imagine that whoever says 'it's too long' thought this at several times during the film, but didn't pay enough attention to give you a coherent, point-by-point discourse on how the film was dragging. People don't care that much! (like me :pac:)

With Avatar, I did feel that the film was over 2 hours, but nowhere near 3. I never looked at my watch.

With Dark Knight, I wish it'd never end! I actually felt it could've done with another half hour (with an intermission after Joker was imprisoned) to flesh out Dent's story. Same with Episode III, i felt Anakin's heel turn was a little too fast for my liking.

A friend mentioned to me that he thought "The Road" was too short. I bore this in mind when I watched it. I thought the pace was excellent, as they didn't dwell on anything too long, and adding an extra few minutes to any scene wouldn't have added anything. It's probably the definition of the 'right' length!

Sleazus

I'm going to respectfully disagree. I do agree with what posters said above about 'it was too long' being non-cinema-buff speak for 'it bored the daylights out of me for everything except the five minutes of good bits', and I have no problem with long films - you cite some epic (hehe, see what I did there?) examples above which I agree with. And I'll raise you Kenneth Branagh's four-hour cut of Hamlet. It's epic.

As an aside, does everyone remember when Network 2 used to show a four-hour film at midnight on a Thursday late in the summer? I remember the Thursday before school started again I'd stay up and watch Hamlet or Once Upon a Time in America and feel like I was in my own dark little cinema. Good times.

Anyway, to me actually disagreeing. I think that observing a film is too long isn't an independent criticism. It's usually coupled with elements that the viewer doesn't like - as an argument it doesn't really stand on its own two feet. Or it's just the straw that broke the camel's back when it comes to a mediocre film. You can switch off and accept the averageness for so long before, like a pair of poorly chosen shoes, it starts to chaff and hurt.

I think that certain films feel they can go on as long as they bloody well want without thinking of the audience. I'm talking about bloody awful summer blockbusters. Cut a chunk out of Transformers 2 - any chunk, hell, every third second going missing wouldn't make it seem any more jumbled - and it wouldn't be a great a movie, but it would be a hell of a lot easier to endure. It would be painful, but less painful than if it were a half-an-hour longer.

I think if a movie is good enough it can be as long as it bloody well wants. The Dark Knight, for example, was never monotonous and always interesting. The Godfather films are insightful for every single moment.

I'd be curious to compare, for example, the average runtimes of the Best Picture nominees throughout the years and the average runtimes of the biggest blockbusters throughout the years. I imagine the former would be on the decline in the last fifty years or so (but evening out around now) while the later would be ramping up over the last thrity-five odd years.

In short, I don't care about length. I care about quality. I'll feel cheated if I'm only offered seventy minutes of brilliance, but I'll feel ticked if I get two-and-a-half hours of crap.

And isn't it time somebody made some sort of meta-post comment about the length of replies on this thread.

Which is fantastic, by the way, karl.

krudler

Judd Apatows movies are all too long, Funny People runs at nearly 2 1/2 hours, and the dvd is even longer, comedies dont need to be that long, 90-110 mins is enough, I dont mind long movies at all, but tons of stuff that Apatow puts in is complete filler, especially with his "extended" dvd versions, The 40 Year Old Virgin was a great little movie, but the dvd version, bah, its nearly an hour into it before he even meets the main love interest, way too drawn out and the new stuff isnt even that funny

Agree about Kingdom of Heaven though, thought it was pretty dull and sloppily edited in the cinema, the dvd version is a better movie than Gladiator, yeah thats right, i went there, wanna fight about it?:D

jaykhunter

For what it's worth, i think some films have a tendency to 'add-in' filler fluff at the start of the film - take The Day After Tomorrow. Why was the first 30 minutes dedicated to Tom Cruise and his kids? It could've been done in 5 minutes. You're a dad, and not the best you could be. We get it. Now get to the global warming!

Same with the first 40 minutes of the new Transformers movies. It said nothing that couldn't have been done in 5-10 minutes.

Karl Hungus

Sleazus wrote: »

I think that certain films feel they can go on as long as they bloody well want without thinking of the audience. I'm talking about bloody awful summer blockbusters. Cut a chunk out of Transformers 2 - any chunk, hell, every third second going missing wouldn't make it seem any more jumbled - and it wouldn't be a great a movie, but it would be a hell of a lot easier to endure. It would be painful, but less painful than if it were a half-an-hour longer.

