| Author |
 Topic  |
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
 Posted - 01/17/2014 : 10:12:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
I think 'too long' is shorthand for 'boring' or 'repetitive', i.e., it contained unnecessary scenes or 'necessary' scenes that were essentially repeated.
Dr. Mabuse: The Gambler (1922) - 4h45m - a silent movie - wasn't too long.
Released in 1922- back when they had intermissions. From what I read, this film has an intermission around the (hey- look at that!) 2h30m mark.
quote:
LOTR 3: Extended Cut - 4h15m - wasn't too long.
Once Upon a Time in America: Extended Cut - 4h20m - wasn't too long.
Both extended cuts so, presumably most commonly viewed on home video or with an extremely limited cinema release. Home viewing is a different beast entirely to cinema viewing- more on that in a bit.
quote:
Sunshine (1999) - 3h - wasn't too long.
You've got me on this one- not seen it, so can't comment on if I personally found it too long. This does strike me as not what you would consider a mainstream film however and I suspect more open-minded cinema-goers will be more tolerant of long films. TWoWS (currently plastered on the side of every second bus in London) clearly isn't aimed at the same kind of audience.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
For me, that point is around the 2h30m mark. Especially so given we no longer have intermissions and we're sat there guzzling massive drinks.
Is the pause button on your remote broken? 
For some reason, it doesn't work at the local cinema :)
I suppose I should clarify (and hopefully not in fact look like I'm moving the goalposts here) that I'm saying I think 3 hours is too long for a film shown in a cinema (or, more specifically, somewhere that a viewer has no influence over the playing or pausing of the film), which is presently the only legit way we can see TWOWS.
Watching something at home is different entirely, as Peter Jackson (possibly the director most guilty of leading the current wave of long films) ably demonstrates with his approach to film releases. You can pause any time you're waning (which can happen to the best of us, even watching a masterpiece), rewind if you zoned out for a second, even leave the final act for another day when you're more in the mood for this sort of thing.
Despite this though, I personally feel there is a maximum length for a film. If you go beyond this, you should have enough respect for your audience to break it up into more manageable bite-sized pieces- be that through sequels or TV serialization.
quote:
Edit: BTW, I don't watch live TV, but watch the occasional series that is worthwhile (Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad are in that category). I watch a series (or two or three) in one hit. Normally I'll watch three or four 50-minute episodes on the trot, but if I start early enough (7pm or so) then perhaps five. So that's 2h30m - 4h+ on end. I never feel the need to take a break, I always try to fit another one in, the only reason I stop is if it's midnight and I need sleep.
Absolutely- I'm right there with you. But... most TV series are episodic and have logical intermission points every 44 minutes, almost inviting you to stop when you feel the need.
If you have the stamina to sit through 5 of these back to back without needing to get up for a leak or to make a tea then more power to you, but given the attention span of most people I see at the cinema I suspect you're one of the special few. (On a side note, you probably should get up and walk around occasionally for the same health reasons this is advised on flights of more than a few hours :) |
 |
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/17/2014 : 10:20:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
A 500-hour film would have the same problem as a 1-second film: no cohesive story can be told at that length.
Not sure I agree. If we're lucky, most of us will watch a 701,000 hour story in our time: it's called life and, whilst I can't speak for you, mine is pretty cohesive (aside from when I drink and then it goes a bit Lynch or Gilliam). Ironically enough, it could definitely do with a good editing to get rid of the repetitive bits though :) |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 01/17/2014 : 10:45:38
|
Well, as we can see here, running time isn't as simple as putting a stopwatch on it!
Just a comment, tho, imho, about TWOWS and why it needs to be the length it is:
Scorsese's far too clever and sophisticated a filmmaker to produce a lengthy film for no reason. His entire premise is based on two givens:
1. It's about lifestyle and the corruption of a system, as seen through the eyes of a victim/perp. If the "one-guy story" is to be told truthfully, it's unlikely most people will believe it, or the extent of its effects as the symptom of a far-wider issue.
