Log in

No account? Create an account
Star Wars

May the Force be with You

Posted on 2007.12.23 at 12:14


Joshua Gizelt
swashbuckler332 at 2007-12-25 15:20 (UTC) (Link)
If you are saying that epic films are getting shorter, I'm not sure how you figure that. Maybe they are shorter than some of their four hour 60s counterparts, but many of them run close to (or more than) three hours.

Certainly many comedies and smaller dramas clock in around the ninety minute mark... this is and remains the most common length of such films. Nevertheless, the current trend is for films in general to become longer of late, not shorter. ehowton was saying that the film was slightly long, running just over two hours and ten minutes. That is fairly long for a film when the average length, historically speaking, has been around 100 minutes.
Tomas Gallucci
schpydurx at 2007-12-25 21:15 (UTC) (Link)
I've always thought that two hours was the magic time for most movies (but then again, I don't do comedies nor romances as a general rule) with two-thirty being apropos for a griping story or when there is a lot of ground to cover. Anything past the three hour mark (to me) is epic...provided it's watchable.

For instance, though Aviator is just shy of three hours, the amount of ground that is covered makes the film feel like three and a half to four hours long. It's an epic on the smaller end of the scale.
Joshua Gizelt
swashbuckler332 at 2007-12-26 21:48 (UTC) (Link)
Yes, but Stardust is not really an epic... it's a fairly short book that was made into a slightly long movie.
Tomas Gallucci
schpydurx at 2007-12-26 21:51 (UTC) (Link)
I did not mean to imply that Stardust was either an epic book or film.
Joshua Gizelt
swashbuckler332 at 2007-12-26 21:57 (UTC) (Link)
But with respect to film length, you're comparing it to epics.
Tomas Gallucci
schpydurx at 2007-12-26 22:19 (UTC) (Link)
No, I said that anything over three hours I generally consider to be epic. Stardust clocks in at 127 minutes, which is muchly shy of the needed 180 minutes.
Joshua Gizelt
swashbuckler332 at 2007-12-26 23:01 (UTC) (Link)
ehowton wrote in his comments about Stardust, "At just over two hours, its a rather long movie, but the discrete storylines, all which culminate to the climax, keep everything moving in the right direction."

You responded to that post; you quoted that sentence and responded to the point with "No it’s not. We’ve had this conversation before," at which point you linked to this very post.

So the very reason why I even commented here at all - I had read the post right after ehowton had made it and hadn't checked back in the interim - was because you were referring to ehowton's comment about the length of Stardust and provided the link. Thus the context of my comments were with respect to a connection between Stardust and the films in question that you provided.
Previous Entry  Next Entry