MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > No, movies aren't "becoming long nowaday...

No, movies aren't "becoming long nowadays", your attention span just sucks.


I hear it so much lately for films that are 120 minutes long. Long movies have existed since the silent era and no one complained. "Intolerance" came out in 1916 and is known as one of the greatest movies of all time. That doesn't mean that specific movies can't be too long, but to say they've generally gotten longer is an outright lie. Put down your phones, stop watching Tiktok videos and you'll feel so much better watching long movies you otherwise would have missed.

Just be honest with yourself and say that your attention span can't handle long movies. Movies haven't suddenly become longer, you've just been on your phones or playing games for too long.

Rant over.

reply

💯

reply

"you'll feel so much better watching long movies you otherwise would have missed."

Which long movies?

reply

Love Exposure (2008) 3hr. 57min.
Blood in, Blood out (1993) 3hr.

reply

BLOOD IN, BLOOD OUT IS EXCELLENT.

reply

Magnolia
Seven Samurai
Judgment at Nuremberg
Titanic (fight me ThetaSigma)
The Godfather Part II
Schindler's List
Winter Sleep
The Winter War (1989)
The Green Mile
Once Upon a Time in America
Barry Lyndon
Fanny and Alexander
Kagemusha
It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World

These are all good movies that meet or exceed the 3 hour mark.

reply

Drive My Car (a Japanese movie, best movie of 2021 in my opinion) is 3 hours long, but doesn't feel like it. Check it out if you like artsy movies. Also if you're a car guy (like me.)
https://moviechat.org/tt14039582

reply

I was thinking about watching that.

reply

El Cid
Gone with the Wind
Ten Commandments
Deer Hunter

Also great movies that are longer.

reply

Never seen El Cid.

reply

Great movie. one of Charlton Heston's best.

reply

Those are justifiably long movies. But then you get dreck like Tranformers: Age of Extinction pushing 165 minutes and there is no justification for that runtime. King Kong (2005) is another example. There are many brilliant long movies, but there are even more that have no excuse for being so bloated. "Butter scraped over too much bread," as Bilbo Baggins so eloquently put it.

reply

Michael Bay insists that his movies have to be 2.5 hours.

reply

Well, you're wrong, movies ARE getting longer (although there was also a peak in the 60s).

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/4jqh95/average_movie_length_since_1931/

The biggest problem is that most of those movies should NOT be that long, it's mostly boring CGI filler.

reply

Not according to this site that shows that exact image.

https://spartanideas.msu.edu/2014/01/25/movies-arent-actually-much-longer-than-they-used-to-be/

The image you posted is only of the top 25 most popular films each year according to IMDb. Below is the graph for all films.
http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/avg-feature-film-length-1906-2013-sliding-avg.png

reply

"Although the overall average film length is much lower than the top 25′s average film length, the same main trends still hold: Up until the 1950′s, feature films grew by 15-30 minutes. Then after the 1950s, the average movie hovered around 90 minutes. Interestingly, the trend here shows that movies have been getting a little bit shorter in the past few years. We’ll have to revisit this data in a few years to see if that trend holds."

ALL films also means loads of indies and foreign movies nobody has ever seen.

reply

LMAO...ON & ON & ON & ON🎶

reply

I do.

reply

I doubt you see all or even most of them. But the point is, like the guy from that chart says, that most people only see the popular movies and after a dip in the 80s and 90s, they had certainly gotten longer. Let's hope the downward trend is true.

reply

If people are.only watching the top 25 popular films, then it's definitely a problem with their attention span.

reply

But those are the ones that are "too long".

reply

That chart only goes up to 2013. I might be wrong, but it seems to me most movies released in recent years run about one hour and 50 minutes.

reply

Some of the best movies ever are three hours long or even more. Seven Samurai is three and a half hours long and you don't even notice.

reply

Magnolia is my favourite 3 hour film.

reply

Films were longer in the past because there was emphasis on character development, and time was spent building up the situation before it led to any action. If today's movies don't feature an explosion or car chase within the first ten minutes, they are written off as "too long" or "boring." There seems to be a need for constant sensory stimulation in addition to the decreased attention span.

Putting the stupidphones away would be a good start. Why go out to a movie and pay for tickets and overpriced snack foods if you don't plan on watching it?

reply

A friend of mine used to be a huge movie guy but he's become a massive gamer over the years. He says that playing games has helped his attention span. He can no longer sit through a film that is longer than 1hr 40min but he can play games for 5 or 6 hours straight.

reply

That might have something to do with the fact that he has control over the action in a game. Plus games are played at home where you can pause them as needed for snacks and bathroom breaks.

If he cannot sit through a one hour and 40-minute film, I would say he still has attention span problems.

reply

That's exactly what it is and he admits it. He thinks video games are factually better than movies because you can interact with them.

reply

I guess I can understand that. The ability to interact would make the time pass more quickly.

