BronsonLee
Member
An hour and 45 is the nice sweet spot. Anything past that, you gotta earn it
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Beauty And The Beast has a runtime of 84 mins
- Thread starter vicissitudes
- Start date
- Status
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Basically, but really everything after Snow White and before Dumbo contributed.
Comparing any other moves to an animated feature is kind of ridiculous OP. Animation per minute costs exceptionally more than life-action, especially when placed on the big screen. Old animated Disney films had to be at most 90mins because of the amount of time and effort to create those films. It's also why most Pixar/CG films come in under two hours most times because of the amount of time it takes just to render the final film.
Movie lengths will more than likely stay near the 2hr mark outside of the handful of epics that still get made, films with a ton of already established lore or Zack Snyder films.
Movie lengths will more than likely stay near the 2hr mark outside of the handful of epics that still get made, films with a ton of already established lore or Zack Snyder films.
Hamster Plugin
Member
The majority of Hateful Eight viewers did not get to have an intermission. That only happened in a specific version (70mm) of the movie that was only distributed in some areas. My country didn't get the 70mm version at all.
Apparently, they did a run a couple of weeks ago where they put a digital version of the roadshow version into theaters for a weekend, complete with the intermission. Obviously too late to make any difference to the gross, but it was nice to see the opportunity being extended somewhat.
BronsonLee
Member
Oh that is some bullshit
I paid for the 70mm version to get the movie in Tarantino's original vision, the roadshow program, AND to feel superior to everybody else!
BewareTheBatsie
Member
Yeah, that sounds more accurate. I am anxiously optimistic about the movie, s'long as they don't go the CW route of what the beast equivalent is like.
At least we have our programs.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
RIP in peace.
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
Yep, same here. Really want it to turn out good.
They finished principal photography last August and the film doesn't release until next March which probably means it's quite effects heavy. I fully expect Beast to show up in all his glory along with the castle residents.
BewareTheBatsie
Member
Hopefully we get a trailer or a teaser during the summer then.
SpeedySwaf
Member
I don't think there's been that much change in movie lengths overall. As mention previously, some of the most famous films can be up to three hours in length, and were shot decades ago. It's just animation has historically tended to fall on the short side when compared to live action films. I think this has less to do with fears of short attention spans and more to do with how every second of animation is a small workload, almost regardless of what's going on in it. That means whatever budget is allocated to it has to be used carefully and efficiently. "Padding" in a live action film is often as simple as getting a few actors to talk to each other on a static set, and can be wrapped up in a day or two. You just can't do that with an animated feature: any scene can mean weeks or months of work, which can quickly add up in terms of costs and manpower that could be better used elsewhere.
That said, Disney's recent CGI films have been on the relatively lengthy side, with most of them clocking over 100 minutes. I feel this has very much been to their benefit, though.
That said, Disney's recent CGI films have been on the relatively lengthy side, with most of them clocking over 100 minutes. I feel this has very much been to their benefit, though.
mattiewheels
And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
For people who grew up in the 80s, there was an instant visual way to know if a movie in a store was really long: double VHS case.
I remember back when I was watching a ton of 3-hour-plus movies exclusively for some reason, and then I watched Fargo and that seemed like it was so impossibly short at under 90 minutes.
I remember back when I was watching a ton of 3-hour-plus movies exclusively for some reason, and then I watched Fargo and that seemed like it was so impossibly short at under 90 minutes.
John Kowalski
Banned
Saw Hateful Eight last week and we had an intermission. Can't remember where exactly in the movie it was though. Worst thing was that the theater was completely full and everyone rushed outside for a smoke, so it was a pretty awkward intermission with people rushing outside then rushing inside and whatnot.
yanipheonu
Member
Animation be hard yo. Most animated movies I've seen clock in hovering around that 90 min mark.
Unless you're based on a long book like Lord of the Rings, I don't generally see 2 hr 30 min movies being necessary,at least from Hollywood.
Unless you're based on a long book like Lord of the Rings, I don't generally see 2 hr 30 min movies being necessary,at least from Hollywood.
old
Member
Even though movies have gotten longer, (150 mintues), but because 90 minutes of that is needless and mindless CGI action scenes, I feel like movies these days only have about 40 minutes of actual story and character.
I really wish movies wouldn't pack their run times full of filler action .
I really wish movies wouldn't pack their run times full of filler action .
Yeah, what was with that?
I mean, I was enjoying myself but the movie felt like it went on 3 hours or something.
Rhomega Beta
Member
Man, i remember when Titanic had to come on 2 VHSs.
Yup. Lots of times it feels like filmmakers aren't trimming enough fat.
