thumbnail of The Brutalist (4 hrs long) okay perhaps not the best example
And not exactly 4 hours of easy watching.
To be fair those older movies are long as fuck. I watched something with 10 minute long opening credits the other day. I had to skip it.
I remember watching 2001, a space odyssey, and being thoroughly underwhelmed by it. Visually stunning, but if I hadn't also read the book, I'd have had absolutely no idea what was happening for most of the film.
The Truffaut film referenced is an hour and 45 minutes.
What movie had 10 minutes of opening credits? Back when credits were at the open, it used to be about 30 seconds of credits.
Plenty movies from the 40s and 50s ran all the credits at the beginning along with an overture. IMO the overture is one of the best parts of older movies, which often had amazing, sweeping soundtracks
Please name one. Never seen one that had more than 2 minutes of opening credit even if you include the extra symphonic stuff as “credits” (we don’t count previews toward runtimes now, so not sure it’s a fair comparison). Maybe one or two had a dedicated symphonic opening but that was exceedingly rare
Reading your reaction to everyone else's comments, did you read the part where I said credits and an overture? What's got you so wound up over this? You'll notice I never said 10 minutes like that first guy, but most movies have way longer opening titles than 30 seconds, which is what you said...
Which Lawrence of Arabia version from the 40s or 50s (your words) are you referring to?
If you mean the famous 60s film…. Yes, it has a minute of credits and another 4 or 5 for the overture. Not credits.
Again, still looking for examples of extended credit sequences. Overtures are basically the same as intermissions. That’s a totally different beast.
Even if you want to lump them together, we’re still at the “one or two” I mentioned. Huge Hollywood blockbusters. Exceedingly rare.
I literally said overture in the comment that's got you all bothered
Oh boy. I just reread your edited comments. It’s hard to keep up when you edit like that
But yes, I would still care to hear your 40s and 50s examples. If you have one where overture+credits approaches 10 minutes, I’d be shocked. As we’ve discussed, some examples in the 60s can hit 5 minutes, but that’s about the most I’ve seen
Watched planet of the apes the other day and it had a good amount of opening credits. Couldn't tell you the length off the top of my head
4 minutes. That’s a great example of the rare symphonic opening I was referencing.
But that’s also not the 40s or 50s.
The Outsiders had a stupidly long intro if my memory is correct. I remember taking the tape out to check if maybe it was at the end and the credits were rolling.
Lawrence of Arabia.
Why do people keep naming 60s films with 4 minutes of musical intros when I’m asking for 40s and 50s films with 10 minute credit intros lol?
Edit: overture is the word I was looking for, not “musical intro”. But that’s not a thing that happened in early cinema (barring Chaplin, who had strict control of scores - would be interested if someone else cares to google that)
I only ever had Facebook, Twitter and Reddit and just couldn’t get into Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, etc. so this is really perplexing to me. It just can’t be true can it?
I also can’t stand using a phone while watching a TV show (paid streaming, no ads) or a movie. It’s sad to me that people are unwilling to immerse themselves in something for just a while.
Did you have an iPad/phone shoved in front of you during mealtime, or when waiting for a sibling during their sports practice or game, or while waiting at the doctors office, or if your parents had guests or were visiting a friend, or in literally every single potential moment of boredom that could be filled with learning patience, reflection and just enjoying silence?
Because that's the new normal for a whole generation of kids.
I have young kids in gen alpha, bought them up with quite minimal screen time, and the behavioural differences between them and their peers that have been bought up with heavy screen use iPad as the primary tool of choice is stark and very concerning for those kids' future.
And lemme tell you, none of the parents I gently tried to encourage the importance of boredom with over the years changed their behaviour much. As soon as it became a regular tool to deal with an child needing attention it became a very hard thing to part with.
Hey chadGPT, summarize this Fellini for me.
What about three-hour films?
Some modern ones are absolute garbage, but some are worth the bladder pain!
I don't think he knows about Second Disc, PattyMcB
Oppenheimer was rough. The whole fuckin thing about whether he was a commie or not, or just how commie he was, is it commie to not want to drop the bomb, etc. Myopic, tedious. You could cut an hour out and it would be the same movie. They didn’t even get into the “Demon Core”.
I knew Hollywood would ruin it and I actively avoided seeing it.
Now that I know how it was ruined I don't need to watch. Maybe in 10 years I'll ask AI to do a "trololol's cut" for me and I'll watch it.
You want to re-calibrate from the constant barrage of content? Find a way to watch The Wrath of God its a good movie that opens with a series of 30 second set shots of water flowing. Its like anti-transformers level of stillness
I think two-hour movies are soon to be a thing of the past. But, will people pay premium prices to watch a one-hour TV episode on the big screen? One hour is all anyone can handle anymore, and then only if they can also look at their phones, they get the shakes if they can't look at their phones.
