MetaChat - Agree / Disagree:

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

07 July 2006

Agree / Disagree: Fluff movies should be under 1 hr, 45 minutes.

post by: agropyron at: 16:00 | 20 comments

Under 90 minutes if possible. National Treasure: 131 minutes. Pirates of the Caribbean 2: 151 minutes!

posted by agropyron 07 July | 16:01

Fluffy should be short and sweet.

posted by mudpuppie 07 July | 16:04

Fluffers should be under five feet. Wait, what?

posted by ColdChef 07 July | 16:17

It depends on the kind of fluff.

Horror--between 80 and 90 minutes is strongly preferred.

Romantic comedies--no longer than 100 minutes.

Comic-book-based movies--no longer than 120 minutes. (Superman Returns greatly exceeds this at 157 minutes.)

Science fiction or fantasy--no longer than 140 minutes.

posted by Prospero 07 July | 16:18

strongly agree! the third reel in AI should have been lopped off entirely.

posted by Lipstick Thespian 07 July | 16:25

I blame Peter Jackson.

The first two LOTR movies were just about the right length. The last installment was too long by a third.

And really... a three-hour long version of King Kong?

Eat me, PJ.

posted by Atom Eyes 07 July | 16:27

If they are good, long is fine. Any of the LotR movies could have been 1/3 longer than they were and I would still have seen them more than once in the theaters.

posted by weretable and the undead chairs 07 July | 16:33

If they hold my attention, movies can go on for days*. But Prospero's time frames are about right for most movies.

*I like to watch the Godfather, Star Wars, LotR, Indiana Jones, etc. series all one right after the other. My ass gets numb, but it's all for the sake of art. ART, I SAY!

posted by deborah 07 July | 16:39

I'm sorry: LOtR is not FLUFF.

posted by Specklet 07 July | 16:45

Agreed. I feel the same way theatre productions- I think most very few shows wouldn't be improved by trimming them to 2 hours or under.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 07 July | 16:48

true--but with the price of tickets, under 90 minutes is a ripoff, no?

posted by amberglow 07 July | 17:28

I like my fluff with peanut butter and it almost always takes me less than an hour and forty five minutes to eat.

Short is sweet.

And any movie over two and a half hours should have an intermission.

posted by fenriq 07 July | 17:42

I could be imagining things, but it seems like movies have been a little shorter lately. A few years ago, I got so fed up with movie length that I began rejecting movies simply because of their length. Once, a group of about 10 of us were going to see Gods & Generals and minutes before we left, I looked up the length: 231 minutes. We decided to drink beers at home instead.

Though LotR's length was justifiable. I watched each movie in the theaters twice. I own the DVD set, but I doubt I'll watch them again. King Kong, on the other hand, was a fucking atrocity. That movie should have been 75 minutes long. Plus, the scenes at the end made me dizzy.

posted by mullacc 07 July | 17:51

*I like to watch the Godfather, Star Wars, LotR, Indiana Jones, etc. series all one right after the other. My ass gets numb, but it's all for the sake of art. ART, I SAY!

I do that, too!

Also, I agree with fenriq, long movies need intermissions.

Personally, I think my fluff is different from most. I tend to go for long, dull historical dramas as fluff, since I can ignore the plot and just look at the clothes and sets.

posted by kellydamnit 07 July | 17:56

I misunderstood the word "fluff" and will have to reconsider my opinion.

posted by small_ruminant 07 July | 18:03

I feel like a lot of fluff movies could use a better editor. Wedding Crashers, for example: the first hour and a half was very funny, but the last half hour seemed to last a lifetime. Same thing with 40 Year Old Virgin (of course, pirated movies and tv may have ruined my attention span - most movies I watch at home are fine, because I can get up and stretch/eat/take a phone call whenever I want).

posted by muddgirl 07 July | 18:44

My back can't handle theater seats for even 90 minutes, so it had better be Classic before I even want to sit that long. Few things get my attention that way. I sorta want to see Rent in the theater since I haven't gotten to see it live.

On preview... "fluff" is fun to debate. And no, I'd never sit that still for pr0n. ;-)

posted by lilywing13 07 July | 21:13

In general I agree that fluffy films should be kept good & short. I’m with muddgirl in regarding the Wedding Crashers, and the 40-Year Old Virgin as particularly having been in need of a good scissoring. Then again, Bollywood movies often run to 150-200 minutes & don't seem overlong, but they also usually have an intermission, and a bunch of song & dance numbers that help break it up a little.

posted by misteraitch 08 July | 04:31

Wellllllllll.... you know, that's precisely the reason I don't watch Bollywood movies. I've seen a few, and they're not bad, but not worth 3 hours of my life.

posted by agropyron 08 July | 08:04

Though LotR's length was justifiable. I watched each movie in the theaters twice. I own the DVD set, but I doubt I'll watch them again.

The extended version is perfect for laying around sick. You can spend the whole day and only have to get up 5 times which is about what you need for bathroom breaks while sick.

posted by Mitheral 08 July | 22:57

← Suggest some cool Seattle sites to see! || LA writers looking for work? →

HOME || REGISTER || LOGIN