|
Movies are the length they are in part because 90 minutes is an optimal duration to cram in the maximum number of theater showtimes each day. When Titanic came out they claimed it wouldn’t make money because theaters couldn’t squeeze in enough showtimes. Anything over 2 hours makes theater chains uneasy. TV is probably something to do with attention spans and advertising. They clung so tightly to the top and bottom of the hour format that TBS made some hay by starting their shows five minutes later. That meant someone watching TBS started any other shows on another station late and people channel surfing while watching other channels might break in right at the beginning of a TBS show. But the answer is still mostly advertising. That’s why SNL is 90 minutes when they barely have 60 minutes of material.
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
the 3 act structure is definitely conducive to commercial breaks but idk that anyone still watches movies on ad-funded channels any more
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Except now every single comic book movie is over 2 hours long.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
also 90 mins is a short film now. they're very accurately 120 minutes e: tbf, theres like 3 categories: - 89 minutes (we had to cut so much to salvage this piece of poo poo) - 120 mins (we know what we're doing) - 180 mins (trying to be epic but the audience wants to go home) Carthag Tuek fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Aug 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Except now every single comic book movie is over 2 hours long. Theaters have more screens now and finally embraced the longer formats. They also cram in far more 3-D shows in the first two weeks to force people to pay $3 extra per ticket even if they don’t want to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:the 3 act structure is definitely conducive to commercial breaks but idk that anyone still watches movies on ad-funded channels any more Except for those semi-dedicated movie channels a movie on ad-funded TV is going to have way more than two commercial breaks anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Except for those semi-dedicated movie channels a movie on ad-funded TV is going to have way more than two commercial breaks anyway. not in countries where commerical breaks are illegal 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
You Were Never Really Here is a beautiful 89 minutes  edit: Looking at stuff I've seen this year, Cold War was 85, A Quiet Place 91, Lady Bird 94, Upgrade 96. All the cool kid movies are 1 1/2 hours. Get with it! Teenage Fansub fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Aug 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
Detour is 68 minutes and basically perfect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
Exceptions to prove the rule
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
As a rule I appreciate when my butt don't get numb. One of my favourite movies this year was 230 minutes with no intermission, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
I wish 120+ minutes was still confined to epics and European art films.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
They need to bring back intermissions for longer movies. Not just for the audience's sake, but splitting into two acts really does wonders with structure. The intermissions in 2001: A Space Odyssey and Lawrence of Arabia are brilliant in how they wrap up the bulk of the film, then get you ready for the rest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
What's the best way to guess if a movie has turned a profit or not? Is it still "if it matches or exceeds its budget cost in domestic box office revenue" or is that outdated?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 10:21
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:They need to bring back intermissions for longer movies. Not just for the audience's sake, but splitting into two acts really does wonders with structure. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 11:24
|
|
|
Sherlock Jr. is a mere 45 minutes long and perfect. Sátántangó is 7 and a half hours long and also perfect. Filmmakers should choose whatever duration is appropriate for their project.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 11:34
