Recent articles
Alfred Hitchcock left behind a legacy that almost passed as a blueprint for future Hollywood successes – never show the monster too early ('Jaws') - make sure to cameo in your own films (enter stage left Quentin Tarantino). Hitchcock even coined the phrase 'The Maguffin' – a term used to describe a meaningless item that is there purely to drive the plot along ('Indiana Jones' would be lost without it).
However, it seems one piece of sage advice was overlooked. "The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder," he once said.
Films like 'Titanic', 'Lord of the Rings' and 'Australia' are conceived as epics. Yes, you could probably shave an hour off the running time of each if you cut out the sweeping camera shots, but then you deny cinemagoers the reason why they chose to see them. They are expected to endure a bum numbing running time because it’s an occasion, a spectacle, an experience.
Can you really say the same for films based on a comic book, theme park ride or 80s childhood toys?
'Spider-Man 3', 'The Pirates of the Caribbean' trilogy and most recently 'Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen' are not the only guilty parties, but they are just an example of the new trend for Hollywood blockbusters – namely fun family films that are in fact bloated, self-indulgent and need as much of a trim as Russell Brand's hair-do.
These sorts of movies would have skirted close to the 90 minute mark a decade or so ago. Look at the first 'Star Wars' and 'Indiana Jones' movies – they are lean, fast paced and endlessly re-watchable. Now look at the new ones.
But it seems that we're entering an age where directors are kings again. The 80s and 90s was a time of studio power, so films were as close as possible to an hour and half to ensure that they make more profit. A 90 minute film costs the same as a 120 minute film but it gets shown fewer times in a day – meaning less money for everyone.
With the exception of Will Smith, not many of today's movie stars can 'open' a film like they used to. So, cinemagoers are latching onto a director's vision like an established brand. You know what you're getting with a Michael Bay, Steven Spielberg and Tarantino movie. But the more succesful they get, the more they believe they can put anything on the screen and audiences will buy into it.
The problem with directors getting to decide on the final cut of the movie is, who dares tell them they need to reign in their 'talents'? How did anyone attached to the new 'Transformers' film not genuinely ask 'Does this really need to be two and a half hours?' The supporting characters have their own supporting characters!
It’s not just summer action blockbusters, comedies are just as bad. Judd Apatow’s 'Knocked Up' and 'The 40 Year Old Virgin' ran close to two hours.
But with Transformers storming to the top of the box office it looks as if the bladder bursting blockbusters are here to stay. Best bring a cushion.
Are blockbusters too long, or do you think that movie prices are so expensive you want your money's worth?
-More on Y! Movies: Summer blockbusters in July | Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Robert Pattinson has become Britain's biggest star of late with 'Twilight' a huge hit, and 'New Moon' set to be even bigger.
Comment on this article
Please sign in to add your comments.
User comments
I dont mind if the film is two and a half hours just as long as it gives you a good reason to stay for the full length like lots of action or humour. but sadly transformers 2 got a bit boring with its length, mainly because nothing interesting happened for the middle 40 mins of the film! The action scenes were well done though
Posted by: dont_diss_the_a_man on Thu Jul 02 06:44PM | Report abuseFor the price you pay to go to the cinema,2.5 hours worth of film is good value for money. Maybe they should look into upgrading the seat's comfort and hopefully that won't increase cinema prices.
Posted by: williamsalexis74 on Thu Jul 02 06:44PM | Report abuseben hur, the ten commandment, the godfather trilogy, the deer hunter, gone with the wind, spartacus, LOTR = 1 book = 1 film, all brilliant (I agree - Transformers was way too long, and didn't have a decent enough plot to keep me interested for 2.5 hours - if I'd been near the exit I'd have left, it was so boring. Better when action films were 1.5 hours like they used to be.Posted by: michaelbmadrid ) what was wrong was your legs broken you you idiot?
Posted by: thomson26 on Thu Jul 02 06:46PM | Report abuseMaybe cutting out the 20-30 minutes of adverts and trailers before the film actually starts would help the bum numbing! Personally, 2 1/2 hour films aren't a problem, I'm there to enjoy a film I want to see!
Posted by: cybermoose1313 on Thu Jul 02 06:47PM | Report abuseToday's directors do NOT have final cut! Only Woody Allen and Spielberg, that's it. Everyone else's movies are ultimately at the mercy of the studio or, if it's a major indie film, Miramax.
Posted by: benetsimon on Thu Jul 02 06:47PM | Report abusefilms that last longer than 2.5 hrs are ok if the film is good id site all day and watch if its a good one, a bad film of 1.5 hrs can seem a life time so easy just make good films even if over 2 or 3 hrs
Posted by: ivorprentice on Thu Jul 02 06:48PM | Report abuseNo no no no no..................... movies are not to long! it all depends on how much you're enjoying a movie. For example is "The green mile" to long? or did it need to be nearly 3 hours long? yes it did in my opinion and as I enjoyed that particular movie so much, it never felt like a 3 hour movie and I shudder to think what it would have been like, if it was cut down to an hour and half. same for many other movies which play for longer than two and half hours. I think the question is, would you enjoy this movie? does it appeal? is this the genre you enjoy? If yes is for most or all of those questions then running time is irrelevant. what is relevant is you enjoy your self, and if you do that; time flies as they say. Just choose wisely.
Posted by: roland_2005uk on Thu Jul 02 06:48PM | Report abuse2.5 hours? Huh. Pity the people back in 1922 who watched Fritz Lang's Dr Mabuse: Der Spieler - 4.5 hours long... I don't mind long films, if the length is justifiable.
Posted by: sbsp_fan_1 on Thu Jul 02 06:50PM | Report abusebatman was too long i fell asleep half way through
Posted by: mw1900 on Thu Jul 02 06:52PM | Report abuseLong films are ok if they are interesting obviously. Making a tedious film is bad enough without making people sit there and endure it for longer. Especially if theres not much of a plot. Lately theres loads of so called comedies (which I actually think are pants) and not only are they pants but they go on forever. Maybe direcors think that we'll be so glad and relieved to get out we'll forget how @#$% the film was. Long tedious films can nearly get away with it if the effects are excellent and make it watchable. But really the only films that should be long are ones that have plenty to say, good effects and keep you on the edge of your set with excitement, not with exasperation.
Posted by: katiegooderham on Thu Jul 02 06:53PM | Report abuse