Yeah, it's fair that there are some extremely bloated, incoherent and otherwise awful summer blockbusters that would be a lot less painful if they weren't quite so long. Transformers 2, like Pirate of the Caribbean: At World's End has problems that go far beyond length, but it's not really people criticisms towards films like that I'm talking about. Honestly, you could probably pick a criticism randomly out of a hat and it would be 99% sure to hit the mark with regards to Transformers.

That isn't the same case with Avatar for example. There's a lot of criticisms of that film that ring true, it's not in the least bit original (Dune got there many years before Avatar), the dialogue is rubbish and the characters are fairly shallow, but I don't think the runtime is an issue at all.

seraphimvc

Fact: Transformer 2 is ghey because of its length.

krudler

I really wish the characters in Transformers 2 had teh smarts to just use that shard thingy Sam had to bring Optimus back, then they wouldnt have had to trapse around the pyramids with Devastators robotic nads swinging around, and we all would have had a good 45 mins of our lives to spend what way we wished

rednik

I remember going to see Apocalypse Now Redux and thinking to myself at the end why the f*ck did I have to wait 12 years to see what I would consider to be the best additional footage to one of the best fims ever made.

Karl Hungus

I asked in my opening post, if anyone could name a recent mainstream horror film that had a running time of over 2 hours. The Mist was the only one I could think of. I've thought of another one, The Ninth Gate, which has a runtime of 133 minutes. So, since The Shining in 1980, I can only come up with two examples of mainstream horror films that run longer than 2 hours, The Ninth Gate in 1999, and The Mist in 2007. Can anyone add to that?

Pride Fighter

This reminds me of Amadeus when the music advisor to the emperor said your piece has too many notes. Then Mozart says which notes should I cut:D

Anyway my view is that a well crafted film should be as long as it should be. Saw Spartacus last year, and it did not feel 3 hours long whereas a poor film lasting 2 seems like an eternity. People who thinks films should be shorter have short attention spans IMO and are too used to instant gratification that things like video games and shorter songs as Karl mentioned give them.

johnny_ultimate

krudler wrote: »

I really wish the characters in Transformers 2 had teh smarts to just use that shard thingy Sam had to bring Optimus back, then they wouldnt have had to trapse around the pyramids with Devastators robotic nads swinging around, and we all would have had a good 45 mins of our lives to spend what way we wished

At a rough estimate, if you remove the racial and gender stereotyping too, and cut those ludicrous 'mother gets high' scenes, you'd probably knock the running length down to a clean 20 minutes, of which 19 minutes would be stuff exploding.

The Recliner

I have to agree with you Karl

I went into Avatar knowing it was long but it didn't feel long at all while watching it, my girlfriend knew nothing about the movie and loved it

I don't think length is the issue though, if something is interesting it doesn't really matter that it is long, if people complain about a movie being too long it is generally cos they didn't like it and were bored

Take Ang Lee's Hulk, a lot of people hated it and complained it was too long, personally I love the movie and the fact that it took the time to go into Banner's past (fair enough the ending is a bit iffy) but a lot of people didn't care about that and just wanted to see Hulk Smash (oddly the newer version went for this and it still didn't seem to please people)

Catenaccio!

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I asked in my opening post, if anyone could name a recent mainstream horror film that had a running time of over 2 hours. The Mist was the only one I could think of. I've thought of another one, The Ninth Gate, which has a runtime of 133 minutes. So, since The Shining in 1980, I can only come up with two examples of mainstream horror films that run longer than 2 hours, The Ninth Gate in 1999, and The Mist in 2007. Can anyone add to that?

What Lies Beneath.

Decuc500

Orphan is a slow burning, evil kid movie with a runtime of 123 minutes. Had me hooked for the whole two hours as well. It's also got one of the best twist endings I've seen.

norrie rugger

Pride Fighter wrote: »

This reminds me of Amadeus when the music advisor to the emperor said your piece has too many notes. Then Mozart says which notes should I cut:D

Anyway my view is that a well crafted film should be as long as it should be. Saw Spartacus last year, and it did not feel 3 hours long whereas a poor film lasting 2 seems like an eternity. People who thinks films should be shorter have short attention spans IMO and are too used to instant gratification that things like video games and shorter songs as Karl mentioned give them.

