Movies have been getting longer for a few years or so but they are especially long this year. Look at the biggest films this year and see how they are about 20-30min longer than they would be in the past.
- The Flash - 2h 24m
- Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny - 2h 34m
- Oppenheimer - 3h
- Barbie - 1h 54m
- John Wick: Chapter 4 - 2h 49m
- Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 - 2h 29m
And even crazier are the 2 parter movies.
- Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse - 2h 16m
- Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One - 2h 43m
- Dune 2 - reported way over 2h
A few years ago this was different.
- Action films like Indiana Jones, Marvel movies, John Wick and Mission Impossible used to be about 2h - 2h 15m.
- Movies closest to Barbie like Clueless and Legally Blonde were about 1h 30m.
- Biopics like Oppenheimer were longer but not 3h. Lincoln was 2h 30m.
- Animated films would be 1h 45m max.
- Lynch’s original Dune was almost 3h cut by the studio to 2h 15m.
I remember when Harry Potter Deathly Hallows got criticism for being a 2 parter. The Dark Knight Rises got push back from theaters saying it was too long and made it difficult to have a lot of showtimes. Now it feels like these long showtimes and 2 parters are the rule rather than the exception.
Do you prefer movies longer or do you think they are getting too bloated and need to be cut down?
Also what is causing this trend of long films? I think it’s streaming and binging making people more comfortable watching TV for a long time. But I see people say that attention spans are getting shorter thanks to the internet so I don’t really know.
This is an interesting graph! I think the phenomenon of longer runtimes has two major reasons:
1. Streaming Studios are much less stringent with how long a movie can be since it’s less of a concern how many times it can be shown per day/theatre. Also, runtime doesn’t matter as much when the viewers can pause and return to it whenever they please. This is encouraged by streaming services because it also increases the overall time spent in the app.
2. The vanishing of medium-budget movies High-profile, high-budget movies by known directors have always been longer on average, because they can afford to do so and are expected to draw large audiences. In recent years the number of mid-budget movies, the likes we are used to from pre-2010, has drastically decreased in favor of big blockbuster productions (here’s an article about it). So the average runtime has increased as a consequence of this.
I personally don’t like this trend. Although I really enjoy longer movies, most of them wind up with obnoxious amounts of badly written filler-content.
One thing people probably aren’t considering is tapes. They had a literal length to them. I remember Titanic was a 2 tape set because it was so long. That meant, movies wanted to meaningfully hit the home market, they had to be short enough to fit on one tape, including any preroll advertisements the studio wanted the squeeze in.
DVDs helped a little, but they took were constrained, and were trying to pack in additional features while they were at it.
Now all bets are off in the home market. Even TV shows have started changing to match the format. Streaming first shows are often variable length per episode. Rather than try to fit a specific size, they run until the story is told, like a movie.
That peak in the early 2000s has to be the extended LOTR trilogy. Which I’m very happy to watch
From the data, it looks like average lengths have gone down since about 2004, so this year may just be an anomaly.
There’s a big difference in a 2 hr plus movie that’s all fluff and one that actually has substance/is compelling. I can’t sit through modern movies anymore because the story isn’t really worth my time or attention.
I dunno man, Spiderverse 2p1 absolutely flew by - what a great movie
I cant wait for Beyond!
This. I had no problem sitting through Across the Spider-Verse or Guardians 3 because the story had good pacing and kept me interested.
On the other hand, I can watch Lawrence of Arabia (year 1958, 222 minutes) without a problem.
I prefer to watch films that are good to great, no matter the time as long as the artists know how to use the time well and make the work worth to watch. There is fantastic works that span the whole spectrum, from short films to lenghy films, and there is trash all the way too (Some director compared it to paintings, that range from tiny papers to whole walls). If we really think about it, any anthology series like Black Mirror and The Twilight Zone 1959 are just a collection of short films that share a theme, some recurring stage crew, and etc. If i am short on literal time, i have no problem stopping and taking multiple sections to watch a film (purists have some point that it loses a little of the impact some times, but most of the time it really does not).
I think it is 2 reasons for the trend:
- Cinema-at-home technologies just keeps getting so much better all the time, and it is already pretty great. Streaming and 80 inch 4K OLED TVs are just the latest iteration of a process started in the 1950s with tube TVs, and if VR-AR glasses popularize they will be the next. Cinema Studios and Cinema-at-theater companies had to invent new immersive technologies and art forms to stay competitive, from the rectangle screen form (16:9) until IMAX 4-D etc. They also artificially benefited the cinema-at-theater by having the release window schedule (3 months in theaters, another 6 months to dvd, 1-2 years to tv, etc), that has been diminushed but it still exists (6 weeks to 2 months in theaters i think), and in our FOMO infested culture this might make theaters stay in the long run in some form or another. But overall, home has never been such a sweet place to watch cinema.
