Post by ck100 on Dec 27, 2020 15:43:47 GMT
While there is nothing inherently wrong with a blockbuster film or comic book/superhero film being at 2.5 hours, it seems so many studios are pushing for movies like these to always be this length as if it's some magic length for the film.
For some films, 2.5 hours is just right. But for others, it feels as though 2 hours would have been better (or even less) and the films suffer from overlength/overindulgence. There are some films that actually would have benefitted from more than 2.5 hours to do something like fill in story gaps.
But why is it that so many studios feel 2.5 hours is the magic length for a film (blockbuster films and comic book/superhero films in particular) and regularly put pressure on directors to get their film at this particular length?
It used to be back in the 80's that directors were actually pressured to get their films to have a LESS runtime (like around 90 minutes for example) to fit more screenings in a day and thus earn more money.
For some films, 2.5 hours is just right. But for others, it feels as though 2 hours would have been better (or even less) and the films suffer from overlength/overindulgence. There are some films that actually would have benefitted from more than 2.5 hours to do something like fill in story gaps.
But why is it that so many studios feel 2.5 hours is the magic length for a film (blockbuster films and comic book/superhero films in particular) and regularly put pressure on directors to get their film at this particular length?
It used to be back in the 80's that directors were actually pressured to get their films to have a LESS runtime (like around 90 minutes for example) to fit more screenings in a day and thus earn more money.