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:What's the best way to guess if a movie has turned a profit or not? Is it still "if it matches or exceeds its budget cost in domestic box office revenue" or is that outdated? That yardstick would have never been correct. Financial recoupment for films is really complicated and the more specific question that needs to be asked is "turn a profit for whom?" Even if you consider the simplest case of a major studio who has financed and distributed a major picture completely on their own, you'd have to consider that the exhibitor (theater) takes a portion of the gross (historically this has been around half in week one, and scaling down per week, but Disney has been throwing its weight around to lower this exhibitor's cut), and that the distributor has additional "prints and ads" expenses they claim for distributing the film to theaters and marketing it. These expenses can be equal to or even exceed the production budget of a film. Most films are not profitable, in the sense that the distributor has gotten back more money that they have put in, at a better rate than if they had done something else with that money in the intervening years, well into the sequence of rights exploitation (licensing the film for airplanes, VOD, cable television, streaming, home video). This does not get into more complicated situation of multi-studio deals or films that were financed independently by other entities before being picked up by a distributor. So the best way to guess if a movie has turned a profit is probably whether the studio has licensed merchandising rights to other companies, that's where the real money is
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 12:29
|
|
|
Intermissions only work with movies that don't sell out theaters or if you have assigned seats. Can you imagine the mess of getting a decent seat and then trying to find another decent seat for the second half of opening weekend on a tent-pole movie?Sucrose posted:What's the best way to guess if a movie has turned a profit or not? Is it still "if it matches or exceeds its budget cost in domestic box office revenue" or is that outdated? Like's been said, it's weird and getting weirder. Like normally you have the box office where studios get an outsized chunk of each ticket sale for the opening weeks but then progressively less after that. Then you have foreign overseas, which is as big a market as domestic, but you don't get as much from each ticket sale. Finally there are retail/digital rentals and sales and eventually TV licensing deals. But then you get movies or TV shows made by upper tier directors/actors for streaming services. Stranger Things or Bright will never stream anywhere except Netflix and will never sell a box office ticket. So the actors/directors get lots more up front money, which is why some of these movies and TV series have surprisingly large budgets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 12:50
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:Intermissions only work with movies that don't sell out theaters or if you have assigned seats. Can you imagine the mess of getting a decent seat and then trying to find another decent seat for the second half of opening weekend on a tent-pole movie? I live in a country where just about every cinema has both assigned seating and an intermission during every film, so I always assumed that was just the standard way of doing things. Hearing that, internationally, this is the exception rather than the rule was pretty eye-opening to me. I still think assigned seats are nifty, though intermissions during shorter films are sometimes more of a hassle than a boon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 13:37
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:an intermission during every film That's a new one. What country? edit: India? Inserting intermissions into western films is mentioned on Wikipedia. Apparently, the first film released without an intermission in India was in 2011. Teenage Fansub fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Aug 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 13:42
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:Intermissions only work with movies that don't sell out theaters or if you have assigned seats. Can you imagine the mess of getting a decent seat and then trying to find another decent seat for the second half of opening weekend on a tent-pole movie? Guess it's not tent-pole but there weren't any problems when I saw The Hateful Eight opening weekend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:Sherlock Jr. is a mere 45 minutes long and perfect. Sátántangó is 7 and a half hours long and also perfect. Filmmakers should choose whatever duration is appropriate for their project. Ding ding ding.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Guess it's not tent-pole but there weren't any problems when I saw The Hateful Eight opening weekend. No. Between the running time, the content, and the fact you'd travel a hour away to see it in 70mm only to have the 70mm break then wait for a few hours for them to get the digital copy running...there was no problem at all finding seats for the Hateful Eight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
Over here every theater except the tiny arthouse/indie one have forced intermissions on every movie and almost none have assigned seating. You just go back to the seat you were in pre intermission or just don't get up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Reserved seating is the only sane way to do things, IMHO. gently caress "getting there early to get a good seat".
