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, definitely miss the hour and a half movies
Posted by: caseyd414 on Thu Jul 02 06:19PM | Report abuseI actually fell asleep in Terminator Salvation
Posted by: deanrussell11 on Thu Jul 02 06:19PM | Report abuseWHAT??!?!?! Some of the best movies of all time have been long-but that hasnt stopped their sucsess. If you just bring back the intervals, everything would be just fine.... And how has everybody forgottten how Bollywood movies sometimes last 3 hours??! And yet, you dont see Indians complaining that the movies are too long. However, I totally agree that some movies could cut some slack.
Posted by: tanvidhir96 on Thu Jul 02 06:19PM | Report abuseI think it's a matter of taste. Some people are easily bored, some want to stay in the theatre all night. I don't find films being over two hours to be a bad thing. I love the Lord of the Rings films and was a little gutted at some of the stuff from the books that was left out. I'm generally in no hurry to leave the cinema unless the film isn't any good.
Posted by: pr_davies on Thu Jul 02 06:20PM | Report abuselook, at the end of the day, if the film is WORTH watching- it doesn't matter how long it is. If the film industry cared about producing quality film and minimal extra pap, everyone would be happier, regardless of length. [And we'd be better for it.] - k charles gregory
Posted by: kcharlesgregory on Thu Jul 02 06:21PM | Report abusein general films are too long nowadays
Posted by: nachocondegarzon on Thu Jul 02 06:21PM | Report abuseI don't think you can make a sweeping statement about 'blockbusters being too long' or whatever. A good film is as long as it needs to be and if it has a story that needs 3 hours to tell it and tell it well, then you never notice the time passing.
Posted by: heeltweenerface on Thu Jul 02 06:22PM | Report abuseReally? So you forgot about films like Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia and Spartacus? So how are Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings and Iglorious Basterds any different? They all have storylines that are relentess and deserve the long running time to keep the plot flowing! You're right about Transformers though. I didn't really want to see the mum get stoned...
Posted by: macca_c86 on Thu Jul 02 06:23PM | Report abuseYes way too long. Especially at my age-but even teens who are like camels are feeling the strain after a litre of soda my 13 year old was miserable after Transformers as he was to shy to get up and 'go'...
Posted by: uspattys on Thu Jul 02 06:23PM | Report abuseI read the review of Transformers on scottbeadle.blogspot.com like 3 weeks ago, and he actually confessed to reviewing the pirate and in his defense he said "why should i go to a cinema where i can't take my own food, pee when i want and line the pockets of criminal movie bosses by buying a hotdog for 4 pound and rubbish tiny coke for 3 pound" he's got a point, although he slated transformers he did so for the right reasons... the action never stood still long enough for us to see what was going on... add up all the action and youve got 45 mins of footage. that leaves 1 hour 45 mins of transformers mythology we were allready told in the first one. if Bay wants to impress me he should remake the 80's movie... that would be somethin cool
Posted by: scoble2002 on Thu Jul 02 06:24PM | Report abuse