Cookies on DVDActive
DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is assumed that you agree to this.
 
Leaderboard Extra
Are Movies getting too long?

Forums - Discs & Movies - Are Movies getting too long? 

5th February 2006 19:54  #1

stanton heck Member Join Date: June 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,098
Are Movies getting too long?
I read that the avege movie ran about 107 minutes in 1985.  Today its 2hrs and 6 minutes! Do you think the movies made today are too long?  Do you think "King Kong" was too long?

5th February 2006 19:56  #2

stanton heck Member Join Date: June 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,098
I think they should of cut 30-45 minutes out of King Kong. I also thought Narnia was 15 minutes too long.  Rent was 10 minutes too long.

5th February 2006 20:26  #3

stanton heck Member Join Date: June 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,098
"Munich" too long "Kill Bill Vol 2" 10 minutes too long!

5th February 2006 20:36  #4

Tony DeFrancisco Senior Member Join Date: July 2005 Location: United States Posts: 2,652
Not to be sounding like a d**k, but who cares about films being too long? I mean, yes, King Kong was long compared to the original 1933 version, but that was 1933 and it was released in 2005. Let the filmmakers sort that out.

5th February 2006 20:41  #5

stanton heck Member Join Date: June 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,098
King Kong was a great movie I agree but it should of been shorter and then release an extended DVD.  I am sure that King Kong  2005 would of made more money at the box office if it was shorter.  Most people that have seen it will say its great but its too long!  When people are "iffy" on seing a movie at the theatre and they here its too long that customer waits for the DVD release.  

5th February 2006 20:59  #6

Tony DeFrancisco Senior Member Join Date: July 2005 Location: United States Posts: 2,652
stanton heck wrote: I am sure that King Kong  2005 would of made more money at the box office if it was shorter.Have you been paying attention to the box office last year? Batman Begins was more than two hours and made more than 200 million. Narnia made more than 260 million and it was more than two hours. Harry Potter made more than 285 million and it was more than two hours. Star Wars: Episode III made 380 million and it was more than two hours.

The only reason why King Kong didn't make much money than most people predicted is because that it should of been advertised way more.

5th February 2006 21:02  #7

stanton heck Member Join Date: June 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,098
They spent $60,000,000 advertising KK. That was $5,000,00- 10,000,000 more than all the others!  Yes all of those movies took in $$ but, most of them could of had footage removed.  Most of them were too long including "Batman Returns"  

5th February 2006 21:05  #8

Tony DeFrancisco Senior Member Join Date: July 2005 Location: United States Posts: 2,652
stanton heck wrote: They spent $60,000,000 advertising KK.But they could of spent a little bit more, maybe putting advertisements into smaller cable stations, put it on more Universal DVDs, etc. I'm not arguing no more about this, so now my mouth is shut.

6th February 2006 0:04  #9

stanton heck Member Join Date: June 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,098
Back to the orignal question What movie do you think would of been better if they deleted some footage!

6th February 2006 4:15  #10

captmarvel Member Join Date: January 2006 Location: United States Posts: 101
A good movie is never long enough, and a bad movie is always too long.  To answer Stanton's question, The Brothers Grimm would have been much better if they had deleted 119 minutes of footage.  But seriously, I think Ghost could have used some trimming and would have been a better film as a result.

6th February 2006 5:17  #11

Gabe Powers Editor Join Date: September 2004 Location: United States Posts: 4,468 Send a message via ICQ to Gabe Powers
Stanton, have you ever thought that maybe you have a short attention span? I'll agree that King Kong could've lost about 20 minutes, but like captmarvel said, a good movie can never be long enough. I can't image 107 minute cuts of the LOTR films, or Private Ryan, or even Munich. The problem with Kong was not the running time, despite the money they spent on advritising, it was poorly spent and public knowledge of it was very low. This is just too broad a statement for me to get behind.

6th February 2006 7:45  #12

Aaron Schneiderman Senior Member Join Date: September 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,198
captmarvel wrote: A good movie is never long enough, and a bad movie is always too long.

Ditto. I couldn't have said it better myself.

6th February 2006 12:44  #13

Tony DeFrancisco Senior Member Join Date: July 2005 Location: United States Posts: 2,652
captmarvel wrote: To answer Stanton's question, The Brothers Grimm would have been much better if they had deleted 119 minutes of footage.Couldn't of said it better myself.

6th February 2006 13:18  #14

Intergalactic Ponce Member Join Date: April 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1,151
stanton heck wrote: I think they should of cut 30-45 minutes out of King Kong. I also thought Narnia was 15 minutes too long.  Rent was 10 minutes too long.

Really? I thought Kong was 7.5 minutes too long and Narnia 4 minutes. I haven't seen Rent but a friend of mine said that he believed it was 13 minutes too long. It's funny isn't it how people not in the actual business of making and editing films can have so much say and be so precise in their opinions of how long a film's running time should be?

