No wonder most of of what’s being released is utter garbage by people with no life experience and anything to say.
Love that people complain about the length of movies while simultaneously happily siting through eight, hour+ long episodes of Stranger Things over two evenings.
Especially when many hours could have easily been left on the cutting room floor of most streaming shows, but they need to streeetch the runtime so that the writers can meet their contractual, or whatever other internal requirements.
Love that people complain about the length of movies while simultaneously happily siting through eight, hour+ long episodes of Stranger Things over two evenings.
Because a movie is a constant continuation, where as each episode has a hard end and you can stop and decide if you want to continue or stop.
My favorite is when they they say something like “it starts getting good in season 3”. Like I’m going to watch tens of hours of a show that kind of sucks just to see if it actually starts getting good or not?
Of course, the reality is that they aren’t really watching the show like I would - as in, they aren’t sitting down and giving it their undivided attention. The show is on, but they’re also on their phones the entire time, or it’s on in the background and they are doing something else, or whatever. Probably one of the reasons why the show feels like it’s full of filler - they need to make sure that someone that’s only sort of paying attention can still follow what’s going on.
I’m pretty sure that’s actually true.
Not to completely invalidate your point but streaming shows are pretty formulaic in terms of pacing, with convenient break intervals, and are seldom very deep. Films are harder to break up around a bathroom trip or decide to put on hold until another day.
Not to completely invalidate your point but have you ever noticed the [pause] button when you’re watching a movie?
The exception is for cinema films, and any cinema film over two hours long (which is very rare) will generally have an intermission. Not that we were limiting the discussion to cinema entertainment anyway.
thumbnail of The Brutalist (4 hrs long) okay perhaps not the best example
I’m not a film student but I assume that long, comparatively difficult films by Tarkovsky, Ozu, etc are a lot of what the film students are watching and I would imagine that the professors are commentating on more recent developments
And not exactly 4 hours of easy watching.
You want to re-calibrate from the constant barrage of content? Find a way to watch The Wrath of God its a good movie that opens with a series of 30 second set shots of water flowing. Its like anti-transformers level of stillness
I only ever had Facebook, Twitter and Reddit and just couldn’t get into Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, etc. so this is really perplexing to me. It just can’t be true can it?
I also can’t stand using a phone while watching a TV show (paid streaming, no ads) or a movie. It’s sad to me that people are unwilling to immerse themselves in something for just a while.
Did you have an iPad/phone shoved in front of you during mealtime, or when waiting for a sibling during their sports practice or game, or while waiting at the doctors office, or if your parents had guests or were visiting a friend, or in literally every single potential moment of boredom that could be filled with learning patience, reflection and just enjoying silence?
Because that’s the new normal for a whole generation of kids.
I have young kids in gen alpha, bought them up with quite minimal screen time, and the behavioural differences between them and their peers that have been bought up with heavy screen use iPad as the primary tool of choice is stark and very concerning for those kids’ future.
And lemme tell you, none of the parents I gently tried to encourage the importance of boredom with over the years changed their behaviour much. As soon as it became a regular tool to deal with an child needing attention it became a very hard thing to part with.
Hey chadGPT, summarize this Fellini for me.
What does “intermission” mean?
To be fair those older movies are long as fuck. I watched something with 10 minute long opening credits the other day. I had to skip it.
I remember watching 2001, a space odyssey, and being thoroughly underwhelmed by it. Visually stunning, but if I hadn’t also read the book, I’d have had absolutely no idea what was happening for most of the film.
Watching it builds character
The Truffaut film referenced is an hour and 45 minutes.
What movie had 10 minutes of opening credits? Back when credits were at the open, it used to be about 30 seconds of credits.
I saw It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World recently and the whole movie was like 1 hour too long at minimum, with 10 minutes to both start and end the movie. Funny, but way too long.
Even its title is too long, you could cut about 50% of those words and not lose any meaning.