- The endless rat-race to keep cinema-at-theater competitive with cinema-at-home has eventually made that only Blockbusters in high tecnology cinemas are attractive enough to most people, and to pay for all this sensorial spectacle that ranges from the theaters to the films themselves, the scale of capital costs in the whole industry has just risen to the roof, and now the tickets are usually very expensive (and foods drinks etc). The average consumer in turn, feels that going to a film in a theater has to be WORTH it, has to be better than home and has to compensate for the high ticket (and foods etc) price. This means that films have to be a Spectacle that is highly sensorial and lasts a lot of time to become a memorable Event in the persons day, week or month. So, longer run times.
There is a cinema industry that is already more advanced in these characteristics: it’s Bollywood, with the Masala genre (i.e. a spectacle that has to please the whole family, and they include at least some romance action drama dance music in every film) and many hours of lengh (4hr is not unusual). Because the average indian is poor, and they go to the cinema rarely, so the indian studios have to make it worth it, an Event for the whole family, like Hollywood has to now. There is also something of a Music Show vibe, where the audience cheers and claps when the stars appears on screen, and actively engages with the film throughout (booing a vilain , lamenting a death scene, etc), it reminds me of the marvel spider man 3, but times 10 and all the time, it’s a cinema-at-theater experience also unmatched by home, because of the collective element. Maybe Bollywood is the mirror that Hollywood has to emulate now, instead of the other way.
Intuitively your analysis hits the nail on the head. Studios need to justify the spectacle to compete with home theatre setups and streaming
deleted by creator
Apparently none of this got through to the creators of The Watchmen.
deleted by creator
The movie. I’m pretty sure we saw the directors cut but also it could have been the regular theatrical release. All I remember is sitting there bored out of my mind and randomly being flashed by the blue thing.
I’m gonna have to be that guy and say the graphic novels were way better than that thing Snyder made. But part of why it’s long is it’s an entire series being condensed down into a single movie.
I don’t necessarily object to longer films, but my small-to-begin-with-and-now-middle-aged bladder sure does. Bring back intermissions!
Yeah. Anything over 2 hours, I’s rather watch it at home so I don’t have to sprint to the bathroom and miss part of the movie.
I remember Damien Chazelle saying that they had considered an intermission for Babylon but that there was no natural break point in the story. Having seen it, I can state with perfect confidence that it does contain an appropriate point for an intermission at just the right time. I suspect that Chazelle just couldn’t bear the thought of the audience not watching his opus straight through.
I just watch movies at home now with a surround sound system and large OLED TV. I can pause when I want, or split a movie over two evenings.
The delay between a movie coming from a cinema release to 4K streaming services (and the accompanying pirate copy) is down to around 4-6 weeks now. Which is an acceptable wait for me.
Yeah, I watch anything I want to see at home, in my comfy entertainment room. The last movie I saw in theatres was in late 2021, I think? And that was at a local, independently owned theatre. The big corporate ones are so ridiculously overpriced these days.
It’s getting to the point where they need an intermission.
Let’s all go to the Lobby,
Let’s all go to the Lobby!
Let’s all go to the Lobby,
And grab ourselves a treat!
I would advocate for the return of intermissions! Theater chains would love it, because it would mean more concessions.
Logistically, theaters could include a timer/notification on an app for patrons to keep track before returning. Not to mention most venues have assigned seating, so no one loses their spot.
Yes the app idea would be great! Assigned seating does make it more feasible.
I’ve generally stopped watching movies because they’re too long. I prefer the shorter episodes of TV shows.
Every now and then when I’m in the mood for a movie I’m looking for 90 minute movies. Otherwise I doze off
Where did all the 90 minute movies go? I’m up for a longer movie if it can hold my attention (I have the same problem of dozing off) but 90 minutes was the sweet spot. Especially because you could make a late night (10pm or after) snap decision to watch a movie and still be in bed before midnight.
Netflix has a 90-minute movie category. Search for it a few times, and it’ll show up on your home page.
I’m finding harder to even find 90m horror films to watch on Halloween. Used to be every horror film was 90m lol.
Do you watch TV more than 2 hrs per day? Multiple episodes of a show or just one and done?
Personally I don’t think that’s the point at all. Even if there are multiple episodes of a show watched in the same day, there are 2 things missing from movies that make shows considerably more appealing.
The first is that with shows, you already know this is just buildup of more story, so if it’s slow or character development lags, as long as you are still into it, it’s fine, they have so much time to tell the story and develop everything fully. Movies, unless planned as multi-release franchises, rarely have this going for them. It has to engage you enough to want to slam down 2 hours of time upfront. Most movies fail spectacularly to build their characters enough for me to want to drop that sort of time on the nothingpotato predictable ending, but I’ll gladly do so with shows.
The second is flexibility. If you want to watch 4 episodes that are 30 min, you can, but you can also choose to stop after 2 if it isn’t holding your interest or you want to do something else. You can pause a movie that isn’t engaging you enough and come back later, but let’s be real, we all know how that turns out 85+% of the time…
I don’t really watch more than 2 hours per day. Sometimes I just watch the 1 episode, and if I’ve started it earlier enough, then I might be able to sneak in another episode before I get into bed.
To be fair on the two part movies, Dune was designed to be two parts (and it kinda fits the story). Across the spider-verse is more of a empire strikes back type of situation of setting everything up for the next film.
