Length of movies vs Commercial appeal

[Shadowdancer]

The release of the new movie "Gods and Generals" makes me think once again about the length of movies, and what is deemed to be "commerical viable."

"Gods and Generals" is 3 hrs. 36 minutes long. And when all the footage they shot is added back in for the DVD version, it will reach 6 hours.

Theaters can only show this movie 2 or 3 times a day. It's predecessor, "Gettysburg," was 4 hrs. 21 minutes but was originally made to be shown on TV, and was only released in theaters later.

There were lots of complaints about the length of "LOTR" when it came out. New Line Cinema even forces Peter Jackson to deliver final cuts shorter than 3 hrs. (but not by much). And still it and "Two Towers" have done very well at theaters.

So has "LOTR" shown theater owners and studios that long movies, if done well, can still be commerically viable? Or is "Gods and Generals" an abberation because Ted Turner paid for it and didn't care too much how long it was, cause he knows most of the money will be made from showing it on his cable stations and from DVD sales?

 

[Krug]

Well I think if you go past 3 hours, you'll make it hard to have additional screenings. 80 mins or 3.5 hours; to the theater operator it's still the same price for the ticket. I think they'd prefer a shorter movie and be able to put in more screenins a day.

TTT might have been 3 hours, but I hardly felt it. I was craving for more and my eyes were absolutely glued to the screen.

I don't see Gods and Generals making much of a profit. It made US$4.8 million at the box office this weekend, and even with cable and DVD sales, I doubt if it'll even brean even.

 

[Ranger REG]

There were lots of complaints about the length of "LOTR" when it came out. New Line Cinema even forces Peter Jackson to deliver final cuts shorter than 3 hrs. (but not by much). And still it and "Two Towers" have done very well at theaters.

Hehehe. The above statement is funny, since not too long ago, there are others who complained that the movie is too short, that the DVD version should have been the one shown in theater in the first place.

And somewhere in this thread, I have posted my personal experience watching The Two Towers with a 3-hour time length. Nevertheless, I did enjoyed watching the film all the way through.

So far, it hasn't hurt sale for the movie theaters, especially the multiplexes, who can designate two or three theater rooms to show the same film at many different times (e.g., one room will show at 12 noon, while the second room will show at 1pm, etc.)

So has "LOTR" shown theater owners and studios that long movies, if done well, can still be commerically viable? Or is "Gods and Generals" an abberation because Ted Turner paid for it and didn't care too much how long it was, cause he knows most of the money will be made from showing it on his cable stations and from DVD sales?

Considering that almost all movie theaters gain most of their revenue through concession foods, it could hurt them.

Of course, I believe one of the original reasons for the multiplexes is that you have a wide variety of moviegoers who goes to the theater and buy movie snacks their favorite movie started, rather than just one type of moviegoers wanting to see the one film it is showing in a single-room theater that only shows one film at a time.

But to the mainstream moviegoers, I believe that the majority of them would prefer no more than a 2-hour long film, especially after downing a jumbo-sized drink and a tub-sized popcorn.

If there will be a steady flood of extra-long movies like LOTR and G&G, we may see the return of intermission periods, which is something I have been trying to suggest to my local multiplex theaters. Trust me, it is not a pleasant movie experience when half of your brain is concentrating on keeping your bladder or bowel in control during the film's duration.

Plus, it benefit the theater since moviegoers will want to refill their movie snack ... after the bathroom break.

 

[Chauzu]

Do they allow a 10 minute break half way between the movie? That would be nice.

 

[Shadowdancer]

Re: Re: Length of movies vs Commercial appeal

Hehehe. The above statement is funny, since not too long ago, there are others who complained that the movie is too short, that the DVD version should have been the one shown in theater in the first place.

Oops. I guess I should've clarified that there were complaints from theater owners and operators, and from some New Line Cinema executives.

I had no problem watching LOTR or TT in the theater. I saw LOTR five times in theaters, and only had to go to the bathroom during a screening once -- that was a night we had gone to dinner beforehand, and I drank too much iced tea. I've seen TT three times, and have yet to miss any of it for a bathroom break.

 

[Kai Lord]

So has "LOTR" shown theater owners and studios that long movies, if done well, can still be commerically viable?

No. Titanic proved that over five years ago.