Movie Run Times Debated

A conversation I had with dethpillow lead me to write an article on run times based on what dethpillow and I talked about.

Editorial Opinion
By LegendaryOutlaw - Feb 13, 2014 11:02 AM EST
Filed Under: Other




Hey Everybody! Its me, xStarLordx! You know who. The one guy who wrote a strange first article that some people said that they wouldn't touch with a 12-foot pole. Yeah, that's me. Anyways, I had an interesting conversation with a fellow user, dethpillow. Captain America: The Winter Soldier's run time has possibly been found. It may run in at 2 hours and 15 minutes which is ,If I am correct, 10 minutes shy of The Avengers. There were people who were excited and others who felt it was unfair that Thor: The Dark World received a shorter run time, which is under 2 hours. So I posted a comment saying I hoped Guardians would get over 2 hours, and somewhat close to the length of a Lord of the Rings film.

(I'm not saying that just because Guardians of the Galaxy is my favorite comic book series, especially the series from 2008.)

I backed up my statement by saying the members of the team would need some time to explain back stories and etc. All that stuff. The reason I said that is that ,from what we know, most of the teammates origins will have to do with a villain making it reasonable for them to have time to focus on their origins. The only character I can't see getting time for that, or just a small mention is Groot, just because his might not be as relevant as the others AND it hasn't been mentioned by Gunn or any other cast or crew.



Not long after I posted my comments, dethpillow and I started talking more about run times. While we didn't necessarily talk about what makes a good run time or what makes one bad, I formed my own beliefs, if you will, on them.

What makes a good run time:

A good run time should be long enough to tell the main story while keeping the audiences attention and ,if necessary, add a side story. (As long as it doesn't completely pull the audiences focus from the main story.)Keep a steady pace. Keeping a steady pace will make sure the viewers will keep focus and won't get bored. If a movie moves too fast it will confuse the audience. But, if the movie moves too slow it will bore the audience and they are probably going to want to leave. Plus, no one wants to go back to see a sequel if the first movie was slow/fast.

If the movie has multiple origin stories, (i.e. Fantastic Four or X-Men:First Class), make time for each character, while keeping a good flow with the story.



If the movie will be split into two parts it may be hard to keep that steady pace, or it might be a chance to add more to the story. Regardless, the pace at the end of the first part should agree with the beginning of the next. If a movie ends slow and sad, the next one should begin slow and sad. If the end leaves off on a high note and somewhat fast, the next should begin on a high note and somewhat fast.

Conclusion:

The audience should never feel bored or confused, because that probably means the pacing was off..... or they're watching Inception. And if the run time is too small, the story will seem like its bouncing all over the place and moving too fast. If it is too long, it will seem boring unless you find a way to keep the audiences attention involved.

THE 4:30 MOVIE Interview: Filmmaker Kevin Smith On How His Passion For The Theater Shaped New Film (Exclusive)
Related:

THE 4:30 MOVIE Interview: Filmmaker Kevin Smith On How His Passion For The Theater Shaped New Film (Exclusive)

THE FRANCHISE: Trailer For Max Series Starring Daniel Brühl Reveals Chaos Inside World Of Superhero Filmmaking
Recommended For You:

THE FRANCHISE: Trailer For Max Series Starring Daniel Brühl Reveals Chaos Inside World Of Superhero Filmmaking

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

NovaCorpsFan
NovaCorpsFan - 2/13/2014, 11:14 AM
Nice one. You came back hard, dude. [frick] the haters, keep it up.
LegendaryOutlaw
LegendaryOutlaw - 2/13/2014, 11:16 AM
Yeah I admit the first one was weird. But It was my way of finally contributing and I was happy with it. Thanks man.
GizmoEl
GizmoEl - 2/13/2014, 11:19 AM
Even though I would've loved the beginning half of Thor to be a little bit longer so we could see more of Lady Sif, The Warriors Three, and Thor in battle.. I'm okay with the run time. It was brilliantly paced and i loved every minute of the movie. Avengers' run time was great too. It was a bit slow during the helicarrier scene but it was necessary to develop characters. It's pacing was great.
GizmoEl
GizmoEl - 2/13/2014, 11:20 AM
Great write up! Keep em coming
LegendaryOutlaw
LegendaryOutlaw - 2/13/2014, 11:21 AM
Thanks @GizmoEl! The encouragement helps. And I agree, more of them would've really been great but I thought it was still good too.
wookiefit
wookiefit - 2/13/2014, 12:31 PM
@ xStarLordx

Nice comeback. I agree, but even you said,"..The audience should never feel bored or confused.." Unfortunatly, studio's have realized that this happens at about around an hour and forty-five minutes. Diehard fans want more, but then we allways do. Studios make their movies for a wider audience.

