MovieChat Forums > Avengers: Endgame (2019) Discussion > Everyone carrying on about the runtime

Everyone carrying on about the runtime


It's not that long...

There are tonnes of 3 hour long movies which didn't require articles about when to take pee breaks. Did the audience for the movie never see;
The Wolf of Wall Street
The Deer Hunter
Magnolia
Titanic
Schindler's List
Godfather Part 2
LotR: Return of the King
Once upon a Time in America
The Green Mile
Lawrence of Arabia
Gone with the Wind

...?


reply

Honestly it was shorter than I thought it was going to be. Not bad at all.

reply

I prefer longer movies, wish this one was longer. It is not that complicated to figure out when would be the best time to use the restroom.

reply

Pee and shit before like I did 😅

reply

^^^ Smart person. So if everyone looks up the so called "right time" to go. It will probably create a longer wait at the restroom with the increase of people.

reply

Yeah. The movie definitely isn't the first 3 hour movie, but I can sort of defend why people are making a big deal out of it. First reason is because of how huge of a movie/event Avengers 4 is and how much people were looking forward to it. The second reason is that the internet either didn't exist back in the day when some of those listed were released, or wasn't as big. Titanic was right in the middle. There was internet back when it came out, but no one was really blowing up about the runtime on the internet since not everyone had easy access to the internet. Some people still had no idea what the internet/world wide web was back in the day in 1997 and 1998. Internet was busier back in the day during Return Of The King's theatrical release, but I think after Fellowship Of The Ring and Two Towers, everyone was expecting a long runtime for Return Of The King and not flipping out about it. The Wolf Of Street wasn't something major that everyone was hyped to see. So its runtime slipped by all the news coverage. But most of the rest of the movies came out pre-internet. Avengers 4 though is a superhero movie and a genre that is pretty huge among moviegoers. So that's why everyone is making a big deal out of it. I didn't have a problem with the 3 hour runtime for Avengers. I got through the movie perfectly fine. I was actually pretty excited for the runtime and knew I could handle it because I sat through Titanic twice in theaters. I was 9 or 10 when Titanic came out. So 3 hours was nothing new to me. Plus Titanic didn't feel like 3 hours, especially at the age of 9 or 10.

reply

You forgot Dances With Wolves which was 3 hours 56 minutes long

reply

We had an intermission for that

reply

So? I watched ROTK in the UK and there was intermission too

reply

um so... what's the point here then? seemed that we're discussing long movies that potentially could benefit with intermissions, at least that's what I took away from your post. Obviously I am mistaken.

reply

I did need a quick toilet break (which is rare for me, although that's more attributable to the fact I had an even rarer cider before we saw the film), but the running time was definitely justified.

No complaints from me on that front. There was so much going on in the film that it never flagged, and splitting up the characters mid-film to go on their own mini-time-travel adventures was a masterstroke as it broke up any potential monotony by cross-cutting between the action. And the titanic battle that ended the film was well-earned in view of its significance.

reply