Are films getting longer?

Tools    





Seems like every new film i see has a 2 1/2 runtime, not sure if they are getting longer or not but i feel alot them could do it in less time.



Are they getting longer for the sake of prestige?



I don’t know if it’s for the sake of prestige, but I would cautiously agree that streaming allows them to be longer and directors are taking advantage of that. I don’t mind.



How we view is changing. Run time is a sensitive issue for movie theaters. The longer a film, the fewer times you can show it everyday. Same problem in the restaurant business - you need to turn tables to make money. If a 2.5-3 hours film is not a big budget blockbuster that is strongly assured to have a packed house for showing it, then a theater wants that nice 1.5 hour movie so that the auditorium can be turned. Also, with shorter run times, you have greater flexibility for when you start the next showing, which allows for being strategic (catching people at the right time, pacing the rush for people trying to enter the theater so that you don't have a rush of people frustrated that they can't purchase your overpriced popcorn and candy because of a human traffic jam).

Today, people are binge-watching for hours on end in the comfort of their own homes. Films are getting same-day releases to streaming services. Theaters are trying to deliver more perceived value to get butts in seats after a year of being shut out of the game because of COVID.



Seems like every new film i see has a 2 1/2 runtime, not sure if they are getting longer or not but i feel alot them could do it in less time.

Are they getting longer for the sake of prestige?
Films (in general) have been getting longer since the start of film making. Back in the early 1930s it wasn't uncommon for movies to be only 1 hour long. For most of the 20th century 90 minutes to 2 hours was the norm as it allowed the maximum amount of showings at theaters. David Lynch found this out when he was told he was not allowed to make Dune as long as he wanted.
Quote from David Lynch about Dune: "In those days, the maximum length they figured I could have is two hours and seventeen minutes, and that's what the film is, so they wouldn't lose a screening a day, so once again, it's money talking, and not for the film at all...
However as pointed out by AgrippinaX streaming has made longer films more feasible. I would also add that DVD/BluRay sales have made longer films more desirable because people spending money on a DVD/BluRay would understandably like more movie time for their hard earned money.

On the flip side, there has always been very long movies, even back in the silent era.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
It seems that mostly action movies are getting longer I find, because they use to usually be less than 2 hours, now they go over, and are somewhere between 2 1/2. I think The Dark Knight started it and when that came out Hollywood was thinking oh crap, we have to make our action movies that long now. Could that be it? It seems to line up, after that movie came out.

However, dramas are now shorter, and you almost never see a drama that goes up to 3 hours like you use to, back in 90s and some in the 2000s for example.



However as pointed out by AgrippinaX streaming has made longer films more feasible. I would also add that DVD/BluRay sales have made longer films more desirable because people spending money on a DVD/BluRay would understandably like more movie time for their hard earned money.
Like lynch said
so once again, it's money talking, and not for the film at all...

Do you think this effects the art? Making longer movies for the sake of the audiences getting their perceived bang for the buck?

Streaming services allowing films to be longer is a good thing if its deserved, I dont know how longer films would benefit streaming services other than reputation of being a grand film and attracting people i suppose same with theaters.



Just my opinion, but about 99% of the movies I've seen in the last decade that are over two hours long didn't need to be. I can always pinpoint a scene or two that were totally unnecessary. Anytime you let a movie run over two hours, you are flirting with cinephile attention span.



Like lynch said
so once again, it's money talking, and not for the film at all...


A film is both a commercial and artistic venture. You have to succeed on both fronts if you want to have a career in the business as a director or producer.


Do you think this effects the art? Making longer movies for the sake of the audiences getting their perceived bang for the buck?

Streaming services allowing films to be longer is a good thing if its deserved, I dont know how longer films would benefit streaming services other than reputation of being a grand film and attracting people i suppose same with theaters.

