If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Bloated runtimes in 2022

  • 19-12-2022 10:35am
    Registered Users Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭

    • Avatar 2 - 3h12
    • Elvis - 2h 39
    • Tar - 2h 38
    • The Fablemans - 2h 30

    The above are the runtimes for a few of the films nominated for the Golden globes.

    I’m struck by the running time for these, and whether the default length for these types of movies appears to be at the 2h 30 mark?

    The first two on the list above I felt were way too long for what they were and could have been edited down to improve the overall quality of the story.

    I’ve nothing against a film going long if it’s justified for the story but I’m wondering if it’s a case of bloat and a quantity over quality approach?


  • Registered Users Posts: 710 ✭✭✭Big Gerry

    Back in the 80s they started making a lot of 90 minute movies became it allowed cinemas to screen one extra showing per day.

    I wonder why the cinema chains don't object to those ultra long movies ?

    The cinemas must make a lot more profit on a 2 hour blockbuster than they would on a 3 hour blockbuster.

  • Registered Users Posts: 710 ✭✭✭Big Gerry

    That last James Bond film was another film that was way too long that could have easily of had 30 minutes shaved off it without affecting the story.

  • Registered Users Posts: 31,250 ✭✭✭✭gmisk

    The new black panther was 2hr 41mins...boy did it feel it.

  • Registered Users Posts: 59,151 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson

    It’s not just 2022 this had been going on for a decade now especially with big budget summer blockbusters

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭brick tamland

    Its crazy, Ive had to put the young lad off going to see both Wakanda Forever and Avatar 2 as I dont want to sit through a movie that long in the cinema

    Whats wrong with a nice little 90 min movie?

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,305 ✭✭✭Padraig Mor

    One of my main bugbears with movies over the last decade ish! I can only presume the studios have done market research showing 'people' are more likely to she'll out for a longer movie (value for money I guess). Not this person! Cut the run times FFS! Over 130 minutes without some seriously positive reviews? Get fucked, ain't watching! Avatar 2 over three hours? You must be kidding Jimmy boy!

    I have an occasional guilty pleasure of sneaking to the cinema on a Friday afternoon - and will take the 90 minute flick every time!

    For me, the rot began with Terminator 2. Being of a vintage to have seen it in the cinema I recall its length (136 minutes IIRC) being very notable for an action film at the time (most would have been 100 +/- 10 minutes). Now, T2 had the chops to work that runtime (but I prefer the leaner T1) but it seems every piece of generic dross these days is 2:30+.

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 28,616 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate

    I have no problem with an extended running time - I've seen all the films listed other than Tár, and didn't feel any of them overstayed their welcome. Well, Elvis was bloody exhuasting... but that's more down to how Luhrman directs the thing rather than its running time :P.

    I do think a lot of blockbusters have become over-extended for what they have to offer. Wakanda Forever, for example, has a lot of Marvel cruft that drags down what could have been a tighter, better film. But equally, I was happy to spend the time with Avatar 2 - barely noticed the time passing after its exposition-heavy opening half hour.

    A film should be as long as the filmmakers want it to be. My two favourite films last year were Drive My Car (3 hours) and Petite Maman (72 mins) - possibly the longest and shortest new films I saw that year, but both are perfectly judged. Drive My Car director Ryusuke Hamaguchi's earlier film Happy Hour is nearly 5 and a half hours long and totally earns it.

    Don't get me wrong, I would definitely like to see more tight, no-nonsense 80-90 minute films too. There's something wonderful about seeing a director do what they need to do quickly and neatly. But equally a film can benefit from a leisurely storytelling style, or one that allows the director to expand on their style and ideas at great length. There's no perfect running length, and while there are undoubtedly films that overstay their welcome, a 150-minute plus running time is my no means automatically an overindulgence.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭steve_r

    I'd agree with basically all that. Loved both Drive my car and Petit Maman. Drive my car is such a unique film told in its own way.

    I'd made my peace with the blockbusters of this world running long to accommodate the special effects, but what frustrated me with the like of Elvis and Avatar 2 was the underdeveloped plot points and characters. Specifically in Elvis, when his wife leaves, I felt that moment fundamentally didn't work because we hadn't spent enough time with the characters.

    Likewise Avatar 2 had plot points (like Sigourney Weaver's character) that they never really used or went back to.