The Longest Yarn

Remember when movies were just 90 minutes long? Sitting through a movie that was 120 minutes seemed like a lifetime. You hear in DVD commentaries how directors often cut their movies down because of time restraints.

But this is a new age in film. A movie can be up to 180 minutes long nowadays! Do you like this trend?

Decades ago movies than ran over 2 hours had an intermission, but today you have to sit through the entire film without a break.

Why do you guys think that longer films are so popular now? Should they bring back the intermission?
Is there a certain formula contained inside a long-running film that keeps viewers interested from beginning to end?

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

No good movie is ever too long, and no bad movie is ever short enough.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Exactly - a 90 (or even 80) minute movie can be more agonizing than a 120 minute film if it sucks. That's when I start heckling the flick in my mind until it's finished - sometimes that's fun, but if it's a serious movie, forget it.

I would hate intermissions at the movies -- I know I'd never leave because I wouldn't want my seat stolen when I get back. Of course, if I happened to get a really BAD seat and some numbskulls leave their GOOD seats for fattening popcorn that would be great because I'd hop over there faster than a frog. Ha ha ha. Plus, who wants a movie interrupted at the theatre? If it means so much to you that you need a bathroom break or more food, GET YOUR BUTT UP AND GO. And don't come back if you're sitting in my aisle. "Excuse me" does not cut it. Go duct tape yourselves to the wall. I don't care.

there are a lot of epics in recent times, thats why movies have grown so long because there are countless scenes of eye candy which take up a large portion of the film. lord of the rings is a great example of this.

__________________
you can call me brain

Not exactly a new trend, although definitely something we're seeing more, if not a lot of.

Spielberg seems physically incapable of delivering anything shorter than 130 minutes [Catch Me clocks 141, Minority at 145, Artificial Intelligence at 146, Private Ryan runs 170, Amistad 152, and The Lost World runs 129, which is close to 130, and still very long for pure escapism]. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, although personally I believe that Spielberg considers every film he makes an event picture now...

Aside from Spielberg, who was just a case point, I like longer movies [if they are, as Holden pointed out, good]. I can watch Magnolia endlessly and that is a considerably long movie. I love the new Lord of the Rings films, and they're each getting longer [and Return of the King promises to be the longest. And the best.] If a long film is done correctly, I find that I care more about the characters, the story, and anything else worth caring about. And what on Earth is there to hate about that?

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

If a movie is a good one, then I want it to be longer, just like a good book. I would hate to have intermissions unless it exceeds 180 minutes.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

I enjoy the intermission in Lawrence of Arabia [which is very, very long] and I liked having intermissions in the extended version of Fellowship of the Rings and in The Godfather Part II. Sure they were just there because someone had to change the disc, but they were great to have. Get a drink, take a slash, stand up, bend over, jerk off, eat some cheese. I enjoyed that. And it was a bit of an anticipation builder, the filmmakers are able to lead to a climax. In Lawrence, it is a logical place to place an intermission, and it is done so well that it leaves you hanging to find out what happens next. So it can be a very good thing for the filmmakers if used correctly.

I think Return of the King will wind up with an intermission and I think that is great.

The newest release I've seen that required an actual intermission was Ken Branagh's Hamlet (1996). Whenever I go to a Revival of Lawrence of Arabia or Gone with the Wind or the like, of course there are real, honest to goodness intermissions.

If the filmmaker has designed them to be accounted for, I have no problem with it. Personally I don't need them and am very happy sitting for four hours to see a movie without a break. But I know my constitution when it comes to bathroom breaks is unusual.

Anything up to about three hours and fifteen minutes, I don't think you need an intermission. If you start getting up near to that range and can find a natural break somewhere in the middle section of the narrative, why not?

Especially if it is a kids film. Not that there are many kids films that long.

I'm going to stop now.

I like the longer movies if they're good… I don’t mind sitting that long at all and really don’t need an intermission but it might be nice if they had one… I might actually make it through a movie without bruised toes or popcorn/coke spilled on me…

__________________

I think the question on everybody's lips at the moment is the question of deep vein thrombosis during Return of the King. People dying in the fourth row from the front. Serious swelling on the balcony. Things like that.

I've got to agree with you Matt about the third installment...

However I think the main thing in terms of intermissions in this resurgance of "epic" cinema is the fact that back in the day, going to the cinema was an event, it was something awe inspiring. Now however many people go to the Cinema purely for something to do, they don't go there to be welled up in the experience, they go there to consume 2-3 hours, and that's it. And so theatre operators have responded in kind, the giant multiplexes you find all over the place are made with only money in mind, cram 3000 people in an area the size of the candy bar and you have your cinematic experience. I know it has to be made with money and profit in mind, but it shouldn't be at the sake of the consumer...

At my local cinema I personally find it incredibly difficult to sit through any movie over 3 hours long. The feeling is best described as having your ass wedged between two pieces of plyboard, covered with shag carpet, add the smell of a boy's locker room with a pinch of vomit odors just to make the film more enjoyable.

The point i'm making is, it's getting to the point where intermissions are almost needed just to be able to regain a bit of focus after trying to share your attention between the film and hurtling bits of popcorn that whisp past your head every ten or fifteen seconds.

I also love "Lawrence of Arabia" and I just keep thinking that if that were released today, with no intermission, it would probably make for one of the worst cinematic experiences of my life.

I've lost my point haven't I? Ahh well... Long movies (that are good movies) = good. Intermissions coming back? I hope, at least for anything nearing 200 minutes

__________________
"I didn't like the play. But I saw it under unfavourable circumstances -- the curtains were up." - Groucho Marx

2001 was only a tad over 2 -1/2 hours long but it had an intermission

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

Intermissions would ruin the whole movie. Imagine watching LOTR or Harry Potter with a 15 minute intermission. I would hate it. The best way to watch a movie is non stop, never taking your eyes off the movie. But maybe I'm not being fair. I can chug a jumbo size pop before the movie starts and sit through a almost 3 hour film without going to the washroom. But i'll admit sometimes i'll be through the last minutes of the films. So maybe with newer and looonger movies an intermission could be a good thing.

Yet long films are better. Usually longer films have more, if i can quote g0dzer0, "Eye Candy" and the art directors can have more fun. I mean, a slow dramatic film running over 130 minutes would be one i wouldn't see. But would you enjoy LOTR with a time restraint of 90 minutes? I can't imagine what it would be like....

So to answer r3port3r66 question, yes, for some movies this "trend" is neccesary, and for others...just stick to the basics. Intermissions are up in the air for me. It would personally annoy me, but for others it would be a benefit.

__________________
You can lead a fool to wisdom but you can't make him think.

Then you're missing out an Magnolia and countless other brilliant slow, dramatic films that run over 130 minutes...