Alaric_Prympax
First Post
Wasn't A Bridge too Far pretty long as well? I know that came on two VHS tapes.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Sign the Petition for a 4 hour TTT!
- Thread starter Edena_of_Neith
- Start date
Scribe Ineti
Explorer
If I recall, Ghandi was about 4 hours, as was Gettysburg.
Scribe Ineti
Explorer
Oh, and Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet. That was 4 hours or right close to it.
Daniel Knight
First Post
LOL! You wacky American’s and your NTSC video format! When you guys shift over to the metric system, you should also consider moving to the PAL format. Sure, there’s a lesser frame rate but at least you don’t have to change videos half way through a movie. 
Doing some quick research The Green Mile and Ghandi has a run time of 188 minutes while A Bridge Too Far goes for 176 minutes. The four hour Hamlet had an interval.
Trust me, that extra time makes the difference between a well ran film and 20000 ft of film on the floor. But that’s okay, by all means continue naming films if you don’t trust me. I don’t mind.
And to address the comment that theatre managers would love it for the intermission. Not a hope in hell. Think about it, the film has twenty minutes of ads and trailers at the start, and a twenty minute interval. This means that the film is now 10 minutes short of taking up an entire cinema for five hours. Meanwhile the film next door has already run twice (double ticket sales), and had two sets of customers come through (double popcorn sales). Judging from the customers when we ran 2001: A Space Odyssey (complete with interval), only a very, very small fraction of them re-bought food and drinks again.
And I also recall that the number one comment about Fellowship was that it was great, but just ran too long. This is coming from Joe Public… not you guys. Theatre managers don’t care about you guys, because they know you’ll come regardless of the length. Just wait for the DVD – you’ll get your extra footage then.
Doing some quick research The Green Mile and Ghandi has a run time of 188 minutes while A Bridge Too Far goes for 176 minutes. The four hour Hamlet had an interval.
Trust me, that extra time makes the difference between a well ran film and 20000 ft of film on the floor. But that’s okay, by all means continue naming films if you don’t trust me. I don’t mind.
And to address the comment that theatre managers would love it for the intermission. Not a hope in hell. Think about it, the film has twenty minutes of ads and trailers at the start, and a twenty minute interval. This means that the film is now 10 minutes short of taking up an entire cinema for five hours. Meanwhile the film next door has already run twice (double ticket sales), and had two sets of customers come through (double popcorn sales). Judging from the customers when we ran 2001: A Space Odyssey (complete with interval), only a very, very small fraction of them re-bought food and drinks again.
And I also recall that the number one comment about Fellowship was that it was great, but just ran too long. This is coming from Joe Public… not you guys. Theatre managers don’t care about you guys, because they know you’ll come regardless of the length.
Just wait for the DVD – you’ll get your extra footage then.
Last edited:
Ranger REG
Explorer
Edena_of_Neith said:
Man, I hope this is about the DVD version of the second LOTR film only. Because until those new movie multiplexes decided to go back to the old method of having intermissions...
...OR install toilet under each stadium seat with a built in tissue dispenser (just hope my date won't mind the noise I make when I move my bowel)...
There is no way in hell I'm going to sit in a movie theater for 4 straight hours.
It's bad enough I use my empty soft drink cup during The Fellowship of the Ring. I might as well use those man-diapers.
At least the ladies are lucky to use tampon.
Last edited:
Ranger REG
Explorer
A 5-minute intermission is good enough, especially when I have seen the multiplexes' restrooms (small). A small men's restroom is not going to accomodate an establishment with 9 or more movie theaters.
And if you have a problem with theater music, bring an audio player with your favorite music.
And if you have a problem with theater music, bring an audio player with your favorite music.
Last edited:
Edena_of_Neith
First Post
Let me say it like this:
Peter Jackson made one of the best films ever made.
But don't take it from me: that is what Joe Public is saying, in every poll they've had.
This man deserves his 4 hour film.
He deserves a chance to tell the story he wants to tell.
And the public (not to mention us fans) deserves to see that story.
I have faith that Peter Jackson can tell a 4 hour story worth the time and trouble - even if we DO end up staining all the theater seats and the whole place smells like a cow pasture.
Now, if people want to see a story in which a full 1/4 of it has been taken out, and the story is partially RUINED because of that (or at the least, seriously diminished) when it could have been a truly GREAT story if they had had something called PATIENCE, then that is what they want.
However, I know where I stand, and I want to see what Peter Jackson wants to show.
I sure as heck signed that petition.