Plenty movies from the 40s and 50s ran all the credits at the beginning along with an overture. IMO the overture is one of the best parts of older movies, which often had amazing, sweeping soundtracks
Please name one. Never seen one that had more than 2 minutes of opening credit even if you include the extra symphonic stuff as “credits” (we don’t count previews toward runtimes now, so not sure it’s a fair comparison). Maybe one or two had a dedicated symphonic opening but that was exceedingly rare
Reading your reaction to everyone else’s comments, did you read the part where I said credits and an overture? What’s got you so wound up over this? You’ll notice I never said 10 minutes like that first guy, but most movies have way longer opening titles than 30 seconds, which is what you said…
Which Lawrence of Arabia version from the 40s or 50s (your words) are you referring to?
If you mean the famous 60s film…. Yes, it has a minute of credits and another 4 or 5 for the overture. Not credits.
Again, still looking for examples of extended credit sequences. Overtures are basically the same as intermissions. That’s a totally different beast.
Even if you want to lump them together, we’re still at the “one or two” I mentioned. Huge Hollywood blockbusters. Exceedingly rare.
I literally said overture in the comment that’s got you all bothered
Oh boy. I just reread your edited comments. It’s hard to keep up when you edit like that
But yes, I would still care to hear your 40s and 50s examples. If you have one where overture+credits approaches 10 minutes, I’d be shocked. As we’ve discussed, some examples in the 60s can hit 5 minutes, but that’s about the most I’ve seen
Watched planet of the apes the other day and it had a good amount of opening credits. Couldn’t tell you the length off the top of my head
4 minutes. That’s a great example of the rare symphonic opening I was referencing.
But that’s also not the 40s or 50s.
The Outsiders had a stupidly long intro if my memory is correct. I remember taking the tape out to check if maybe it was at the end and the credits were rolling.
Lawrence of Arabia.
Why do people keep naming 60s films with 4 minutes of musical intros when I’m asking for 40s and 50s films with 10 minute credit intros lol?
Edit: overture is the word I was looking for, not “musical intro”. But that’s not a thing that happened in early cinema (barring Chaplin, who had strict control of scores - would be interested if someone else cares to google that)
4 minutes? Not the version I saw in theatre, my friend. Mind you, it’s not exactly what you wanted either, even though it was longer than ten minutes of music at the start: a lot of it was playing while the screen was black, then at a certain point every theme in the music came together, the glorious visuals started up, and I knew I was in for a masterpiece.
Only 10 minutes credits? That’s weak.
To be fair you’ve already probability seem the best parts stolen, cut and pasted into modern day rehash money grabs. Enjoy your souless ai slop where the actors repeat the obvious plot over and over? Perhaps you would care for another transformer or fast and furious film? The cinematic filmography chopped so it fits vertically on a cell phone screen! But hey at least the actors repeat the main plot points so you know whats going on.
What about three-hour films?
Some modern ones are absolute garbage, but some are worth the bladder pain!
I don’t think he knows about Second Disc, PattyMcB
Someone tell me how that’s a problem. Maybe the decades old films are just as interesting as a lecture and having troubles at a lecture at uni isn’t unheard of.
I think two-hour movies are soon to be a thing of the past. But, will people pay premium prices to watch a one-hour TV episode on the big screen? One hour is all anyone can handle anymore, and then only if they can also look at their phones, they get the shakes if they can’t look at their phones.
When we switch to XR/AR goggles worn every waking moment, that will be the end of movie theaters, and so many other things. Only a few will survive, like drive-ins today.
I don’t think it’s just the old man in me saying we’re heading in a bad direction.
The only ones as a group avoiding this are the “elite”. The filthy rich don’t let their kids use this tech. Their kids go to schools like they were before smartphones. Pencil, paper, and good grades required to pass. I mean the billionaires, there’s a huge difference between $100 million, which is rich to we poors, and $1 billion+. We down here tend to group them all together, but they are not the same. One-hundred million is the new middle class.
One hour, bah. I don’t understand why people complain about 1 minute youtube shorts. That seems about the right length.
