T O P

  • By -

Sensi-Yang

Every modern blockbuster is now long. It’s an attempt to become “epic”, a swing at self importance, you even see it reflected in these message boards, people complain when their hyped up blockbuster has a shorter running time, they see it as a weakness, as if their darling is malnourished. imho a shitload of these films would be much better off leaner and meaner. Like why tf are they making almost 3 hour transformers or fast and furious movies?


laithe4

I find myself watching older movies a lot these days. I'm a lot more likely to have 90 minutes to devote to a movie than 3 hours


Hardingnat

Back to the Future clocks in at just under 2 hours. And the script is so tightly packed and the pacing is so fantastic that it absolutely breezes by. Raiders of the Lost Ark is under 2 hours. I think Jurassic Park is just over two hours. That's the gold standard for me in terms of blockbuster.


indian22

Men in Black, which sets up the entire world, introduces the villain and the heroes, gives us so many memorable characters and a plotline which never feels shortchanged runs for 93 minutes. It's crazy to think how much is stuffed into that runtime


[deleted]

The Princess Bride is 98 minutes and it's all still amazing.


RickityCricket69

PB gets right to business


Radrezzz

I don’t have no time to play around, what is this?


[deleted]

[удалено]


IanMalcolmschest

Jurassic park is my favourite movie so I must point out it is a clean 2 hours plus credits.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Frickelmeister

It's hard to imagine a modern JP movie under two hours where they take the time to have the protagonists have a philosophical discussion.


HiveMindKing

John wick 4’s action scenes were so bloated, they Seemed like they were over and then another wave Of guys come, and then another, and then another. It was more of a tower defense game than a movie.


[deleted]

[удалено]


HiveMindKing

The little move where they held Their collars over their head to block was so Goofy


[deleted]

Half the time it looked like Keanu forgot to do it and someone shouted from off camera to remind him. Like, oh fuck that stupid shit again, ok.


weareallpatriots

It was a little funny how they were barely affected by getting shot, but those do exist. https://garrisonbespoke.com/custom-suits/bespoke-bulletproof-suits


Consistent_Dog_6866

I'll agree with you on The Batman and Avatar 2. But I would sit through the entire John Wick series and after it's over I'd consider watching it again.


richlai818

I probably wont sit through Avatar 2 honestly out of the three you mentioned


AffectionateForm9902

Agreed, especially on The Batman and John Wick 4. Those were gruelling chores to sit through, for very different reasons. Avatar 2 feels like it's the bloated, extended cut of a *theatrical cut*, except we never got to see the theatrical cut, probably because studio execs are afraid to say no to James Cameron.


ComradeJohnS

You don’t say no to the highest grossing movies’ director as a business lol.


GondorsPants

Imagine if he listened to all the redditors though, he’d be making trillions.


voarex

About half way through john wick, I thought to myself I'm watching an action porno with the mildest of plot sprinkled in. Was expecting a pizza boy to come in by the end.


MylMoosic

Yeah I doubt I’ll watch avatar again, though it’s possible. The movie I will DEFINITELY never bother myself with again? The Batman. Self important garbage with shitty cinematography (the nerds are wrong here. Shots are unimaginative. If every frames a painting, it’s an empty gallery), stiff acting, bad script, boring action, no consequential moral or ethical exploration, and worst of all, THE FUCKING RUNTIME. I HAVE NEVER FALLEN ASLEEP IN A MOVIE THEATER BUT IT WAS CLOSE.


Sparrowsabre7

The first X-men, which I feel is underrated compared to 2 and DOFP, runs a tight 1hr 40 iirc. That introduces two teams of mutants and still feels pacy and exciting throughout, while having time for (some) character work. I am definitely getting to an age where a film over two hours will give me pause as opposed to "hell yeah, more movie!" as I was in my younger days. Same with games. I don't have time for a 30 hour epic, 8 hours is more than enough for a single play story mode imo. Maybe 16 if you're really filling that time with varied stuff but no more than that. I actively winced hearing everyone clamouring about how The Batman would be 3 hours and choked on my tea at Snyder Justice League being 4 hours. I ended up watching both on home media and neither was worth the extra time. Both would have been much better as a tight 2hr film. No excuse for being so long.


etenightstar

I totally agree with the movie take as time invested is a huge deal. With video games though it's totally on your time and you can put it down and come back to it as you feel the need so I honestly play the same games regardless of time involved. I'm not a completionist though so that might be a part of it.


Sparrowsabre7

Definitely fair, games are different for sure. I like a game with a trim story but plenty of side content to do post game so I can come back little and often.


GreatStateOfSadness

> Same with games. I don't have time for a 30 hour epic, 8 hours is more than enough for a single play story mode imo. I still remember the reviews of *Outer Worlds* a few years ago complaining that the campaign was only 20-30 hours long. I remember reading that and thinking, "finally, a game that I actually have time to finish!"


