latest ROTK rumor

[kkoie]

rumor has it now that the film, at its current state, is 4 hours and 20 minutes long. the same scooper said that P. Jackson implied that because audiences didn't have a problem with 3 hour films like FOTR and TTT, that ROTK would stay close to its 4hr+ variation.

 

[KChagga]

This would be great, but I doubt that it will stay that way. Pressure from theatres will force him to cut it down. This does mean that there is good hope for the extended edition though.

 

[kingpaul]

This would be great, but I doubt that it will stay that way. Pressure from theatres will force him to cut it down. This does mean that there is good hope for the extended edition though.

Wasn't Gods and Generals a really long movie though?

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

So long as they put in a 10min intermission, I'd be fine with it.

Lord of the Rings movies are really hard on my bladder.

 

[John Crichton]

Wasn't Gods and Generals a really long movie though?

216 minutes, about 3 1/2 hours. I recall it didn't do that well.

If any movie came out now that clocked in at over 4 hours, I would expect an intermission but I would still be interested.

EDIT: One of the most successful films of all time, Gone With The Wind, was 4 hours. However, today's moviegoer may not be willing to sit that long. But, Titanic clocked in at over 3 hours and that one did great so it really depends on the film.

 

[Umbran]

Note that the audience being willing to sit through the movie is only half the issue. The theatre itself is another - throughput is important to them. They can show a 2-hour movie roughly twice as often as a 4-hour show. The longer show brings in half as many customers buying soda and popcorn.

 

[kkoie]

Shoot, this is the last of the series. I'm betting that it will do just as well if not better than the previous 2, box office wise. To heck with what theaters want, I say concentrate on what movie goers want. The longer the better, imho.

 

[WizarDru]

Shoot, this is the last of the series. I'm betting that it will do just as well if not better than the previous 2, box office wise. To heck with what theaters want, I say concentrate on what movie goers want. The longer the better, imho.

Said like someone who doesn't have a vested interest in the movie theater. The fact is, the theaters are not going to dig a movie that takes money out of their pockets. They don't make more money off of a four hour film than a 1.5 hour film, and may make less. If they can only show RotK 3 times a day, as opposed to some other movie 5 or 6 times a day, it makes a difference to their bottom line.

Mind you, I don't really believe the rumor, regardless. If it WERE four hours long, you'd best have an intermission all right, because that's a lot to ask of an audience, honestly. It will be hard to maintain that kind of momentum for that long, too. (not that I wouldn't go see it, you understand).

 

[Mark]

216 minutes, about 3 1/2 hours. I recall it didn't do that well.

If any movie came out now that clocked in at over 4 hours, I would expect an intermission but I would still be interested.

EDIT: One of the most successful films of all time, Gone With The Wind, was 4 hours. However, today's moviegoer may not be willing to sit that long. But, Titanic clocked in at over 3 hours and that one did great so it really depends on the film.

Here's someone's list of "Epic" movies (all of which were fairly long by any standard) -

http://www.epinions.com/mvie-review-E9-5AD865A-39D5707D-prod1

 

[Wayside]

Here's someone's list of "Epic" movies (all of which were fairly long by any standard) -

So has Braveheart just fallen off in popularity or what?