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
Too long by 'arf! Half the trouble with LOTR is the lingering that goes on. Then with that as their model of success many others started doing it. I've been yawning my way through quite a few films recently. X-Men III for example. But it isn't just the length: these days there is a lot of shoving of wide-angle lenses close in to people's faces which jolts the viewer in to conciousness of the camera operator, or at the very least to have subconcious idea that you are close enough to be smelling the guy's dripping sweat, piercing the boundary between viewer and story. This is great for studenty type notions but not for atmosphere and story telling. The effort of the actor to be convincing is wasted when the director makes his own presence felt. I won't be seeing Michael Mann's latest for this reason.
Posted by: rightwingfacist on Thu Jul 02 06:54PM | Report abuseThis is a byast article like a lot on yahoo. its as if theyre putting you off watching movies. plus if you find it boring THEN EXIT this is stupid long films are not bad
Posted by: exeedinglygoodpies on Thu Jul 02 06:54PM | Report abuseit depends if its a good film and keeps you entertained, if it is boring then 2.5 hrs would be to long but at the end of the day we know how long its on for before and we can always walk out the cinemas they dont lock the doors
Posted by: mark322lewis on Thu Jul 02 06:55PM | Report abuseThey should have special screenings of films with intervals to stretch your legs or go to the toilet. That's just 5 or 10 minutes to give a better viewing experience and stop dumb articles like this being written.
Posted by: micro_hendy on Thu Jul 02 06:57PM | Report abusei went to see the new transformers movie and i was not near the exit but i had to leave its not an epic so why it had to be that long i dont know. it was not even good and if it had been cut to hour and a half it may have been half decent but i probably would have still left
Posted by: candycane20xx on Thu Jul 02 06:57PM | Report abusetru dat . you lose interest in the movie and it becomes way too boring
Posted by: munemutsa on Thu Jul 02 06:58PM | Report abuseAt the price of cinema tickets today, I feel cheated when a film is too short ie : 90 mins. Usually when you really get into a good film you don't notice the time anyway
Posted by: jelifo on Thu Jul 02 06:58PM | Report abuseive never managed to watch the whole transformers film or king kong either fell asleep through both far to long and drawn out
Posted by: eileen_hollings on Thu Jul 02 07:00PM | Report abusewhen i rent a movie if it is less than 90-115 mins i dont want to know, i would like to get lost in a film for a few hours and to say 2hrs is too long is just being cheap, many a film has been over before its even started and i think if a story need 2-3 hrs to be told then thats what it needs, if you put out a film that is only 90mins it does feel cheap and there is no story worth thinking about.
Posted by: starbuck_omega2006 on Thu Jul 02 07:03PM | Report abuseits not the movies but the rubbish seats in the cinemas, after an hour and a half your bum goes numb and the figgeting starts, put lazy @#$% in so we can recline and slob during a film
Posted by: dunkyt2006 on Thu Jul 02 07:03PM | Report abuse