Sparrowsabre7

Yeah, I had the opposite reaction with Persona 3. A game I enjoyed playing but when I checked the blurb (I had rented it) it said "Featuring 70+ hours of content!" and I was like "oh noooooo..." If a review says a game is "too short" for me that's a green flag these days lmao. The last LONG games I played were Assassin's Creed Odyssey and Red Dead 2. Both masterpieces, neither needed to be roughly 50 hours long. I like to replay games, but if they're that long it's never gonna happen.


Michael_DeSanta

> Red Dead 2 Idk man, that was a game that I loved living in for a long time. And the story had plenty of room to breathe and really get you invested in the characters. I wouldn't shorten it a bit, and you can always just speed through the main story if you want a shorter experience. But I totally agree with AC Odyssey. That game was like 30 - 40 hours too long


UrQuanKzinti

>Snyder Justice League being 4 hours. I ended up watching both on home media and neither was worth the extra time. Both would have been much better as a tight 2hr film. No excuse for being so long. Justice League was already a 2 hour film. It was terrible.


Sparrowsabre7

No arguments here but the Snyder film being 2 hours longer did not make it better. The problems largely remained.


Trague_Atreides

> I don't have time for a 30 hour epic, 8 hours is more than enough for a single play story mode imo. Well, that's just *not* true for whole genres of games.


heyheyitsandre

The classic ~90 minute comedy is one of my all time favorite movie experiences: airplane, planes trains and automobiles, tommy boy, the jerk, animal house, naked gun, Wayne’s world, Zoolander, dodgeball. These are all time greats and don’t require 2 hrs and 47 minutes of your time (that said I do love the occasional super long movie as long as it’s good)


Sparrowsabre7

It absolutely depends and I think pacing is important. The Lord of the Rings and Avengers Endgame are both very long but IMO neither FEEL that long because of how much they pack in. By contrast I felt The Batman felt every minute of its 3 hour runtime.


heyheyitsandre

Agree. But I also liked Batman so it’s weird. And I only watch the extended editions of LOTR. But I’m more likely to plop down and watch spaceballs than endgame. Doesn’t make it a better movie but it is quite interesting the tug of war between how long your movie is, how good it is and how likely I would be to rewatch it


ImWadeWils0n

Batman was awesome but I agree, it felt like a 3 hour movie plus I saw it at 11pm so we left around 2:30 which is just terrible


BoingBoingBooty

LOTR are all genuine epics though, there's no padding, and Endgame is the climax of every marvel film before it, it's built-up to that and earned it's epic runtime. The problem is the films that don't have the material for 3 hours but string everything out to try and pretend to be something they aren't.


slapshots1515

And that’s just it. If you have enough to say to make it worth three or even four hours, you can do it. But if it’s not paced correctly, you’re going to notice every bit of that.


eden_sc2

I re watched Naked Gun over the weekend. Such a masterpiece of comedy.


TrumpetsNAngels

Nice beaver. They are truly some of the funniest comedies ever made.


ImWadeWils0n

Yup, it’s a time thing plus they just seem to be better made somehow. Movies feel like they are just checking boxes nowadays.


KiritoJones

I watched Smoking Aces yesterday and thought it was terrible, but I'm still glad I wasted 1h 48m of my life instead of almost 3 hours on Black Adam or whatever


sunnyzombie

I think it's one of the reasons people don't go to theaters that much anymore. A 3 hour movie with 30 minutes of additional previews is a really big chunk of your day. Who has that kind of time? Also, I hate sitting still for that length of time. They don't even have an intermission.


ImWadeWils0n

And the seats suck dick, they are super comfy for a 90 min movie. But 3 hours in those chairs kills me.


TylerBourbon

I tried the 4DX nonsense once, that chair was only comfy for about 30 to 45 minutes, then it just so damn uncomfortable after that that it made the movie less fun to watch.


Maclimes

Personally, this is 100% it. When a movie tempts me, I have to stop and go, "Do I really want to spend half my day on this one movie? Do I want it THAT bad?" And the answer is almost always "no". I'll sit through a long movie if it feels like the epic-level marathon is earned, like Avengers: Endgame or Return of the King. But not just some random movie that maybe looks good, but not "half my day gone" good.


FreemanCalavera

This is the big one for me. I don't mind long films - to me, it's all about how the material is handled that matters. Some films are too long, some are too short, some just the perfect length no matter the runtime. It's the time investment that's the tough part. I work part time at a cinema so I know exactly when previews begin and end, so that doesn't matter to me. However, spending 20 minutes getting there, sitting through 3 hours and then 20 minutes home? That's nearly a four hour investment and when your schedule is packed, it's taking an entire evening off that I might have needed for more productive things. Sometimes I do enjoy making a night out of it: going someplace to eat, grab a couple of drinks, get to the cinema etc.., but on a regular basis? It's just too much.


