The Movie Thread

[Deleted member 88328]

I think this is less likely than it sounds.

I remember in the 90's MTV and things like Baz Luhrmann's Romeo+Juliet were meant to rot our mind.

My generation likes long form you tube video and prestige drama usually well over an hour long and Oppenheimer a 3 hour biopic just made stupid money. And we've just discussed dropping entire TV shows at once.

I think its just standard kids like shorter stuff but as they get older they prefer longer stuff.

Most likely, yeah. Plus, there might not be any correlation. Just because someone likes 10 second shorts doesn't mean they can't watch a 2 hour film if it's good.

 

[Saintjay]

I do miss the standard 90min run times. I love 'The Batman' but it could have lost 20 minutes with no issue. I do think films are definitely getting longer and a few could easily do with a trim.

 

[McTallshort]

Laurence of Arabia? Ben Hurr? Long films are nothing new it's just our attention span isn't what it used to be.

Watched Oppenheimer and have mixed feelings about it. It was well acted etc but due to previous career choices I'm somewhat hard of hearing and have tinnitus which means I struggle to hear what people say when there is background noise. Oppenheimer has background music all the way through from start to finish so I really struggled to hear it at times.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Laurence of Arabia? Ben Hurr? Long films are nothing new it's just our attention span isn't what it used to be.

Watched Oppenheimer and have mixed feelings about it. It was well acted etc but due to previous career choices I'm somewhat hard of hearing and have tinnitus which means I struggle to hear what people say when there is background noise. Oppenheimer has background music all the way through from start to finish so I really struggled to hear it at times.

This is a thing (can't hear dialogue) in most of Nolan's films.

 

[ncurd]

Laurence of Arabia? Ben Hurr? Long films are nothing new it's just our attention span isn't what it used to be.

It's the cinema experience.

Way back when films were distrubuted to exclusive cinemas and put on roadshows by the studio. They made few films at one stage MGM were making one big tent pole film a year. So there wasn't space for films.

Once the 80's hitish and 90's films start reducing massively in time. This is because cinemas have limited but massive screens. So its all about turnaround.

Then with the birth in the multiplex turnaround matters less as you have 10+ screens. So films Starr getting longer again.

 

[McTallshort]

It's the cinema experience.

Way back when films were distrubuted to exclusive cinemas and put on roadshows by the studio. They made few films at one stage MGM were making one big tent pole film a year. So there wasn't space for films.

Once the 80's hitish and 90's films start reducing massively in time. This is because cinemas have limited but massive screens. So its all about turnaround.

Then with the birth in the multiplex turnaround matters less as you have 10+ screens. So films Starr getting longer again.

Lord of the Rings?

 

[Deleted member 88328]

Long films are fine so long as the content it there. Some films do need a good editor to come in and chop it down though. I hear the new little mermaid for example is over 2 hours...for a kids film? Really? The original was much shorter.

Oppenheimer could have been a 2 part documentary imo. Whereas LoTR does have the content to be over 2 hours each though.

 

[ncurd]

Lord of the Rings?

2003 absolutely coincides with increasing length of time from the 90's

 

[McTallshort]

2003 absolutely coincides with increasing length of time from the 90's

All the first Star wars films were over 2 hours long but they were probably an exception

 

[Bada-Bing!]

12 Angry men is one of my favourite films. The original from 1957 was just over an hour and a half. Watched the 1997 one on prime and that's 2 hours. The 1957 one is still far superior.

 

[Deleted member 88328]

 

[Yulia]

12 Angry men is one of my favourite films. The original from 1957 was just over an hour and a half. Watched the 1997 one on prime and that's 2 hours. The 1957 one is still far superior.

Haven't seen the 1997 one,but the original was good. Especially Henry Fonda with his piercing eyes

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Haven't seen the 1997 one,but the original was good. Especially Henry Fonda with his piercing eyes

It's pretty much exactly the same story and dialogue but just unnecessarily that bit longer and of course different actors. Jack Lemmon is just not as good as Henry Fonda. Cobb> Scott.

And it's just better in black and white IMO - reflecting society when such trials were decided by largely all white men. Just one of those there was no need to remake a classic.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

They've released 5 films?

