MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Will we ever see a new era of long histo...

Will we ever see a new era of long historical epics?


Recently I got into a discussion about Ben-Hur, and that lead to talk about films like Cleopatra and Lawrence of Arabia and The Ten Commandments. And that in turn lead to the observation that we just don't see films like these anymore.

Sure, we still get "epics" like Gladiator, but we don't get the massive 4ish hour films that came along relatively frequently in yesteryear. And I have to wonder: Will we ever see a return to this kind of filmmaking?

I do understand that cost was a significant factor in the decline of these kinds of films in the first place. But will we one day see a new wave of films like these regardless?

What's everyone think?

reply

Were 4 hour movies ever really common?

The average length of films has only gone up.

And with CGI, epics will be cheaper than ever. But do audiences care? That's the question.

If the audience wants them, they'll make them.

reply

I don't know that you'd say "common," but in earlier eras of film history films that were around four hours (give or take about 20 minutes) at least happened on a somewhat regular basis.

A few that I can remember:

The Ten Commandments (1956) - 3 hrs 40 mins
Ben-Hur (1959) - 3 hrs 44 mins
The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) - 4 hrs 20 mins
Cleopatra (1963) - 4 hrs 11 mins
Lawrence of Arabia (1962) - 3 hrs 48 mins
Gone with the Wind (1939) - 3 hrs 58 mins

The 50s and 60s seem to be a high point for such films. That's five that I can remember and there are probably a few that are slipping my mind.

Conversely, the only film of the last three decades that I can remember that was that long is Dances With Wolves, which is just under four hours.

About the closest equivalent we seem to have today are the various mini-series that networks occasionally put on. You could argue that those are just very long films. I know the History Channel did a few mini-series a handful of years ago, like The Hatfields & The McCoys and Sons of Liberty. Those were good.

reply

I think the superhero movies are sucking up all the oxygen and money. The last historical epic I saw was Chinese made - Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan (2007)

reply

There's also two-movie long Red Cliff (2008 and 2009).

reply

Thanks.

reply

i actually bought that movie on Blu-Ray just because it was only $7.50 at Best Buy, and then I never watched it. Now I no longer have the Blu-Ray.

Any good?

reply

I thought it was good. Great scenery but the story was a bit disjointed in places. The movie could have been a bit longer I thought. I gave it a 7/10.

reply

No. The grandiose wide-screen epics of the fifties and sixties were made in response to the emergence of television, the length, color, and spectacle of these films were designed to be the opposite of the one-hour or half-hour episodes of black and white TV of the era.

So now TV has movies beat all to hell for length ("Game of Thrones" is taking eight years to tell one contiguous story), and isnt far behind on spectacle.

reply

The thing is, not every story needs 8 seasons (remember that GoT is an adaptation of several large books). For that not, not every story even needs 10 episodes.

At the same time, sometimes 2 hrs is not sufficient.

As I was saying earlier, I think the modern mini-series is roughly equivalent to those old epics. Even though it wasn't a historical story, I am reminded of the Stephen King mini-series Storm of the Century, which ran for three episodes and clocked in at just over four hours. Lonesome Dove was four episodes and ran about 6 1/2 hours. On the shorter end of the spectrum, I remember there was a Joan of Arc mini-series and also a Merlin mini-series, both of which ran right around three hours.

The problem there is that the three- or four-night mini-series format just isn't used much anymore (note that I'm making a distinction between "mini-series" and the longer "limited series.") Its heyday seemed to have been in the 90s (three of the four I mentioned earlier were from the late 90s). I really think this format should be revived. I remember when these used to air they were television EVENTS! It was a big deal! And it was the perfect way to tell stories that were a little too long for a film but not long enough for a whole TV series.

The only mini-series that I can remember from the past 20 years or so is a mini-series that ABC did on Bernie Madoff and a handful that the History Channel did a few years ago, but now seem to have discontinued.

reply

Never coming back. Now that you can buy tvs as big as your wall, long form prestige television shows will always be the format for this style of storytelling. If Angelina Jolie in her prime couldn't get her Cleopatra movie off the ground and Vin Diesel still can't get his Hannibal movie made, it ain't ever gonna happen.

reply

As I was just saying in the post directly above yours though, not every story needs the "long-form television" treatment. Some stories simply do not require 10 hours or more to tell them properly, but they also can't be told in the typical two-hour window of a normal film.

So what do we do with stories like that?

reply

It used to be in the old days, they would have one or two intermissions to allow the audience to get up, stretch their legs, use the restroom, get some food, etc. Then they could come back and finish the film. It's one reason old movie theaters were huge and had such generous setups when it came to the amenities.

reply

I'm not even insistent that the films go to the theater. They could play directly on broadcast TV, cable or streaming.

As I've mentioned a few times in this thread already, the mini-series could be the thing that carries the mantle of the old epics, but we really need to define mini-series. Different networks define it in different ways, but what I am specifically talking about are films that usually air in three parts and are usually around four hours long.

Today we are getting so-called "limited series"--which some also refer to as a mini-series, but others reject that usage of the term--that run between six and ten parts. But that's really a little bit different. That begins to feel like like a single film and more like a TV show. It feels less like an event because it runs so damn long, and it's obviously much more of a time commitment.

reply

You stretch em out and fill em with filler! Long movies are dead. More more more! More is money. There's no money in long movies.

reply

Alexander (2004) was a bomb also.

reply

Not a great film, but a better film than it got credit for.

reply

Troy (2004) was much better I thought.

reply

I would agree that Troy is better. No doubt.

But people talked about Alexander like it was one of the worst films ever made. Typical hyperbole of the sort often found with film fans. As I was, it wasn't a great movie, but it wasn't terrible either. It was . . . okay.

reply

Not quite the same thing, but splitting a story up into a more than one movie is similar. I'm thinking of movies like IT or The Hobbit (which IMO didn't need 3 movies at all).

Unfortunately because everything is a sequel to a remake, we don't need the epics anymore.

reply

Epics are usually remakes tho'

reply

Some have been, but not all, or even most were.

I believe Cleopatra (1963) was a remake, and I know Ben-Hur was remade twice. Those are the only two that are coming to mind, though.

reply

Somewhat similar, but as you say, not quite the same. Speaking of that though, I just realized that the Return of the King extended edition, by itself, is over 4 hours long. That's crazy as shit.

I do want more epic films, though. It's not just the length, but also the subject matter, that is of interest. Ancient worlds, heroic warriors, and tales that often are literally of biblical proportions. That is fun stuff.

reply

I re-watched Spartacus, The Robe and Quo Vadis recently and enjoyed them all.

reply

Ironically, those are all films that I have not yet gotten around to. I will have to check them out.

reply

I love these Roman Empire movies. Especially the sets and costumes.

reply