Why are most films over 2 hours long these days?

[Ilovepearjuice]

Fair enough that there are some films that have so much content that it's really needed (LOTR for example). However, so many films I've seen recently seem to be tipping over the 2 hour mark when, in my opinion, they could easily be condensed into 1.5 hours! The latest James Bond is a good example - good start and ending but a tedious middle scene with too much car chasing.

Is it just me or is it more rare to find a film less than 2 hours these days?

I've never seen Dune. Thanks for the heads up!

@MrsTerryPratchett

There's a not very nice but eloquent expression, "editing is killing your babies'. Basically, you might love the very very long scene in the rain (Bladerunner) but everyone else wants you to get on with the story. That's what the director's cut used to be for.

"Murder your darlings" was the original incarnation of this, IIRC! And it's true...

I'm with you, OP. I heard a lot about Inception- two and a half bloody hours of shooting and chases. I thought it would never fucking end.

You are my people! I can just about cope up to 2 hours. 90 mins is preferable.

Anything over 2.5 hours can just get lost!!! If there’s that much content they’d be better off making a 3 or 4 part series

"Murder your darlings" was the original incarnation of this, IIRC! And it's true...

I love a good fact. Mmmmm and so succinct. Film directors take note.

This is why I very rarely go to cinema, I just can’t sit in there for over 2 hours, if you end up seeing the ads and trailers too you can be looking at 3 hours easily.

Lonely but passionate director with tragic backstory directs his magnum opus inspired on said tragic events of his life. Studio does not approve his most revered scenes and director goes slowly crazy after a long battle with the production team...

That's the plot to Synecdoche, New York! 😂

I am with you. The last three films I have watched with my boys have all been well over two hours (Marvel one, James Bond and Dune). It's so self indulgent, and as a PP said, an attempt to make cinema a Very Important Event. Heaven forbid you have time for anything else as well!

We went to see Ron's Gone Wrong at the weekend. Kids film, all the family went. After about an hour, I glanced at my watch as it was reaching what i thought was the climax - it really could have finished in the next 15 mins max.
But no.
It went on for another 3/4 hour. 45 more minutes of utter pointlessness.
What started off as an entertaining, quite amusing way of spending a Monday afternoon turned into WILL THIS NEVER END bored bored bored. 6yo DS was squirming in his seat.
If it's totally necessary for the plot, then yes, ok, go on then - but really there's no shame in making a film which is -gasp!- under even 90 mins, ESPECIALLY if it's a kids film!

@Alpacahunter

Lonely but passionate director with tragic backstory directs his magnum opus inspired on said tragic events of his life. Studio does not approve his most revered scenes and director goes slowly crazy after a long battle with the production team...

That's the plot to Synecdoche, New York! 😂

No way. Googling!

Honestly I don't mind if there's some pace. The kids are a bit older now and can put up with it. We got through Endgame ok.

But Dune - that was an almighty fail. DS2 (11) and DH left after just under an hour. DS2 (14) and I couldn't quite make it to the end. I think we got to just under 2 hours. I was bored stiff. I mean all the elements were there - gorgeous imagery - cracking acting etc etc. Just a snoozefest. And I'd forgotten about it the next day.

@DentalWorries

I love that Netflix now has a category for 90 minute films. If I put something on at 10pm, I don’t still want to be watching it past midnight!

It does?!

@Killerqueen2244

I remember when people were shocked at how long Titanic was and now it’s the norm! I completely agree that great movies can be wrapped up in 90 mins and as the pp said, Back to the Future is the perfect example of this!

My first copy of Titanic came with 2 video cassettes in the box

Definitely agree that Dune was far far far too long, I looked at my watch several times throughout the film thinking surely it can't go on for much longer. The second one will have to wait until it's on the telly so I can pause and have breaks in between. Bond wasn't as bad because there was more action but Dune was pretty dull.