2. The only way to compel belief is to keep focused on a relentless repetition of excess, never to let the audience get away with an intellectual justification [yeah, yeah, I get it, he's a bad guy, let's move on] ... no, Scorsese wants you to become as hopelessly sated from within the greed pool as the brokers who swim in it. Because, yes, you are part of that system.
So inside you should be screaming "lemme out of here" even while you're eyeing just one more yacht, one more line, one more expendable loved one. And when it stops ... ah, see, that's the real beginning.
|
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/17/2014 : 22:26:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
Dr. Mabuse: The Gambler (1922) - 4h45m - a silent movie - wasn't too long.
Released in 1922- back when they had intermissions. From what I read, this film has an intermission around the (hey- look at that!) 2h30m mark.
Yeah. An intermission would be useful here. Even for me. quote:
quote:
LOTR 3: Extended Cut - 4h15m - wasn't too long.
Once Upon a Time in America: Extended Cut - 4h20m - wasn't too long.
Both extended cuts so, presumably most commonly viewed on home video or with an extremely limited cinema release. Home viewing is a different beast entirely to cinema viewing- more on that in a bit.
Still, both cinema versions were well over three hours. I had no problem with that length in the cinema.quote:
quote:
Sunshine (1999) - 3h - wasn't too long.
You've got me on this one- not seen it, so can't comment on if I personally found it too long. This does strike me as not what you would consider a mainstream film however and I suspect more open-minded cinema-goers will be more tolerant of long films. TWoWS (currently plastered on the side of every second bus in London) clearly isn't aimed at the same kind of audience.
It's one of those movies where you totally lose concept of time. It finishes and you think "Wow, was that really three hours?"quote:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
For me, that point is around the 2h30m mark. Especially so given we no longer have intermissions and we're sat there guzzling massive drinks.
Is the pause button on your remote broken?
For some reason, it doesn't work at the local cinema :)
I suppose I should clarify (and hopefully not in fact look like I'm moving the goalposts here) that I'm saying I think 3 hours is too long for a film shown in a cinema (or, more specifically, somewhere that a viewer has no influence over the playing or pausing of the film), which is presently the only legit way we can see TWOWS.
Watching something at home is different entirely, as Peter Jackson (possibly the director most guilty of leading the current wave of long films) ably demonstrates with his approach to film releases. You can pause any time you're waning (which can happen to the best of us, even watching a masterpiece), rewind if you zoned out for a second, even leave the final act for another day when you're more in the mood for this sort of thing.
Yeah, I think perhaps we should return to the days of intermissions for the 3h+ movies. Having said that I didn't mind LOTR3 (3h30m) at the cinema, mind you I'd plan drinking before going i.e. make sure I have nothing to drink in the two hours prior, and take a water bottle for an occasional small sip (no bucket of Coke etc).quote:
Despite this though, I personally feel there is a maximum length for a film. If you go beyond this, you should have enough respect for your audience to break it up into more manageable bite-sized pieces- be that through sequels or TV serialization.
If so I don't know what the maximum length is, if the subject matter is good enough then it can hold my attention for 3 - 4.5 hours with no problem.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 01/17/2014 : 23:23:39
|
Boy, I wish I could comment on WoWS, but I haven't seen it yet. My wife has already been chased away by the little she knows: my bride will decline, thank you. I'll see it, by myself, maybe a year from now, and guess what: I don't care. I was much more interested in joining AMERICAN HUSTLE in the sinny.
I traveled to the heartland for the Yuletide holiday, and when I allowed that GRAVITY was one of my favorite movies ever, I got shock-effect faces. "Too long!" they said. And that bad boy clocks in before even ANIMAL HOUSE does!
Folks, what you like ain't necessarily what they like. They rule the current studio system, all over the world. And we aren't AMPAS voters. |
Edited by - randall on 01/17/2014 23:26:50 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/18/2014 : 00:20:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
Yeah, I think perhaps we should return to the days of intermissions for the 3h+ movies. Having said that I didn't mind LOTR3 (3h30m) at the cinema, mind you I'd plan drinking before going i.e. make sure I have nothing to drink in the two hours prior, and take a water bottle for an occasional small sip (no bucket of Coke etc).