SauronsBANE
SauronsBANE - 2/13/2014, 12:37 PM
Awesome to see you right back and writing more editorials, xStarLordx ! This looks fantastic, you're definitely getting the hang of it already.

A good run-time really, really depends on the type of movie you're talking about. Lord of the Rings needed a 3 hour run-time (and even MORE in the extended editions, which really is the best way to watch that trilogy) just because of the amount of characters it had, the multiple stories it was trying to tell, the action, the plot, the character development...everything there needed a lot of time to tell.

But then other movies that are much simpler compared to that, like Thor or Captain America or any other movie that's not an ensemble film, they should be able to work in around 2 hours. That's plenty of time to set up the characters, properly define them (their motivations, their flaws, their strengths, basically why we should care about them at all), and introduce some conflict and then resolve it.

The pacing of a movie plays into this as well. Finding a balance between action and heartfelt character moments can be extremely tricky, and a lot of movies fail miserably at this.

"If the movie will be split into two parts it may be hard to keep that steady pace, or it might be a chance to add more to the story. Regardless, the pace at the end of the first part should agree with the beginning of the next. If a movie ends slow and sad, the next one should begin slow and sad. If the end leaves off on a high note and somewhat fast, the next should begin on a high note and somewhat fast."

I find that interesting, but I have to disagree with that. I'm not so sure that kind of consistency really matters all that much. Again, it really depends on the particular story being told. To use LotR again as an example, The Fellowship of the Ring ended with Frodo and Sam optimistically heading off into Mordor, and the next movie opened with Frodo's pulse-pounding, frantic dream of what happened with Gandalf in Moria. And again, The Two Towers ended ominously, and Return of the King opened with Gollum's backstory.

Those endings and beginnings don't exactly fit smoothly into each other, but they work. I'm sure there's tons of examples out there as well. Just my two cents though! But again, great job!
BenjiWest
BenjiWest - 2/13/2014, 12:41 PM
Your first article wasn't too bad. This is a great write up. Keep giving us great editorials.
LegendaryOutlaw
LegendaryOutlaw - 2/13/2014, 1:10 PM
Thanks for the feedback everybody! Whether you agree or disagree it's all helpful!
LegendaryOutlaw
LegendaryOutlaw - 2/13/2014, 1:13 PM
@dethpillow In case you haven't found it, I'll tell you this, it's a touchy subject no one is going to want to associate with.
WorstUserNameEver
WorstUserNameEver - 2/13/2014, 1:53 PM
Seems to be a very positive attitude in these xStarLordx comments threads... weird!
cipher
cipher - 2/13/2014, 2:28 PM
I don't really have a "preferred" run time or anything. I mean, if all the cogs are in place and all the little bits an' pieces run smoothly, then I've got no complaints. If it's well paced, then it doesn't matter to me if it's over two hours, or under.

The pacing is what can kill it for me, not necessarily the length itself. You have to know when to move, and when to let things breathe a little.
cipher
cipher - 2/13/2014, 2:29 PM
Oh, and welcome to editorials, bud. Stick around.

:)
Gigacrusher45
Gigacrusher45 - 2/13/2014, 2:44 PM
All I can say is don't complain about a movie being too long when the length of movies is posted in the same place as the show times. If a movie is 2hrs 30in don't come out saying "that movie was too long" when you knew it was 2hrs 30min going into it. Maybe if it FEELS long is one thing. If you just don't have any patience is another.
batz11
batz11 - 2/13/2014, 2:57 PM
Only run-time I'm concerned about is tomorrow night with my gf :)...great article btw...
GizmoEl
GizmoEl - 2/13/2014, 2:57 PM
Congrats on making main!
OptionFour
OptionFour - 2/13/2014, 4:57 PM
Nice article, xStarLordx. The writing and formatting is much improved, well done.

At a studio level there is a lot that goes into a run time, I think. My understanding is that the studio will want a movie to hit certain projections for the run time based on how they want the movie to be perceived, and what they think the audience will tolerate. They will then tell the director to cut a certain amount of material from his film in order to fit that time, which is what muddies things to some degree; the director doesn't necessarily want to make all of those cuts. Sometimes great material gets left on the cutting room floor, things that really enhance the story - like the material that was taken out of Watchmen. It sounds like a really inorganic process, that probably leaves no one totally happy.