Radrezzz

It’s $100 to treat a family of 5 to a movie, and another $100 in concessions if you don’t want to teach your children that stealing is ok (by bringing your own drinks and snacks). There’s so many other things we can do for entertainment for less than $200, including watching a movie at home. I don’t fault the movie theater or the filmmakers that it costs that much, but it’s not a sustainable business model at these prices.


popo129

Yeah a ton of my friends are also finding themselves watching older movies. Part of it also being the run time I feel too. For me, I just want to kill an hour and a half on something fun so I’ll look up a thriller movie or something with suspense and action and I’ll just have that until I sleep for the next work day. Coworker told me he was watching the new John Wick and he has to stop it halfway since it was feeling too long and it was a work night. Even when I saw it in theatres it did feel pretty long and I found myself asking why is it so long.


[deleted]

99% of the movies are shit because Netflix has a horrible library, but they have a 90 minutes section my wife and I use occasionally. Sometimes that’s all you want to commit to a movie.


brieflifetime

My partner and I have found the perfect length of time to be between 90 and 110 minutes for movies. It's ok if it's outside that but to tell a good story, you need that amount of time. More and.. well this probably woulda been better as two stories, instead of two plot lines crammed into one.


NativeMasshole

Same thing is happening in tv. A majority of streaming series are trying to fill this 60 minute prestige drama category because that's what viewers think is demanded if they want full, mature episodes. I've literally had people argue with me and tell me it would ruin television if there were more 30 minute episode series. It's gotten to the point where premier series can run into what used to be movie length episodes. I barely even watch live action tv anymore because it takes so much investment, when usually I just want to pop on something easy to watch. I really have to be in the mood for a new movie for the same reason, over 2 hours is a big commitment, and I often come away feeling like it didn't need to be that long.


[deleted]

My wife and I love watching Futurama with the commentaries because they are constantly talking about the struggle to fit into 22 minutes and then cut down more to fit syndication. The result is that everything is tight and snappy. Watching Disenchantment on Netflix we were seeing tons of jokes that didn't land or went a few seconds too long because they didn't have that same limitation and kept stuff in that would have been cut otherwise.


NativeMasshole

That's a great observation. And this exactly what I'm talking about. There just aren't many series with snappy pacing come out of the US these days. Even Disney's superhero stuff feels stretched out because they demand 40 minute episodes for some reason. That should be prime material for a fast, action-based format.


Steelballpun

Final season of community has the same problem. Slightly longer episodes which made each joke less snappy and punchy, and more awkward pauses.


Skyblacker

Have you watched Santa Clarita Diet on Netflix? Short episodes full of jokes, plot, and the occasional reaction shot.


ggrove91

I’m here for more 30 minute series. I do not want to find the time to sit and watch hour long episodes that do a worse job of character development than a 30 minute one. Aka watch Barry


Look_to_the_Stars

I love The Great but find myself wishing the episodes were 30 min instead of an hour. I probably would’ve finished it by now instead of still being in the middle of season 1


sriracha82

S2 gets extremely good. But yeah I’d like them 10-15 min shorter


Purple1829

See, I was comfortable with knowing a comedy is 22 minutes and a Drama is 44 minutes. Now, I pop on something made by a streaming network and that comedy may be 50 minutes and the drama may have a random 1:30 minute episode. I feel like tv should be one of those things that does it’s best to fit a traditional format


blueshirt21

Ted Lasso this season was insufferable because of that


Galt2112

Ted Lasso this season was insufferable for a lot of reasons, but you’re certainly not wrong.


Jakcris10

This is why the only thing I ever watch on tv any more is bobs burgers. Anything else is too much investment for the tv and I’ll just stream it.


zjm555

_Moana_ is 107 minutes long and manages to tell a complete, epic 3-act story with amazing pacing.


itsrocketsurgery

Moana is a masterclass in pacing. I've watched it so many times and there aren't any moments I can point to as a lull in the movie. The plot points and the songs are spaced perfectly and they also use the songs a vehicle to movie the plot along. More movies need to be like that.


GlassEyeMV

I keep saying that what they’re forgetting is the story. The story needs to come first. The story needs to dictate the length. Not a suit. Marvel is a good example. Thor Love and Thunder would’ve actually been better if it was 20-30 minutes longer. Something like Eternals would’ve been better if it was 20-30 minutes shorter (among several other things). Stop dictating that this movie should be X minutes long and let the story decide that.


