‘Ideal’ movie running time is 92 minutes, poll claims

Tools    





I have never seen anyone all but having a total meltdown just because a dictionary definition was used in a discussion.

But, if people continually seem to be referring to different things when they use a term, why wouldn't it be perfectly appropriate to try to remind everyone what the term was originally used to signify?

A joke is not a meltdown. I'm casually sitting on a bus, mostly looking out a window at trees. I'm fine.



The trick is not minding
I have never seen anyone all but having a total meltdown just because a dictionary definition was used in a discussion.

But, if people continually seem to be referring to different things when they use a term, why wouldn't it be perfectly appropriate to try to remind everyone what the term was originally used to signify?
Crumbs is very passionate about films, and will argue about them as he sees fit, and sometimes it rubs some the wrong way but really he is searching for common ground and good faith. He means well.



But it was wildly indulgent
No argument there.



Crumbs is very passionate about films, and will argue about them as he sees fit, and sometimes it rubs some the wrong way but really he is searching for common ground and good faith. He means well.
I will be sure to keep that in mind.



The trick is not minding
It feels like I'm being haunted by a Corax possessed AI. Which is honestly probably exactly what I deserve.
All of your sins from RT and Corrie have come back to haunt you. The ghost of past anonymous normies forced to read your long, but well written, posts in response to their earlier posts have taken sentience and have their sights set upon you, the author of their pain, as they were beaten into submission with a wall of text (again, well written!). And so, they have returned it in spades.
Hear their laughter echo in the empty corridors of forgotten forumns, somehow willing itself incorporeal to move past the confines of the forums, all dead and gone. Hear their laughter, filled with anguish, as they call out to you, their antagonist. Followed by the clinking of what you swear is two bottles together….
“Crumbsrooooooom…..come out to plaaaaaay. Cruuuuuumbsrooooommmmm….come out to play-ay! CRUUUUUMBSROOOOOMMMM! COOME OUT TO PLAY-AY!”



I think one reason why many blockbuster movies are longer is because they need to justify high ticket prices. And with the length comes lots of CGI spectacle.



92 minutes seems a bit extreme for me but not too far off. I start to have second thoughts about watching a movie when I see the runtime is past 2 hours and really start to question if I actually want to watch it if it's more than 2.5 hours.

I recently watched Killers of the Flower Moon and while I thought it was very good, that 3.5 hour runtime was not needed and it negatively affected my enjoyment of it. That epilogue in particular had me rolling my eyes.
What? But the epilogue was the best part.



OK, If you take my son to scouts and my daughter to swimming we have a deal.
Mark F managed to be a parent and a cinephile at once. Yours are only excuses.



All of your sins from RT and Corrie have come back to haunt you. The ghost of past anonymous normies forced to read your long, but well written, posts in response to their earlier posts have taken sentience and have their sights set upon you, the author of their pain, as they were beaten into submission with a wall of text (again, well written!). And so, they have returned it in spades.
Hear their laughter echo in the empty corridors of forgotten forumns, somehow willing itself incorporeal to move past the confines of the forums, all dead and gone. Hear their laughter, filled with anguish, as they call out to you, their antagonist. Followed by the clinking of what you swear is two bottles together….
“Crumbsrooooooom…..come out to plaaaaaay. Cruuuuuumbsrooooommmmm….come out to play-ay! CRUUUUUMBSROOOOOMMMM! COOME OUT TO PLAY-AY!”

If there is an after life of any sort, rest assured, some higher power has already informed them how definitely shit their taste was, and hopefully explained to them how debating works, and they've only come to apologize to me over how ****ing annoying they all must have been when they were alive.



I think one reason why many blockbuster movies are longer is because they need to justify high ticket prices. And with the length comes lots of CGI spectacle.
There's a similar thing with video games, where consumers/reviewers use the time it takes to complete the game as a major selling point (or criticism, if it's short). This isn't entirely unreasonable, but it also reveal which people are approaching which things as simple time fillers/mere entertainment, rather than works of art.