From the creative side, however, every story has a natural ending point. Look at westerns for the obvious example.
We don't need to know what happens when the nameless protagonist rides out of town toward the sunset; we don't need to know where he does, or what he does. That would be overshooting the story. Can he have another tale, say two towns over, or whatever? Sure, maybe, if it makes sense for his character arc. But each story has a natural/ideal termination point that shouldn't be ignored.
This is relevant to CBMs mostly because the characters have always been written with the intention of infinite serialization; we can always make more stories for them. They have no natural finishing point (or if they do we ignore it), which turns the films into something a little strange, and new.

As to the mention of character origin stories . . .
Its an interesting problem, fairly unique to CBMs. Our characters have otherworldly powers, and strange costumes, so we feel like we need to know how they ended up where they are. But this problem doesn't really exist in traditional sci-fi.
Take Star Wars, for instance. Speaking only of the original trilogy (because I can't be arsed to sort out the mess that was the second trilogy) they never mention what we would consider 'origin stories' for Han Solo, Chewbacca, Leia, or even Obi-Wan Kenobi, or Yoda. We learn about them as the films go on, mostly with throw-away lines here and there ("your father and I fought in the Clone Wars together . . . "). But we largely do not learn where they are from, what their first adventures were, how they picked up their various skills, etc.
Its a unique problem. Maybe, even after all the comicbook films that have come out in the last twenty years, we still haven't quite figured out how to frame it.
OptionFour
OptionFour - 2/13/2014, 5:01 PM
Also, @dethpillow

I tend to agree that the problem of 'not having time to flesh things out' is a misnomer.
Though there are always going to be exceptions, I like to think of it this way: every movie I've ever seen has been - more or less - two hours. Sure, fifteen minutes give or take is pretty common and there are exceptions, as I mentioned.

But they all get about two hours.
And there are certainly films that do a hell of a lot of character development in two hours.
If the writer can't nail it in that time frame, then they weren't going to nail it with three hours, or four hours, or ten hours.

The problem isn't the run-time its the writing.
MightyZeus
MightyZeus - 2/13/2014, 10:30 PM
Good editorial and interesting write up. I think this editorial has brought up a good topic on the run time of films and when it's appropriate for films to either have short run times or really long run times depending on the film, story, characters and plot. For instance most book adaptations have long run times in which set movie is a success and is not prone to negativity due to the run time eg. Lord of the Rings trilogy or The Deathly Hallows Part 2. Because so much is happening in each story and each of the characters are interesting and draw in the audience it keeps the audience engaged where they do not realise the long run time. Book adaptations that make you feel disengaged and makes you realise that the run time is to long for a film could be for e.g. The Deathly Hallows part 1 and The Hobbit. Both films have interesting characters but each of the circumstances dont exactly drive the plot and there is a case of putting too much in or adapting too much to fit in the film where it becomes over saturated for the audience or over bearing.

Gravity has a perfect short running time which makes you realise that the film s running time is appropriate for the story it's trying to tell and that film and scenario is appropriate for the length of time. The film is centered on one main character trying to survive in space. As some one has brought up in the comment section that the problem is not the run time it's how the story is conveyed towards the audience and is it engaging and the other problematic factor is the writing suitable for the running time.
Starkasm
Starkasm - 2/14/2014, 3:19 AM
This was on my article. I feel the love.
Firgosaurus
Firgosaurus - 2/14/2014, 4:29 AM
Pacing and content is more important to the movie than runtime. You can tell an sweeping epic based on the Iraqi War and it would be interesting as long as the pacing is consistent and the content is interesting.

I find runtime to not be indicative of quality.
LegendaryOutlaw
LegendaryOutlaw - 2/14/2014, 6:42 PM
@batz11 Lol.
Wolf38
Wolf38 - 2/14/2014, 8:02 PM
Personally, I found Thor: The Dark World to be too long. But that's purely relative to the content of that film. Generally, I prefer shorter, more concise films. It's a rare one that can push 2.5 or 3 hours without dragging.
ThunderKat
ThunderKat - 2/14/2014, 11:44 PM
Firgosaurus,

I agree.


Anything under three hours that has good pacing and quality content wins! TDKR was way too long. It was so much slower than the previous two that I was losing my interest in all of the characters. Same with MoS. It had many flaws, but it's pacing and length didn't hide any of them.
Conversely, "The Avengers" ebbed around Hawkeye's being freed, but got right back on its feet and started running. Both "Thor" movies moved at a really nice pace.
Run time is hardest on origin stories as they are particularly challenging to make flow. I love Spider-Man, but Raimi's could have been a step or two faster. "Batman Begins" is currently the best origin story on film.

All of that said, can we get a movie/show that stays in one time period instead of the interspliced past and present? It's is now old hat and becoming very cliche.
View Recorder