Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pukunui" data-source="post: 9439432" data-attributes="member: 54629">I don't think you can say they only appear to be slow. The fact that they linger on shots longer and don't have the fast cut of modern films is what makes them slow. Interestingly, of all the ones I named, Alien is the shortest, clocking in at just under 2 hours. The rest are all between 2 and 2.5 hours long.Also, if you think about 2001: A Space Odyssey, during its 2+ hour runtime, there are less than 40 minutes of dialogue. And a lot of that dialogue is spoken slowly and calmly (like with HAL and his hypnotic voice).Speaking of HAL and his hypnotic voice ... that's what makes me wonder if these films were meant to be watched while high. I mean, it was the 70s after all, right? But like, I watched the director's cut of Apocalypse Now once, and I definitely felt like I would have enjoyed it more if I'd been high.Interesting. I don't think any of my Gen Z / alpha children have ever complained about the first Star Wars feeling slow, and they like pretty much all the Star Wars films. I will admit that if you watch Rogue One then A New Hope back-to-back, then the latter does feel a bit slow in comparison, but still not as slow as those other 70s sci-fi films.I don't think I could ever sit through Close Encounters again (having only watched it as a teen), and I'm an elder millennial with Gen X siblings.I think you could argue that the first one is slow, but the rest of them are pretty zippy.A slow sci-fi / fantasy movie by modern standards would be the first Hobbit movie. Man, that thing drags, especially in the first half.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pukunui, post: 9439432, member: 54629"] I don't think you can say they only [I]appear [/I]to be slow. The fact that they linger on shots longer and don't have the fast cut of modern films is what makes them slow. Interestingly, of all the ones I named, [I]Alien [/I]is the shortest, clocking in at just under 2 hours. The rest are all between 2 and 2.5 hours long. Also, if you think about [I]2001: A Space Odyssey[/I], during its 2+ hour runtime, there are less than 40 minutes of dialogue. And a lot of that dialogue is spoken slowly and calmly (like with HAL and his hypnotic voice). Speaking of HAL and his hypnotic voice ... that's what makes me wonder if these films were meant to be watched while high. I mean, it was the 70s after all, right? But like, I watched the director's cut of [I]Apocalypse Now [/I]once, and I definitely felt like I would have enjoyed it more if I'd been high. Interesting. I don't think any of my Gen Z / alpha children have ever complained about the first Star Wars feeling slow, and they like pretty much all the Star Wars films. I [I]will [/I]admit that if you watch [I]Rogue One [/I]then [I]A New Hope [/I]back-to-back, then the latter does feel a bit slow in comparison, but still not [I]as [/I]slow as those other 70s sci-fi films. I don't think I could ever sit through [I]Close Encounters [/I]again (having only watched it as a teen), and I'm an elder millennial with Gen X siblings. I think you could argue that the first one is slow, but the rest of them are pretty zippy. A slow sci-fi / fantasy movie by modern standards would be the first Hobbit movie. Man, that thing drags, especially in the first half. [/QUOTE]

Verification