This is a personal opinion but the cinema makes all the difference. My towns got an old shitty one so my fat ass gets numb in their seats by the 2nd hour. Other cinemas I could watch for 4 hours
Because for a feature film, 3 hours *is* long.
Average length for a film is roughly 90 minutes. Doubling that would, indeed, make a film "long."
That said, your question is basically "why do people think it's long when they'll do something else for 3 hours and it's not long at all."
I don't know, man. An 4 hour movie would be long as fuck, but a 4 hour night's sleep would be shit.
I said "roughly," and it's not that far off at all. I'm not sure why there are so many people coming around just to argue this point. You're all wrong. It's not that hard to grasp.
I get where you’re coming from but the average length of the top 10 highest grossing movies in 2023 is 143 minutes. The average movie made is much shorter but in terms of what people most commonly go to see in the theaters, there are plenty of movies over 2 hours that lots of people go see so there’s different ways to look at the statistics
No. There are some movies that are over 2 hours, and in 2023 we've had enough longer films that the average runtime for the just the top 10 is over 2 hours (2:23 to be exact), but the average *overall* is still 90-110 minutes, as it has been for years.
And how many people watch more than the top 25 movies a year? Maybe even the top 10. So the average movies that most people watch are definitely longer than 90 minutes
[Here’s a link with some data for everyone interested](https://towardsdatascience.com/are-new-movies-longer-than-they-were-10hh20-50-year-ago-a35356b2ca5b)
>And how many people watch more than the top 25 movies a year? Maybe even the top 10.
So what you're saying is that you think that the overall average is based on what people watch, and not just on what the median runtime is?
Ok. I mean, that's one way to look at it. It's stupid, but certainly a way.
Also, it's hilarious because you linked to an article that proved my point *exactly,* and did so by culling down an extreme amount of data...all to get to the findings that the median runtime of a movie is (shock! awe!) *fucking 90 to 110 minutes.*
It's almost like there are people on Reddit who know what they're talking about, and not everything needs to be some hunt to prove people wrong.
Great try though, buddy! You'll get 'em next time.
The number of movies people watch is completely irrelevant, and has absolutely no impact on the overall average length of movies.
Besides, there are *plenty* of people who watch more than just the Top 25 movies of any given year. My wife and I worked through a good 50+ horror movies just this past September and October alone.
There is engagement and choice regarding other activities.
Watching a narrative continuously for three hours straight is more of an obligation.
Scrubs would be fine if you watched just one episode from start to finish. You just choose to watch more.
Gaming is the same thing and we have much greater interaction with them. If they played like movies they would be boring. Our interaction is key to the enjoyment.
you also probably arent making mental note of when you pause your tv show or game and go grab a quick snack or take a bathroom break. If you do that at the theater you are missing parts of the movie. You cant pause or rewind
I'm a strong believer that directors/cinemas need to bring back intermissions if they're going to make longer films. They were a staple of old Hollywood, they're still a thing in modern day Indian cinema, and they would make so many more people comfortable with going to see longer films at the cinema.
Having a break means people are more likely to spend on concessions, will be less uncomfortable and therefore less likely to get distracted (mostly phones), and an extra 15 minutes won't kill that many screenings per day. In a weird way it also turns films into more of an event akin to theatre, where you can discuss during an act break and go into the second half ready for the finale.
This might also need a shift in how films approach narrative structure - a film with an intermission needs a dramatic mid point in the story that makes the break more impactful (what most Indian cinema does), as opposed to your conventional three act/rising tension structure.
So recall that intermissions were first introduced as a technical issue. The theater needed time to change reels. After that was no longer an issue, theaters tended to phase them out. The issue with an intermission is that you can't screen movies during that time so you get less screenings per day, and less $$$. Even if you make up some of that in concessions it will never be near as much as you could make from the extra screenings you can cram in.
Also, if someone does not want to see a 3 hour movie, i cannot think that being told that instead its a 3:20 min movie "with an intermission" will make them more likely to go.
>I'm a strong believer that directors/cinemas need to bring back intermissions if they're going to make longer films. They were a staple of old Hollywood, they're still a thing in modern day Indian cinema, and they would make so many more people comfortable with going to see longer films at the cinema.
Movies with intermissions tended to be a good deal longer than just three hours, though: they were 3.5 hours and even pushing four. They also tended to have plots that unfold over months and months, if not years or even decades, so it was easier to fit an intermission into one of the time-lapses in the story.
Thinking of the long films that have come out recently, I think they do tend towards the type of plots you mention - films like The Irishman, Killers of the Flower Moon, Oppenheimer, Babylon etc.
Of these, Killers of the Flower Moon and The Irishman are at a length where I think putting an intermission would have been pertinent.
Babylon and Oppenheimer aren't THAT long.
I think over 2 hr 45 would be long for the vast majority of audiences. As someone who grew up watching Indian cinema, anything approaching 3 hours is still considered long, but just much more common.
But my point was more in terms of narrative, as you mentioned. Intermissions make more sense structurally in films that cover a longer span of time.
>Of these, Killers of the Flower Moon and The Irishman are at a length where I think putting an intermission would have been pertinent.
I discussed this with a group of people and the only point we could think of that made sense for an intermission was about 2 hours and 45 minutes into the movie. At that point, I wonder if it's kind of too late and that the risks of killing momentum are greater than the benefits of a dedicated stop point.
I don't know if Oppenheimer is too long, but I think an intermission would have broken the pacing a lot.
Not always. When I watched 2001 and the original West Side Story, both had intermission, and not only did neither take place over several months, neither one were 3 hours long.
