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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.