6th February 2006 17:11  #15

stanton heck Member Join Date: June 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,098
Well I am in the business

6th February 2006 17:17  #16

Matt Contributor Join Date: October 2004 Location: United States Posts: 2,113
Tony DeFrancisco wrote: The only reason why King Kong didn't make much money than most people predicted is because that it should of been advertised way more.
Kong didn't make as much because at three hours it can't be shown as many times per day as the other movies you listed, and second it was released at the wrong time.

The biggest reason though, is that the media made way too much of it being three hours long, as if no one had never sat through a three hour film before and getting your money's worth at the theatre was a bad thing. All of the negative press over the length hurt the film much more than it deserved and cost it a slew of moviegoers who, if hadn't been beaten to death over the film's length in the press, would have barely given it a second thought and gone to see the best film of 2005, and the most thoroughly entertaining, popcorn movie since Jackson's own Return of the King. All of you that complain about the running time would have been complaining the opposite way if the film would've been any shorter coming from Jackson, and wouldn't give the running time a second thought if the media hadn't bashed it into your skulls. I find it funny at a time when moviegoers are leaving the cineplexes in droves, primarily over the quality of the films being released if recent polls are to be believed, that when someone actually makes a film that delivers the goods (and then some) all the average moviegoer can do is treat it like a redheaded stepchild because it's "too long".

Quote: Really? I thought Kong was 7.5 minutes too long and Narnia 4 minutes. I haven't seen Rent but a friend of mine said that he believed it was 13 minutes too long. It's funny isn't it how people not in the actual business of making and editing films can have so much say and be so precise in their opinions of how long a film's running time should be?
LOL. Nice.

6th February 2006 17:27  #17

stanton heck Member Join Date: June 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,098
Here is another set of movies that were way too long "The Thin Red Line" "Magnolia" and "Meet Joe Black" I waisted 10 hours of my life.

6th February 2006 19:40  #18

Intergalactic Ponce Member Join Date: April 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1,151
stanton heck wrote: Well I am in the business

Okay. Always willing to be proved wrong. What do you do? In the business. I'm not picking a fight with this enquiry. I'm genuinely interested.

6th February 2006 19:52  #19

stanton heck Member Join Date: June 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,098
I'm in marketing.  

6th February 2006 19:54  #20

Intergalactic Ponce Member Join Date: April 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1,151
Projectionist of 9 years. But not saying where, you understand. London's West End is as much as I'll say.

6th February 2006 20:06  #21

Intergalactic Ponce Member Join Date: April 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1,151
But marketing does explain the emphasis on film length. Can't get enough shows crow barred into a day if they're too long can we? Although I'm with Bill Hick's on marketing, what sort of marketing are you involved in. Just generally. No need for specifics.

6th February 2006 20:10  #22

stanton heck Member Join Date: June 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,098
I can't say.  Let's say this I see everything.  That gets released before its released.

6th February 2006 20:12  #23

Intergalactic Ponce Member Join Date: April 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1,151
It's good to see films before they are marketed and sold to us isn't it?

6th February 2006 20:19  #24

Gabe Powers Editor Join Date: September 2004 Location: United States Posts: 4,468 Send a message via ICQ to Gabe Powers
stanton heck wrote: Here is another set of movies that were way too long "The Thin Red Line" "Magnolia" and "Meet Joe Black" I waisted 10 hours of my life.

I think you just didn't like those movies, and no ammount of editing would make you. Personally, Magnolia is one of my favourite films and I couldn't imagine such a tapistry being a second shorter than it was. Again, this is a braod, sweeping, and arbitrary comment on modern film and the discussion was pretty much over when Captmarvel stated his case.

6th February 2006 20:22  #25

stanton heck Member Join Date: June 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,098
No its a JOB. (its very demanding and egos get out of control) I did do that.  I'm in marketing in a different way now.  I was asked to return but HE** No.  I have seen my boss get spit on by top people (that's all I say). After I saw my boss almost get punched out  (not saying who by) I left.  

6th February 2006 20:32  #26

Intergalactic Ponce Member Join Date: April 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1,151
Too much info there Stanton. Or not enough. I can't decide which. You be careful out there.

6th February 2006 20:34  #27

Tony DeFrancisco Senior Member Join Date: July 2005 Location: United States Posts: 2,652
If I may ask Stanton, how old are you?

6th February 2006 20:36  #28

stanton heck Member Join Date: June 2005 Location: United States Posts: 1,098
43

6th February 2006 20:43  #29

Tony DeFrancisco Senior Member Join Date: July 2005 Location: United States Posts: 2,652
stanton heck wrote: 43Wow, I must be really young.

6th February 2006 20:57  #30

Gabe Powers Editor Join Date: September 2004 Location: United States Posts: 4,468 Send a message via ICQ to Gabe Powers
Yep Wink
Page Number: [1] 2 3

Quick Reply 

Message Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.
Not Registered?
Forgotten Details?