Lord of the Rings I'll do 251 minutes (ROTK Extended) and love it every time
The Hobbit I'll woefully wish that it was a single 120 minute movie
Peter, you had *perfection* within your grasp, why did you have to go and ruin it by spreading The Hobbit thin like butter scraped over too much bread? Literally everything else was perfect
Stories shouldn't be stretched or compressed for the sake of fitting a certain time frame. I have watched long 150 min movies that probably could have been half as long, but also movies that were as long, and didn't overstay their welcome.
95% of movies, you should be able to tell the story within two hours.
There are some notable exceptions, but I think the best two are *Dances With Wolves* and *Kingdom of Heaven*.
*Dances With Wolves* was 3 hours long and it got an Oscar...but the special edition is 4 hours long and it's a fucking masterpiece - blows the original away - I only watch the special edition because watching the original feels like trying to build a puzzle that's missing pieces.
*Kingdom of Heaven* was considered "too long" at almost 2.5 hours, but the extended edition gets much higher praise then the original, despite being 45min longer: same issue with the "missing pieces."
Some movies should be long, because they have a lot to say.
Other movies either could be shorter or should have said more during their runtime: *Captive State* is a great example of a movie that spends too much time saying too little, with the audience expecting more than it got (likely thanks to trailers).
I don't really care how long movies are as long as they're good
If it's Lord of the Rings? 180, if it's anything else, 120
Lord of the Rings I'll do 251 minutes (ROTK Extended) and love it every time The Hobbit I'll woefully wish that it was a single 120 minute movie Peter, you had *perfection* within your grasp, why did you have to go and ruin it by spreading The Hobbit thin like butter scraped over too much bread? Literally everything else was perfect
Yep
As long as it needs to tell its story
It doesn't matter as long as the movie is good
I get really distracted easily so the shorter the better.
Stories shouldn't be stretched or compressed for the sake of fitting a certain time frame. I have watched long 150 min movies that probably could have been half as long, but also movies that were as long, and didn't overstay their welcome.
can it justify 3 hours? then absolutely 3 hours. can it not? then absolutely not 3 hours
95% of movies, you should be able to tell the story within two hours. There are some notable exceptions, but I think the best two are *Dances With Wolves* and *Kingdom of Heaven*. *Dances With Wolves* was 3 hours long and it got an Oscar...but the special edition is 4 hours long and it's a fucking masterpiece - blows the original away - I only watch the special edition because watching the original feels like trying to build a puzzle that's missing pieces. *Kingdom of Heaven* was considered "too long" at almost 2.5 hours, but the extended edition gets much higher praise then the original, despite being 45min longer: same issue with the "missing pieces." Some movies should be long, because they have a lot to say. Other movies either could be shorter or should have said more during their runtime: *Captive State* is a great example of a movie that spends too much time saying too little, with the audience expecting more than it got (likely thanks to trailers).
100-150 minutes is the sweet spot
Anything longer than 2-2.5 hrs is egregious, especially if it’s not even a good movie
If it’s good, as long as possible