Just as an additional thought on LOTR3- it's the only one of the 3 that was over 3 hours in the cinema. It's also the one famously joked about for having about 30 endings- and surely the one most in need of a good edit because of this? |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/18/2014 : 00:25:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
I traveled to the heartland for the Yuletide holiday, and when I allowed that GRAVITY was one of my favorite movies ever, I got shock-effect faces. "Too long!" they said. And that bad boy clocks in before even ANIMAL HOUSE does!
Cripes- I thought Gravity was absolutely spot on with its runtime. Not only did it not outstay its welcome, but the time it was there for seemed far longer than it actually was (but in a good way). |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/18/2014 : 00:37:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
Yeah, I think perhaps we should return to the days of intermissions for the 3h+ movies. Having said that I didn't mind LOTR3 (3h30m) at the cinema, mind you I'd plan drinking before going i.e. make sure I have nothing to drink in the two hours prior, and take a water bottle for an occasional small sip (no bucket of Coke etc).
Just as an additional thought on LOTR3- it's the only one of the 3 that was over 3 hours in the cinema. It's also the one famously joked about for having about 30 endings- and surely the one most in need of a good edit because of this?
Except that the book is like that. <LOTR SPOILERS> The ring goes into the fire about 100 pages from the end (that should be 1 - 1.5 hours from the end of the movie if nothing was cut). The Scourge of the Shire (a major 'scene' that occurs after Sauron is dead) was skipped altogether (to the detriment of the movie, methinks) to keep it to a 'sensible' length. Quite a bit of time elapses between the ring being destroyed and the End, I think Tolkien's point was to show that even though Evil has been destroyed, some of the damage is lingering and can't be easily fixed. Specifically, the Hobbits return to the shire, Saruman is there, the Hobbits think "Oh FFS, not this guy again", there's a battle (mopping up the dregs, you get this in wartime) and eventually Frodo has to leave Middle Earth as he's been damaged by the ring. I could come up with a good case for LOTR3 being five hours (add the Scourge of the Shire in its entirety), and perhaps being split into two movies. If they remake it  I bet that's what they do (given what they did to the final books in Harry Potter and Twilight... and The Hobbit). |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/18/2014 : 01:01:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Just as an additional thought on LOTR3- it's the only one of the 3 that was over 3 hours in the cinema. It's also the one famously joked about for having about 30 endings- and surely the one most in need of a good edit because of this?
Except that the book is like that.
But does that mean the film has to follow it exactly? Not everything that works in a book works in a film... and vice-versa. And this is assuming JRR Tolkien's book was perfect in every way. Any good film maker should seriously consider and rework the source material to best suit the new medium, rather than be so besotted with it they feel they have to keep everything in.
Sure, I admire the dedication to detail but there comes a point when you've gotta say why not just go read the book? I'm actually tempted to say the Harry Potter books were a better adaption than LOTR simply because the screenwriter was brave enough to drop the elements that killed the pace when the story became projected.
In addition to what works best in what medium, shouldn't the film maker consider the fact you can put down a book any time you want, but you can't walk out a cinema and ask the projectionist to hold the screening for a bit? |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/18/2014 : 03:38:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Just as an additional thought on LOTR3- it's the only one of the 3 that was over 3 hours in the cinema. It's also the one famously joked about for having about 30 endings- and surely the one most in need of a good edit because of this?
Except that the book is like that.
But does that mean the film has to follow it exactly?
I think the issue here is that LOTR isn't a 'normal' book. Second-best-selling book of all time, with a legion of die-hard fans. Jackson made it for fellow ringnuts who wouldn't tolerate much messing around with it. I think the philosophy was that given the book was so damn good, the less it was changed the better. The reception it got tends to suggest that Jackson et al got it right. My only complaint is that overall it was too short, the Extended Cut should have everything, including the Scourge of the Shire. And then if people want to watch LOTR3 Super Extended 5 Hour Version over two days they can.quote:
Not everything that works in a book works in a film... and vice-versa. And this is assuming JRR Tolkien's book was perfect in every way.
Best book I've ever read. It's perfect. quote:
Any good film maker should seriously consider and rework the source material to best suit the new medium, rather than be so besotted with it they feel they have to keep everything in.
