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
Good place for all big and tall singles, please check: ___Tallconnect Co M___,More fun waiting for you...
Posted by: frankmm23 on Fri Jul 10 11:10AM | Report abuseI have always prefered a longer movie. I want quality and length. The same goes for books. If the book/movie is not 400 pages/2 hours long I don't buy. I won't buy either if they had made it 400 pages but printed with a larger print and smaller pages. I prefer value for money. Or fun for money.
Posted by: richmyre on Fri Jul 10 11:01PM | Report abuseWhen I were a lad, we had intermissions. Time for a choc-ice or a drink. Im amazed they still dont do this, you would of thought the movie houses would welcome another chance to rob you for buying anything there.
Posted by: james_riddle48 on Sat Jul 11 12:26AM | Report abuseLong feature films could have an interval as live theatres do. But that pre-supposes the story is so gripping that the audience will actually return after the interval. I have walked out of many films that became tiresome. Films that I can recall that had an interval were "Gone With the Wind", "Fantasia", "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World".
Posted by: don_phoenix_uk on Tue Jul 14 10:19PM | Report abuseA film of 2+ hours of running time is not necessarily too long, assuming that it can maintain the audiences running time for the duration. The problem with the Pirates and Tranformers sequels is that the scripts were weak and needlessly convoluted, dragging out the running time beyond what the actual story could sustain. I've no problem with a long film if the story and script are top notch and can keep me watching, but the above examples were so bad it was actually painful to stay to the bitter end.
Posted by: staffyman on Fri Jul 17 05:00PM | Report abuseLong for people with short attention spans, perhaps. I think the argument @10 that "If you can't tell a story in an hour and half (sic) then it ain't worth telling" is wrong. That's like saying, "If you can't write a novel in two hundred pages then it ain't worth writing." It's blatantly ridiculous. The problem with long movies at the moment is that they are rarely well-plotted (or well-edited) and they do come across as bloated. But there's no reason why a well-plotted 150-minute movie shouldn't be just as tight and lean as a 90-minute movie, story-wise. The length itself isn't the problem; the problem is the execution. (90 minutes is a bit too short, anyway, don't you think? If I'm paying eight quid for the privilege of sitting in a cinema, I want to be there for a couple of hours, at least!)
Posted by: kirsten_sea2000 on Sat Jul 18 12:18AM | Report abuse