@LeaveYourHatOn

We went to see Ron's Gone Wrong at the weekend. Kids film, all the family went. After about an hour, I glanced at my watch as it was reaching what i thought was the climax - it really could have finished in the next 15 mins max. But no. It went on for another 3/4 hour. 45 more minutes of utter pointlessness. What started off as an entertaining, quite amusing way of spending a Monday afternoon turned into WILL THIS NEVER END bored bored bored. 6yo DS was squirming in his seat. If it's totally necessary for the plot, then yes, ok, go on then - but really there's no shame in making a film which is -gasp!- under even 90 mins, ESPECIALLY if it's a kids film!

I'm really pleased you posted this. I was thinking about taking DS to see this at the weekend but definitely not if it's that long. Can wait until it comes out on Netflix or whatever and we can dip in and out as it'll probably on playing in the house on repeat for a week

The counter pressur is now weaker.

'Back in the day' there was always pressure to keep movies shorter than te director wanted so that they could fit in more cinema showings per day and so the greater the profit.

Cinema is on its knees and the pandemic means more films are being watched at home. So there is no longer a 'need' to keep them short. Even those that make it to the cinema don't have much other content to compete with so can be longer as there are less films for the screens.

Those watched at home may benefit the studios from being longer because people that rent a movie at home may feel they are getting more value for their money.

I absolutely agree! I can’t sit still for so long and tbh I don’t have so much free time. Something around 90 minutes should be enough, closer to 3 hours is just ridiculous. Neither DH nor I saw new Bond film exactly for this reason - length. And it’s difficult to find decent family film nowadays which is no longer then 90 minutes.

short answer - because they can

the film rolls were limited to 90min so that was the standard length of a film. if you wanted longer then you had to do a 2 roll film. like lotr, gone with the wind, schindler's list...

@Ilovepearjuice

Fair enough that there are some films that have so much content that it's really needed (LOTR for example). However, so many films I've seen recently seem to be tipping over the 2 hour mark when, in my opinion, they could easily be condensed into 1.5 hours! The latest James Bond is a good example - good start and ending but a tedious middle scene with too much car chasing.

Is it just me or is it more rare to find a film less than 2 hours these days?

To corner the biggest Asian markets in India and East Asia. In Asia where people may still go to the cinema once a week people do look for value for money & length of film is one of the measures used. It’s one of the reason why Bollywood films are so popular across South and East Asia.

I think what's needed for many films is an "Editor's Cut" as opposed to a "Director's Cut" - so make it even shorted, snappier, keep only the necessary interesting stuff !

I don't agree OP - it was inexcusable in Lord of the Rings as well. Bloody tedious.

Very, very few films warrant a running time of over two hours, yet most of them are these days. It usually is to shoe horn in a lengthy, irrelevant action sequence too, as a pp said. I always zone out of those sequences, unless the choreography is particularly inventive, because you always know how they're going to end. I'm just clock-watching through those bits until the character development comes back.

@TheLeadbetterLife

I don't agree OP - it was inexcusable in Lord of the Rings as well. Bloody tedious.

Very, very few films warrant a running time of over two hours, yet most of them are these days. It usually is to shoe horn in a lengthy, irrelevant action sequence too, as a pp said. I always zone out of those sequences, unless the choreography is particularly inventive, because you always know how they're going to end. I'm just clock-watching through those bits until the character development comes back.

Is this a bad time to tell you that at uni, we stayed up all night and watched all 3 extended edition LOTR films back to back?

I don't have the stamina for that now, in the same way I don't have the stamina for 5 minutes in a club!

Yes, we love the 80's/90's films on Netflix and the 90 mins ones. They have a story, action, humour and actually finish!

Newer films are mostly sooooooo long and overly violent, sexual, rubbish story lines and humourless. Plus, blokes all have big muscles and women long hair and everybody looks the same.

I like a good story that doesn't drag .

It's also about technology I think. It takes much less equipment to make and store films these days

I saw the last LOTR in extended edition, and nearly lost my mind when a) it was clear that Frodo could have just hopped on an eagle right at the start and dropped the ring into the volcano, and b) there was still another hour to go even though the ring was gone. An hour of people saying goodbye to each other. Man alive.

@theleadbetterlife You forgot to mention the 5 different endings, one after another!