The thread for movies that aren't going to get their own thread but are still in theaters

I agree that the runtime of current movies is out of control and almost never worth it.

It has singlehandedly destroyed my interest in seeing movies in theaters. The last time we considered it, it was to see the new Bond movie just for the heck of it, until we saw it was 2 hours and 40 minutes and bailed.

It's become a running joke on my favorite film podcast, where they have started to veto which movie they review next week based on whether or not it goes over the 120 minute mark.

I'll throw my opinion in and say the last few movies I've watched in the theater have been >120 minutes and it did not bother me. I'm not sure I even noticed it. I can't recall what the last 3 hour movie i watched was though.

I will say that the 25 -30 mins of commercials beforehand is past its prime. I'm not even talking about the ads that run BEFORE the schedules start those are fine. I'm talking about all the junk that they show at the scheduled start time of the movie.

I don't mind long movies, so long as they make sense and tell a coherent story. I just felt like the last 30-45 of The Batman were unnecessary.

SallyNasty wrote:

I don't mind long movies, so long as they make sense and tell a coherent story. I just felt like the last 30-45 of The Batman were unnecessary.

I guess that's what I'm getting at.

Is a long runtime universally terrible? No, obviously not.

It's just that I am finding it is a current trend that has more to do with a director going "it's digital, not on film, so no reason to cut this scene anymore" or the studio going "We paid millions to have a CGI jungle scene so it's damn well staying in" then any real relevance to the plot.

And I would say it's almost never necessary when we are talking about these Hollywood blockbuster films. On one hand I'm being told that it's just a big dumb action movie so I can't criticize it that much, I should just turn my brain off and have fun. On the other, I'm being told that a 30 minute side story with awful melodrama that is no fun to watch is essential to this big dumb action movie.

There apparently is a 4 hour cut of The Batman that was shown to test audiences.

Woof.

There's an easy solution for director's self-indulgent need for long running times. It's called a :shudder: tv series.

That said, there are a LOT of 10 episode seasons that could easily be edited down into a two hour movie.

Remember when TV seasons were 28 episodes? Talk about filler...

PaladinTom wrote:

There's an easy solution for director's self-indulgent need for long running times. It's called a :shudder: tv series.

That said, there are a LOT of 10 episode seasons that could easily be edited down into a two hour movie.

I see a lot of it as trend-following instead of thinking long and hard about the needs of a particular story.

Jackson's Lord of the Rings was great! But most stories don't need to be 3.5-hour-per-installment epic trilogies.

Game of Thrones was great! (For four seasons and then it jumped off a cliff.) But ten-episode seasons are an awkward length for a lot of stories; most of them could either stand to lose the cruft and become a movie, or add two or three episodes to give things room to breath.

Stele wrote:

Remember when TV seasons were 28 episodes? Talk about filler...

I have a lot of fondness for the episodic 20-something-episode-season model of television. It doesn't work for everything, but a Star Trek, for example, could afford to take more risks and indulge in more weird experiments when every season wasn't a ten-hour serialized movie.

hbi2k wrote:

I see a lot of it as trend-following instead of thinking long and hard about the needs of a particular story.

Bladerunner 2049 was 163 minutes, and the original Bladerunner was 117. It's not 100% a re-telling of the story, but I'm not sure the extra minutes added enough for me. I was very aware of how much time I was in that theater seat.

hbi2k wrote:

Jackson's Lord of the Rings was great! But most stories don't need to be 3.5-hour-per-installment epic trilogies.

On the other hand, Spider-Man: No Way Home was 148 minutes, and I wasn't bored for any of it.

I've noticed a few shows that embraced the fact that they were a series on a streaming platform - each season is a different number of episodes, some episodes are 30 minutes while others are 70 - but too many still kind of fit to an outdated standard. Although there is something to be said for following those old restraints for creative purposes. I remember when CD's took over from cassettes is the same time there were a lot of 17 song albums that would have been better if they were also forced to cut.

Stele wrote:

Remember when TV seasons were 28 episodes? Talk about filler...

My partner and I have been watching a few 90s shows as our "watch these in the morning while we play with our phones because watching the news stresses us out" rotation.. It is a weird feeling because we will feel like we've been watching a show forever - in the time we are used to finishing an entire modern series - and then I check and we have barely started Season 3 of 12.

hbi2k wrote:
Stele wrote:

Remember when TV seasons were 28 episodes? Talk about filler...