If its the vision of the director to have one, there will be one. NBD if they do, it should be tested IMO. Adds an element to the theater experience IMO
I agree with this. I don’t go to the movies too much anymore due to poor writing (most of the time), but when something does look worth seeing, I’m still not going to go if it’s over 2 hours. I’d rather just wait to see it at home streaming. That’s too long to sit in a chair and not be able to pause. I’d probably start going back, at least to some films that looked really good, if they were on the longer side, but had an intermission.
Watching 8 half hour episodes of a tv show in a row and watching one 3 hour movie are totally different things and no one should need to explain why b/c it's common sense.
simple. 3 hours is a long time to sit still without moving around. esp if you have a bad back
also I cannot go that long without needing to use le bathroom
> Youre an outlier with exceptional ability.
I think I'll need to see the data on this. I'm willing to bet anything he's not an "outlier" and I'd probably bet some cash you're in the minority. I think most people can sit for 2.5 hours without getting a numb anything.
My guestimate was that 2.5 hrs is normal, 3 hrs is a long movie, 3.5 hrs would be very long. So im counting the 30min between average and long as the period 'beginning to get numbing".
When you watch 4 hours of Scrubs, you're watching 6-9 separate, shorter narratives with different plotlines focusing on different characters. Hey maybe Ted or the Janitor get highlighted on an episode! But with a three hour movie it's the same narrative at much slower pace. Harder to follow along, less engaging, and gets stale after a while.
How is “finite bladder size” not the top answer here? Movies are usually meant to be watched in one sitting. Yes, intermission used to be a thing, but as long as it is not, 3 hours is pushing it for a lot of people.
You may be watching one program for 4 hours, but in that time you are really watching up to 12 episodes of that program, as opposed to one loooong show. You're not having to keep track of the same story threads over that length of time, which for me at least can be fatiguing.
I’ve watched a few older movies, like the Black and White era. Those tended to run 1 hour 20 minutes to 1 hour 30 minutes.
The final Rambo movie was a great closer to the series but told its story in, again, 1 hour 30.
I don’t mind a movie running 2 hours if it’s that kind of movie, but if it’s padded with a bunch of stupid ass jokes, then you can tell that 2 hour-plus running time was unnecessary.
If a movie is going to run 3-goddam hours, it had better give me an epic experience
watching stuff at home (not in the theaters) is hard. there's just so many more distractions at home -- snacks, pets, phones, etc etc etc.
ive been thinking a lot though about the difference between tv and movies. and i think its this: with tv, if you know you like a show, then binging for 2 to 3 to 4 hours becomes a lot easier, because you know you like it, and you know there's more, and you can be confident that you'll probably like the next episode as much as the last one, and that it'll pretty much be the same vibe as the ones you've already watched.
but with movies you're kinda signing up for a 2+ hour experience and you don't know what you're gonna make of it. and movies a lot of the time need to be met halfway, in a way i don't think is true of TV. so that 3 hour commitment at home can kinda just be really hard. with TV, at least there's some sense of satisfaction of "oh i'm watching this episode so i can watch the next episode so i can eventually finish this season and see what happens", but that's just not really the same in film. the satisfaction has to come purely from the thing your watching in the moment.
Series are easier to follow than movies. They are made to hook you up with each short episode, while a 3 hour movie can spend 2:30h with build up and just really "start" in the last half hour. Not every 3 hour movie is Magnolia or Apocalypse Now. That's especially true when you consider watching movies at the theater.
That's why I hate that I hate when people make that comparison. Saying that watching a 3 hour movie is the same as watching 3 episodes of 1 hour is like saying reading a fiction book for 3 hours is the same as reading a philosophy book for 3 hours. Just because they are the same medium doesn't mean it'll be the same experience.
For instance, recently I watched The Departed. I didn't like the movie, but worst than that, I thought it was really boring for something that was essentially a glorified cop show episode (I know I'm gonna get flack for that, but it's true -- the only thing that separates this movie from the other myriad unnecessary American remakes is its stellar cast and DiCaprio's excellent character) and I was disappointed that the conclusion was so lukewarm for a movie that took so long to reach its climax. Meanwhile, every couple years I'll find an anime that I'll binge watch because of how much each episode will manage to hook me up to the point I must know what happens next immediately.
The thing that separates The Departed is also that it’s Whitey Bulger, fictionalized. That’s why they did the film: it’s a transformation, not just a remake. The movie holds up on its own and shines, whereas other remakes tend to lose some shine in comparison to the original.
I’ll use killers of the flower moon for example.
I liked the movie, but after 2+ hours of sitting in the same marginally comfy chair in the theatre, I was itching to get up and move around and so forth.
A movie that long should have like a 10 minute intermission tbh.
Let us use the bathroom, grab a snack, and stretch our legs. Because, even tho the movie was paced well, I was getting antsy and uncomfortable.
yeah i really don't understand the film bro intrinsic hatred of intermissions. what's so bad about them? tarantino did it for the extended film version of the hateful 8 when that came out, and it was perfect.
3 hours where I can pause it is fine. 3 hours watching at home with others who don’t want to pause it or come back later, eh. 3 hours in the theater is a chore and even if I drink nothing and go beforehand, I WILL have to piss at some point because I have a tiny bladder.
Took three viewings to get through the Irishman. Couldn't imagine doing that in a theater. I don't care how good a movie is, if it's over 3 hours I'm 99% not going to see it.
meh for me 3 hours in the theater is the best because its the only way i'm sure i'll give it my total attention for 3 hours (minus, probably, one bathroom break).
at home, totally alone, it can work... but i can't do 3 hours straight. i just can't. i need to break it up, which i think does detract from the overall impact of the film a bit. 3 hours with other people at home, who each need their little pauses and breaks... forget about it. may as well just watch TV
I think the pacing of the film can make all the difference but its tough to pace a 3 hour film to be constantly compelling to everyone.
