I prefer a film that is shorter. A hell of a lot of long films really suffer from their running time, granted there are a lot of films that need the 3 hours but there are plenty that really don't.
If a film sucks it sucks... and I'd rather sit through 90 mins of shit than 180.
Not to mention that I can never get comfortable in cinema seats.
Originally posted by Bardock42Well, that's a point that means absolutely nothing. It doesn't matter which came first... Or what their respective storylines are.
Real Avatar was here first. Also had an original story.
Originally posted by marwash22... You didn't speak in the future tense.... 😐
😬 i thought it was obvious seeing as i was speaking in future tense. But yeah, I'll keep it in mind.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
... You didn't speak in the future tense.... 😐
Originally posted by marwash22
I love long movies when I'm into the subject matter. Didn't mind the length of Watchmen or the LOTR movies and i was kinda disappointed when i heard Avatar was only [going to be] 90 minutes.
Whatever, guy. next time I'll be sure to write 'the last airbender' so the slow people don't get confused.
Re: why cant they stick to 2 hours ??
Originally posted by coolmoviesbecause back in those 2 says yould barely fit over 2 hours on vhs.
Alot of new movies made today are over 2 hours long it really puts me off. Back in those days good films where made in less then two hours e.g Batman (1989)Anyone else hate long films ????
I guess you can't sit through the grandeur of films by David Lean - The Bridge On The River Kwai(1957 - 3 hours), Lawrence Of Arabia (1962 - 3.5 hours)
The Best of Steven Spielberg - Schindler's List (1993 - 3 hours), Saving Private Ryan (1998 - 3 hours)
The Lord Of The Rings series - each between 3-4 hours.
They haven't made a practice of having intermissions for longer films since 1985, with 2.5 hour long films like Out Of Africa and The Color Purple. Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet (1996) was the last example I know of; that was because it was four hours.