"Do you think audiences would reject 60 minute movies?"
I watched the old classic "The Most Dangerous Game" the other night. It was about 62 minutes long and extremely enjoyable. I thought how for a lot of comedies/thrillers/action movies/rom-coms/horror movies, an hour would probably be just about right for the movie to not overstay its welcome and keep you engaged throughout.
I'm pretty sure people would balk at paying the same price and I doubt they'd ever lower ticket prices for certain films, which might end up being just as expensive to make, since the stuff that would get excised would most likely be cost-effective filler, but man, I think it would make for much better popcorn films in many cases.
Hell, if anyone can school me on why 90 minutes became the standard, that would be really interesting.
---- I check for: Serengeti, Zeroh, Open Mike Eagle, Jeremiah Jae, Moka Only.
1. "For how much movie tickets cost, HELL YES!" In response to Reply # 0
------------------- "Music has been my outlet, my gift to all of the lovers in this world. Through it — my music, I know I will live forever." - Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)
9. "They'd have to cut the ticket cost, which could bring more people in" In response to Reply # 7
I also thought that someone should try to bring back the serialized film. If they had released Band of Brothers in theaters, one episode a month, I would have gone, even if it was only an hour.
But in most cases, I agree that people aren't paying full ticket price (which is 10 - 14 bucks out here) for a one hour movie.
29. "Fuck that, for $11 I want 2 movies." In response to Reply # 27
"Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better than master of one"-Anonymous
The sharpest sword is a word spoken in wrath;the deadliest poison is covetousness;the fiercest fire is hatred; the darkest night is ignorance.-The Buddha
5. "you asked for some history on the 90 minute standard" In response to Reply # 0
Basically you can blame MTV. It became a pretty open secret that the average moviegoer's attention span is dropping, this would have been in the early '90s. Since someone came up with the equation ADD = $$$, all the studio execs starting using running time as factor. Someone, I forget who, did a study and found that the average viewer will watch three episodes of something on television in a row, but not neccessarily four in a row. The younger the audience, the less likely. Since tv viewers = movie viewers, well you can figure it out from there. Personally, I think it's crap. I'm not bailing on seeing a movie because it's 2 hours and 12 minutes instead of 2 hours. And I think 90 minutes is the biggest joke of a running time ever. Three 30-minute sections for the beginning, middle, and end? How formulaic and boring can you get? It's especially killer with auteurs like Scorcese or Ang Lee. Those are the kind of cats you're gonna sit through 3 hours if need be, they're storytellers. But given the state of movies today, most movies aren't worth the attention beyond 2 hours. A lot of it does come down to the fact that filmmakers aren't good at holding your attention. Hope this provided some insight on the matter. PEACE
"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams
6. "No idea it was such a recent standard" In response to Reply # 5
Although the three episode thing makes sense.
Just like it's inane to think that a movie that's over 2 hours is too boring and long, I think it's stupid to think that a movie that's an hour is somehow 'dumber' or less worthy.
---- I check for: Serengeti, Zeroh, Open Mike Eagle, Jeremiah Jae, Moka Only.
12. "I hate to say it, but so do I" In response to Reply # 10 Wed Jul-22-09 05:28 PM by buckshot defunct
A TV show, with commercials, can be an hour long. And those are free! I mean minus what you paid for the TV. And those are just episodes, and not necessarily a full "story"
Hell it might take me an hour just to drive to/from the theater and find a parking spot.
But ultimately, theater going is an experience and I don't know if an hour is quite enough for me to feel immersed. Though I've sat through plenty of films that I *wished* had only been an hour long...
I suppose if a movie is good it shouldn't really matter.
13. "With a lot of blockbusters, even okay ones, I'm waiting for it to end" In response to Reply # 12
after about an hour.
But my mindset when I'm buying the ticket is different I guess, although honestly I've never thought twice about paying full price for an 80 minute movie, which is about as low as they go nowadays.
Quality is the issue, but I honestly believe you could get away with a lower level of quality with a shorter more concise running time. For example, I saw some short film by Hank Azaria about a guy who has magic glasses that allow him to see how relationships with any random woman will end up. As a 90 minute 'high concept' romantic comedy, that would probably be excruciating, but it was pretty entertaining as a 20 minute short. Obviously, i wouldn't pay 8 bucks to see it, but sometimes movies suck because of all the extra stuff they have to pack in just to fill out their running time.