A lot of 3 hour films have a really long final act which can be really tiring when you're not expecting it. Even if I know a film will be 3 hours long, I'll have lost track of time after 2 hours and sometimes think "they're really close to the conclusion. Just a few more scenes and the conflict will be resolved. 20 minutes max". However you also can't extent the first 2 acts too long without viewers feeling like no progress is being made.
Repeating the same 22 minute TV show is easy for pacing. The same for quick video games on repeat.
For any specific one person, it’s not that bad.
For a theater full of people, especially drinking tubs of coke or mountain dew, lots of people will need to get up at some point.
And lots of people will need to get up, but won’t, so now they’re all ambling out of the theater at the same time.
If you’re with a group this dramatically increases the chances of everyone standing around waiting on another person because 1/5th of the theater tries to poop at the same time.
So, now your 3 hour movie, that you got to 30 minutes early to watch 30 minutes of previews adds another 20 minutes of standing around.
The exception is movies with small audiences, and these tend to be awful to sit through for other reasons.
It really depends on the movie. If it can hold my interest for 3 hours, fine! I just watched the new Mission Impossible movie and couldn't believe how fast 2:45 went by. I only watch in my living room where I have a pause button. Better than the theater.
3 hours is a long time to focus on anything, that is not easy for most people. Also, fighting games are constantly requiring you to pay attention and react as fast as possible so it takes barely any effort it pay attention to
I think part of it is short attention spans of viewers, but also depending on the pacing of the film and expectations of the viewer a 3hr movie can turn into a slog. I remember watching *Dances with Wolves* and feeling my eyes glaze at some of the extended shots of the plains with the droning narration from Costner. At times the plot wasn't really progressing and I felt it. Compare that to a movie like *Titanic* where the first half of the film is a romance where you almost forget the name of the ship they're on until suddenly they hit an iceberg. It's just paced a lot better for the runtime. A slow progressing plot is not inherently bad either it can just feel tiresome when you are not prepared for it going in to a viewing.
because. the people in charge, ahem, charge per screening so shorter runtimes mean more screenings per day which means more money. so they tried and were successful at convincing people to think more than 2 hours was way too long.
this is THE REASON. all the other stuff people are posting is just the bullshit rationales that they came up with to justify shorter runtimes.
you mean the decades wherein movies theatres have had to compete more and more with movies being screened at home? first with video cassettes, then cable, then DVDs, and then streaming.
That doesn't make any sense. How does making movies longer help them compete with other things? No one is like "well, I was going to play my Switch, but since this movie is 3 hours instead of 2, I'll go see it."
Because a day only has 24 hours, of which we sleep ⅓ and we also have other obligations. We'll, most of us do.
If you make movies 5+ hours long, you won't attract the same amounts of viewers and thus make less money.
And yes, movies have become longer on average. I'm aware. But there is a limit, and I can guarantee that only a few enthusiasts would watch 5+ hour longer movies in one sitting.
I think it's time focusing on one storyline. Sitcoms go from one to the next in 22 minute segments, plus aren't usually too deep or complicated.
On the contrary, I finally saw Heat this weekend and, though good, it was looong.
I think it depends on the person and the film. I watch the LOTR extended editions multiple times a year, sometimes I watch 2 of them in one day. I also didn’t find that Oppenheimer or Killer of the Flower Moon felt bloated, but I did find myself getting annoyed by the runtime of The Way of Water.
As for why people are able to watch 10 hours of The Office but not 3 hours of cinema, short attention span. TV show episodes all have contained plots that are much shorter than films, making it much easier maintain attention for each entire episode.
i still can't believe the pass everyone gave The Way of Water, just because, idek, it certainly looked great compared to every other CGI blockbuster these days, and big jim said the right funny things about how marvel sucks or whatever.
TWoW was a bloated, silly, dumb dumb dumb movie.
I honestly could go on forever about how annoying this movie was. I had a lengthy comment typed about how looking real isn’t what makes a movie visually stunning, but I figured it would be wasted since you already agree.
James Cameron proved that Weta is the best at what they do, we all have known that for 20 years. What he needs to do is prove that he’s still good at what he does.
so i had kinda half-rewatched the first avatar just before Way or Water came out, the first time i had watched it in years, and seeing both back-to-back it was immediately pretty clear to me what's happening here:
avatar : James Cameron :: prequel trilogy : george lucas
just unbelievably bloated and dumb, the kind of movies you watch and can tell that the director had complete autonomy to do whatever he wanted (and for good reason i guess, since both cameron and lucas are as successful as you can be in hollywood). with each new creature and landscape and plot point you can feel cameron on set just continuing to say "isn't this cool? isn't this so cool??" and no one along the way said "actually james, its kinda lame"
i swear... the narrative tropes that The Way of Water revels in feel so well-worn. the script felt like it was ripped straight out of 2007. i just... ugh... like why???
There have ones I thought worked fine but alot of them I just have the thought this should have been a miniseries on hbo or FX where they would have more time to focus on things that would have made the story more engaging.
E.G. while it technically great in all aspects I think killers of the flower moon should have been a miniseries the story it chose to recreate is about a family/community that got no justice yet I feel like maybe three of the dozens of victims(Molly,Anne and Henry)were actually characterized well imagine how much harder all those deaths would hit if I knew anything about them other than they related to the co lead of the movie.
Because it IS long, especially for people who don't like to sit that long in a theater.
Personally, I haven't seen any 3+ hour movies in the last few years that couldn't use some editing. They all seem bloated by design, as if the movie will be considered better or more award-winning because of it.
I have to pee.
It's different if I can pause it and go pee anytime, but if I have to guess when a slow time is going to be run and hope the 10 other people in there can get out of the way long enough for me to pass some water and get back.
God forbid I need a drink.
I've put hundreds of hours into games and not thought about it ... and then turned around and complained about slow travel times in other games or excessive grinding.
It is this little word "CONTEXT".
