• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Odesu

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,543
Man, imagine a fast paced, well written, brisk 90 minutes long Marvel Blockbuster. Would love if we ever got back to that, if only you could probably cut the amount of CG work that needs to be done in half and maybe most Disney movies and shows wouldn't look like absolute garbage anymore.

I love the film, but I wish The Batman would have had a i similar mandate :P

Oh god yes.
 

StarsTurnCold

Avenger
Apr 30, 2018
654
The success of 3 hour movies like Endgame and Avatar and 2.5 hour movies like Infinity War and Spider-Man NWH show it's not a problem at all for audiences and especially for making money as long as the quality is there.

Idk know why this would've been mandated if this rumor is true at all.
 
Aug 12, 2019
5,159
This was a dumb argument when Cameron said it and its a dumb argument here.

TV shows are paced by the episode. You aren't supposed to watch all 8-12 episodes of a season in one go, whereas you are expected to with a movie.

Filler is still filler regardless of if I watch a show week to week or all at once, the baseline content doesn't change and it doesn't change the fact I've yet to watch a MCU show that feels like it has any idea what it's doing with the TV show medium versus the movie medium or hasn't arbitrarily found ways to increase its length to the detriment of the show.
 

Ocarina_117

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,571
People still not getting that the final act of The Batman is its most important 🤷🏽‍♂️

Studio mandates are rarely good, it was weird seeing quotes of Taika defending them on twitter the other day.
 

Messofanego

Member
Oct 25, 2017
26,176
UK
Wait, now two hours is too long for a superhero movie? No thanks, 90 minutes is way too short.

Not sure what it being the 4th Thor movie has to do with anything either.
www.vulture.com

The 53 Best Movies Under 90 Minutes

Sometimes you just want a good story, capably told with no time to waste.

There are MCU and DCEU films shorter than 2 hours, and Birds Of Prey is better than many of the ~2:30 hour films. Then there are shorter comic book films that are great like Dredd, The Crow, Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker (74min!), Batman: Mask Of Phantasm (76min!) and more. Then there are non-MCU flicks like Spiderverse, X-Men and Deadpool. 90 minutes can be perfect for comedy, action, horror, thrillers, or even dramas (Ingmar Bergman), the script just have to be leaner and more focused, on the core theme and there will be less plot threads. Considering the unanimous criticism for the film was about the tone and mismatch with the themes, I think it would have helped to focus more on less stuff. Not every MCU film has to have several plotlines, cameos, crossovers, otherwise you end up with sequel bait and half-baked endings or things not feeling complete. I would assume filmmakers would like to make shorter, leaner, and even standalone films. Multiverse Of Madness could easily have been just about Wanda and Strange, and just be straight horror.
 

Meg Cherry

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,279
Seattle, WA
longer movies make less money per day
And yet Marvel seemed fine putting out multiple 2.5hr movies a year, mainly because they're such a cultural force that the larger theater count is assumed.

A part of me wonders if this was mandated to ensure all of the VFX could actually be finished on schedule, ensuring Disney wouldn't have to delay the film.
 
Oct 28, 2017
4,156
This is news? Every studio wants shorter movies because you can fit more showtimes into each day. You make more money that way. Screwing the creatives is a time honored tradition in Hollywood.
 

ZeoVGM

Member
Oct 25, 2017
76,206
Providence, RI
www.vulture.com

The 53 Best Movies Under 90 Minutes

Sometimes you just want a good story, capably told with no time to waste.

There are MCU and DCEU films shorter than 2 hours, and Birds Of Prey is better than many of the ~2:30 hour films. Then there are shorter comic book films that are great like Dredd, The Crow, Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker (74min!), Batman: Mask Of Phantasm (76min!) and more. Then there are non-MCU flicks like Spiderverse, X-Men and Deadpool. 90 minutes can be perfect for comedy, action, horror, thrillers, or even dramas (Ingmar Bergman), the script just have to be leaner and more focused, on the core theme and there will be less plot threads. Considering the unanimous criticism for the film was about the tone and mismatch with the themes, I think it would have helped to focus more on less stuff. Not every MCU film has to have several plotlines, cameos, crossovers, otherwise you end up with sequel bait and half-baked endings or things not feeling complete. I would assume filmmakers would like to make shorter, leaner, and even standalone films. Multiverse Of Madness could easily have been just about Wanda and Strange, and just be straight horror.

I never said films under two hours can't be good.

But 90 minutes would have been ridiculous for this movie.
 