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
That's why I pay premium and go to movies with recliners and food services. I also empty my bladder before the movie starts.
I won't pay to go to a movie theater if the movie is just 80 minutes. No thanks.
I won't pay to go to a movie theater if the movie is just 80 minutes. No thanks.
That's because Dumbo was created during the second world wars, which affected it run time.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
they were also forced to make war propaganda because of how much money they lot with Fantasia
vicissitudes
Banned
Wow, you're right. Best one of the trilogy too. Another good example, runtimes getting longer and longer with sequels:
Toy Story - 1h 21m
Toy Story 2 - 1h 35m
Toy Story 3 - 1h 43m
MrCunningham
Member
Oh yeah, you can't really compare an animated movie to a live action one. Especially ones that are animated by hand. I could only imagine every additional ten minutes of animation bringing up the budget by additional millions of dollars.
neurosisxeno
Member
If a movie is good enough the length doesn't really matter. Off the top of my head when I originally saw The Dark Knight it didn't feel like 2h 32m. In the same vein Intersteller--while feeling a bit long at 2h 49m--was not as painful as say Batman vs. Superman despite the latter film being almost 20 minutes shorter.
SweetDonuts
Member
I feel like movies should be way shorter, there's so much bloat. I say this after watching Batman vs Superman today, was waiting forever for it to end.
The Dark Knight Returns is like 2 1/2 hours long. It is split into 2 parts.
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
I don't know if that really counts because
A) It's split into two parts
B) It's not aimed at kids
C) It had no theatrical release.
I've been complaining about how long movies are since people have been telling me to watch more movies.
Especially since I watch a lot of old films (and I mean black and white) people will be very surprised when I haven't seen some of the "touchstones" but if a movie is longer than 200 min, no, just no. Actually anything more than 2 hours I second guess myself on whether it's worth watching. I really can't stand the absurdly slow pacing in some of the more artsy films, and I find that longer movies generally have slower pacing.
I'm being hyperbolic obviously, but probably not as much as you think, and I do agree older movies were shorter and had less bloat in general, but that's purely anecdotal evidence. I'd be kinda curious to look at it more objectively though, like instead of just looking at the top grossing per year like someone else did, maybe average the runtime of the top ten? Although even then whether a movie doesn't necessarily mean it's bloated.
Especially since I watch a lot of old films (and I mean black and white) people will be very surprised when I haven't seen some of the "touchstones" but if a movie is longer than 200 min, no, just no. Actually anything more than 2 hours I second guess myself on whether it's worth watching. I really can't stand the absurdly slow pacing in some of the more artsy films, and I find that longer movies generally have slower pacing.
I'm being hyperbolic obviously, but probably not as much as you think, and I do agree older movies were shorter and had less bloat in general, but that's purely anecdotal evidence. I'd be kinda curious to look at it more objectively though, like instead of just looking at the top grossing per year like someone else did, maybe average the runtime of the top ten? Although even then whether a movie doesn't necessarily mean it's bloated.
Even though it probably does
psynergylover
Member
I do kinda like my movies to at least be roughly 2 hours, and less usually waits until its on DVD/Blu-ray/Netflix/VoD etc.
I'm hoping for a teaser with Jungle Book, but more likely, we'll have to wait for BFG or Pete's Dragon
FreshCakes
Banned
127 Hours was like 80 some minutes I think
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
and gone with the wind is almost 4 hours. It's today's epics. Overlong movies used to be a bing thing. It's not like movies are getting longer.
UberTag
Member
The Raid: Redemption was a tight one hour and 41 minutes. (We will not speak of its sequel here.)
Talk about your false advertising.
manzoman96
Member
The Winnie the Pooh movie that came out a few years ago has a similar run time; possibly even shorter.
3 out of the 5 recent movies are also based on books, so I imagine they try to fit in as much content from the books as they can.
I find it odd that a common complaint is that "this generation" can't focus on anything aside from their phones and 30 second video clips. Yet we also have people complaining that movies are too long and this generation is too dumb to understand anything without devoting a significant amount of time to it.
I feel sometimes movies are bloated, such as The Hobbit. Overall though, I prefer the longer run times. It allows more time to explore the topics in the film. This shouldn't be too much of a surprise though, seeing how my favorite entertainment medium is books.
I feel sometimes movies are bloated, such as The Hobbit. Overall though, I prefer the longer run times. It allows more time to explore the topics in the film. This shouldn't be too much of a surprise though, seeing how my favorite entertainment medium is books.
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Classic films had runtimes so long there were intermissions. Long movies are not new. They're just back in style.
- Status