Do you think action movies are too long nowadays?

Tools    





Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
It seems they are, like it seems that most superhero movies want to go over two hours and feel too long, like they are trying to stick in an extra act of twists and turns we didn't need and could have ended at the 2 hour or less mark.

It's the same with movies like The Fast and Furious movies, the last four have all been over 2 hours it seems.

And the last two James Bond movies almost reached 2 and a half hours each.

I feel that maybe the movie that started this was The Dark Knight. It had a reason to be 2 and a half hour longs, as they did have a lot of story and plot to unfold to get where their needed to go.

But that movie was such a hit that all these other action movies that are following are saying "oh man, we got to make our movies longer and jam pack in a lot more story like that one now".

But I don't feel they have to do this every time. The last few Fast and the Furious movies, I was looking at my clock after about 110 minutes. I feel that was perhaps the better days of action movies when they knew it was okay to end at around 100-115 minutes around, and did not feel the need to compete with The Dark Knight so much.

But what do you think? Have they gotten better for adding in more story and wanting to be longer, or do the plots start to feel they are getting a little worn out and tedious after about 110 minutes or so?



The longer movies have seemed to me as Hollywood's apology for making going to the cinema so expensive. In a nutshell, that's the reason, I feel. As to the effect this has on the actual product, yes ... definitely ... today's action movies need to be trimmed down. When you get on a rollercoaster, you don't expect to be on it for half an hour. Part of the fun of it is in the simple fact of its brevity. It's long enough to get the thrill, without being so long that you dread the experience of it.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh okay. Well why is cinema more expensive now? I thought it was cause of inflation but is it because of all the 3D movies?



I honestly don't know how going to the movies got so expensive.
Once it started getting that way, though, audiences kept coming.
That's what got the snowball rolling. Had people responded by
avoiding going to the movies, due to the expense, something
would've happened. But it didn't because despite some grumbling,
people choose to fund the cinema, despite all of the undue expense.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Well I usually go to the cheaper theaters but even those got a couple of dollars more. But the theaters with all the features such as bigger screens and bigger sound, with the more comfortable seats are expensive. If you are willing to go to a theater with lesser accommodations, it's cheaper of course. I feel it started with 3D cause after Avatar came out, it seems ticket prices went up on everything else, unless Avatar has nothing to do with it, and the timing was do to something else.



All I know is, I don't usually want to watch a 2 1/2 hour action movie. Sure a 2 1/2 long epic drama can be great but just an action film? I'd hold them to the 2 hour mark.



Yeah, I'd say blockbuster movies are getting really long. I think the calculation is that people's appetite for things they like is higher than ever (hence movie series' going on for years and years with spinoffs and reboots and all that). And I think they're mostly right. But that means, for the people who just like them and don't love them, they can kinda drag.

I'll say net positive overall, because it's great that people have "room" to do so many things, but in general I think the average runtime has gotten a little high, and it's not always used to make the film better, either.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
But does anybody actually love superhero movies and The Fast and the Furious movies, to the point where they think really deserve the long runtimes compared to things like The Godfather movies or The Lord of the Rings, etc?



This might just do nobody any good.
If the box office number for something like Infinity War mean anything, sure. I mean, I personally haven’t sat through an entire LotR movie in years but the audience for them is there. Dont know that any one kind of movie deserves a long running time more than another.



The longer movies have seemed to me as Hollywood's apology for making going to the cinema so expensive. In a nutshell, that's the reason, I feel. As to the effect this has on the actual product, yes ... definitely ... today's action movies need to be trimmed down. When you get on a rollercoaster, you don't expect to be on it for half an hour. Part of the fun of it is in the simple fact of its brevity. It's long enough to get the thrill, without being so long that you dread the experience of it.
Multiplex's having so many screens as well means that theres less desire to keep things short to fit in more showings.

Part of the issue as well I'd say is that everything is focused on franchises these days so these films tend to include a lot of furthering long running plots which can often become rather bloated.



They should have Intermissions like in India so i can pee.



For me, it was Titanic that started it, it's gradually got better/worse. I like more movie for my money, it plays a part in how it feels about a film, if it can fool me into thinking it wasn't as long as it was then it goes up a notch or two.

I wouldn't go see a movie if there was a scheduled intermission, but it wouldn't be the worst idea in the world for cinemas to have 1 showing per day/week



You could argue that Lord of the Rings really started it I spose but that story is I think naturally epic in nature rather than having a very tightly worked plot.

I don't think its automatically length that's the issue so much as focus, you look back to films like say Terminator, Alien, Predator, etc and there all very tightly focused pieces of cinema. Alien Covenant isn't much longer than the original but its nothing like as tightly focused the same as Prometheus wasn't.

If Hollywood really must just stick to existing franchises I'd honestly preffer it went with either remakes or similar stories rather than endlessly adding on existing plots.



Hmm, I guess they are getting longer but then again so are movies in general. Like 80-90% of movies today are around the two hour mark at least... it’s actually hard to find a movie these days in the 90-minute-range - no matter the genre.

And I feel like it’s moslty the superhero films that are taking it - and have been taking it - way past the two hour mark for a while. And then comes all the other big blockbuster franchises. And that is moslty what we’re getting these days and thereby most films are in that league.

But, like the films or not, The Rock’s many recent solo project have all been under two hours. Typically in the 1 hour 40-something range (Rampage, Skyscraper, Central Intelligence, Hercules etc all in the 1:40-range)... I feel like he is purposely trying to make up with long action flicks and deliver good fun in under two hours.

Anyways, some movies can handle the length, but you are indeed pushing it when trying to transform an action film into a worth 2 and a half hour set piece marathon... and I didn’t say “transform” for the fun of it. Bay’s robot mayhem are the biggest sinners. He stuff so much action in these awfully headache inducing films that you are out of breahe before the two hour mark... and then you still got 40+ minutes to go.

Again, some can handle it, but it takes skill to keep it up through 2 and a half hours. Of recent films, I will say M:I Fallout handled that very well. When it ended I thought there was still 20-30 minutes to go.

But indeed such lengths are moslty suited for films that have a detailed story to tell that it can unfold as it goes, not for set-piece driven flicks that seems to just tack on entertaining scenes after the other without much depth or meaning.



Action movies are not what they used to be,i can watch speed anytime with its 118 min running time but can t watch expendables more than once, the 90s action movies have more quality production wise, except john wick franchise which i find downright amazing



Registered User
Batman vs. Superman, the first hour could have been cut to 15 minutes, almost wanted to fast forward it but, the last hour an a half was fine.
I think every movie should be no longer than 1hr:30min., unless it has reason or not boring. Some movies are just way to dragged out.



I like watching Speed on fast-forward.
I don t get the funny part in case u wanted to be funny...which i guess u tried to be xd