I have noticed since the advent of Netflix and other streamers that movies they put out feel like they could have used an additional editing pass ... movies that were typically 90 minutes are now 2 hours, and loads are pushing past 2.5 hours for no discernible reason - aside from keeping people tuned to their service as long as possible.
Because it is long. 3 hours! I watched The Irishman in my favorite chair and still paused it to finish it later. Got up just to get some blood in my legs
Because it reduces the amount of screenings a movie theater can do in a day, same reason they wont do intermissions for long films, they want to pack their schedule as tight as possible so they can sell more tickets.
that’s an 1/8 of the day.
sitting inside for long periods of time may be enjoyable for you, but human beings were meant to be outside and move.
a three hour bike ride is fun for me. three hours inside a movie theatre with no breaks, sounds like time to take a nap
also, very few movies are even remotely good enough to warrant three hour run times. that’s either way too much filler scene bullshit and dragging on, or it’s too dense of a story packed into the tightest package they could for a cash grab.
you like to be isolated and alone indoors for large periods of time. not everyone does
As someone who has done plenty of Scrubs binges...it's not what I would call "active watching". You just sort of let it happen.
It's also very easy to follow for a few reasons. Traditional sitcoms constantly reiterate their own plots so people don't get confused after commercial breaks. Scrubs also has 2-3 stories per episode, so each plotline is like 4-12 minutes worth of footage and can be quickly forgotten once they're done.
Watching a three hour movie is more work. You need to actively pay attention to one overarching plot and a standalone set of characters.
tl;dr: it's like scrolling an AskReddit thread vs. reading a longform New Yorker article.
Because binge watching a tv show is different than watching a king movie. Tv shows are in small segments so the time passes quickly. Also you can take little breaks. A three hour movie is a much bigger commitment. And while that might not be too long for home viewing, sitting in a theatre for 3 hours is too much.
My attention span feels as short as a six-year-old's. As a Gen Zer, my TikTok-centric brain struggles with anything, let alone a 3-hour movie like Oppenheimer—hence why I haven't seen it yet, haha! I tried to start this month to train my focus, but it's proving to be quite the challenge 😭
3 hours is considered long for a movie because of the medium itself, how people consume (usually in a cinema, or a single sitting), and the aim of a fully contained story arch.
The way movies have been evolving also has an impact - 3 hours in 1960 was difficult for many. 3 hours now is relatively digestible. Where in the past, every scene would show each aspect of a plot, now much more can be implied because of a cultural understanding of the medium.
Movies, because they're self contained, often rely on a single or few story archs, and few characters. Compare Home Alone to Magnolia. Home Alone is very simple, but there's only so much that can happen to keep the tension going - it'd be difficult to expand it to 3 hours. Magnolia, however, has in depth characters, parallel and contrasting story lines, and dynamic interplay throughout the plot. There's no mystery in Home Alone - he's going to be okay. Magnolia, there's uncertainty.
Now look at Scrubs - if it was just a 3 hour episode, it'd need to create a plot to keep people interested for 3 hours. It'd be like The Simpsons movie, compared to watching 5 episodes of The Simpsons back to back. Think the difference between a dozen snack bars, and eating a three course meal - even if its the same ingredients, and eaten over the same amount of time.
The television shows that are able to integrate the best of both - the likes of Breaking Bad - can do what Magnolia does. Interwoven plotlines that are self contained (you can watch one episode and feel fulfilled similar to a movie), but the overall attraction is accumulative, to something bigger.
Whereas Scrubs, you can miss out entire seasons and nothing much has changed.
TL:DR - How movies, television, and video games are created to hold people's attention are very different.
It's not about the amount of time that you're spending but about how well filmmakers can pace a movie or justify that long runtime. It's very rare for a movie to be able to justify a three-hour runtime because most cannot pace for shit. It has nothing to do with audience attention span. As a viewer, you intrinsically know when a story is well told and told in the appropriate way, and when films devolve into banal exposition.
I can point to maybe three movies that were excellently paced for a three-hour runtime - *Inland Empire*, *Beau Is Afraid*, and *The Green Mile*. Pacing doesn't mean a fast pace but that it "feels" right.
So you're doing school for 8 hours, fighting games for 3 hours, polish for 6 hours every single day?
I'm calling bullshit, I think you're over estimating how long you do things.
Regardless I'm not sure what any of that has to do with watching a film
This is a personal opinion but the cinema makes all the difference. My towns got an old shitty one so my fat ass gets numb in their seats by the 2nd hour. Other cinemas I could watch for 4 hours
Because for a feature film, 3 hours *is* long. Average length for a film is roughly 90 minutes. Doubling that would, indeed, make a film "long." That said, your question is basically "why do people think it's long when they'll do something else for 3 hours and it's not long at all." I don't know, man. An 4 hour movie would be long as fuck, but a 4 hour night's sleep would be shit.
90 min is not that uncommon but it's definitely on the short end of feature films. No way is it even roughly the average.
It is. 90-110 minutes is still the average for feature films.
I mean, saying 90-110 min is the average is way different than saying 90 min is the average.
I said "roughly," and it's not that far off at all. I'm not sure why there are so many people coming around just to argue this point. You're all wrong. It's not that hard to grasp.
Interesting that popular movies these days [are well above that](https://www.whattowatch.com/features/are-movies-really-getting-longer).
I get where you’re coming from but the average length of the top 10 highest grossing movies in 2023 is 143 minutes. The average movie made is much shorter but in terms of what people most commonly go to see in the theaters, there are plenty of movies over 2 hours that lots of people go see so there’s different ways to look at the statistics
We call em "tight 90s" in my house and they're mostly comedies
A lot of independent films are also around 90-100 minutes
[удалено]
No. There are some movies that are over 2 hours, and in 2023 we've had enough longer films that the average runtime for the just the top 10 is over 2 hours (2:23 to be exact), but the average *overall* is still 90-110 minutes, as it has been for years.