There isn't really any separation between these things. Maybe you're thinking of craft, which definitely overlaps artistic expression, and can frequently enhance it or clarify it or make it more palatable. But craft isn't art. Craft doesn't care much about personality. That is the job of art.
I think we're probably talking past each other. I'm saying that a criticism of self-indulgence is more a commentary on the personality of the creator than the work itself, which seems to be more or less what you're saying: that, as a criticism, it's a category error.

This has its place. But I find most directors who fuss too much over these kinds of things go flat for me. You can usually sense that fussiness which, in turn, sucks authenticity from the experience. Like when someone over rehearses for a job interview and they might say everything absolutely perfectly, but they hardly seem human.
Does it happen regularly though. Or is there just lots and lots of competently made emotional beats that have been stripped hollow from being overworked (see Shawshank, clearly singled out to make some more unnecessary enemies)
Hard disagree. I think the vast vast vast majority of established greats spent at best a modest amount of time catering to others. And then there are the rare birds who do. Certainly Spielberg. Probably Hitchcock and Kurosawa, to a degree. Howard Hawks and John Ford and John Huston and Chaplin, sure. And while there are certainly others I'm already starting to struggle.
I'm responding to all of this with "to each their own." You like what you like, I'm not gonna try to talk you out of it. I can merely explain what I like about its opposite, in the same way a director may just put out whatever interests them and see who latches onto it. And if you don't, fair enough.

I don't think this is hard at all.
This is surprising to hear. The creation of art that connects with people seems very difficult, to me. Except in a sort of shotgun approach, I guess, where if you get something in front of enough people someone will respond to it. Which factors into the self-indulgence stuff. Elaboration in a forthcoming post.

Unless you consider connecting to be with the maximum amount of people. And, ya, that usually has to be by design, which is part of my problem.
This is a real impasse. I feel (and have long argued) that breadth of connection is underappreciated among cinephiles. That there's something just as beautiful and profound in finding those broad overlaps, that smaller kernel of humanity that almost everybody shares in, as there is in making deeper connections with fewer people. I accept that this is an unusual view (and there's a definitional asymmetry that means the latter is going to be overrepresented in places like this) and I don't expect to convince (m)any people of it.

We agree here. But when you connect with these expressions, you are responding to art. And your response wasn't simply a coincidence
I don't think those are mutually exclusive. Saying someone's connection was a "coincidence" does not devalue the connection itself, but it does reflect on the work. I think of it like this:

Art by design: I have this feeling. I think others do. I will express this feeling and, when another person who feels this sees it, both of us will feel seen and connected.

Art by coincidence: I have this feeling and I just want it out.

I'm not saying one is more inherently valuable, but they're not the same. It's the difference between making something you explicitly hope is useful to others and making something random or idiosyncratic and then scouring the earth for the one person who happens to need it. That's what I mean by coincidence: human connection not through intent but through sheer scale.

I don't want either to exist exclusively of the other, I just have a general preference for the former, both in that I tend to get more from it and just on a personal level, in that I think it's good when people are oriented towards serving others. That's a bit of personal morality being smuggled into artistic criticism, I admit, but I also imagine you'd argue we're not supposed to pretend those things are really separate, anyway.



Re: self-indulgence and its definition.

First, as was noted, self-indulgence is excessive by definition. But that also means it would be a useless term to use literally. If excess is part of the definition then there's nothing to discuss: we all dislike self-indulgence automatically, in the same way nobody can say they like "too much" ketchup on their hot dog, because if they like that amount, they no longer think it's too much.

Second, it would be useful to determine whether people are disputing that something specific is self-indulgent, or whether they're saying self-indulgence does not actually exist in art. I feel like crumbs is saying the latter, but whatever he or anyone else means, these are very different arguments. Or someone could be saying that it does exist, but is rare, or that it does exist but most people who use the term "self-indulgent" are actually trying to say something else (the "expect art to conform to your tastes" thing).

And on that last point, the thing about expecting art to conform...couldn't that be said of any criticism? Any criticism is saying "it should have been different" and is therefore saying it should have conformed more to the speaker's idea of what is good. Unless what you're really saying is actually psychological speculation that anyone who would use the term "self-indulgent" really means this other thing, which is possible but a little uncharitable. And there's also not a lot of point in discussions where someone says things and the other person criticizes what they think they really mean even when they say they don't mean that.