Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Twigling t1_iu90v76 wrote

A movie should be as long as it needs to be (within reason) in order to properly tell the story, whether that's 90 minutes (or less) or 180 (or more). So nothing important cut out to shorten the running time and no padding added to lengthen it.

41

Hopeful_Type_5762 t1_iu98053 wrote

I love 3 hour epics like Dances with Wolves, but it doesn't really matter what length a movie is as long as it's a good movie.

5

kevlarcardhouse t1_iu9a5ze wrote

I agree, but I would argue that a lot of the 2.5 hour movies coming out have a lot of padding. I think the fact that both projectors and cameras are all digital means directors and producers have less incentive to edit. Just like the advent of compact discs provided a lot of epic albums but also had a lot of albums that would have been a classic get bogged down by a bunch of b-side tracks added to the end.

3

Algelach t1_iu9fmqn wrote

There is no way you could convince me that “Blonde” needed to be 2h 47m

2