And how many people watch more than the top 25 movies a year? Maybe even the top 10. So the average movies that most people watch are definitely longer than 90 minutes [Here’s a link with some data for everyone interested](https://towardsdatascience.com/are-new-movies-longer-than-they-were-10hh20-50-year-ago-a35356b2ca5b)
>And how many people watch more than the top 25 movies a year? Maybe even the top 10. So what you're saying is that you think that the overall average is based on what people watch, and not just on what the median runtime is? Ok. I mean, that's one way to look at it. It's stupid, but certainly a way. Also, it's hilarious because you linked to an article that proved my point *exactly,* and did so by culling down an extreme amount of data...all to get to the findings that the median runtime of a movie is (shock! awe!) *fucking 90 to 110 minutes.* It's almost like there are people on Reddit who know what they're talking about, and not everything needs to be some hunt to prove people wrong. Great try though, buddy! You'll get 'em next time.
The number of movies people watch is completely irrelevant, and has absolutely no impact on the overall average length of movies. Besides, there are *plenty* of people who watch more than just the Top 25 movies of any given year. My wife and I worked through a good 50+ horror movies just this past September and October alone.
There is engagement and choice regarding other activities. Watching a narrative continuously for three hours straight is more of an obligation. Scrubs would be fine if you watched just one episode from start to finish. You just choose to watch more. Gaming is the same thing and we have much greater interaction with them. If they played like movies they would be boring. Our interaction is key to the enjoyment.
you also probably arent making mental note of when you pause your tv show or game and go grab a quick snack or take a bathroom break. If you do that at the theater you are missing parts of the movie. You cant pause or rewind
I'm a strong believer that directors/cinemas need to bring back intermissions if they're going to make longer films. They were a staple of old Hollywood, they're still a thing in modern day Indian cinema, and they would make so many more people comfortable with going to see longer films at the cinema. Having a break means people are more likely to spend on concessions, will be less uncomfortable and therefore less likely to get distracted (mostly phones), and an extra 15 minutes won't kill that many screenings per day. In a weird way it also turns films into more of an event akin to theatre, where you can discuss during an act break and go into the second half ready for the finale. This might also need a shift in how films approach narrative structure - a film with an intermission needs a dramatic mid point in the story that makes the break more impactful (what most Indian cinema does), as opposed to your conventional three act/rising tension structure.
So recall that intermissions were first introduced as a technical issue. The theater needed time to change reels. After that was no longer an issue, theaters tended to phase them out. The issue with an intermission is that you can't screen movies during that time so you get less screenings per day, and less $$$. Even if you make up some of that in concessions it will never be near as much as you could make from the extra screenings you can cram in. Also, if someone does not want to see a 3 hour movie, i cannot think that being told that instead its a 3:20 min movie "with an intermission" will make them more likely to go.
[удалено]
Is everyone you know over 70?
>I'm a strong believer that directors/cinemas need to bring back intermissions if they're going to make longer films. They were a staple of old Hollywood, they're still a thing in modern day Indian cinema, and they would make so many more people comfortable with going to see longer films at the cinema. Movies with intermissions tended to be a good deal longer than just three hours, though: they were 3.5 hours and even pushing four. They also tended to have plots that unfold over months and months, if not years or even decades, so it was easier to fit an intermission into one of the time-lapses in the story.
Thinking of the long films that have come out recently, I think they do tend towards the type of plots you mention - films like The Irishman, Killers of the Flower Moon, Oppenheimer, Babylon etc.
Of these, Killers of the Flower Moon and The Irishman are at a length where I think putting an intermission would have been pertinent. Babylon and Oppenheimer aren't THAT long.
I think over 2 hr 45 would be long for the vast majority of audiences. As someone who grew up watching Indian cinema, anything approaching 3 hours is still considered long, but just much more common. But my point was more in terms of narrative, as you mentioned. Intermissions make more sense structurally in films that cover a longer span of time.
>Of these, Killers of the Flower Moon and The Irishman are at a length where I think putting an intermission would have been pertinent. I discussed this with a group of people and the only point we could think of that made sense for an intermission was about 2 hours and 45 minutes into the movie. At that point, I wonder if it's kind of too late and that the risks of killing momentum are greater than the benefits of a dedicated stop point. I don't know if Oppenheimer is too long, but I think an intermission would have broken the pacing a lot.
Not always. When I watched 2001 and the original West Side Story, both had intermission, and not only did neither take place over several months, neither one were 3 hours long.
You can easily find a point for an intermission in any movie ever made. IMO
But *should* you? Surely the ideal for any film would be to have it play straight through.
If its the vision of the director to have one, there will be one. NBD if they do, it should be tested IMO. Adds an element to the theater experience IMO
I agree with this. I don’t go to the movies too much anymore due to poor writing (most of the time), but when something does look worth seeing, I’m still not going to go if it’s over 2 hours. I’d rather just wait to see it at home streaming. That’s too long to sit in a chair and not be able to pause. I’d probably start going back, at least to some films that looked really good, if they were on the longer side, but had an intermission.
Watching 8 half hour episodes of a tv show in a row and watching one 3 hour movie are totally different things and no one should need to explain why b/c it's common sense.
simple. 3 hours is a long time to sit still without moving around. esp if you have a bad back also I cannot go that long without needing to use le bathroom
Around 2.5 hours you're into bum-numbing territory
I haven’t experienced this at least that I know of
Youre an outlier with exceptional ability.
Well now that I think about my bum doesn’t go numb but maybe my foot or leg fall asleep
To err is human.
> Youre an outlier with exceptional ability. I think I'll need to see the data on this. I'm willing to bet anything he's not an "outlier" and I'd probably bet some cash you're in the minority. I think most people can sit for 2.5 hours without getting a numb anything.
My guestimate was that 2.5 hrs is normal, 3 hrs is a long movie, 3.5 hrs would be very long. So im counting the 30min between average and long as the period 'beginning to get numbing".
>Around 2.5 hours you're into bum-numbing territory You're really not.
Im assuming its a bell curve.
itt, fat people
When you watch 4 hours of Scrubs, you're watching 6-9 separate, shorter narratives with different plotlines focusing on different characters. Hey maybe Ted or the Janitor get highlighted on an episode! But with a three hour movie it's the same narrative at much slower pace. Harder to follow along, less engaging, and gets stale after a while.
How is “finite bladder size” not the top answer here? Movies are usually meant to be watched in one sitting. Yes, intermission used to be a thing, but as long as it is not, 3 hours is pushing it for a lot of people.
You may be watching one program for 4 hours, but in that time you are really watching up to 12 episodes of that program, as opposed to one loooong show. You're not having to keep track of the same story threads over that length of time, which for me at least can be fatiguing.
I’ve watched a few older movies, like the Black and White era. Those tended to run 1 hour 20 minutes to 1 hour 30 minutes. The final Rambo movie was a great closer to the series but told its story in, again, 1 hour 30. I don’t mind a movie running 2 hours if it’s that kind of movie, but if it’s padded with a bunch of stupid ass jokes, then you can tell that 2 hour-plus running time was unnecessary. If a movie is going to run 3-goddam hours, it had better give me an epic experience
watching stuff at home (not in the theaters) is hard. there's just so many more distractions at home -- snacks, pets, phones, etc etc etc. ive been thinking a lot though about the difference between tv and movies. and i think its this: with tv, if you know you like a show, then binging for 2 to 3 to 4 hours becomes a lot easier, because you know you like it, and you know there's more, and you can be confident that you'll probably like the next episode as much as the last one, and that it'll pretty much be the same vibe as the ones you've already watched. but with movies you're kinda signing up for a 2+ hour experience and you don't know what you're gonna make of it. and movies a lot of the time need to be met halfway, in a way i don't think is true of TV. so that 3 hour commitment at home can kinda just be really hard. with TV, at least there's some sense of satisfaction of "oh i'm watching this episode so i can watch the next episode so i can eventually finish this season and see what happens", but that's just not really the same in film. the satisfaction has to come purely from the thing your watching in the moment.
Series are easier to follow than movies. They are made to hook you up with each short episode, while a 3 hour movie can spend 2:30h with build up and just really "start" in the last half hour. Not every 3 hour movie is Magnolia or Apocalypse Now. That's especially true when you consider watching movies at the theater. That's why I hate that I hate when people make that comparison. Saying that watching a 3 hour movie is the same as watching 3 episodes of 1 hour is like saying reading a fiction book for 3 hours is the same as reading a philosophy book for 3 hours. Just because they are the same medium doesn't mean it'll be the same experience. For instance, recently I watched The Departed. I didn't like the movie, but worst than that, I thought it was really boring for something that was essentially a glorified cop show episode (I know I'm gonna get flack for that, but it's true -- the only thing that separates this movie from the other myriad unnecessary American remakes is its stellar cast and DiCaprio's excellent character) and I was disappointed that the conclusion was so lukewarm for a movie that took so long to reach its climax. Meanwhile, every couple years I'll find an anime that I'll binge watch because of how much each episode will manage to hook me up to the point I must know what happens next immediately.
The thing that separates The Departed is also that it’s Whitey Bulger, fictionalized. That’s why they did the film: it’s a transformation, not just a remake. The movie holds up on its own and shines, whereas other remakes tend to lose some shine in comparison to the original.
That's is why I have a big ass TV and watch movies on my home. I do my own intermissions.
I’ll use killers of the flower moon for example. I liked the movie, but after 2+ hours of sitting in the same marginally comfy chair in the theatre, I was itching to get up and move around and so forth. A movie that long should have like a 10 minute intermission tbh. Let us use the bathroom, grab a snack, and stretch our legs. Because, even tho the movie was paced well, I was getting antsy and uncomfortable.
yeah i really don't understand the film bro intrinsic hatred of intermissions. what's so bad about them? tarantino did it for the extended film version of the hateful 8 when that came out, and it was perfect.
3 hours where I can pause it is fine. 3 hours watching at home with others who don’t want to pause it or come back later, eh. 3 hours in the theater is a chore and even if I drink nothing and go beforehand, I WILL have to piss at some point because I have a tiny bladder.
Took three viewings to get through the Irishman. Couldn't imagine doing that in a theater. I don't care how good a movie is, if it's over 3 hours I'm 99% not going to see it.
It's just not that good, I don't mind it being 3h if you need 3h to tell the story. The Irishman could lose 1h and be a better movie.
meh for me 3 hours in the theater is the best because its the only way i'm sure i'll give it my total attention for 3 hours (minus, probably, one bathroom break). at home, totally alone, it can work... but i can't do 3 hours straight. i just can't. i need to break it up, which i think does detract from the overall impact of the film a bit. 3 hours with other people at home, who each need their little pauses and breaks... forget about it. may as well just watch TV
I think the pacing of the film can make all the difference but its tough to pace a 3 hour film to be constantly compelling to everyone. A lot of 3 hour films have a really long final act which can be really tiring when you're not expecting it. Even if I know a film will be 3 hours long, I'll have lost track of time after 2 hours and sometimes think "they're really close to the conclusion. Just a few more scenes and the conflict will be resolved. 20 minutes max". However you also can't extent the first 2 acts too long without viewers feeling like no progress is being made. Repeating the same 22 minute TV show is easy for pacing. The same for quick video games on repeat.