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Spatulater bro! posted:Reserved seating is the only sane way to do things, IMHO. gently caress "getting there early to get a good seat". 100% this. i only have time to see a movie in theaters maybe 3-4 times a year so I want to be able to pick exactly where I am going to be sitting beforehand
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:That yardstick would have never been correct. Financial recoupment for films is really complicated and the more specific question that needs to be asked is "turn a profit for whom?" But obviously, some movies pull in a lot of money, or the studios wouldn't keep making them. I'm well aware of "Hollywood accounting" but we all know that that's just tricks to get out of paying various people money. I was just wondering what barometer you guys typically use to try and figure out if a film has made money for its studio or if it's a disappointment and there will be no sequels, etc. Obviously, as outsiders we can't know but there's presumably still ways to guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:But obviously, some movies pull in a lot of money, or the studios wouldn't keep making them. I'm well aware of "Hollywood accounting" but we all know that that's just tricks to get out of paying various people money. Amazing Spider-Man 2 made three quarters of a billion dollars in ticket sales and was considered a big enough failure that Sony ran crying to Disney to renegotiate the licensing rights to Spider-Man. There's really no way to know what a success is until after it happens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
I divide total gross by half and compare to total production costs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
Teenage Fansub posted:That's a new one. What country? Switzerland. Since it's mostly the big commercial cinemas doing intermissions (arthouse cinemas usually don't), I assume it's primarily a ploy to sell more food and drinks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I divide total gross by half and compare to total production costs. Worldwide or domestic?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I divide total gross by half and compare to total production costs. That's cool, but I don't think it's the same scale that movie studios use.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 05:33
|
|
|
The scales are always bananas because production costs don't usually include marketing, which can easily cost tens of millions even for a moderately budgeted picture. One of the reasons Thursday nights became so big for TV networks is all the advertising for movies premiering on Friday.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 12:59
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:That's cool, but I don't think it's the same scale that movie studios use. It’s just an estimate. No one knows what they actually make.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 13:24
|
|
|
All Hollywood films make a loss and will continue to do so until the US is a full-on libertarian dystopia where taxes are abolished, at which point they will suddenly become hugely profitable. The actual takings and expenditures will not have changed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
Can you folks recommend any easy to follow film analysis videos on youtube? I've always had a strong interest in film but never really delved into analysis in any real sense. I watched a lot of Rob Ager's videos (especially his The Thing and Alien/Aliens vids) and they've definitely captured my interest without making me scratch my head. Another good one is "Exorcist III Greatest Psychological Thriller Ever" by Matthew Brando, which while not as academic sounding as Ager's stuff was really well done for a cursory analysis. Hell I'd even take book recommendations if you have any. Thanks in advance!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
Every Frame a Painting is great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
Quote-Unquote posted:All Hollywood films make a loss and will continue to do so until the US is a full-on libertarian dystopia where taxes are abolished, at which point they will suddenly become hugely profitable. The actual takings and expenditures will not have changed. "Hollywood accounting" has less to do with tax avoidance and more to do with minimizing the payment to profit participants (star actors, producers) and any person or company involved who receives extra payment or bonuses based on net profit milestones
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
ServoMST3K posted:Can you folks recommend any easy to follow film analysis videos on youtube? I've always had a strong interest in film but never really delved into analysis in any real sense. I watched a lot of Rob Ager's videos (especially his The Thing and Alien/Aliens vids) and they've definitely captured my interest without making me scratch my head. Another good one is "Exorcist III Greatest Psychological Thriller Ever" by Matthew Brando, which while not as academic sounding as Ager's stuff was really well done for a cursory analysis. Hell I'd even take book recommendations if you have any. Thanks in advance!! I like the following. Lessons from the Screenplay Like Stories of Old Movies with Mikey from FilmJoy Now You See It Patrick H. Williams Video Essays JustWrite and the aforementioned Every Frame a Painting. Edit: oh and Lindsay Ellis' Film Studies and Transformers series sounds particularly up your alley since she's looking at the Transformers films through a variety of film theory lenses. A really easy way to introduce some more in-depth film analysis methods. Thwomp fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Aug 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
ServoMST3K posted:Can you folks recommend any easy to follow film analysis videos on youtube? I've always had a strong interest in film but never really delved into analysis in any real sense. I watched a lot of Rob Ager's videos (especially his The Thing and Alien/Aliens vids) and they've definitely captured my interest without making me scratch my head. Another good one is "Exorcist III Greatest Psychological Thriller Ever" by Matthew Brando, which while not as academic sounding as Ager's stuff was really well done for a cursory analysis. Hell I'd even take book recommendations if you have any. Thanks in advance!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h1nkWk7OMo Spoiler Alert, from my brother Kenneth Waste.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 19:02
|
|
