It seems that more and more movies are 'surpassing' my usual movie fatigue threshhold of 2 hours. I can understand for epics like Lincoln and Les Miserables (each about two and a half hours). But consider these: Skyfall 2hr30m; This is 40, 2hr15m; Silver Linings Playbook 2hrs; Django 2hr45m; Zero Dark Thirty 2hr30m; Jack Reacher 2hr10m. And the exaggerated length of the Hobbit (2hr45m) , complete with 2 musical numbers & 2 sequels to come, has become a joke! Who says longer is better?
sort by best latest
You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.
Finally someone offers a plausible explanation! Thanks for the insight, Express 10.
Good point about the short att. span of the masses, exacerbated by constant multimedia stimulation. My problem is more like stiff legs, needing to pee, getting hungry, or more likely, bloated from too much popcorn and Coke!
Yea, certain movies are so good that 3 or 4 hrs wouldn't be 2 long. But that's a small minority & the list would differ with individual tastes. I'm wondering if people spend more on concessions when a movie is long or if it's just vanity of filma
Thanks for weighing in. Yes, I agree it does depend on the movie. I don't mind the length of something like Lincoln or Argo or Gone With the Wind. But 3 hrs. of a Bond movie is a bit too much!