4 Hour Director's Cut?
-
anne1991 — 20 years ago(July 12, 2005 04:26 PM)
2 hours is a good approximate limit on the length of a movie because the longer a movie is, the fewer times it can be shown in a day, thus reducing its revenue potential. If a story truly needs 4 hours to be properly told, then it should be a miniseries, not a theatrically released movie.
-
wparrill — 20 years ago(July 20, 2005 08:15 PM)
Here is a list of some of the greatest movies ever made, and their approximate running times:
The Seven Samurai (205 minutes)
Nashville (160)
The Wild Bunch (160)
Children of Paradise (C. 180)
Andrei Rublev (205)
Gone with the Wind (210)
Birth of a Nation (180)
Greed (Butchered beyond recognition)
Wages of Fear (150)
Metropolis (originally c. 180)
Dr. Mabuse (two parts of about 150 each)
Nibelungen (Ditto)
1900 (240)
Das Boot (best version, c. 180)
Fanny and Alexander (180)
The Human Condition (3 films of 3 hours each)
Napoleon (Abel Gance, restored to over 5 hours, only available version is 235).
Titanic runs about 197 minutes. -
Jamesdean3510234 — 20 years ago(September 23, 2005 08:00 PM)
i think if you really wanna see a movie, the running time won't piss your pants for you
i'm all for the "original and as intended by the director" version
not the "hollywood-slashed-down-to-weinstein's-waist-size" cut -
mallen28 — 20 years ago(October 08, 2005 04:33 PM)
i saw this move at a test screening here in austin at its original 4 hour length. it was an amazingly complete movie and one of the best "true westerns" ive ever seen. i told everyone i knew to see this movie when it arived in the theatre and because of the cutting of almost HALF of the original i came out looking like a dumbass, i can only hope they let mr. thornton release his version in the future.
-
headhoncho — 19 years ago(April 30, 2006 09:21 AM)
Birth of a Nation may be the first full length feature film, but it isn't very good at all. It presents some of the worst prejudice I've ever seen, and glamourizes the KKK. The story is all over the place, and is very shoddily designed.
Yes, it was a great achievement in Cinema and bravo to D.W. Griffith for pulling off the huge battle scenes and just managing to actually go through with his plans on making this 180 minute epic. But if we're talking about the effect running time has on story, I think we should only be mentioning movies that actually do have a very good story.
And I'm not just some silent film hater. Metropolis and Battleship Potemkin are up there as two of my favorite films. Fritz Lang is my all time favorite director. -
darkbhudda — 19 years ago(April 05, 2007 08:47 PM)
Ignore this guy. Birth of a Nation is a good film. Yes it has prejudice, but there's far worse in modern films. The story is not "all over the place", but deals primarily with two families, so cuts between them. Just like they do today, but unlike today it doesn't insult the audience by putting text on the screen pointing out the exact date, time and location.
-
fleebix — 19 years ago(May 20, 2006 05:38 PM)
I heard that original 12 commandments by DeMille was around 24 hours.
http://www.atlividar.com
http://myspace.com/atlividar -
fleebix — 19 years ago(May 21, 2006 08:11 AM)
Yeah DeMille put some extra 2 in there sorry
http://myspace.com/atlividar
ThisIsPG17 -
Yorick_Brown — 18 years ago(September 05, 2007 06:27 PM)
You know perfectly well that we can list at least two to three 2 hr. long movies for every 3 hr. long movie you can throw at us.
"Paradise and hell both can be earthly. We carry them with us wherever we go."
-1492 (1992) -
ilon — 11 years ago(October 16, 2014 08:25 AM)
May be true, but I think that there's an unconscious feeling that the longer the movie, the better it must be. I can't think of any considered to be bad 3 hour movie. There must be some, I'm sure, but I think I would've remembered that kind of overlong boring experience.