#2
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
To be fair, the increasing film times is, well... good, I think. If you're viewing it at the theaters at least, I can't help it's nice to get more entertainment for your payment.
Adding onto this though, it seems Hollywood is beginning to take in the idea of splitting longer movie adaptions in parts- it means not such a painfully long running time, more accuracy and less cutting of contents (something I know fans certainly like to see) and the film creators effectively get double or more profit from a single adaption, albeit with double the production cost- in a way, everyone wins at some level. But that's just my take on it, I suppose. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
That's why the Hobbit is going to be a three-parter. It's a book filled with vivid details and quite some action, and fans would be disappointed if they just left all that out to fit it within time restraints. Then it'd be a failure of a movie like the Lightning Thief which turned out almost nothing like the book. And when I went to see the Hobbit it had almost nothing cut out, and I was very impressed. I think it's a great thing that the times are getting longer, and if the movie caters to the fans then you wouldn't get bored. It's only a bad thing if it's long because of disgusting filler material.
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
To be fair Cat all the movies you named are based off very long books in which case they need to put in as much detail as possible.
As for Django Unchained Quentin Tarantino loves making his movies as long as possible but that doesn't matter because he is awesome. Usually it's typical for bad movies to be too short or under 90 minutes and have to resort to showing the outtakes over the credits or just rolling them really slowly. Although oddly the best film out this weekend is also one of the shortest. Last edited by Magmaster12; February 19, 2013 at 05:57:29 AM. |
|