Generally I agree, but LOTR is a special case.quote:
Sure, I admire the dedication to detail but there comes a point when you've gotta say why not just go read the book? I'm actually tempted to say the Harry Potter books were a better adaption than LOTR simply because the screenwriter was brave enough to drop the elements that killed the pace when the story became projected.
It seems here that you're saying that the Harry Potter movies were better than the books (I don't know as I haven't read them), not that Harry Potter (the movies) were better than LOTR (the movies).quote:
In addition to what works best in what medium, shouldn't the film maker consider the fact you can put down a book any time you want, but you can't walk out a cinema and ask the projectionist to hold the screening for a bit?
That's the Intermission issue again (which I'm partial to for very long movies). I guess in an ideal world (where cost wasn't a factor) great works of fiction would be filmed completely, and if necessary cut to a suitable length for the cinema, then the die-hards can watch the full version (Directors Cut or whatever they want to call it) later. I always go for longer versions of movies, i.e., more complete (LOTR, Apocalypse Now etc) if I have the chance, and invariably never watch the short version again. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/18/2014 : 09:10:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Sure, I admire the dedication to detail but there comes a point when you've gotta say why not just go read the book? I'm actually tempted to say the Harry Potter books were a better adaption than LOTR simply because the screenwriter was brave enough to drop the elements that killed the pace when the story became projected.
It seems here that you're saying that the Harry Potter movies were better than the books (I don't know as I haven't read them), not that Harry Potter (the movies) were better than LOTR (the movies).
Not quite- I'm just trying to say that some stuff worked fine in the books and didn't bog the pace down (because they were in a dip-in/dip-out medium) whereas had it been carried over the film would have dragged. I'm not qualified to say one is better than the other though since I haven't read the books either- I just know from several sources whole subplots and the like didn't make it into the films... which I think is to be applauded.
Audiences don't know what they want, and die-hard fans especially so being so blinded by the sanctity of the source (so bringing onboard uber-fan Peter Jackson as director strikes me as a bad idea in terms of making a good adaption to film). Sadly, nothing is perfect and even less (yes- even less than nothing!) is perfect in every medium.
I would say I enjoyed the HP films a darned sight more than LOTR. But then, as you say, LOTR is for the fans- to hell with any casual cinema goer who just wants an enjoyable romp. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 01/18/2014 : 15:23:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Sure, I admire the dedication to detail but there comes a point when you've gotta say why not just go read the book? I'm actually tempted to say the Harry Potter books were a better adaption than LOTR simply because the screenwriter was brave enough to drop the elements that killed the pace when the story became projected.
It seems here that you're saying that the Harry Potter movies were better than the books (I don't know as I haven't read them), not that Harry Potter (the movies) were better than LOTR (the movies).
Not quite- I'm just trying to say that some stuff worked fine in the books and didn't bog the pace down (because they were in a dip-in/dip-out medium) whereas had it been carried over the film would have dragged. I'm not qualified to say one is better than the other though since I haven't read the books either- I just know from several sources whole subplots and the like didn't make it into the films... which I think is to be applauded.
Audiences don't know what they want, and die-hard fans especially so being so blinded by the sanctity of the source (so bringing onboard uber-fan Peter Jackson as director strikes me as a bad idea in terms of making a good adaption to film). Sadly, nothing is perfect and even less (yes- even less than nothing!) is perfect in every medium.
I would say I enjoyed the HP films a darned sight more than LOTR. But then, as you say, LOTR is for the fans- to hell with any casual cinema goer who just wants an enjoyable romp.
To me, no filmmaker could possibly top the extended editions of the three films. Not the length-based arbitrary cuts exhibited in cinemas, mind: I'm talking about the entire nine-hour-plus journey.
Book fans will wail about the shuffling of events to and fro [true Tolkies even decry the omission of Tom Bombadil, to whom I say, don't let the screenplay hit your hairy ass as you walk out the door!], but, absent that, and a re-placed Shelob, this is the best representation of that epic you can ever hope to see. If you actually pine for certain unfilmed elements, go back and read the books again: they're still there on your shelf, where they always were. |
Edited by - randall on 01/18/2014 15:25:04 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 01/18/2014 : 15:47:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
To me, no filmmaker could possibly top the extended editions of the three films. Not the length-based arbitrary cuts exhibited in cinemas, mind: I'm talking about the entire nine-hour-plus journey.
