1. I’ve noticed this trend too, and it drives me nuts. I’m not opposed to going to the movie theater if I’m motivated by a movie enough, but then I’ll find out the time length and it basically deflates my excitement. “Well, maybe this film is worth it.” Two and a half hours later: “Nope, trim it down! Trim. It. Down!” That’s why I love watching stuff on the DVR — I get to be my own little editor. I balked when I realized Anchors Aweigh and Holiday in Mexico were over 2 hours, but then Jose Iturbi comes on and I just zip through his performances and voila, the films aren’t so long!

    • It’s so true. That’s why watching at home can be better, in spite of everything. You can fast forward, just as you do with commercials:) It’s also a reason classic movies often draw me more at home too. Do I have 68 minutes to spend with Mae West, or 2:30 for the Oscar nominee I missed?

  2. I definitely agree with you about movie lengths! And when you factor in the 20 minutes of movie trailers that come before the featured film, half the time I’ve finished my popcorn before the film has even started.

    I once found a quote attributed to Hitchcock, who said “The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder.” With recent movies it often feels like I need to prepare by not drinking too much liquid so I don’t have to rush out when the film is coming to a close because I just can’t wait any longer.

  3. darcivalentine

    Brilliant observation… I never thought about how it really does eat up an entire afternoon. Saw the Bond film last night!

  4. Hello, and thank you for my first pingback! Probably more pleased about that than I really should be but never mind.

    Needless to say, I agree entirely. I think the golden age of TV has a big part to play, but I don’t know why movies feel the need to copy that (I also think that at some point people will stop thinking an hour of nothing happening is Shakespearean and textured and start thinking it’s self indulgent and dull – but that’s a whole different bucket of frogs), movies and TV are two different things with their own rules.

    I’m also not sure it makes cold commercial sense. If, say, Spectre were 100 minutes long, how many people would have given it a miss because they wanted value for money? Maybe fewer than would have gone to the extra screenings that could then have been squeezed in?

Leave a Reply