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
Some films are too long expecially chick flicks and period dramas. A good action or special effects film deserves at least 2 hours minimum. When films where 1.5 hours long, I have heard people say it could have been a bit longer. Can't please everyone all the time.
Posted by: davesjwilliams on Thu Jul 02 06:36PM | Report abusebut there is one film that is far too long and everyone well most people including me did enjoy it and it's called THE TEN COMMANDMENTS with Charlton Heston
Posted by: dbz_gwuk on Thu Jul 02 06:38PM | Report abuseI remember people complaining films were too short 1hr 30m was not enough now they are too long. People never satisfied.
Posted by: fireopal27 on Thu Jul 02 06:39PM | Report abuseBack in the fifties & sixties You got two films instead of one. If the film is good and holds your attension then its worth watching a three hour film.
Posted by: bigroy31 on Thu Jul 02 06:39PM | Report abuseI completely agree with this article, as much as I enjoyed "knocked up" (thought it was so enjoyable I bought it) I thought it was just too long and could easily have told the story in much less time. My belief is that comedies shouldn't last much longer than 80mins, most comedies I've seen that are longer than that have had a tendency to dip and lose the laugh factor.With regards to other genres there have been some classics that have been over 2hrs long "Scarface", "Aliens", "Heat" are examples that I can think of. But as a rule, unless the story demands it, keep the film to a max of 2hrs as we do have other things that we need to do with our lives unless the film is tremendous.
Posted by: iainb31 on Thu Jul 02 06:39PM | Report abuseOnce upon a time, not so long ago in fact there would be an interval. Enough time to stand up, pop to the conveniance and pwder ones nose. I for one miss it!
Posted by: humphriesgraham on Thu Jul 02 06:40PM | Report abuseBack when I were a lass in the dark days before multi-screen theatres, we had something called a starter show i.e. a small film. cartoons etc, then the main feature came aftwerwards. We also had something called an intermission, a break in the middle. Wonder if they'll bring that back, or is it too 'old fashoned' for our somewhat shallow and reduced attention spanned audiences now adays. Mind you, if the movie is rubbish, two and a half minutes could seem too long I guess.
Posted by: madamcod on Thu Jul 02 06:40PM | Report abuseI think that it depends on the content, production/direction and acting ability as to wether a film is too long or not, Once upon a time in america is an example of a very long film,but was able to hold ones attention because of a good storyline coupled with the qualities mentioned above.
Posted by: nanjana36 on Thu Jul 02 06:41PM | Report abuseI think it depends on the movie. If it is enjoyable to watch you are not going to care about how long the film is. If it does not engage you in any way then your attention will be elsewhere e.g. your numbing bum, your watch, what you are doing afterward etc.
Posted by: rd_grm on Thu Jul 02 06:44PM | Report abuseI 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 abuse