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!! To expensive!! Cut the length and therefore the cost. That way, the cinemas should get to show the film for less, they can then charge less for admission and more people can enjoy the film.
Posted by: jennilowcock on Thu Jul 02 06:24PM | Report abuseCertain movies lend themselves to the 'epic' length better than others but now it seems like all are trying. Simply put, if you don't have the plot depth, the awe inspiring scenes which set the scene for the epic nature of the characters journey or if you fail to draw things to a necessary conclusions just to prove they are up their with 'the great'; directors then they need to wind things up a bit earlier. Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings both work because there is so much in the books they are based on that shortening the films removes needed information or scenes that would be missed if they weren't there. But films which use the extra length just to give audiences a feel of value for money or indeed just to showcase teh latest in special effects without any plot driven need are just making a farce of the whole epic title in movies now!
Posted by: djbungo on Thu Jul 02 06:24PM | Report abuseI really think you need to give me your job. You are terrible. You got money for typing these words. Hey yahoo movies, I'll do this guy's job better for only 15% of his paycheck!
Posted by: sean.casey7 on Thu Jul 02 06:25PM | Report abuseIs this the best you can do to come up with a 'news' article?
Posted by: mfen1000 on Thu Jul 02 06:25PM | Report abuseim not realy boverd i think the longer the better
Posted by: samuel.1996 on Thu Jul 02 06:27PM | Report abuseIt's ok to have some movies that long if they have enough story to keep people gripped and interested, but you have to remember people don't always have that long to spend watching a film. I loved titanic I would have watched it over and over, but i find that i don't have enough spare time to watch it so i tend to go for the shorter films. It is improtant to get the length of a film right however, some i felt needed to be longer because they rushed the endings, yet others were watered down and dragged out, which would have other wise been a great film.
Posted by: lionababe on Thu Jul 02 06:29PM | Report abusedon't drink too much soda before Laurence Of Arabia....super big gulp in the foyer ready for the desert sequence, super big pee in the battle scene..
Posted by: jonsadleir on Thu Jul 02 06:31PM | Report abuseTransformers can suck it. But Knocked Up felt like nothing because it was so damn awesome. So funny. I think it's quality, if a film is good, be it funny, dramatic, engaging, whatever, if it's a quality film the time skims by but something like Transformers that could be more appropriately named "Loud noises and some computer stuffs" well they could shot the key stuff into 40 minutes.
Posted by: sharna_worley on Thu Jul 02 06:31PM | Report abuseI only had to leave the cinema to go to the loo during one film, the first X Men movie, and that was because I drank a litre of fizzy pop right at the start, for the last Lord of the Rings film I dehydrated myself all day long and I was able to sit throughout it without popping to the loo once :)
Posted by: kayeredhead on Thu Jul 02 06:32PM | Report abuseto me long films like 'a time to kill', 'lord of the rings', 'pirates of the carrabian', 'star trek', 'transformers' and even 'james bond' i enjoy it so much cause of the stories, the comedy and the involvement of the characters that some of them ressembles of life tragic. im the sort of person enjoys the thrill of excitement, tense and suspense. thank you
Posted by: dbz_gwuk on Thu Jul 02 06:34PM | Report abuse