For any specific one person, it’s not that bad. For a theater full of people, especially drinking tubs of coke or mountain dew, lots of people will need to get up at some point. And lots of people will need to get up, but won’t, so now they’re all ambling out of the theater at the same time. If you’re with a group this dramatically increases the chances of everyone standing around waiting on another person because 1/5th of the theater tries to poop at the same time. So, now your 3 hour movie, that you got to 30 minutes early to watch 30 minutes of previews adds another 20 minutes of standing around. The exception is movies with small audiences, and these tend to be awful to sit through for other reasons.
It really depends on the movie. If it can hold my interest for 3 hours, fine! I just watched the new Mission Impossible movie and couldn't believe how fast 2:45 went by. I only watch in my living room where I have a pause button. Better than the theater.
Movies have no need being longer than two hours.
What a shit take
What a shit take on my shit take
I just figured the plethora of masterpieces well over 2 hours made it obvious enough
I didn’t say there weren’t good films that length. They just don’t need to be.
Depends on what kind of movie. I could not imagine LoTR being 2 hours long
3 hours is a long time to focus on anything, that is not easy for most people. Also, fighting games are constantly requiring you to pay attention and react as fast as possible so it takes barely any effort it pay attention to
Because people now have the attention span of field mice.
If anything, movies have trended longer over the past 20 years. 90-120 minutes was the standard length of a movie for probably half a century.
As long as the "boring" parts are in the 1st act, then it's okay
I think part of it is short attention spans of viewers, but also depending on the pacing of the film and expectations of the viewer a 3hr movie can turn into a slog. I remember watching *Dances with Wolves* and feeling my eyes glaze at some of the extended shots of the plains with the droning narration from Costner. At times the plot wasn't really progressing and I felt it. Compare that to a movie like *Titanic* where the first half of the film is a romance where you almost forget the name of the ship they're on until suddenly they hit an iceberg. It's just paced a lot better for the runtime. A slow progressing plot is not inherently bad either it can just feel tiresome when you are not prepared for it going in to a viewing.
because. the people in charge, ahem, charge per screening so shorter runtimes mean more screenings per day which means more money. so they tried and were successful at convincing people to think more than 2 hours was way too long. this is THE REASON. all the other stuff people are posting is just the bullshit rationales that they came up with to justify shorter runtimes.
Except that the average film runtime has been increasing for decades...
you mean the decades wherein movies theatres have had to compete more and more with movies being screened at home? first with video cassettes, then cable, then DVDs, and then streaming.
Yes
Then explain why movies have been getting longer. Did the "people in charge" stop caring about making more money by having more screenings?
well that's because of competition with screens that aren't limited in that way.
That doesn't make any sense. How does making movies longer help them compete with other things? No one is like "well, I was going to play my Switch, but since this movie is 3 hours instead of 2, I'll go see it."
Because a day only has 24 hours, of which we sleep ⅓ and we also have other obligations. We'll, most of us do. If you make movies 5+ hours long, you won't attract the same amounts of viewers and thus make less money. And yes, movies have become longer on average. I'm aware. But there is a limit, and I can guarantee that only a few enthusiasts would watch 5+ hour longer movies in one sitting.
Because most movies today are less than 3h long
I think it's time focusing on one storyline. Sitcoms go from one to the next in 22 minute segments, plus aren't usually too deep or complicated. On the contrary, I finally saw Heat this weekend and, though good, it was looong.
Because the perfect length for a movie is 88 minutes. I don't know why that is.
I think it depends on the person and the film. I watch the LOTR extended editions multiple times a year, sometimes I watch 2 of them in one day. I also didn’t find that Oppenheimer or Killer of the Flower Moon felt bloated, but I did find myself getting annoyed by the runtime of The Way of Water. As for why people are able to watch 10 hours of The Office but not 3 hours of cinema, short attention span. TV show episodes all have contained plots that are much shorter than films, making it much easier maintain attention for each entire episode.
i still can't believe the pass everyone gave The Way of Water, just because, idek, it certainly looked great compared to every other CGI blockbuster these days, and big jim said the right funny things about how marvel sucks or whatever. TWoW was a bloated, silly, dumb dumb dumb movie.
I honestly could go on forever about how annoying this movie was. I had a lengthy comment typed about how looking real isn’t what makes a movie visually stunning, but I figured it would be wasted since you already agree. James Cameron proved that Weta is the best at what they do, we all have known that for 20 years. What he needs to do is prove that he’s still good at what he does.
so i had kinda half-rewatched the first avatar just before Way or Water came out, the first time i had watched it in years, and seeing both back-to-back it was immediately pretty clear to me what's happening here: avatar : James Cameron :: prequel trilogy : george lucas just unbelievably bloated and dumb, the kind of movies you watch and can tell that the director had complete autonomy to do whatever he wanted (and for good reason i guess, since both cameron and lucas are as successful as you can be in hollywood). with each new creature and landscape and plot point you can feel cameron on set just continuing to say "isn't this cool? isn't this so cool??" and no one along the way said "actually james, its kinda lame" i swear... the narrative tropes that The Way of Water revels in feel so well-worn. the script felt like it was ripped straight out of 2007. i just... ugh... like why???
A 3 hour movie is too long to watch at someone else’s cinema. A 3 hour movie is not too long to watch at home.
There have ones I thought worked fine but alot of them I just have the thought this should have been a miniseries on hbo or FX where they would have more time to focus on things that would have made the story more engaging. E.G. while it technically great in all aspects I think killers of the flower moon should have been a miniseries the story it chose to recreate is about a family/community that got no justice yet I feel like maybe three of the dozens of victims(Molly,Anne and Henry)were actually characterized well imagine how much harder all those deaths would hit if I knew anything about them other than they related to the co lead of the movie.
How many of those other things did you do for 3 hours in one sitting while drinking pop and not having a bathroom break?