Longer films allow for longer "beats" which allows more immersion. It allows for more naturalistic explanation by showing us. It allow for more scenes showing emotional development, motivation, how A got over to B, etc. It means you need less direct exposition and the narrative may enjoy greater continuity without feeling chopped up and lunging ahead in motion. It can, however, encourage laziness as the need to trim the fat via editing is not as keenly felt (e.g., Star Wars was saved in the editing bay). Longer films are also a challenge for audience attention and viewers tend to "feel" differently about their perception of time within the world of the movie depending on length (e.g., "Well, that was short." "We never got to see X." "Gads, that took an age!" "How many endings does Lord of the Rings need?").



The length of the film, of course, should reflect of the needs of the story, with financial interests serving as a guardrail.



I like James Bond, but James Bond does not need to be any longer than two hours. No matter what stereotypes you're trying to kill off.



Like lynch said
so once again, it's money talking, and not for the film at all...

Do you think this effects the art? Making longer movies for the sake of the audiences getting their perceived bang for the buck?
I think there's often a comprise between the artist film maker and the process of film making and the influence of the market place. Sometimes the ability to make longer films suits the source material (like long novels) and allows more character or world building. On the other hand if a movie bores someone because it's too long according to their wants, then that isn't a plus.

Basically I don't know, if longer movies hurt or help the effects of art. Good question though.

Streaming services allowing films to be longer is a good thing if its deserved, I dont know how longer films would benefit streaming services other than reputation of being a grand film and attracting people i suppose same with theaters.
That's a good point. I don't really know why streaming services would benefit from longer movies, but maybe it's more like today the restraint of needing shorter films for the theater is off, so film maker's can make a film how they want.



Better Living Through Movie Quotes
I think the discipline required of directors to cut their films to the bone over commercial considerations has been an overall good thing for cinema.


I base that statement on watching numerous "Director's Cuts" and commentaries by directors and deleted scene segments on disc bonus features.



In the commentaries, many directors like to discuss how they agonized over cutting this or that, many times just because they loved the scene or performance and not because it drove the story. In my eyes, the large majority of "Deleted scenes" in disc bonus features were better out of the film (much less true of edits due to censor/rating considerations). But based on the directors' comments, if there was more wiggle room in feature length, the unnecessary scenes would be left in, weakening the picture.



Maybe artistic freedom is a noble concept and the idea of a director being constrained by a distributor's financial concerns is artistically repugnant, but in an odd way, I think the result of these forces has been artistically positive for more films than not.



I HOPE movies are getting longer. My feeling is that if a film maker doesn't make a two hour movie, then he might not have enough to say.

OTOH, like some others, I've seen 2.5 hours+ movies where certain sections drag, and could have done without. We're seeing that frequently in series presentations where they drag it out to 8 episodes, when 5 or 6 might have been enough. But the streamer wants 8, so... Oftentimes there is not enough material to warrant that many episodes.



The trick is not minding
No, I don’t feel films have gotten longer. I do feel blockbusters (Marvel, DC, James Bond etc) do tend to be longer than the average film, however.

But plenty of the film I have seen in the past year released solely in 2021, Pig, Werewolves Within, Prisoner of the Ghostland, Wily’s Wonderland, Wrath or Man, CODA, Last Night in Soho, The Courier for example are all just at 2 hrs or less. In some cases, far less.
Grab the d this is a small sample size, but I’d wager there are far more that run around 2 hours or less than you would expect.



Seems like every new film i see has a 2 1/2 runtime, not sure if they are getting longer or not but i feel alot them could do it in less time.



Are they getting longer for the sake of prestige?
No. I just made one and it's 9 minutes long.



My feeling is that if a film maker doesn't make a two hour movie, then he might not have enough to say.

OTOH, like some others, I've seen 2.5 hours+ movies where certain sections drag


It's amazing to read things like that.



It seems that mostly action movies are getting longer I find, because they use to usually be less than 2 hours, now they go over, and are somewhere between 2 1/2....

