Most live action blockbuster films are an hour too long.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Dark Tower Run Time is 94 Minutes
- Thread starter BoogieWoogie
- Start date
Most live action blockbuster films are an hour too long.
DeathoftheEndless
Crashing this plane... with no survivors!
They took parts from multiple books. An adaptation of just the 1st book would be a terrible idea for multiple reasons.
Broken Joystick
At least you can talk. Who are you?
I'd say 20 / 30 minutes too long. Outside of Marvel / DC films, when I see a film's running time close to two hours long, I groan.
Nerd_Incognito
Member
Seven books. Dozens of characters. Multiple worlds. Interwoven story lines. Time traveling. Alternate realities.
In 90 minutes.
This is gonna fucking suck.
In 90 minutes.
This is gonna fucking suck.
No matter how much effort they put into the film, it's not going to satisfy anyone anyway. Dark Tower is too much of King being stuck up his own ass wanting a multiverse to link all his works so he can masturbate over them over and over.
Should have just done a 3 hour adaptation of Wizard and the Glass and called it a day. Amirite?
Should have just done a 3 hour adaptation of Wizard and the Glass and called it a day. Amirite?
You said that there "was a time not long ago where most movies were in the 90 range".
The paper you posted from Michigan State University doesn't answer this question.
Most films in the forties and fifties were 90 minutes long. Is what you were referencing when you said "not long ago", the 1950's?
MadLaughter
Member
It blows my mind that people hate long movies as a rule. If a movie is bad then I don't want it to go on forever, but it's never been something I've minded.
Skinny Pete
Banned
This movie is going to be an epic bomb.
Netherscourge
Banned
If you don't go into it expecting a retelling of the books, it could work.
If you go into it expecting the books to be played out as written, you may as well not bother going to see it.
I say this for just about ever movie adaptation there is anymore. Try to watch it for what it is and suppress any comparisons you may have. It may STILL SUCK, but at least judge it on it's own.
If you go into it expecting the books to be played out as written, you may as well not bother going to see it.
I say this for just about ever movie adaptation there is anymore. Try to watch it for what it is and suppress any comparisons you may have. It may STILL SUCK, but at least judge it on it's own.
dl77
Member
Funnily enough that's why I think it's an acceptable running time. Those other films need to contain all the character building and story arcs within their running time. The Dark Tower is set up as the first part of a franchise so it can leave questions unanswered and corners of the world unfilled.
HeartlessNobody213
Member
Still think it was a bad idea to do a movie in the first place.
Could have definitely been a mini series and called it a day.
Also the production budget is only $60 million so hopefully this won't be a complete bomb.
Could have definitely been a mini series and called it a day.
Also the production budget is only $60 million so hopefully this won't be a complete bomb.
That last graph shows the mean for all films released. It's hovered at around 90 minutes since the 50's, with the mean actually below 90 today.
StrangeRoboMemory
Member
People are right that a tight run time is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it's a refreshing change of pace from bloated films.
However, given that trailer already made this look like a Sci-Fi channel original movie, it doesn't bode well. The film already looks generic and undercooked, so this just adds fuel to that fire.
However, given that trailer already made this look like a Sci-Fi channel original movie, it doesn't bode well. The film already looks generic and undercooked, so this just adds fuel to that fire.
They're not adapting all of that! If anything the title of the film is giving the wrong impression of what this is. It's not them condensing the entire series into one film. Since this is suppose to be a sequel it looks to be a alternate version of the Gunslinger. The name Dark Tower is likely used just to marketing since more people know that then the individual names of the films. If it does well and gets a sequel expect it to be retitled later on. It's happen before with films.
Notlikethis.gif.
I enjoy movies with a short run-time, but the Dark Tower series has a backstory that easily rivals the Lord of the Rings in breadth. You don't have to cover everything, obviously, and I think you could cover the important points in two hours, but you'd need a truly skilled writer and director and this has neither of those. Between the run-time and the tone of the trailers, this has disaster written all over it, which saddens me because this is one of my all-time favorite series.
Hoping the TV show salvages the project.
I enjoy movies with a short run-time, but the Dark Tower series has a backstory that easily rivals the Lord of the Rings in breadth. You don't have to cover everything, obviously, and I think you could cover the important points in two hours, but you'd need a truly skilled writer and director and this has neither of those. Between the run-time and the tone of the trailers, this has disaster written all over it, which saddens me because this is one of my all-time favorite series.
Hoping the TV show salvages the project.
If this is higher than 40% RT I'll be surprised.
dl77
Member
If people are already saying "They'll never fit it all in in a 95 minute film" then their expectations for a movie adaptation are far too high. I struggle to think of a single film that offers the same texture and world building seen on the written page.