Truly Gargantuan

Still doesn't have a tag :'(
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,034
I found myself getting bored about 2/3s into the movie. I don't think adding another 10/15/20 minutes would have helped for me.
 

Cipher Peon

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,823
Length definitely wasn't the problem with the movie for me. It definitely felt shorter which I appreciated since I disliked the movie from the second scene onwards.
 

Tavernade

Tavernade
Moderator
Sep 18, 2018
8,630
I'd hope to see a directors cut one day, depending on what was cut. More Jane dealing with stuff would have been nice, and I felt like Valkyrie didn't get enough to do.

I liked Gor but I personally thought he was well served in the film as-is.

Kinda weird to force this lower run time when streaming is increasingly the way people watch these things.
 

CBZ

Member
Jul 2, 2022
829
Well, that explains the fast pacing then. Though I'd personally argue that the pacing worked in the movie's favor more often than not.
 

Ceerious

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,211
Asian
Prior to Love & Thunder (119 minutes), only 6 MCU films are less than 2 hours long:

The Incredible Hulk – 112 minutes
Thor – 115 minutes
Thor 2: The Dark World – 112 minutes
Ant-Man – 117 minutes
Doctor Strange – 115 minutes
Ant-Man and the Wasp – 118 minutes

Love & Thunder is the first less-than-2-hours MCU film since 2018's Ant-Man and Wasp. So I think there isn't enough evidence that Marvel started taking a "shorter films" route. And between their next 3 films, at least GoG 3 is bound to be longer than 2 hours.
 
Oct 25, 2017
32,293
Atlanta GA
Not a fan of this tbh. Both Love & Thunder and Multiverse of Madness could have been vastly improved with another 10-15 minutes spent on its villains and some slower character moments
 

Pluto

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,450
do you watch any movies made before the 80s
Yes? What kind of question is that? I'm aware previous decades had their Apocalypse Nows, Lawrence of Arabias, Godfathers, Spartacus, etc., that doesn't mean most movies should be above 2 hours.

Taxi Driver
Alien
Psycho
The French Connection
The Graduate
Kramer vs. Kramer
Dirty Harry
Star Wars
American Graffiti
Breakfast at Tiffany's
Rocky
Harold and Maude

All under 2 hours and when you go back to the 50s a ton of movies are 90 minutes or shorter. Some movies need their length, I'm not saying they should have done Lord of the Rings in 110 minutes but most movies do not need to be overly long especially not comic book movies, the stories and characters aren't that complicated, they are easy to understand by design, just introduce the characters and get to the point.
The best theatrical Batman movie is still Mask of the Phantasm and that's 78 minutes.
 

WrenchNinja

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,744
Canada
The fact that Mask of the Phantasm tells a more compelling story, with more emotional depth and better drawn characters in 76 minutes than the majority of longer live action superhero films, is always my go-to argument for shorter films.

View: https://youtu.be/TjAFbEP0wK4

youtu.be

I didn't count on being happy.

A scene from the 1993 animated film, Batman: Mask of the Phantasm.Bruce has fallen in love with Andrea Beaumont. His feelings for her have created a conflict...

Still incredible
 

Messofanego

Member
Oct 25, 2017
26,176
UK
I never said films under two hours can't be good.

But 90 minutes would have been ridiculous for this movie.
I never said you believed films under 2 hours are bad. But you never explained why 90min would be too short or ridiculous for superhero films, and I was making the case for why it could be fine.
 

andymcc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
26,314
Columbus, OH
Yes? What kind of question is that? I'm aware previous decades had their Apocalypse Nows, Lawrence of Arabias, Godfathers, Spartacus, etc., that doesn't mean most movies should be above 2 hours.

Taxi Driver
Alien
Psycho
The French Connection
The Graduate
Kramer vs. Kramer
Dirty Harry
Star Wars
American Graffiti
Breakfast at Tiffany's
Rocky
Harold and Maude

All under 2 hours and when you go back to the 50s a ton of movies are 90 minutes or shorter. Some movies need their length, I'm not saying they should have done Lord of the Rings in 110 minutes but most movies do not need to be overly long especially not comic book movies, the stories and characters aren't that complicated, they are easy to understand by design, just introduce the characters and get to the point.
The best theatrical Batman movie is still Mask of the Phantasm and that's 78 minutes.

i'm not saying most movies should be over two hours either, but there are many o storied classics, that aren't just American canonical cinema classics like your examples, that exceed that runtime. there are plenty of movies that justify their long runtime while simultaneously acknowledging that there are movies that are too long for their own good.