I have a lot of fondness for the episodic 20-something-episode-season model of television. It doesn't work for everything, but a Star Trek, for example, could afford to take more risks and indulge in more weird experiments when every season wasn't a ten-hour serialized movie.

Sure. I can wonder if some of the unique episodes of Buffy (Hush, The Body, Once More With Feeling, etc.) would get made if it was say 10-13 episodes instead of 22. All arc all the time leaves less room for experiments.

But some experiments fail miserably. S2 Buffy "Go Fish" where the swim coach uses some strange Russian science to turn the swimmers into fish people. Ugh...

All arc all the time leaves less room for experiments character development.

FIXED

MannishBoy wrote:

There apparently is a 4 hour cut of The Batman that was shown to test audiences.

I could totally see where they had hacked out important transitional scenes.

It was still an hour too long.

Alternatively, it might have worked better as a miniseries on a streaming service.

hbi2k wrote:

I have a lot of fondness for the episodic 20-something-episode-season model of television. It doesn't work for everything, but a Star Trek, for example, could afford to take more risks and indulge in more weird experiments when every season wasn't a ten-hour serialized movie.

I think that's just nostalgia. A 23+ episode season had maybe three or four outstanding episodes everyone fondly remembers, some decent episodes, a whole lot of bad or pointless filler episodes, and the inevitable bottle or recap episode or two because the outstanding episodes chewed up the show's budget.

I'll take the new streaming model because instead of getting 15 'meh' episodes of a 23+ episode show they can produce two entirely new shows that would have never been given the green light under the old model. That's where the real risk and experimentation is.

Recap / flashback episodes suck, obviously, but there have been some great episodes of television that have been "bottle" episodes.

The thing about short-season, heavily-serialized, "prestige" television is that not only is it harder to do well (more moving parts to keep track of), but the stakes are higher because you're hitching your show's entire wagon to a handful of plot lines.

In the hands of someone like a Vince Gilligan, it's given us some of the best television of all time. In the hands of someone like an Alex Kurtzman....

We went and saw Lost City today at the local theater. It was silly and fun.

Some shows do just fine with the 20+ episode model. Season 3 of Deep Space 9 only had two real clunkers IMO ("Meridian" and "Fascination"), with the entire rest of the season being anywhere from good to outstanding.

Not every show fits this type of format, but the breathing room of the old style of annual lengthy seasons fit certain types of shows particularly well, just as the more intense focus and pacing of shorter "prestige" format seasons suits some shows particularly well too.

I love long movies and long-form TV shows. If I like a world, I enjoy soaking in it, even for fluff storylines. For me, it's the world-building. I mean... No one says Fury Road was too long, right? It was right on the 2 hour mark and left audiences wanting more. Bladerunner 2049... Great film, immersive setting. Loved "The Hobbit" movies purely for the immersion, once again.

I guess I know what motivates me to enjoy a movie.

One armed warrior women, lifelike androids and second breakfastses?

Robear wrote:

I guess I know what motivates me to enjoy a movie. :-)

Warner Bros?

...besides Dot and the gang...

Saw Lost City last night - loved it. It was great to see a relaxing romcom.

Hey, go see Everything Everywhere All At Once right now. Now. Like, now. It's so good.

trichy wrote:

Hey, go see Everything Everywhere All At Once right now. Now. Like, now. It's so good.

Thanks for the recommendation. Was curious about this one but had forgotten about it.

trichy wrote:

Hey, go see Everything Everywhere All At Once right now. Now. Like, now. It's so good.

What is it? Where can I see it? And should I watch it across multiple sessions, or...?

merphle wrote:
trichy wrote:

Hey, go see Everything Everywhere All At Once right now. Now. Like, now. It's so good.

What is it? Where can I see it? And should I watch it across multiple sessions, or...?

Here

Echoing trichy. It's the best sci fi kung fu romcom family drama you've ever seen.

It's just bananas from start to finish.

The trailer looks amazingly ridiculous. Gotta see it now. Thanks for the tip.

trichy wrote:

Hey, go see Everything Everywhere All At Once right now. Now. Like, now. It's so good.

I'm still not comfortable going to theaters...