|
|
Post by janntosh on Apr 11, 2019 16:29:19 GMT
hope so
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Apr 11, 2019 16:33:20 GMT
I was thinking about the last big-budget movie released theatrically to go that length. Excluding the limited 70mm showings of The Hateful Eight, was it King Kong back in 2005?
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 11, 2019 16:35:15 GMT
Maybe it will encourage more crossover franchises. Perhaps they'll do a Lion King/Jungle Book crossover between Simba and Kahn? They could call it the "Jungle King".
|
|
|
|
Post by Harmless elf on Apr 11, 2019 17:06:36 GMT
Hope not. 2 hours is the perfect length for a blockbuster movie.
Comedies should be no longer than 90 minutes
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Apr 11, 2019 17:55:42 GMT
I don't think it will. Not every blockbuster film needs to be three hours long.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Apr 11, 2019 18:04:48 GMT
Your movie should only be as long as it needs to be to tell its story properly without any fat.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 11, 2019 20:24:18 GMT
I was thinking about the last big-budget movie released theatrically to go that length. Excluding the limited 70mm showings of The Hateful Eight, was it King Kong back in 2005? The first two Hobbit movies were three hours. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Apr 11, 2019 21:14:44 GMT
I was thinking about the last big-budget movie released theatrically to go that length. Excluding the limited 70mm showings of The Hateful Eight, was it King Kong back in 2005? I guess. I thought it was the Hobbit movies but they were actually shorter than 3 hours individually. Could have fooled me.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Apr 11, 2019 21:28:20 GMT
Avatar 2 now on the clock, no pun.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 11, 2019 23:36:50 GMT
It's a money loser. They would have to add a late night showing or lose a showing to make up the lost time.
Avengers won't be impacted much since it will have a ton of screens for a few weeks. Most blockbusters aren't that guaranteed including future Marvel movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Apr 12, 2019 2:05:58 GMT
As someone who struggles with 3 hour movies, I sincerely hope not.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Apr 12, 2019 2:10:43 GMT
Hobbit #1 is about 2:40 and not three hours. It probably felt that way in the theater when you add 20 minutes of trailers to it. I think #2 and #3 are about 2.5 hours.
|
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Apr 12, 2019 2:19:18 GMT
I hope not. I don't think my middle-aged lady bladder could cope.
|
|
|
|
Post by gljbradley on Apr 12, 2019 4:37:00 GMT
People's bladders can't handle that abuse of refraining from doing #1 for THAT LONG.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingkoopa on Apr 12, 2019 5:06:50 GMT
3 hours isn't unreasonable, but I think it should bringing back the intermission. Like a musical. Wedged somewhere between acts 2-3, there is a short pause (usually about 10-15 minutes).
Not just to hit the bathroom or get a refill, but to ruminate on the possible outcomes of what has been set up, rather than just jumpcutting to exactly what happens. DIY tension-building.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harmless elf on Apr 12, 2019 5:23:58 GMT
3 hours isn't unreasonable, but I think it should bringing back the intermission. Like a musical. Wedged somewhere between acts 2-3, there is a short pause (usually about 10-15 minutes). Not just to hit the bathroom or get a refill, but to ruminate on the possible outcomes of what has been set up, rather than just jumpcutting to exactly what happens. DIY tension-building. If there was an intermission I can only imagine the lineup in the bathrooms. I'm pretty pissed off that I have to see a 3-hour movie in the theater I have to see Infinity war. the last time I saw a three hour movie in the theater was the third Lord of the rings and boy was I livid during that. |
|
|
|
Post by SuperDevilDoctor on Apr 12, 2019 9:06:13 GMT
What the fuck? Just wait 90 days after theatrical release —the blink of an eye, really — and you can watch the blu-ray on your 65-inch HD TV. You can pause the movie when you need to piss or make a sandwich.
Issue resolved.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Apr 12, 2019 14:14:59 GMT
It might but we’ve already had those in the past (Lord of the Rings, King Kong 05, Avatar, Titanic, etc).
|
|
|
|
Post by Harmless elf on Apr 12, 2019 14:27:31 GMT
It might but we’ve already had those in the past (Lord of the Rings, King Kong 05, Avatar, Titanic, etc). Avatar is a perfect example of a movie I just can't sit through. I rather just pop on Pocahontas. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Apr 12, 2019 14:46:05 GMT
It might but we’ve already had those in the past (Lord of the Rings, King Kong 05, Avatar, Titanic, etc). Avatar is a perfect example of a movie I just can't sit through. I rather just pop on Pocahontas. It’s not a movie I would soon revisit, but I don’t think it’s a bad film. Visually it’s enjoyable. |
|