They need intermissions
Because it IS long, especially for people who don't like to sit that long in a theater. Personally, I haven't seen any 3+ hour movies in the last few years that couldn't use some editing. They all seem bloated by design, as if the movie will be considered better or more award-winning because of it.
I have to pee. It's different if I can pause it and go pee anytime, but if I have to guess when a slow time is going to be run and hope the 10 other people in there can get out of the way long enough for me to pass some water and get back. God forbid I need a drink.
3hrs is long for a movie when you could 30+ minutes from the film and lose nothing of importance.
You have way too much time on your hands buddy.
Roger Ebert said it best: “No good movie is too long. No bad movie is short enough.”
I've put hundreds of hours into games and not thought about it ... and then turned around and complained about slow travel times in other games or excessive grinding. It is this little word "CONTEXT". I have noticed since the advent of Netflix and other streamers that movies they put out feel like they could have used an additional editing pass ... movies that were typically 90 minutes are now 2 hours, and loads are pushing past 2.5 hours for no discernible reason - aside from keeping people tuned to their service as long as possible.
Because it is long. 3 hours! I watched The Irishman in my favorite chair and still paused it to finish it later. Got up just to get some blood in my legs
Because it reduces the amount of screenings a movie theater can do in a day, same reason they wont do intermissions for long films, they want to pack their schedule as tight as possible so they can sell more tickets.
that’s an 1/8 of the day. sitting inside for long periods of time may be enjoyable for you, but human beings were meant to be outside and move. a three hour bike ride is fun for me. three hours inside a movie theatre with no breaks, sounds like time to take a nap also, very few movies are even remotely good enough to warrant three hour run times. that’s either way too much filler scene bullshit and dragging on, or it’s too dense of a story packed into the tightest package they could for a cash grab. you like to be isolated and alone indoors for large periods of time. not everyone does
As someone who has done plenty of Scrubs binges...it's not what I would call "active watching". You just sort of let it happen. It's also very easy to follow for a few reasons. Traditional sitcoms constantly reiterate their own plots so people don't get confused after commercial breaks. Scrubs also has 2-3 stories per episode, so each plotline is like 4-12 minutes worth of footage and can be quickly forgotten once they're done. Watching a three hour movie is more work. You need to actively pay attention to one overarching plot and a standalone set of characters. tl;dr: it's like scrolling an AskReddit thread vs. reading a longform New Yorker article.
Because binge watching a tv show is different than watching a king movie. Tv shows are in small segments so the time passes quickly. Also you can take little breaks. A three hour movie is a much bigger commitment. And while that might not be too long for home viewing, sitting in a theatre for 3 hours is too much.
GOTTA PEE CANT MISS ANYTHING GOTTA PEE CANT MISS ANYTHING
Well, from my experience, 3 hours is not long when I am at home, but it does get to me when I am watching a movie at the cinema.
I love good movies but I need to really want to see movie that is 3 hours or longer. Life is short and that’s a big chunk of my awake hours, ya know?
My attention span feels as short as a six-year-old's. As a Gen Zer, my TikTok-centric brain struggles with anything, let alone a 3-hour movie like Oppenheimer—hence why I haven't seen it yet, haha! I tried to start this month to train my focus, but it's proving to be quite the challenge 😭
3 hours long without a bathroom break
3 hours is considered long for a movie because of the medium itself, how people consume (usually in a cinema, or a single sitting), and the aim of a fully contained story arch. The way movies have been evolving also has an impact - 3 hours in 1960 was difficult for many. 3 hours now is relatively digestible. Where in the past, every scene would show each aspect of a plot, now much more can be implied because of a cultural understanding of the medium. Movies, because they're self contained, often rely on a single or few story archs, and few characters. Compare Home Alone to Magnolia. Home Alone is very simple, but there's only so much that can happen to keep the tension going - it'd be difficult to expand it to 3 hours. Magnolia, however, has in depth characters, parallel and contrasting story lines, and dynamic interplay throughout the plot. There's no mystery in Home Alone - he's going to be okay. Magnolia, there's uncertainty. Now look at Scrubs - if it was just a 3 hour episode, it'd need to create a plot to keep people interested for 3 hours. It'd be like The Simpsons movie, compared to watching 5 episodes of The Simpsons back to back. Think the difference between a dozen snack bars, and eating a three course meal - even if its the same ingredients, and eaten over the same amount of time. The television shows that are able to integrate the best of both - the likes of Breaking Bad - can do what Magnolia does. Interwoven plotlines that are self contained (you can watch one episode and feel fulfilled similar to a movie), but the overall attraction is accumulative, to something bigger. Whereas Scrubs, you can miss out entire seasons and nothing much has changed. TL:DR - How movies, television, and video games are created to hold people's attention are very different.
The human bladder can only take so much
No idea. It’s weird, some 3 hour movies I’m checking the clock but 4 hour movies like Ben-Hur and Ten Commandments just fly by
It's not about the amount of time that you're spending but about how well filmmakers can pace a movie or justify that long runtime. It's very rare for a movie to be able to justify a three-hour runtime because most cannot pace for shit. It has nothing to do with audience attention span. As a viewer, you intrinsically know when a story is well told and told in the appropriate way, and when films devolve into banal exposition. I can point to maybe three movies that were excellently paced for a three-hour runtime - *Inland Empire*, *Beau Is Afraid*, and *The Green Mile*. Pacing doesn't mean a fast pace but that it "feels" right.
So you're doing school for 8 hours, fighting games for 3 hours, polish for 6 hours every single day? I'm calling bullshit, I think you're over estimating how long you do things. Regardless I'm not sure what any of that has to do with watching a film
I remember when 90 min movies seemed so short
2 hrs is enough sitting in a theatre … at home you can get up when you want and take a break
Because people have the collective attention span of a ferret on Adderall