What is the perfect duration for a feature film?

>>82319278
3 hours, so I can get the full understand of the movie and the director's entire vision.

1:45, 2:00+ for high drama

>>82319278
1:58-2:54

If a movie can't get it's point across in an hour and a half, and it's not a high-art movie, it's too long and the director is either pretentious or putting in filler.

>>82319278
1:30-2:00. Any more than that is poor storytelling. Period.

2 hours

>>82319278
1:25 - 1:45
1:45+ only for Director's Cuts

I thought 80 minutes was average

>>82319278
2 hours, 40 minute intermission and discussion time, 2 hours.

I think that's the best

File: file.png (68KB, 947x533px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 947x533px

>>82319908
The OP graphic is actually just top 25 for that year

This one takes everything on imdb into account. When you factor in the low budget / indie type stuff, yeah, it tends to be a bit shorter.

>>82319698
>>82319698
That's garbage

About 2 hours. There are some films that I wish would never end though.

The fact that people are actually stating a time and not saying "depends" really says a lot about /tv/

>>82320109
It does depend but for the most part, I'd say over two hours is excessive. The recent Transformers movies for example are massively bloated.

1:40-2:20

>>82320109
>here I am with my centrist opinion, I claim superiority by being a fence sitter with nothing of value to say

Depends on what exactly? Are you willing to make exceptions for derivative work, or musicals? Perhaps documentaries should be shorter and more to the point? What is your point?

The Harry potter films have perfect runtimes. Lotr has shit bloated runtimes aftee fellowship.

>>82320230
Harry Potter had a much smaller amount of content to base each film on, which worked for every book except the 7th. Though I would say that LOTR would have worked better in a longer format like a TV series, if you want them to be films you really only have 2 options:

>gut the book content and deliver 3 2 hour films with even more left out and scenes made shorter
>go full Hobbit mode and milk the whole thing out to 6-9 films

When I rewatch lotr, I typically just watch one extended version disc at a time, which means 6 "films." The downside is that you aren't given any closure between them like you just watched something complete, it just ends somewhere between scenes.

the length of your bladder

>>82320470
What if I am drinking an XXL blue slurpee during the previews? All movies should be 25 minutes, tops.

Joint: Around 75 minutes
Flick: Around 90 minutes
Movie: Around 120 minutes
Film: Around 150 minutes
Kino: Anything, but preferable under 60 minutes or over 210

>>82320447
Hp had a ton of content that bookfags complained was cut. I for one didn't mind fat being trimmed because films have different necessities. Yates did film a three hour film for order of the phoenix and 45 min was cut though. The first two movies are the longest funnily enough. 3 5 7 8 are pretty well paced 1 2 4 6 are a little longer paced.

I like the lotr movies but I feel like two towers and return of the king needed an editor and more solid direction. Sometimes less is more. They could have been 2 2:15 films instead of three hours. Part of the problem is the storyline though when it splits after the breaking of the fellowship and back and forth nature becomes montonous.

>About to watch The Raid 2
>150 mins

God, how can an action movie be so long?

>>82319278
However long fellowship of the ring was. Theatrical version of course. That movie is absolute perfection. It has no equal.

100-120 minutes for a drama. If it's longer than that then it either has too much fat in it or it should not be a movie.

>>82320160
It seems to be a trend in recent block busters to push towards the 3h mark. I don't mind longer movies but a lot of those feels bloated with unnecessary shits.

>>82320804
>Running time
>178 minutes(Theatrical)
>228 minutes (Extended)

That's a big movie. Of course I would assume that this includes the 15+ minutes of credits roll

>>82320859
The only ones that are over 2 and a half hours are HP and LOTR

>>82320881
Of course. The soundtrack that accompanies it is the perfect intillectual sorbet one needs to digest that of what they've just experienced.

>>82319278
Depends on the type of film it is. 3+ hours is fine for an epic like Lawrence of Arabia or LotR but comedies should generally be under 2 hours long.

File: Greed.(Avaricia).1924.HQTV.noLogo.720p.x264.AC3.[FrOnkY] - [03_54_12.329].jpg (385KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 960x720px

240 minutes

>>82319278
Shot for 2 hours, but stretched out to 2.5 hours by slowing down the whole movie.

>>82322385
ok what about audio? do you do the normal method where voices increase in pitch? or the newer method where samples are dropped and pitch stays the same? I appreciate slowed down action as much as the next guy but I am concerned about the quality of choreography when it comes to shaky cam cinematography

>>82320109
Pretty much this. I really hope /tv/ is just memeing like the "watching films at any speed other than 1.0x" meme.

1:20 I got shit to do

>>82323684
It does depend but I think 1:58-2:54 is perfect.

>>82320692
This.