It's still sad that too many people today dismiss films for being "too long."

reply

But I wouldn't say that it factually makes it better. It's just a different experience.

reply

I agree.

reply

"Films were longer in the past because there was emphasis on character development, and time was spent building up the situation before it led to any action. If today's movies don't feature an explosion or car chase within the first ten minutes, they are written off as "too long" or "boring." There seems to be a need for constant sensory stimulation in addition to the decreased attention span."

Pretty much. My problem with 2+ hour Hollywood blockbusters now is the exhausting and boring CG spectacle. I haven't been dazzled by CG in over a decade now and it's gotten where the fights often bleed into one another. However, I also admit I'm burned out on those kinds of movies these days, so it could also be me that's the problem.

I'm one of the dreaded millenials people complain about, but I don't mind long films at all so long as they justify their length. I love SEVEN SAMURAI, HIGH AND LOW, and RAN, all long Kurosawa movies, but they have great characters and intriguing storylines. It really just goes down to telling a good story.

In fact, plenty of people my age also binge watch TV series all the time, sitting through 5-7 hours of whatever's on streaming. People can still watch longer media, I think.

reply

I agree that there is overuse of CGI. This is no longer the era of Terminator 2 when audiences were wowed by the technology. Hollywood has proven its point... studios now possess the capability to digitally create characters and backgrounds, so give it a rest.

If the movie setting is, for example, an ancient civilization, then digitally recreating the classic architecture and other background components would be justified. But just throwing in a bunch of flashy effects for the sake of flashy effects, and to pander to those who must have constant sensory stimulation, results in two hours of mindless filler. I prefer something with substance.

I, too, have grown tired of these overblown "blockbusters." I can no longer sit through the superhero stuff and was finished with Star Wars years ago.

reply

I always say movies that are mainly made to dazzle you with effects are doomed to age poorly if there aren't other factors to engage your attention. The effects in the original Star Wars have aged, but the characters and story are solid, so that hardly matters. The same applies to classic era genre movies like The Wizard of Oz.

I'm in the same boat regarding the modern blockbuster tentpole. At this point, I'm just fatigued with the blockbuster genre, though if other people still like them, they've no need for fear. Hollywood has them covered.

Luckily, it's easier than ever to seek out alternative entertainment. You can find hidden treasures on streaming. I often also use my library and YouTube to seek out older classics I've missed as well.

reply

I think you hit the nail on the head. The problem isn't with movies being long, it's with certain kinds of movies, these blockbusters that are all carbon copies of each other and rely way too much on CGI. Great point about binging TV series too. It's not the length, it's the quality. If a movie is just CGI and spectacle, without a great story to back it up, it's not good quality, it's boring and forgettable. That's why nobody even really remembers Avatar despite it being touted at the time as a guaranteed epic because its budget was the equivalent of the GDP of a small country. Just throwing money at something doesn't make it good. It makes it wasteful.

Man I remember the first time I watched Breaking Bad. I don't think I've ever binge-watched anything quite so hard. I also binged The Man in the High Castle pretty hard too, to the point where I actually got kind of exhausted and needed to take a break from TV for a couple days. They were great stories. When the story is good, it doesn't matter how long it is.

reply

In fact, plenty of people my age also binge watch TV series all the time, sitting through 5-7 hours of whatever's on streaming. People can still watch longer media, I think.

This ^^

reply

I don't blame the length, I blame the quality.

I've seen movies that were 3 hours long, but the time flew by, because it was great... And I've seen 90 minute movies that felt like forever, although within 30 minutes, I turn off something that isn't getting to me.

reply

Exactly! Length isn't the issue-- it all goes down to story, and whether or not a movie is wasting my time.

reply

Yup... I'm sure even my attention span isn't what is used to be (thanks to the internet, etc.) but on those rare occasions I see a great movie I never saw before, I'm going to be paying attention!

reply

But I think people used to be able to sit through long movies they didn't like. Now they just don't bother.

reply

I completely agree with you that the attention spans are dead.

I blame it on the phones. I had a cell phone store 17 years ago, and saw it (not this bad) coming..

reply

I noticed that my attention span was getting pathetic years ago. I put my phone out of reach before every movie.

reply

"Long movies have existed since the silent era and no one complained."

To be fair, a lot of movies made between the 1920s and 1940s tended to run anywhere from 75-90 minutes. Movies that were 110 minutes could be considered "long" during the silent era in particular, with epics like INTOLERANCE being the exception (especially in the 1910s, when the average feature length movie could be as short as 50 minutes or an hour). So in a sense, the average Hollywood movie (nowadays running anywhere from 110 minutes to 2 and a half hours) is much longer than your average 20s/30s Hollywood product.

reply

To be fair, there were a lot fewer movies in production back then.

reply

I don't mind long movies, but they have to be worth the runtime.

reply

The runtime for new Batman movie has just been revealed at 2hrs 55mins. Because I've been looking forward to it, that made me more excited.

reply

The only drawback for me with those long movies is that I won't go see them in the theatre as I can't pause the film for pee breaks.

reply

I haven't been to the theatre in a while. I don't like watching films with people.

reply

There's that too, but there are some movies that are just better on the big screen. I go when it's been out for awhile and a matinee, that helps.

reply