Well, it’s impossible to watch 3-hour action films in the cinema anymore; not every bladder can handle that. 
Have you noticed that films have become longer? And not just any serious films, but comic book films and action films. “No Time to Die” became the longest “Bond” - 2 hours 45 minutes! “Avengers: Endgame” two years ago broke the record not only for profitability, but also for length among all Marvel films - 3 hours 2 minutes! The upcoming Marvel blockbuster “The Eternals” will run for 2 hours and 37 minutes! Zack Snyder took as much as 4 hours with his Justice League. This is some kind of mockery of the audience's fifth points. Remember when militants once walked for no more than two hours? Viewers were yearning for short films. I think this can partly explain the success of Venom. It only takes an hour and a half. Now such an unusual duration causes shock. Viewers now think that since a film is 1.5 hours long, there must be something wrong with it. But for that frivolous blockbuster, 90 minutes is the ideal length. So what is this fashion for length, what is its reason?
There are more halls 
Over the past 30 years, the number of screens in the United States has doubled. Previously, cinema owners liked shorter films more because of the opportunity to cram more shows into one day, and studios were also interested in this, so films were generally no longer than 120 minutes. This is especially true for single-screen cinemas. In the era of multiplexes, the length of a picture no longer plays such a role.
Cinema fights TV 
The penultimate surge in fashion for very long films occurred precisely when television was actively winning viewers away from cinemas. “Ben-Hur” (1959) runs 3 hours 32 minutes. “Lawrence of Arabia” (1962) - 3 hours 36 minutes. The musical “The Sound of Music” (1965) runs almost three hours. And all these are box office hits. By the 1970s, the viewer was tired of long films, in which they even had an intermission for people to warm up and have a smoke break (right in the theater). Now time-limited big cinema is competing for viewers with unlimited time streaming, where you can binge watch several seasons of a series, where each episode is an hour long, or “The Irishman,” which runs for three and a half hours.
Since everything in this world is cyclical, soon viewers will again want to watch films in cinemas no longer than 100-120 minutes.
Film adaptations 
Many major films are based on books. The plot of a 500-page novel is difficult to compress even into two hours. So either the book is made into several parts, or the film turns out to be too long. But the fans, who today have too much influence on filmmakers, will not allow the book to be cut now.
"The Hobbit" is an exception to the rule, confirming the fashion for long paintings. Peter Jackson stretched the short story into three three-hour films.
A long film is synonymous with success 
“Titanic” - 3 hours 14 minutes, 11 Oscars, $1.8 billion collected at the box office.
“The Return of the King” - 3 hours 21 minutes, 11 Oscars, $1.2 billion.
“Avatar” - 2 hours 42 minutes, 3 Oscars, the highest grossing film of all time. There are also “Dances with Wolves”, “Braveheart” and other films that have already become classics. One gets the impression that academics simply will not take a film lasting less than 2 hours seriously, and the viewer will say that for the same price they would rather watch a film lasting 3 hours.
Agree that it’s not a shame to spend three hours on “The Return of the King” (the director’s cut generally runs 263 minutes). There are only a few such films, but mostly they are something like “Transformers: Age of Extinction” (2 hours 45 minutes), and in the end they are a waste of time. They say that films have become longer also because the average life expectancy has increased, and people are now more willing to spend time on long films. But no matter how much the average age increases, we must remember that, as Zhvanetsky wrote: “Life is short. And you have to be able to. You have to be able to leave a bad movie.”
0 comments
