important research!
Posted by: Matt McCormick | From: February 8, 2009
dear readers, please help me with this important research! please take the poll and feel free to leave comments with any addition thoughts. together we will get to the bottom of this important topic!
its one thing if you are Terrence Malick and go into 2 hour territory. 80 minutes is a common number for a reason.
Posted by: plante at February 7, 2009 12:10 PM
90 minutes is ideal. I've been thinking about this very subject for many years, and arguing about it for just as long. I am a firm believer in the "shorter is usually better" rule. Malick's longer films are not even his best films. Unless time itself is under investigation - as in longer Warhol stuff or Tarkovsky's patience-testers - I'd aim for 90.
Posted by: Chris Stamm at February 7, 2009 1:20 PM
I increasingly feel that I don't have time for two-hour movies on weeknights. I always feel lame about that, but OTOH a 1.5 hour movie makes my whole evening.
Posted by: freddy at February 7, 2009 4:20 PM
I think there should be a category of films that are around 45 minutes and cost half as much to go to... but if that's not an option, I like the 80-90 minute set up.
Posted by: Matt at February 7, 2009 5:49 PM
My favorite movies are gargantuan epics. On the other hand, if a movie is going to go for a big commitment from me, it better be worth my time.
(Or else.)
Posted by: Rich at February 7, 2009 8:58 PM
In my humble opinion, I think it would depend on a few things.
1. Does the script tell a tight and effective story at its current length?
2. If no, what needs to be added or cut?
3. Does the writing make the right choices? Meaning, do all scenes move the story forward (usually by asking a question or answering a question) or are there actually a few you're in love with for your own reasons -- none of them servicing the story.
3. Once the project is shot, and as an Editor this is a question I've had to ask a lot, is what do you actually have in front of you?
Sometimes, you find something different staring back at you; Something that, while it deviates from the writer's blueprint and the Director's vision, wants to be something all its own.
Usually, the original idea of the project is there -- but missing a few things that can be easily fixed with creativity and pick-ups.
I think narrative projects -- just as applicable to any creative endeavor -- that don't honestly ask those questions, for whatever reasons, will be received as either too short or too long.
Posted by: Robert Plastorm at February 8, 2009 12:05 AM
if the story is great... i don't mind if it's long.
if the story is weak... pull the trigger, get it over with.
as far as movies go, nothing is worst than sitting through a movie that would have been great but you felt should have ended 40 min ago.
Posted by: marc at February 8, 2009 9:26 AM
Even most great three hour films could stand to lose a few minutes.
Posted by: Chris Stamm at February 8, 2009 10:24 AM
When I used to ask my writing teacher "how many pages" she would reply "how long does a bridge have to be?".
Posted by: Gene at February 8, 2009 11:56 AM
UPDATE/CHANGE:
okay, i am in total agreement with the 'depends on the film' angle. but for the sake of discussion, let's just assume it's a film that you love, regardless of the length. i am interested in what people's 'ideal' running time is. do you typically find yourself liking longer or shorter movies? do you get excited by long films that pull you in, or are you a fan of 'short and leave you wanting more'?
but the feedback is awesome!!! thanks.
Posted by: matt mccormick at February 8, 2009 8:08 PM
80-85 minutes. Works for Woody Allen. Worked for Bergman.
Posted by: Chris Stamm at February 8, 2009 8:32 PM
90 minutes is a good standard. But there's nothing worse than a bad short movie or a dull long one. If a production can wow at 3 hours it's the same satisfaction as reading a good book at 900 pages or 7 volumes.
Posted by: stephan at February 8, 2009 8:49 PM
and...
using the "Dark Knight" as an example: how entertaining at over 2.5 hours. But it had three different ideas and endings in it...I don't like the idea of long just to add punch. a movie contains relationships, an umbrella - how much are you going to fit in it?
Posted by: stephan at February 8, 2009 8:52 PM
IMO every shot should have a reason for being in a film. It is possible to put irrelevant material in a story to force the audience to work harder and have it work. I like 100 minutes. I like the film that sneaks up on you without you knowing and slams at the end. When I've edited things I would get too familiar with the material, but watching it with someone else made me see it anew.
Posted by: rob at February 8, 2009 9:29 PM
true on dark knight - true on there will be blood - true on 2001 - but, no offense, these are massive budgets and endless crews and gargantuan locations to pull off big stories. If we are talking about truly independent work, you'll be hard pressed to find a film that operated on a small scale, with a story simply about people, that was two hours plus. you can tell a lot about amazing characters in an efficient amount of time. Its just not as common that notions of epics happen with smaller stories, pushed by dialogue. Of course, then there's "Faces."
Posted by: plante at February 8, 2009 9:33 PM
some movies you want never to end. Others you can walk out on after 20 minutes. I'd recommend aiming for the former.
I read this somewhere: "it used to be how much I could leave out, but eventually it got to be everything that I could include" (not an exact quote)
Posted by: John at February 10, 2009 1:52 PM
my ideal is 90-105 or so. Under two hours. It seems its a requirement these days to make it two hours so the movie going public, you know, gets their money's worth...but there's lots of lazy and meandering storytelling taking up space.
Posted by: jordan at February 10, 2009 2:03 PM
i watched this movie "Love! Valour! Compassion!" which sounded interesting, but damn it could have ended 45 minutes in rather than the full 2 hour bit. But then the other day i watched "Train on the Brain" and damnit I wish it wasnt so short, i would have been fine if it had been 4 hours.
I dont know what this nonsense is about length. its just another component or tool for the plot or story or message. thats like saying what is best camera to use.
for me personally i like to watch movies that are long and keep me in a mood for a day or two later. But i like making my own work short and sweet (probably because i want less resolve and more discussion about the topic afterwards).
Posted by: Zak at February 12, 2009 3:42 PM
>let's just assume it's a film that you love, regardless of the length"
Long movies, please.
2 hour movies should be equated to short stories. Thats Rohmer's take. Debatable, but I like that perspective. subjective.
Posted by: ar sh at February 13, 2009 6:25 PM
It depends on the content of the film and also on the way it has been made. Each film has got its own good lenght.
Posted by: Ludotk at April 13, 2009 4:09 PM
it just has to be tight dog. i think your vids are cool man.
Posted by: will f at July 5, 2009 1:48 AM
A movie should be as short as it can and as long as it needs to be. (
Posted by: Mikey at February 7, 2009 11:53 AM