Need I remind you, this is your original post:

Good, barely any movie needs to be longer than two hours.

Perhaps a better phrasing would have been "Barely any superhero movie needs to be longer than two hours".
 
Oct 27, 2017
12,058
My main complaint with the movie was it needed more time to breathe so a longer runtime with moments of contemplation or more Gorr scenes would have helped imo
 

OSHAN

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,932
  • Black Widow: 134 minutes
  • Shang-Chi: 132 minutes
  • Eternals: 156 minutes
  • Spider-man NWH: 148 minutes
  • Doctor Strange MoM: 126 minutes
  • Thor L&T: 119 minutes
An extra 10 minutes would have been fine.

Not that it is terribly important, but I wish they segmented run-times with and without credits. A lot of these movies have extensive credits. I think the credits hit in NWH at 2 hours 12 minutes. In MoM, they hit at 1 hour 56 minutes. BW? 2 hours 4 minutes. Shang-Chi? 2 hours.

So, Thor 4 probably is around 1 hour 48 minutes. I haven't seen it, so no opinion on it being too long or short, but that feels like a good length for a comedy. I cant handle the endurance tests of Apatow.
 

jph139

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,378
You could do a JaneThor movie in under 2 hours, and you could do a Gorr movie in under 2 hours, but you can't squish them both together and expect it to succeed in under 2 hours. I'm assuming that mandate came through late in the game, which is dumb as shit on Marvel's part. Otherwise Waititi really dropped the ball back in the planning stages.
 
Oct 25, 2017
32,293
Atlanta GA
You could do a JaneThor movie in under 2 hours, and you could do a Gorr movie in under 2 hours, but you can't squish them both together and expect it to succeed in under 2 hours. I'm assuming that mandate came through late in the game, which is dumb as shit on Marvel's part. Otherwise Waititi really dropped the ball back in the planning stages.

yep they took two very distinct arcs from this book, mashed them together, and cut most of what makes them really shine (the epic nature of the God Butcher arc spanning thousands of years and following Thor at 3 different eras in his life. And Jane had some adventures of her own that we didn't get to see much of at all here, would have been nice to see her out in the world doing more superheroics

I liked what we got. But I always envisioned this adaptation being a two-parter and they had the material to make it work they just didn't want to go that route
 

Midramble

Force of Habit
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
10,461
San Francisco
That explains the weird pacing. Wanted more and if Taika had been given more time I'm sure the serious scenes would have felt more sincere. JoJo Rabbit showed that he knows how to balance.
 

plagiarize

It's not a loop. It's a spiral.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
27,545
Cape Cod, MA
Comedies longer than 2 hours rarely work, so I don't see an issue with this. Venom 2, for example, really benefited from having such a short runtime.
 

fancyarcher

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,864
The fact that Mask of the Phantasm tells a more compelling story, with more emotional depth and better drawn characters in 76 minutes than the majority of longer live action superhero films, is always my go-to argument for shorter films.

As great as Mask of the Phantasm is, the only reason it's more effective and efficient is because it's animated, and thus not inherently that cheap to make, which affects the runtime. If they tried to do that same thing in live-action, there would be some potential problems.
 

obin_gam

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,032
Sollefteå, Sweden
Hell no. Half of what makes that movie so good is its slow-burn pacing and length that let you soak in the atmosphere.
I know what you mean, I adore slow burns, (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a great example of everything happening in slow motion) but they have to move the plot forwards too. The Falcone riddle grinded the movie to a halt and it should have focused more on The Riddler or the Waynes imo.
 

Ballou

Member
Apr 2, 2020
618
I feel like the movie would have benefited from a bit more time near the beginning to help set the table. Once things got going I was enjoying myself, but the pacing seemed kinda jumpy at the start.
 
Oct 30, 2017
15,278

R.1ecc822063c23084dcd1f86ae99834a1
 

Ryan.

Prophet of Truth
The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
12,883
I think it's a shame because I'm on the side of the film needing maybe 20 more minutes for either Gorr, Jane, or Valkyrie that didn't have Thor in the scenes.
 

Wrexis

Member
Nov 4, 2017
21,247
Not that it is terribly important, but I wish they segmented run-times with and without credits.

Yeah, agree with that. It's worse on the Disney TV shows. The credits are so long.
Some of the WandaVision episodes that were 39 minutes long were actually just 30.

It was very noticeable watching Baymax recently in where an 11m30s show was actually just 8 minutes minus the credits.