I hope a million people could sign that petition. New Line would actually listen, if a million people signed the petition (instead of the thousand who have so far.)
If every person who has read this thread, and agrees with me, would tell all his or her friends about the petition, and ask them to sign it, and if those friends told all THEIR friends about it, and asked them to sign it, and if those friends told THEIR friends about it, etc. .... perhaps quite a lot of signatures would appear on that petition.
Not to sound strident, ardent, and whatever, but I LIKED Peter Jackson's LOTR: FOTR, and I look forward to TTT, and I want to see it done right - not damaged by corporate needs.
Haven't corporate doings hurt us enough in recent months? ...
Edena_of_Neith
Peter Jackson made one of the best films ever made.
But don't take it from me: that is what Joe Public is saying, in every poll they've had.
This man deserves his 4 hour film.
He deserves a chance to tell the story he wants to tell.
And the public (not to mention us fans) deserves to see that story.
I have faith that Peter Jackson can tell a 4 hour story worth the time and trouble - even if we DO end up staining all the theater seats and the whole place smells like a cow pasture.
Now, if people want to see a story in which a full 1/4 of it has been taken out, and the story is partially RUINED because of that (or at the least, seriously diminished) when it could have been a truly GREAT story if they had had something called PATIENCE, then that is what they want.
However, I know where I stand, and I want to see what Peter Jackson wants to show.
I sure as heck signed that petition.
I hope a million people could sign that petition. New Line would actually listen, if a million people signed the petition (instead of the thousand who have so far.)
If every person who has read this thread, and agrees with me, would tell all his or her friends about the petition, and ask them to sign it, and if those friends told all THEIR friends about it, and asked them to sign it, and if those friends told THEIR friends about it, etc. .... perhaps quite a lot of signatures would appear on that petition.
Not to sound strident, ardent, and whatever, but I LIKED Peter Jackson's LOTR: FOTR, and I look forward to TTT, and I want to see it done right - not damaged by corporate needs.
Haven't corporate doings hurt us enough in recent months? ...
Edena_of_Neith
Last edited:
Henry
Autoexreginated
Edena, you are entitled to your opinions, but your last statment is a rather hard one for me to swallow. Likening cutting a long movie down to corporate scandal???...
I agree that I would love to see such a movie with intermission, but if practicalities demand the movie be 3 hours long or less, then I say it really needs cutting. That's what super-duper DVD collections are for.
Think of it this way:
The movie and the DVD are packaged for two different audiences. Those who complain about the movie's length are probably NOT going to buy and extended DVD. OTOH, the fans who will see this movie will buy that extended DVD (most will not just rent it), JUST to have Peter's full, no-holds-barred-stick-to-the-wall director's cut.
I agree that I would love to see such a movie with intermission, but if practicalities demand the movie be 3 hours long or less, then I say it really needs cutting. That's what super-duper DVD collections are for.
Think of it this way:
The movie and the DVD are packaged for two different audiences. Those who complain about the movie's length are probably NOT going to buy and extended DVD. OTOH, the fans who will see this movie will buy that extended DVD (most will not just rent it), JUST to have Peter's full, no-holds-barred-stick-to-the-wall director's cut.
Shadowdancer
First Post
I remember our local theater ran "The English Patient" with an intermission. They just cut the projector off in the middle of a scene and sent an usher in to announce there would be a 15-minute intermission. And the movie wasn't even that long.
As a child (back in the 1960s and early '70s), I remember going to see long movies that had intermissions. "The Longest Day" and "A Bridge Too Far" come to mind. I didn't have a problem with it then, and I wouldn't have a problem with it now. But I understand the theater owners wanting the customers turn-over. Back when I was a child, our local, single-screen theater would show two movies, alternating all day long. You could buy a ticket for the first showing, and stay in the theater all day, watching the movies as many times as you wanted. I remember my mother would drop me off on Saturdays when she went to work, and I would stay at the theater all day long -- better than day care, and cheaper, too.
I miss those days.
As a child (back in the 1960s and early '70s), I remember going to see long movies that had intermissions. "The Longest Day" and "A Bridge Too Far" come to mind. I didn't have a problem with it then, and I wouldn't have a problem with it now. But I understand the theater owners wanting the customers turn-over. Back when I was a child, our local, single-screen theater would show two movies, alternating all day long. You could buy a ticket for the first showing, and stay in the theater all day, watching the movies as many times as you wanted. I remember my mother would drop me off on Saturdays when she went to work, and I would stay at the theater all day long -- better than day care, and cheaper, too.
I miss those days.
Similar Threads