Across the Spider-Verse Part 1 is one of the year’s best movies, but I think it could have benefited by cutting about 15 minutes. The pacing felt very deliberate. Scenes took their time to play out, which taken individually were all fine and justifiable, but cumulatively took their toll. In particular I felt that most of the action set pieces could have been trimmed a little here, a little there. That way, that huge action sequence towards the end, where Miles Morales goes up against the combined forces of spider-men, spider-women and other spider-beings (and which I do NOT think should be cut), would have had more of an impact.
Dune, I’m really pleased to hear, is now a three-part movie, with Part 3 adapting Dune Messiah.
I didn’t know they were doing a part 3 with messiah, that’s awesome! I’m excited to hear
Hmm… I may have jumped the gun a little. Villeneuve has said he wants to make a third movie based on Messiah, but WB hasn’t officially confirmed it yet. (I thought I’d seen something issued by the studio which referred to Part 2 as the middle installment of a trilogy but I may have been mistaken.) They’re probably waiting for the box office results before formally greenlighting Part 3, just as they waited to confirm Part 2 even though Villeneuve put “Part 1” in the title of the movie. :-D
More info (for what it’s worth):
I believe Peter Jackson has a lot to answer for in this regard. I feel like the LotR films were the watershed films for longlongfilm acceptance, and they are actually worth the watch in their longest forms.
But then The Hobbit films happened. I remember feeling that 3 films sounded ridiculous and that they were all unnecessarily long considering the length of the book and, compared to the original trilogy, they were rather horrible to look at.
Yes, but also the ending of LotR 3. That felt like the longest ending ever
I don’t disagree, but I’m one of those that was tearing up and wanted it to keep going because I was so invested in the world and characters. I would have happily accepted at least a few more "fade-to-black and then continue"s.
I think its a combination of TV getting better, audiences expecting more and the decline of cinemas.
GOT showed that if you have a truly grand idea you can make billions with a tv show. Audiences want more than the old school “This guy is bad, this guy is good” storylines and who cares if its 3 hours long when most people have 60 inch 5k displays and can pause whenever they want.
Most people have 60 inch 5k displays?
Ah, the things you learn on the internet!I know right…guess I’m not most people.
Really missed the sarcasm on this one. Glad to know it was there. ;)
It’s why I’ve stopped watching movies, it feels like I need to waste most of day with one film.
Bring back 90 minute movies
This is something i’ve been thinking for a while… whilst some movies i’m really glade to see have a 2 hour plus run time… i grew up when movies were 1 1/2 hours… standard… you could sit down, pick any VHS and know you’d be done in an hour and a half…
I don’t go to the cinema much, but the last time i did was to see the sparkly vampire playing Batman… my fucking god that was a long movie to be sat there for…
I do wonder if it’s anything to do with the binge watching that streaming services have brought about for tv shows… but even then for some reason i’d rather sit and watch 3 episodes of something rather than a 3 hour movie… maybe it’s pacing or the way the story is structured.
I mean, if they can justify their lenght go for it. The problem is when movies overstay their welcome.
It makes sense that they are getting longer doesn’t it?
It has gotten easier to film more, with digital storage of the film. It has gotten easier to edit. It has gotten easier to transport bigger films around the world.
So with it becoming easier to make longer movies, why wouldn’t the makers use that to do more story telling in their movies?
Should maybe the movies then take in to account that people watching the movies might want a break, and make the movies with an intermission intended? sure.
Bloat is a problem that a lot of stories have because their creators can’t recognize what needs to be in there and what’s just filler. Sure, there are moments and genres that rely on lingering, but in general more isn’t better, it’s just more.
Besides, easier editing and storage is one thing, but you still need the raw footage that goes into the film, and between actors and sets and props and locations and writers and experts to reference is it really that much cheaper to film a movie now?
Bloat is a problem that a lot of stories have because their creators can’t recognize what needs to be in there and what’s just filler. Sure, there are moments and genres that rely on lingering, but in general more isn’t better, it’s just more.
Oh yeah, there are definitly makers that abuse it to make longer movies that don’t need to be long. Just a bunch of filler that doesn’t realy add to the story. I can’t mention any on the top of my head, but i know i have seen movies where that was a thought i had.
I disagree. The same argument can be made that digital allows for a multiplying of films being made at shorter run times because it allows people to work faster, which is what we saw happen with rhetoric rise of digital until the writer’s strike and then Avatar’s success was truly when the switch over happened.
Companies no longer want to make $40 million off a film that cost $14m to make. Not if they can spend $140 million to make half a billion, or only $60m more to possibly make a full billion.
The same argument can be made that digital allows for a multiplying of films being made at shorter run times
That ignores the creative side of movie making though. Yes, they could make more short movies, but they need a story and script to make the movies from, and that is something that hasn’t become any faster to create with time.
If you are going to make more movies, then you need more people on that process. People who might not be as good at it. You would then quickly end up with a lot more “direct to video” quality movies.
Holy shit Oppenheimer will be 3 hours? Guess I shouldn’t get a drink.