The issue is more they haven't done one for close to 5 years.

i always found it weird, pre the MCU marvel films (sony responsible for spiderman) had been a bit of a joke....and star wars was a licence to print money...but then we get 2-3 marvel films a year for 15 years and i would say more wins than losses....and we get 5...average and disjointed star wars films

2-3 is too many and you can see the marvel burn out....but i have no idea why we havent seen 1-2 star wars movies every year...they have thousands of years of EU the can blunder for material (KotOR trilogy would be an easy one for me), we should have had trilogy followed by a year or two of stand alone like R1 and Solo followed by the next trilogy

 

[ncurd]

i always found it weird, pre the MCU marvel films (sony responsible for spiderman) had been a bit of a joke....and star wars was a licence to print money...but then we get 2-3 marvel films a year for 15 years and i would say more wins than losses....and we get 5...average and disjointed star wars films

2-3 is too many and you can see the marvel burn out....but i have no idea why we havent seen 1-2 star wars movies every year...they have thousands of years of EU the can blunder for material (KotOR trilogy would be an easy one for me), we should have had trilogy followed by a year or two of stand alone like R1 and Solo followed by the next trilogy

I think the simple answer is they flubbed hard. The original plan was regular star wars films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars (see other potential projects)

They started off with a new trilogy but rather than have a creative vision but they hired a creative hack who had never finished off anything well in his life. The JJ Abrams mystery box is also a terrible terrible story telling fram if you want a begining, middle and end whilst finish satifisfactorially.

This is Abrams approach,
Who's Snoke? who cares
Why does Maz have the youngling killer 3000? Who cares
Why does C3PO have a red leg? Who cares
Who's Rey's parents? No important
Why is Luke on the island? *shrugs*

Potentially interesting story setup but with a clear answer the series run onto Rian Johnson playing telephone. Johnson answers some of these questions or simply shows as much attention to it as Abrrams did. But his decisions are incredibly divisive (I think he made a great film).

To fill the gap they create Rogue One which is a production mess Edwards the director has pretty much disowned it. People love it (I think its good but not great) but its really Star Wars for Star Wars nerds. The story is there for something interesting to explore and they pretty much do that in Andor (watch Andor).

TLJ doesn't flop by any stretch but loads are unsatisfied and in terms of later projects in start the studio second guessing they've hired Johnson for a trilogy but the neckbeards hate is strong.

Then their real first misstep is Solo, no one wants a Han Solo original story. Especially one which basically serves to show how he gets his stuff like his name. The movie also fails because it gives Han a love interest and we all know thats doomed because it not Leia. Its fine but no one really cares for it. Its also a production mess they fire Phil Lord and Chris Miller but bring in Ron Howard as a safe pair of hands.

Terroview turns in a script which the studio hates but the schedule must stay. They rehire hack JJ Abrams who unsurprisingly has no idea how to finish the story he started, he writes partially to cater for neckbeards but the studio lost those guys so instead they manage to also **** off those who love TLJ satisfying no one. It flops relative to its insane budget.

Its December 2019 in 5 months the studio shut everything down whilst they rethink things.



They'll get there but yeah the answer is hiring JJ Abrams and theres a reason he's been hired for **** all since.
Edwards, Gilroy, Johnson, Lord & Miller have all done interesting stuff since.
Howard less so since but some of his movies are all time greats.

 

[McTallshort]

People loved TLJ?

 

[ncurd]

People loved TLJ?

Yes quite a significant number.

I'd say from experience its about a 50/50 split its a marmite film but those that hate it really really make their voices heard.

 

[ncurd]

Seriously my experience of watching it at midnight was great film. Me and the wife both loved it, the friend I spoke to that day wasn't so keen but agreed good film. We went to yearly curry in home town the next day and those of who had seen it enjoyed it a lot.

In the coming days we discovered how much some people hated it. And I use marmite clearly here I don't only like the film I find the arguments for the vitriol mostly nonsense. (Canto Bite sequence with the Lllama or whatever does go on too long but its actually a small part of the film).

I've learned to just simply say I disagree though.


I've also noted its more popular with those who experience watching Star Wars was not 1977-1983 as a child or young adult.

 

[McTallshort]

Yes quite a significant number.

I'd say from experience its about a 50/50 split its a marmite film but those that hate it really really make their voices heard.

Yeah I get lots of people made a lot of money slating it on YouTube but I don't hate it, just found it an incredibly poor film like the rest of the sequel trilogy.

 

[Saintjay]

Yeah I get lots of people made a lot of money slating it on YouTube but I don't hate it, just found it an incredibly poor film like the rest of the sequel trilogy.

To be honest i don't think they were any worse than the Lucas three of Menace, Clones and Sith. I found them probably more dull and further examples of films that needed a trim.