---- I check for: Serengeti, Zeroh, Open Mike Eagle, Jeremiah Jae, Moka Only.
20. "television also has a different pay model" In response to Reply # 12
>A TV show, with commercials, can be an hour long. And those >are free! I mean minus what you paid for the TV. And those are >just episodes, and not necessarily a full "story"
Story wise, you're paying for an ON-GOING story. That's why you can turn on a rerun of Family Guy at 3 in the morning and not have to spend the 30 minutes on character back story. You're paying for the ability to join a story already in progress and not be confused. Plus, when damn near every show follows the EXACT same setup, you're paying for a storyline/formula. And you're paying for SEVERAL of these. Price wise, it's not free. It's the cost of the television and the cable/satellite service. They may not sound like a lot, but it actually is. There's a large minority of Americans whose television has more value than their cars. Which is telling in just how much folks will pay for the OPTION of optimum entertainment over transportation. Most modest estimates show that "tv running time" is a better financial bargain than "movie running time". Meaning, the average American (who watches some absurd amount of tv a week, I forget how many hours), subtracting out commercials, gets more "show" for his dollar than s/he gets "movie" for his dollar. NONE of this factors in the quality of television or movie you watch.
>Though I've sat through plenty of films that I *wished* had >only been an hour long...
This is the bigger problem. It's not that so many movies get cut to smaller and smaller running times. It's the fact that the movies still aren't any better.
>I suppose if a movie is good it shouldn't really matter.
EXACTLY.
"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams
16. "I don't think it's about quality" In response to Reply # 10
I think people just don't think they are getting enough bang for their buck if a movie is only an hour long. With the cost of popcorn, soda, tickets, parking, what have you and the quickness with which things are now released on DVD would probably keep most people from going to see a 60 minutes film (although it could be great for little kids movies since a lot of youngsters can't sit still for two hours).
21. "think of it in terms of a date" In response to Reply # 16
You take a jawn out to a dinner and a movie. You're dropping at the very least fifty bucks (because you ain't buying a bitch steak, she's getting McDonalds). That means you dropped fifty bucks for an HOUR. How that sound?
"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams
but I've never seen evidence of such (though I'm sure it's out there somewhere). A big difference too is that those who make movies (studios, not directors) use running time as a tool AGAINST the filmmaker. That type of thinking was unheard of before the '80s.
"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams
28. "This was not unheard of at all." In response to Reply # 18
>but I've never seen evidence of such (though I'm sure it's >out there somewhere). >A big difference too is that those who make movies (studios, >not directors) use running time as a tool AGAINST the >filmmaker. That type of thinking was unheard of before the >'80s.
Studio chiefs had more power in the past than they do now and they would cut films down like crazy. The reason you might hear more about it now is because directors have a bit more power to fight back, especially now when they go to the blogosphere. But studios have ALWAYS tried to cut movies down. This is by no means a new phenomenon.
And while the study is very flawed, IMDB looked at the top 50 films of every decade and the later films are all longer.
15. "110-120 minute films can be as formulaic (structured) as 90 min. ones" In response to Reply # 5 Wed Jul-22-09 07:21 PM by Sponge
>Personally, I think it's crap. I'm not bailing on seeing a >movie because it's 2 hours and 12 minutes instead of 2 hours. >And I think 90 minutes is the biggest joke of a running time >ever. Three 30-minute sections for the beginning, middle, and >end? How formulaic and boring can you get?
20-30 minute 1st Act, 60 minute (give or take a few) 2nd Act, a 30 minute (give or take a few) 3rd Act.
25. "RE: but there's at least some wiggle room" In response to Reply # 22 Thu Jul-23-09 04:23 AM by Sponge
>a 90 minute feature - there's damn near none. >The longer the movie, the more you can do with the 3.
I know there is more / some wiggle room with a longer running time. I was just pointing out that longer films can be formulaic as well in the way you specified.
14. "If these shorter movies had lower ticket prices, I think people" In response to Reply # 0 Wed Jul-22-09 07:41 PM by Sponge
would welcome it.
Episodes of The Wire, The Sopranos, and Deadwood amaze me with their density. *Taking that* and movies I can think of that are around 60 minutes long into account, I think it's possible to completely satisfy viewers.
*TV eps are a different animal, though, because they build off of previous ones so just disregard that part of my post.
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Pass The Popcorn
