Thirith on 30/5/2008 at 09:23
Quote Posted by Stitch
Here's hoping they're merciless in their adaptation so we wind up with a great
movie, as opposed to a film that manages to pack everything in but loses any sense of narrative flow in the process.
This is very true, but tieing it directly to length is simply not feasible. A number of critics said that they felt the Extended Editions of at least some of the
Lord of the Rings movies flowed better than the cinematic versions, and I'd agree with them. A badly paced, rushed story can feel longer than a better paced longer film that flows well.
Harvester on 30/5/2008 at 12:42
Quote Posted by Thirith
A number of critics said that they felt the Extended Editions of at least some of the
Lord of the Rings movies flowed better than the cinematic versions, and I'd agree with them.
It's the same with Kingdom of Heaven, the 3 hours director's cut has a much better flow.
Angel Dust on 30/5/2008 at 12:59
Quote Posted by Stitch
It is. Three hour movies are almost impossible to pull off.
There are far too many critically and/or commercially succesful 3 hour films for it to be any where near 'impossible to pull off'. A short list of the top of my head:
LOTR trilogy
Godfather 2 (and the first one was pushing 3 hours too, if I recall)
Schindler's List
La Dolce Vita
Seven Samurai
Lawrence of Arabia
Titanic
The Deer Hunter
Note it doesn't matter if you don't like all those films, I dont' like all of them either and you can never please everyone, but they are examples of 3+ hour films that succeded, whether it be commercially or critically.
Basically it just comes down to the film. I've certainly seen 3+ hour films that dragged but then again 'Lawrence of Arabia' kept be completely engrossed throughout it's nearly 4 hour running time. Remember 'Watchmen' is a multi-character drama with a fully realized story as opposed to traditional comic book material so some extra length could be a good thing to flesh out characters , properly conclude story arcs etc. I think Fafhrd is right with the final cut most likely being around 2.5 - 2.75 hours.
And Fafhrd it seems the 'Watchmen' film that will be on the DVD may be 4.5 hours long and I think that running is not including the Black Frieghter/Under the Hood stuff!
Stitch on 30/5/2008 at 15:09
Quote Posted by Thirith
This is very true, but tieing it directly to length is simply not feasible. A number of critics said that they felt the Extended Editions of at least some of the
Lord of the Rings movies flowed better than the cinematic versions, and I'd agree with them.
I'd argue the opposite. I love the extended editions because I'm a huge LotR nerd, but the theatrical cuts are superior
movies. The pacing is better suited to the single-viewing medium of film, whereas the extended cuts basically push things into miniseries territory. Nothing wrong with that, except that they aren't really movies.
Even so, it was a complete mistake to cut the Lothlórien gift-giving scene from the theatrical version of
Fellowship.
Angel Dust: yeah, I'm not saying long movies suck by default, or are impossible to pull off. I agree with basically everything in your last post.
I don't inherently have a problem with a three hour Watchmen movie, as long as it has a clear beginning, middle, and end, and all the characters and plotlines included are developed properly. Talk of a 4.5 hour cut squeezed down to three hours does indicate that they're trying to squeeze in everything from the comic, though, which would be a complete disaster.
Also: I have no faith in the man who brought us
300.
Nicker on 30/5/2008 at 18:17
A hefty short story is about as much as a feature length movie can comfortably handle before you begin twisting it out of shape, hatcheting characters and bleeding it of narrative.
A real novel, not one crammed with filler, simply won't fit into a ninety minute telling. And the human bladder is ill designed to withstand a three hour feature...
Gingerbread Man on 31/5/2008 at 03:49
Bring back intermissions and no one will give a fuck about four-hour movies.
Tocky on 31/5/2008 at 04:28
I so want to reorder that sentence.
Muzman on 31/5/2008 at 04:28
I agree, but multiplexes don't want them. You have to get more staff to deal with the change over and crowds (some of whom, besides the two people who monitor the automatic projectors, might have to be at all competent) and you can't fit as many screenings in a day.
Digital might fix all this. Me, I'm all for bringing back serials as well. As TV shows get bigger and meaner and more cinematic (and tivos give our hatred of ads untold power), head down the cinema for an hour a week instead.
Neb on 1/6/2008 at 18:15
Quote Posted by Muzman
I agree, but multiplexes don't want them. You have to get more staff to deal with the change over and crowds (some of whom, besides the two people who monitor the automatic projectors, might have to be at all competent) and you can't fit as many screenings in a day.
I'm pretty sure that's why there are plenty of films pruned to be exactly 90 minutes long.
Morte on 2/6/2008 at 17:18
Quote Posted by Harvester
It's the same with Kingdom of Heaven, the 3 hours director's cut has a much better flow.
That's really the perfect example. The extended version is a much, much better movie.
I'm generally in favour of lean movies, but there's enough great epic-length movies to not make it an automatic strike against Watchmen.
