Flamekebab comments on Film Students Are Having Trouble Sitting Through Movies, Professors Say

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 23 points 9 months ago (18 children)

Does this mean we can see the end of the overly long film trend?

I miss films being ~80 - 90 minutes. I've had a long day, I don't want to commit to three hours unless it's something really special.

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 18 child comments

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 9 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

Yesssssss, thank you. 1:30 is the sweet spot. It can go up to like 1:50 and i still totally dig it. Once it goes above 2 hours it starts to detract from my enjoyment of the experience instead of adding to it

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

My sweet spot is the 2:00 to 2:15 mark. Any less than that feels like an extended TV episode to me.

For some reason, horror movies are good at 1:30 to 1:45.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 9 months ago (8 children)

I hate short movies

Stories feel rushed and theres not enough time for good story arcs

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (7 children)

A well constructed film does not feel rushed in a shorter run time.

I like long films, like really long ones. Ones where the length is part of the experience. For example, I loved Apocalypse Now Redux.

What I don't like is films that are substantially longer than they need to be. I don't want them pared down, I want them built around the format their story suits rather than padded out. I like breathing room (mostly!) but it's a fine line to walk.

A good film opening gets on with things quickly, getting the viewer up to speed, but too often I find myself quoting Springfieldians from Marge vs. The Monorail - "GET TO THE MONEY!"

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 9 months ago (5 children)

A well constructed, long, film also doesn't feel long

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

True, but it's a lot easier for me to find 90 minutes than 180 minutes on a weekday night.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

That's a completely different problem. You were arguing if a film deserves to be long (it does if it's worth it). Now you're arguing that you don't have time for a long film.

Convenience isn't an Oscar category. A good film can be short or long, it depends on many factors.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

~~Sigh, I was trying to meet you in the middle. I'm in no mood to fight with you.~~

Edit: It's a new day and I see people have decided to upvote you so fuck it, arsehole mode is go.

I was agreeing that a film doesn't have to feel long despite being long, however whether a film feels long or not has no bearing on its runtime.

Film length has no inherent bearing on whether a film is good or not, when well executed, and therefore I want more short films because I have time for them.

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER FOR QUALITY PURPOSES, as you just said.

I was not arguing about whether it "deserves" to be long. That's an entirely different question and fuck off for trying to put words in my mouth. Couldn't just not be a cunt, could you?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments