I think 2h is optimal. Not too long, but can still fit a proper story with enough time for development.
90 minutes is enough for children/family movies
I was being a bit edgy with 95, it’s basically the minimum. Even in animation, if you have a bit of a complex structure with a plot twist, you end up well over 100.
For example, the Incredibles, with an unorthodox five act structure, clocks in at a very briskly paced 115.
The trouble with superhero movies is that I can just feel myself spacing out during the filler-laden action scenes. Within every 3hr long marvel film is a much better paced 125 minute film just trying to get out.
If they actually had to flesh out all the ideas in the movie, it would have been much longer.
It’s the same in most of these animated films. The ideas only touch the surface, and instead of developing the ideas deeper, or allowing the audience to contemplate the ideas before revealing the movie’s take on it, they simply jump around topics and throw more and more sub plots into the film to make it last 90 minutes.
I think they do it to keep the attention of the audience and to embrace as many potential types of people as possible.
However, in my opinion it mostly seems like the writers have an attention disorder.
This seems like a good time to mention that fucking Casablanca has a running time of 102 minutes. For most of the history of Hollywood 100-120 minute running times have been the norm.
Gigantic runtimes are a feature of depression era economics, the 1930s and now.
I do personally enjoy a long film if it’s doing something good with the run time. Oppenheimer was a solid one recently, even with it being so long it was still densely-packed and I don’t think it would have been improved by being shortened. That said, I think two hours is roughly my default sweet spot. The further over that you go, the better you’re going to have to be to persuade me. I’m ready to be persuaded but it needs to be something
I don’t want to watch anything for three hours TBH. 95 minutes is the optimal run time for a film. FITE ME.
I think 2h is optimal. Not too long, but can still fit a proper story with enough time for development.
90 minutes is enough for children/family movies
I was being a bit edgy with 95, it’s basically the minimum. Even in animation, if you have a bit of a complex structure with a plot twist, you end up well over 100.
For example, the Incredibles, with an unorthodox five act structure, clocks in at a very briskly paced 115.
The trouble with superhero movies is that I can just feel myself spacing out during the filler-laden action scenes. Within every 3hr long marvel film is a much better paced 125 minute film just trying to get out.
Children/family movies can also have plenty of story and development. Case in point: Inside Out, runtime 1h 35m.
Inside Out is kinda forced through though. It ought to have been 2 hours.
I don’t feel the same way, but I’m interested in why you think that!
If they actually had to flesh out all the ideas in the movie, it would have been much longer.
It’s the same in most of these animated films. The ideas only touch the surface, and instead of developing the ideas deeper, or allowing the audience to contemplate the ideas before revealing the movie’s take on it, they simply jump around topics and throw more and more sub plots into the film to make it last 90 minutes.
I think they do it to keep the attention of the audience and to embrace as many potential types of people as possible. However, in my opinion it mostly seems like the writers have an attention disorder.
They were worried too much about accidentally including any lesbian subtext. Any more run time and they’d have to make Riley gay.
I make an exception for LotR extended.
I’d rather hammer nails through my dick!
I’d also rather hammer nails through this guy’s dick!
I’m in. I got a hammer and nails already out for a project. Let’s run it.
😂
Then do so to curtail the spread of your heresy to future generations.
You have my hammer.
If your worthy you can have it back.
Yeah, my brain has been rotted by short form media too.
This seems like a good time to mention that fucking Casablanca has a running time of 102 minutes. For most of the history of Hollywood 100-120 minute running times have been the norm.
Gigantic runtimes are a feature of depression era economics, the 1930s and now.
I do personally enjoy a long film if it’s doing something good with the run time. Oppenheimer was a solid one recently, even with it being so long it was still densely-packed and I don’t think it would have been improved by being shortened. That said, I think two hours is roughly my default sweet spot. The further over that you go, the better you’re going to have to be to persuade me. I’m ready to be persuaded but it needs to be something
Commando, the greatest movie ever made, is 90 minutes long.
100%.