However, dramas are now shorter, and you almost never see a drama that goes up to 3 hours like you use to, back in 90s...
I like James Bond, but James Bond does not need to be any longer than two hours. No matter what stereotypes you're trying to kill off.
... I do feel blockbusters (Marvel, DC, James Bond etc) do tend to be longer than the average film, however.

But plenty of the film I have seen in the past year released solely in 2021, Pig, Werewolves Within, Prisoner of the Ghostland, Wily’s Wonderland, Wrath or Man, CODA, Last Night in Soho, The Courier for example are all just at 2 hrs or less. In some cases, far less...
I think you guys are on to something. Blockbusters having gotten longer (probably so that fans will buy the BluRays). While dramas have gotten shorter, probably because dramas aren't as popular as they once were.



I think the discipline required of directors to cut their films to the bone over commercial considerations has been an overall good thing for cinema.

I base that statement on watching numerous "Director's Cuts" and commentaries by directors and deleted scene segments on disc bonus features.

In the commentaries, many directors like to discuss how they agonized over cutting this or that, many times just because they loved the scene or performance and not because it drove the story. In my eyes, the large majority of "Deleted scenes" in disc bonus features were better out of the film (much less true of edits due to censor/rating considerations). But based on the directors' comments, if there was more wiggle room in feature length, the unnecessary scenes would be left in, weakening the picture.

Maybe artistic freedom is a noble concept and the idea of a director being constrained by a distributor's financial concerns is artistically repugnant, but in an odd way, I think the result of these forces has been artistically positive for more films than not.
I agree with your post.

I've said many times on this site that most of the director's cuts that I've seen aren't as good as the original theatrical releases. The DC's just seem to have added in surplus scenes that don't really make the movie any better, but it does sell the special Director's Cut BluRays.

I've also watched numerous deleted scenes and 9 out of 10 times I find myself saying, 'yeah that scene should've been cut'.

A famous director once said of his films that he cuts out in the editing room everything that doesn't directly add to the story, resulting in a finely honed film....Geez, I wish I could remember the director's name.



Seems like every new film i see has a 2 1/2 runtime, not sure if they are getting longer or not but i feel alot them could do it in less time.

Are they getting longer for the sake of prestige?
No you are just getting older bumdumtiss

Films go through ebbs and flows, the 2 1/2 main stream Hollywood films are often created for several reason.
  1. Toys/Merch - the longer the movie the more characters and set pieces you can put in and produce more toys
  2. Diversity - When you cast actors like Lawrence Fishburne in the Superman movies you can't just have him as a cameo you have to give him an actual story arc. It's hard to tell just a one person story you can't do a Blade Runner or an Indiana Jones where you have one character moving through a universe. The side effect of all of this is it's bloats out the run-time.
  3. Death of B-Movies/Art House films - Some of the greatest movies of all time were limited because they were B-pictures. When people went to the movies they wanted to not see just one movie but cartoons, new reels, and multiple films. You also had indie studios that released films in theaters and not towards streaming



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I think the discipline required of directors to cut their films to the bone over commercial considerations has been an overall good thing for cinema.


I base that statement on watching numerous "Director's Cuts" and commentaries by directors and deleted scene segments on disc bonus features.



In the commentaries, many directors like to discuss how they agonized over cutting this or that, many times just because they loved the scene or performance and not because it drove the story. In my eyes, the large majority of "Deleted scenes" in disc bonus features were better out of the film (much less true of edits due to censor/rating considerations). But based on the directors' comments, if there was more wiggle room in feature length, the unnecessary scenes would be left in, weakening the picture.



Maybe artistic freedom is a noble concept and the idea of a director being constrained by a distributor's financial concerns is artistically repugnant, but in an odd way, I think the result of these forces has been artistically positive for more films than not.
I've also seen the opposite and on the DVD for The French Connection, I felt that a couple if not more of the deleted scenes, should have been put back in, and the director was talking about how they chose to cut them out after, and I thought, why didn't you leave that in! So I guess it goes both ways.