I would thank you to leave video games out of this.

I am currently 40+ hours into Dragon Age. Had similiar levels of play with Fallout 3 and high hour counts on both Uncharteds.
Looking for more of the same come Final Fantasy 13

Like film, videogames have a raft of genres that cater for those who wish to have a quick fix all the way to the epic games where the story is slowly revealed to you

Borneo Fnctn

I'm aiming to make a word-for-word movie out of the bible. It's the best selling book of all time! There may be hours with only narration and no dialogue at a time. I absolutely will not be trimming anything from the movie.

Insulting_Bitch

Funny People should have been roughly two and a half hours shorter.

Galvasean

With films like The Dark Knight and Avatar I was enjoying myself so much that I didn't notice the time go by. When a film is good you don't mind how long it is. One of my favourite comedies, Dumb & Dumber, was trimmed to make sure it hit what was at the time considered the theatrical 'sweet spot' as regards lenght for comedy movies. As a result we lost out on some quality gags which were only reinstated years later on DVD. That film could have been 5 hours long (assuming the quality was kept up) and I'd still be left begging for more at the end.

On the other hand Revenge of the Fallen could have easily have had 45 minutes shaved off (The scenes running around the pyramids solving obscure puzzles were over long, while most of the 'funny' buts re: Sam in college should have been left out. For example, when the mother bought the hash brownies they should have left it at that and it would have been a decent little joke. Instead we are 'treated' to about ten minutes of her acting the loon on campus, which just grew tiresome.). It's a shame as had they nipped out a lot of the unnecessary scenes we would have been left with a very good (if a little silly) action popcorn blockbuster.
Similarly Pirates 3 suffered from a really played out sub-plot which went nowhere (the whole Calysto thing). Had they cut that they could have saved a good half hour. Cut out a few more pointless scenes/trim a few overly drawn out ones and we could have had a pretty cool action/adventure romp. Instead we are left with an overly bloated snoozefest which just wont end.

uncleoswald

A movie should be as long as it needs to be. But I do think there are too many self important directors out there who feel that their epic should be approaching 3hrs.

I think The Dark Knight is a great example of a movie that would have been so much better if the director had been a bit more ruthless and delivered a more streamlined film. The stuff with the two boats stuck out like a sore thumb. I'm sure the makers felt it was vital to the message/plot but that doesn't mean they were right. Joss Whedon once wrote about how sometimes when stuck on a script, by removing the part that you are most attached to you can free up the whole thing. (OP: Myself and my girlfriend saw Serenity without seeing the TV series and loved it, you can do good characterisation with just a few lines of well chosen dialog, take note Mr. Cameron)

Same goes with all the Judd Apathow comedies. You can almost literally feel each movie coming to a grinding stop when it gets to the bit when writer tries to cram in the 2 dimensional message they think its important for you to hear.

OP you mention some great (but selective regarding their length) horrors but is there not more separating them from modern horrors then simply length? Polanski, Kubrick, Romero, Friedkin had ideas behind their stories that were able to drive a well written script. Which modern horror movies do you think would be their equal if fleshed out?

I think the people making the studio flicks aren't of the same quality they were in the past and I think we should be thankfull that more of them aren't allowed to make never ending pieces of crap like Michael Bay has.

hitlersson666

seraphimvc wrote: »

Fact: Transformer 2 is ghey because of its length.

i never thought it would end!!!!! f.y.i a movie can suffer from ''too many action scenes'' :eek::eek: avatar did tende to drag a a small bit for me as well lol oh and brothers! saw it today waith school and the whole thing could have dropped 15-20 mins but saying that i love long movies one there not all filler :P

Valmont

I thought the last two Lord of the Rings movies were far too long; mainly because I hated every minute of them.

-"No man can kill me!"

-"I am no man"

*Bleugh*

I didn't even know Inglourious Basterds was a 'long' film until reading this thread, that should tell you something.

If somebody doesn't like a film, of course it's going to seem longer and vice versa. I don't think they need to back that assertion up with a critique of each scene.

Trojan

Personally, I think Avatar should have been about 3 hours shorter.

CrazyRabbit

Size is irrelevant, so long as the content is good.

I'd happily watch a 4 hour movie if it kept me interested. 4 hours flies by if you are really enjoying something.

