Thread: Are longer movies inherently better?
View Single Post
Old 05-09-2012, 09:20 PM   #14
CSL
Over Like Rover
 
CSL's Avatar
 
Posts: 38,444
CSL makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)CSL makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)CSL makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)CSL makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)CSL makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)CSL makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)CSL makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)CSL makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)CSL makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)CSL makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)CSL makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)CSL makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)CSL makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
it's pretty much random, just happens that a lot of the historically critically acclaimed films are a bit longer. It's far from a "rule" though. IT is about a week long and it's fucking shit, I'm not really a fan of any of the Lord of the Rings films, while I generally enjoyed it and thought some of the performances were great, I think Magnolia as a whole is pretty overrated etc. For every 10 great 180 minute films, there are 50 great 90 minute films. You don't need a longer running time to "put more focus on characters" and so forth, just good writing/directing/casting etc.
CSL is offline   Reply With Quote