MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Are 3 Hour Plus Movies The New Thing Now...

Are 3 Hour Plus Movies The New Thing Now When Making Movies In Modern Day??


It seems like between Nolan and "Oppenheimer" and it's run time of over 3 Hours and now Scorsese with his latest movie clocking in at 3 hours and 30 minutes, is this the new way of filmmaking now in modern day, that unless your movie is 3 Hours or over, it's no good?? It should also be of note Martin Scorsese's other movie "The IRISHMAN" was almost 4 fucking hours for heaven's sake!! "Wolf of Wall Street" was also 3 Hours..

reply

I hope not. I miss 90 minute movies. Some of my favourite movies clock in under 90, like phone booth. I like long movies also. But 3 hours plus and I wont see it in the cinema. Fuck that, give me pause button any day.

reply

I saw PHONE BOOTH on Blu Ray and I'm going to pick it up.. Damn good movie and quite unique in it's premise.. Gotta love Keifer Sutherland

reply

Another movie released around the same time with a similar premise is Liberty Stands Still 2002. Pretty good as well.

reply

I suspect streaming has had an impact on running times. The Irishman was a Netflix production. Killers of the Flower Moon is Apple. That's not coincidental.

Streaming companies don't put the same pressures on filmmakers to get the running times down, because it's beneficial to them for their subscribers to be engaged for longer. That's also why 'prestige' television has taken central spot culturally over films; it's useful for the streaming companies. They want your eyeballs for as long as possible.

Any length of film is fine if the film justifies its length. While I had some issues with The Irishman, its length wasn't really one of them. Thelma Schoonmaker knows how to edit a movie.

But generally with films -- of any length -- I do think some ill-discipline has crept into the editing process.

reply

Good point with the streaming.

I like a long movie if its one that has enough story , like a long journey .

I cant imagine how the latest John wick got to that length with what I presume is the flimsiest of plot , merely there to enable 3 hours of "First person shooter gameplay" looking movie.



reply

Yeah.

A film of any length can be too long. I've seen plenty of 75 minute films that were basically short film ideas stretched out far too far in the hope of wider distribution.

A film can be 'too long' for a number of reasons: too little stuff to sustain itself, too much stuff that doesn't need to be there (pointless subplots, that sort of thing), badly paced so that it becomes a drag or exhausting by the end. But it's never just about the number of minutes. There's no running time that is automatically 'too long'.

Can't comment on John Wick Chapter 4 as I haven't seen it. But 170 minutes does seem, um, lengthy for an action / thriller film. But if it works, it works.

reply

True , theres no real rules , i guess if its entertaining , its worth it , from a consumer pov.

I guess pre streaming , in the cinema , a 90 min film can pull in twice as many tickets as a 180 min film in an evening.

and as you say now with streaming a 180 min film means your customers are kept happier for longer - less inventory required.

Those Hobbit films might be an example of films-dragged-out to 3 hours , why do that , because the LoTR movies did ?
check the size of the source material!
I bet they wanted 3 movies (more sales), and 3 short movies would raise the question 'why not one big movie ? '
so they drag it out to 3x 3 hour movies .
Maybe it wasnt that , seems silly now i write it down : )


reply


For all my claims that there's no runtime that is automatically too long, I do love a good, solid 90 minute movie. I am mostly drawn to films around that length.

But you bring up another good point -- cinemas traditionally preferring shorter runtimes to squeeze in more showings and sell more tickets (which is simply not a concern with streaming).

Does that happen any more? On average, people go to the cinema far less than they used to. Ticket prices are higher. Will audiences even turn out for a tight 90 minute movie any more or would they feel short-changed by that? Because it's more of an 'event', do they expect more bang for their buck with a 2 hour 20m film even if it's a bit baggy?

Dunno. Just thinking out loud now.

reply

It's the new thing for making sure I never watch a new movie again. They keep saying if you can sit through entire seasons of a streaming show you can watch a long movie. But uh... I don't feckin watch tv that way either.

reply

They keep saying if you can sit through entire seasons of a streaming show you can watch a long movie.


Yes. I think this is the key point: for streaming companies, it's all just 'content'. Films and television are treated the same way -- whereas the art of cinema has traditionally been in the edit, while television has always had a tendency to expand.

reply

Here's the thing about watching 3+ hours of a tv shows though, you can pause it & got to the toilet, go eat or just take a break.

But uh... I don't feckin watch tv that way either.


Same. I find binging unhealthy & unejoyable. I just find myself tired afterwards, which I don't enjoy.

reply

If a story is complex/compelling enough that it takes three hours to tell, much like some great novels are over two hundred pages, I don't have a problem with it.

OTOH, as we see with most of these streaming series peddling tedious drivel, more often means less.

So, imo, it depends.

reply

Most novels are over 200 pages.

reply

Let me try this another way - is there a GOOD way to cram the Brothers Karamazov or The Grapes Of Wrath or The Count of Monte Christo into, what, an hour and a half ? Or should we 'subject' our audience to a film of length sufficient to flesh out the plot/characters in something like their native depth, assuming that this would be the expectation of our audience in the first place ?

Are you with me now ?

reply


Yes. It's not about the length in and of itself. It's about whether the film justifies its length. It's about the narrative and it's about the pacing of that narrative.

And here's a thing most normal people don't know, but good film editors do: a 2 hour 30 minute edit of a movie can sometimes feel longer subjectively than a 3 hour edit of the same movie, because cutting out scenes can throw out the rhythm of the entire piece -- that's often why you get three hour films when distributors might prefer them to be snipped.

reply

The Wolf of Wall Street was released almost 10 years ago and The Irishman came out on Netflix. I like three hour movies but they are not the norm.

reply

If a film is good, I don't care how long it is.

reply

What you need to realize is that it's these big shot directors flexing their muscles and doing as they please. Nolan, Scorsese and Scott (Napolean will have a 4+ hour cut available on Apple TV+). These movies have aspirations for awards and acclaim rather than pure box office revenue. Streaming services and indie companies are known for letting their directors off the leash so to speak. They let them run wild.

Zack Snyder's Justice League is a great example. HBOmax and WB just let him do whatever the fuck he wanted and when you do this with directors they often churn out very long movies. (In saying this I really like ZSJL).

You even have dweebs like Ari Aster getting carte blanche to do as they please. That goober has a near 3 hour cut of Midsommar and Beau is Afraid is 3 hours too. Thankfully Beau flopped hard. He's taking the piss with his long meandering horror-comedies.


The awarding bodies, critics and many 'cinephiles' have a great appreciation for long and slow movies. Some of them like to view it as self back patting challenge. They watch it, like it, then claim that anyone who finds it boring has ADHD and should go watch Transformers or Marvel or whatever the latest pretentious insult is. I swear that nearly any 3 hour long movie will have some clowns calling it a 'masterpiece'.

Movies of this length will never be the norm. Thankfully.

reply

I'm curious why you are so down on Ari Aster. Beau is Afraid was, indeed, absolutely dreadful. But that's just one dud. He's done some important work in the horror genre, at least, that I'm aware of.

reply

just biographical movies it seems

reply