Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kai Lord" data-source="post: 1133306" data-attributes="member: 3570">It still doesn't matter, because a 90 minute Kill Bill is still going to cater mostly to Tarantino fans.  To the casual movie going public it just looks like a dark parody of Charlie's Angels, which isn't exactly box office gold.  Whether its 90 or 180 minutes, its appeal is still to the Tarantino crowd.  I've never heard of poor performance at the box office being attributed to the length.  Never.If a film is good and the people who see it recommend it to there friends and/or go see it again, it will make money, whether its 90 or 180 minutes.  You say Titanic and LOTR are the exceptions; that would be true if there was a plethora of three hour films and those were the only two that were successful.But that isn't the case.  Studios don't like long films not because the public won't pay to see them but because it means less showings per day and fewer times each day to charge for tickets.  That's it.If a movie needs three hours to be told and its a good story they release it that way.  The fact that Miramax is cutting it in two either suggests they simply want to capitalize on multiple sequel mania (LOTR, Matrix R & R, Riddick goofiness) and force it into two parts to fleece the fans, or they simply don't think its a good enough film to warrant the staying power that would cancel out the fewer showings per day.  Either way, its not a good thing.</blockquote>