How Long Has This Been Going On?

Here's a piece in the The Hollywood Reporter on the super-sized movies of today.  It seems to be true--big Hollywood movies have been getting longer.  Ten years ago, the top summer movies averaged under two hours, and they've been inching up since.

Longer is not better.  And a lot tougher on the bladder.  It can also be a sign of laziness--let's have lots of explosions and a sprawling story.  While you can't tell quality from the running time, I tend to believe shorter is preferable.

But the thesis of the article is they're leaving money on the table.  Exhibit A is the sequel to It, which is a whopping 2 hours and 49 minutes.  Its opening weekend was $91 million, great by almost any standard, but a letdown after the original It, at 2 hours and 15 minutes, opened at $123 million.

Isn't this argument obviously nonsense?  These days films play in thousands of theatres.  If you want to see the movie, you can see it--having one less showing per day won't have much (or any) effect on ticket availability.  And I see no evidence that audiences shy away from long films--not if the title excites them.

Thus, the biggest hit this year by far (and the second biggest hit of all time not adjusted for inflation) is Avengers: Endgame, which clocks in at a wearying 3 hours and 1 minute.  While we're at it, previous champs for the #1 spot of all time are Avatar at 2 hours and 42 minutes and Titanic at 3 hours and 14 minutes.

Should films be shorter?  Sure, why not. But the reason is to make the films better, not so the producers will make more money.