When we switch to XR/AR goggles worn every waking moment, that will be the end of movie theaters, and so many other things. Only a few will survive, like drive-ins today.
I don't think it's just the old man in me saying we're heading in a bad direction.
The only ones as a group avoiding this are the "elite". The filthy rich don't let their kids use this tech. Their kids go to schools like they were before smartphones. Pencil, paper, and good grades required to pass. I mean the billionaires, there's a huge difference between $100 million, which is rich to we poors, and $1 billion+. We down here tend to group them all together, but they are not the same. One-hundred million is the new middle class.
One hour, bah. I don't understand why people complain about 1 minute youtube shorts. That seems about the right length.
I've always considered myself a film buff but even i'm struggling to sit through most of the tripe that's coming out of hollywood these days. Arts films have always been a challenge but rewarding once their completed.
i mean some of the movies film professors pick, i had trouble sitting through, uh, 20-30 years ago (that is not an estimate i was one of those students) so is this on the professors? what are the films?
Lyrical Nitrate
There’s a difference between a movie you want to go see in a theater and the film assigned as classwork by a professor.
Same as if you were told you had to read a book by an author you don’t care for in a writing style that doesn’t click with you snd maybe even from a different time with framing that doesn’t exist today.
It’s work.
Maybe desire to play with a phone and use social media might be an issue, but at least some of these same kids that have a hard time sitting through a film would have doodled, started falling asleep or just daydreamed instead.
I watched both "Dune" from Denis Villeneuve yesterday, back to back, thats gotta be 4h straight. Went to pee once
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏 CONGRATULATIONS ON WATCHING SO MUCH TELEVISION!!!!
(seriously, is that what you wanted?)
What does "intermission" mean?
Why pick a major you hate??
I don't think the kids hate it, just that the attention span isn't what it used to be.
But it also works for us imo, to a degree. I at least find the pacing of 80's or 90's tv much calmer. And I daresay a movie from the B&W era would be slower still.
And I don't think there's yet a professional short-form making masterclass so that's where the kids end up
i am still awestruck by that short of that girl who tosses her phone up in the air and it spins around a few times and gets the amazing slomo spinny shot of the beach and then boobs. I'm gonna be honest, i used to do camera work and i still can't figure out how she thought it up (not the boobs part, everyone can think up boobs) she is a genius. she could cut out the boobs part it is such an amazing shot.
That's like saying math students are having trouble sitting through a calculus class. All that means is the better, more deserving ones who put the work in will be successful. A tale as old as time.
All that means is the better, more deserving ones who put the work in will be successful.
Oh, how adorably naive.
Or it means that the education system is tailored for one specific learning style and that those with different styles or a neurodivergency are shit out of luck.
I'm absolutely not an expert and not qualified here. But if we accept that you're 100% right and need way more broad options, is it even possible to solve this at scale? (I'm assuming we're all talking about the US since our education is atrocious). 350M Americans spread out across 3.5M sq miles - only smaller in landmass than China, Canada, and Russia, but with substantially LESS uninhabitable land and a relatively large population. That means our population density is nearly ¼ of China's.
How many different learning styles do we support? Do they each get their own tailored schools, each with their own full staff? How do you equally support the 1/5 of the country (60M+) that live in all those spread out rural communities? And what time scale can we even fix this problem on, understanding that we're in the midst of a teacher shortage as it is?
I think proper spending on education absolutely is part of this equation, but someone will have to gut our military spending, so that's hurdle number one. But regardless, tax dollars being a limited resource... I wonder how much spending doing this right would cost. For a full educational overhaul.
We should only support neurodivergent learning styles. The neurotypical kids can just conform or end up in prison; they're not worth the tax dollars to accommodate, sorry. It's simply not cost effective, we'll have to leave them behind.
Love that people complain about the length of movies while simultaneously happily siting through eight, hour+ long episodes of Stranger Things over two evenings.
Especially when many hours could have easily been left on the cutting room floor of most streaming shows, but they need to streeetch the runtime so that the writers can meet their contractual, or whatever other internal requirements.
Love that people complain about the length of movies while simultaneously happily siting through eight, hour+ long episodes of Stranger Things over two evenings.
Because a movie is a constant continuation, where as each episode has a hard end and you can stop and decide if you want to continue or stop.
Except that if you look at the stats, most Netflix viewers binge watch (88% here), and most engage in long binges (70% here reported 5 episodes or more at a time), binge watching is by all accounts 'the norm' for streaming service users.
So while you may be able to 'decide if you want to continue or stop' the statistics show that the vast majority of people end up watching much, much longer than a movie runtime - which was my point.
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
Posts must be:
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!