Moreover they are still planning the TV series. Not everything is crammed into this movie. People should want this to succeed so that we can get Sony Television guys, people who actually know what they are doing, to produce proper TV series to flush out the story.
dl77
Member
It's July now and we haven't had an update. If the movie doesn't do amazingly well when it opens, I think it's dead Jim.
Multiple people have mentioned it if you care to read the posts. Such a short runtime with such a massive backstory does not bode well. Can you imagine if Harry Potter and the Sorceror's stone was only 94 minutes??? It would cut out so many important, world-building details.
So when you posted..,
What you were referring to wasn't the actual length of films but rather the average feature film length for all feature films in the IMDB database between 1906 and 2013 as taken from a Michigan State University paper?
Dunkirk is only 13 minutes longer though!
dl77
Member
I'm sorry but that's just wrong. There are countless great films out there that are under an hour and a half.
dl77
Member
Really?! Oh thank God for that. I thought that after the near 3 hours of TDKR and Interstellar than if Nolan did a war film I'd have to clear a whole day to watch it in one sitting!
That's not me, but a rolling average across the decades showing a mean of 90 minutes running time would seem to support a statement that most films are approximately 90 minutes.
I guess the point I'm making is that a 94 minute movie isn't unusual or out of the ordinary, but almost exactly average. Longer than average, if anything.
Whiplash. Not a comedy. 106 with credits. One of best movies of this decade. What the hell are you talking about?
ProtomanNeo
Member
Yep! As I said previously Horror and Comedy are the two genres can that can typically handle such a short runtime.
In fact I challenge any GAFer to name the last film in this genre that had runtime of equivalent or less that was any good.
M.W.
Member
Yep, critically and commercially. Is August still known as the shitty release month?
Ah, I got confused with the other poster.
As an August birthday man, I can confirm that August is generally not a great month for anything commercially, lol.
Skinny Pete
Banned
Yea pretty much. Studios don't tend to release their big summer films after July.
The length of a film should not determine its quality. They're not adapting the entire series in a single film. That wouldn't have worked regardless of how long it was. I get the impression from the trailer the story is going to be extremely straight forward and maybe even fast paced.
In addition to Dunkirk lets look at some other films. John Wick is an 1 and 47 minutes long. JW2 is 2 hours and that maybe could have been shorter like the first on. Both come to mind since I just recently saw both. Dark Tower being 1 and 34 minutes isn't as big deal really.
The film could be bad. I just don't think the runtime is the thing that should freak people out. Now if we watch and it's clear there is stuff cut that should be in then yeah the runtime is bad.
In addition to Dunkirk lets look at some other films. John Wick is an 1 and 47 minutes long. JW2 is 2 hours and that maybe could have been shorter like the first on. Both come to mind since I just recently saw both. Dark Tower being 1 and 34 minutes isn't as big deal really.
The film could be bad. I just don't think the runtime is the thing that should freak people out. Now if we watch and it's clear there is stuff cut that should be in then yeah the runtime is bad.
106 is not 90. But anyway, I'm taking about stuff like this this.
Modern Hollywood movies with troubled productions that end up with a 90 minute runtime have a certain stench around them.
sixteen-bit
Member
Gotta maximize ur money by watching the longest movie possible
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
I mean it's part of a new game+ story so not everything needs to be explained.
Still if there are too many unexplainable things audiences will turn off as you gotta have some shit make sense.
This movie is not 90 either.
Edit: Bah, I'm an asshole for saying crossed out part.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
I don't think people are taking into consideration the type of film this is. A live action summer blockbuster coming in at 90 mins is highly abnormal. I saw The Shallows last year, but that's small and a horror/thriller. All those contained space type films are 90ish minutes. Quantum of Solace is under 2 hours but *drum roll* that movie was heavily impacted by the writer's strike.
And that's ignoring that the director has never worked on a movie this big before. Oh, and the writers have a notorious track record. This looks like a salvage job, plain and simple. Of course there are good 90 min movies. But movies like this? Very few and far between.
I find myself wishing to disagree with this and can't. For some reason, King won't accept that his Magnum Opus was The Stand.
darkstar0155
Member
Wha? All of his works were already connected for the most part, not even including TDT.
Although I agree that W&G would have been by far the easiest for a straight adaption that could have been great. Its a single contained story, has pretty much everything you need for a good story, and is imo the best book of the series.
Really mostly I just want to see the City of Lud part of the storyline in film, books 2 and 3 could have made a amazing single 3 hr movie a la the first LOTR