This brings to mind a question that popped in my head as the credits came up on Hobbit 2 recently. I turned to Lisa and asked her if she thought anyone would ever do a better version of these films than Peter Jackson has.
Almost immediately I realised it was a short-sighted question. The answer is yes, of course someone will. The same way we find it almost impossible to imagine in what way something could be better than the latest and greatest thing (think: mobile phones pre-2007).
One day, quite likely in our lifetime (given Hollywood's seemingly quicker turnarounds of remakes), someone WILL remake the LOTR films all over again, technically even more impressive and (just to further justify the remake) more complete with all the bits everyone complained were missed out in these.
Technology moves on ever faster and it seems we all agree that you can make DVD/Bluray/Whatnot versions of films as long as you want. It's undeniable: as long as the medium of film continues, one day the Jackson LOTR adaptions will look to us like the Ralph Bakshi film does now  |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/18/2014 : 23:48:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Sure, I admire the dedication to detail but there comes a point when you've gotta say why not just go read the book? I'm actually tempted to say the Harry Potter books were a better adaption than LOTR simply because the screenwriter was brave enough to drop the elements that killed the pace when the story became projected.
It seems here that you're saying that the Harry Potter movies were better than the books (I don't know as I haven't read them), not that Harry Potter (the movies) were better than LOTR (the movies).
Not quite- I'm just trying to say that some stuff worked fine in the books and didn't bog the pace down (because they were in a dip-in/dip-out medium) whereas had it been carried over the film would have dragged. I'm not qualified to say one is better than the other though since I haven't read the books either- I just know from several sources whole subplots and the like didn't make it into the films... which I think is to be applauded.
The Tom Bombadil sub-plot from LOTR was skipped entirely (it didn't relate to the main story at all), but that was all there was to skip without wrecking the story. The Scourge of the Shire omission arguably did affect the story, and not in a good way. Skipping anything else would be like telling the story of WW2 while forgetting to mention the invasion of North Africa.
But, from the sound of it, there was plenty that happened at Hogwarts in the books that was not relevant to the major story: the growing up of the young wizards and the ultimate confrontation with Voldemort.quote:
Audiences don't know what they want, and die-hard fans especially so being so blinded by the sanctity of the source (so bringing onboard uber-fan Peter Jackson as director strikes me as a bad idea in terms of making a good adaption to film).
The masses have spoken, and the LOTR movies score a minimum of 8.7 at IMDb, the Harry Potter movies are more like mid-7's. It seems clear that Jackson didn't make LOTR for you though. 
quote:
I would say I enjoyed the HP films a darned sight more than LOTR. But then, as you say, LOTR is for the fans- to hell with any casual cinema goer who just wants an enjoyable romp.
I'm pretty sure that many millions loved the movies who'd never read the books (see above comment about IMDb scores). I had never read LOTR before I saw LOTR1, and then I became a fan. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/18/2014 : 23:57:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
To me, no filmmaker could possibly top the extended editions of the three films. Not the length-based arbitrary cuts exhibited in cinemas, mind: I'm talking about the entire nine-hour-plus journey.
That's the cinematic length, the extended cuts were over 11 hours. I'd like to see another half hour (for the Scourge of the Shire), but that didn't stop me giving the trilogy 10/10.quote:
Book fans will wail about the shuffling of events to and fro [true Tolkies even decry the omission of Tom Bombadil, to whom I say, don't let the screenplay hit your hairy ass as you walk out the door!], but, absent that, and a re-placed Shelob, this is the best representation of that epic you can ever hope to see.
I agree. Sure, with better technology you could make it look even better, but could it be as good? I doubt it. To be better you'd need to find someone to play Gollum better than Andy Serkis did, and someone better than Ian McKellen to play Gandalf. Good luck... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
2014 Academy Awards