][cEMAN**

There are times I could watch a film and say X, Y, & Z could have been cut, because it had no impact on the story really. Other times I could mention slow motion scenes that are really OTT eg. Slow motion gun fights for the sake of it, with lots of empty cartridges flying everywhere.

What I think the 'too long' reference comes from though, isn't one where it's obvious that something could have been edited out, but rather the fact that suspension of disbelief is lost.

Crap films, are...well...crap. You're not going to watch a crap film and have the first comment you make be "It was too long". No, you're just going to say "That was crap".
However, when you have a somewhat OK film plodding along, and then it suddenly loses its suspension of disbelief holding you in it, it suddenly feels like that's the cut off point. The story hasn't ended, but your ability to be pulled into the film has.

I know when this happens personally, when I suddenly feel the urge to look around the dark cinema. It's a bit like forcing yourself to wake up from a dream when you realise what's happening.

There are some films that i've cursed that it's ended when it has, and they've been hours long. The story's just gripped me so much that I could watch it all day.

If anyone has ever done a marathon of their favourite TV series, you'll know what I mean.

Galvasean

Trojan wrote: »

Personally, I think Avatar should have been about 3 hours shorter.

*ba-dum-tisch!*

Joke's been made a few times on this thread already I'm afraid.

Karl Hungus

uncleoswald wrote: »

OP you mention some great (but selective regarding their length) horrors but is there not more separating them from modern horrors then simply length? Polanski, Kubrick, Romero, Friedkin had ideas behind their stories that were able to drive a well written script. Which modern horror movies do you think would be their equal if fleshed out?

Well of course there's a lot of other aspects separating those classic Horrors from a lot of modern ones, I'm not trying to boil down the defining aspect of a film purely to it's length here, and I think it's a bit of a misnomer to suggest that's what I'm getting at. It's fairly self evident that the films I mentioned had a lot going for them in terms of script, acting, direction and a wealth of other elements, and I'm obviously not saying that the only thing that separates The Shining from Jennifer's Body is that The Shining is about half an hour longer, that's fairly absurd. But the length of a film can be a part of what makes it work, and I think in terms of horror films, the ones I'd mentioned really benefited from their runtimes, taking time to build up the tension and atmosphere. Likewise with The Mist, the fact that it's got a nice hefty running time lets the audience get to know the characters better, and the film just wouldn't have been the same had it been half an hour shorter.

You do raise a fairly good point though, are there any modern horror films that would be better with a longer running time? Honestly, very few come to mind, but I think that's largely because the majority of horror films we see on the big screens these days are remakes and sequels, the kind of vacant churned out for money nonsense that I hate, and no extra length could ever benefit one of the Saw sequels. Sometimes I do see some great little horror films like Trick 'r Treat and I think ultimately it's over too quick to truly make an impact. On the whole I just find that the longer horror films have been more powerful experiences, they've drawn me in more.

But I'll give you an example of an older horror film that could have done with being longer, Don't Look Now. As it stands, it's one of my favourite horror films of all time, but my biggest criticisms is with an underdeveloped element of the story:

The serial killer in Venice is an element that we really don't get much of, bar seeing a scene of a body being dragged from the water, and Donald Sutherland's interrogation with the police. It's an important part of the story, yet we don't really get the sense that it's happening over the course of the film, an extra scene or two to better establish that would have gone a long way.

It's still an absolute masterpiece of a film of course.

Valmont wrote: »

If somebody doesn't like a film, of course it's going to seem longer and vice versa. I don't think they need to back that assertion up with a critique of each scene.

Well obviously I'm not excepting a scene-by-scene critique, but if someone has a problem with a film they can usually be more straightforward about it than saying "Too long" when they really mean something else. I suppose it's something to file under 'nonsense criticisms'?

thetonynator

saw 2012 recently, it was the biggest load of complete bullsh1t, made worse by the fact that it was over 2 and a half hous long. it might have been bareable if they didn't drag it out so long . . . .

Trojan

Galvasean wrote: »

*ba-dum-tisch!*

Joke's been made a few times on this thread already I'm afraid.

Sorry, didn't notice them. I wasn't looking to make a joke tbh, I was dreadfully disappointed with Avatar and wish I could un-see it. If it had been 50% shorter it might have been bearable. YMMV.