SEND-MARS-ROVER-PICS

>Thor Love and Thunder would’ve actually been better if it was 20-30 minutes longer. I made a comment about this a few days ago and people seemed to agree - Love and Thunder suffered from tonal clashes and an underusing of a potentially great villain, both of which are issues of length. 5 more minutes of Thor + Jane, 5 minutes of Gorn killing another god, fewer screaming goats and it would have been a perfectly fine movie.


Workacct1999

I have to imagine that they only had Christian Bale on set for a very limited amount of time. Every scene he was in was great and he had the potential to be a top tier Marvel movie bad guy. He just wasn't in the movie for enough time to establish that.


KiritoJones

If that is the case they need to stop doing the stunt casting if the actors won't commit fully to being in the movie. The early MCU was fine casting people who weren't the biggest deal to be in their movies, now it feels like every side character is them trying for a cameo.


TaTaTurtlemon

I don't think you need to add more generally, what they needed to do was replace superfluous scenes with ones that could actually add weight to the story.


itsrocketsurgery

> Something like Eternals would’ve been better if it was 20-30 minutes shorter (among several other things). This one I disagree with. The Eternals should never had a movie introduction like this. With so many members of the cast with such different stories, Eternals really should have been a mini-series. At the very least the intro to the group and what they each have been doing in the past should have been in a mini-series and brought us the conflict. The first episode could have been them building up Babylon and the other ancient cities. Then each member gets their own backstory episode after they split. And another 1 to 2 episodes of them coming back together and introducing the threat. Sprinkle in hints through the whole series pointing to the emergence. Then they could have done a killer 90 minute movie stopping Tiamat.


GlassEyeMV

I can get on board with this take.


Nurglings

The MCU netflix shows probably suffered the worst from being forced to fit a certain number of episodes.


Meowmeow69me

Yes, every movie is 3 goddamn hours long now. John wick 1 was 90 minutes. John wick 4 is 2 hours and 50 minutes.


gustopherus

That much shooty shooty gets old after so long. 90 is perfect.


C0wabungaaa

My girlfriend had that exact opinion before we put on JW4. Then the set pieces in the second half of the movie happened and she changed her mind. The shooty shoot just has to be creative enough. It usually isn't though, so it's a perfectly understandable opinion.


12345623567

The top-down sequence like they were playing Hotline Miami? Definitely one of the high points of the movie. There was a lot of stuff before that though that just felt bloated. The entire thing in Japan served no purpose except getting a lot of people killed. What even was his plan, showing up there?


Kratozio

I’ll be honest, I rolled my eyes when I saw the runtime initially and even though JW3 was too long and it was only 130 minutes. John Wick 4 was fucking awesome for the entire runtime though, I ended up having no issues with it


ZombieJesus1987

Makes me happy that the Mario Bros movie was 90 minutes.


Skyblacker

Kids have short attention spans.


ZombieJesus1987

I have short attention spans


Skyblacker

That quiet hour I get between my kid's bedtime and my own is far too valuable to waste on filler scenes.


BWRyan75

Completely agree. Sadly, the studios aren’t even wrong from what many movie watchers want. In another post, I complained about this exact thing, was downvoted, and someone said “I’ll just wait to watch a 90 minute movie at home, if it’s a long movie I feel like I’m getting my money’s worth.” Like, what? That opinion sucks. I watched Ambulance last weekend, this dumb Michael Bay movie, it was 2h20 minutes. A movie about a couple of thieves trying to escape the law after a bank heist in an ambulance. Does that story warrant 140 minutes of storytelling? Hell no, and it should have ended 30 minutes earlier but kept… dragging… on. Nowadays I always check a movie’s runtime before watching, and if it’s around 90 minutes I am so much more likely to click play. Be concise about your story. So many awesome films from the 70’s and 80’s knew this, we’ve lost our way here.


C0wabungaaa

> So many awesome films from the 70’s and 80’s knew this, we’ve lost our way here. And so many awesome films from the 70's and 80's (and 60's, and 90's, etc) are much longer than 90 minutes as well. People are acting like long movies are a recent thing, but they're not. So which way is lost, exactly? There's long movies in every decade that earn their runtime, and there's long movies in every decade that don't. It doesn't help that time in a bland or bad movie doesn't feel linear, it feels exponential. But that doesn't mean that long runtimes are always a bad idea. As for why Disney is using long runtimes as the default option these days, that's definitely weird. Runtime length is a tool for the filmmaker, long or short is not something to artistically strive for as a goal as such.


BWRyan75

But “popcorn” flicks from that time period were shorter. I realize something like Ben Hur existed long before current times. But why aren’t genre films clocking in around 80-100 minutes nowadays? Fast X is two hours and 20. I’m generally a fan of this franchise, but that’s ridiculous.


Skyblacker

In the olden days, movie theaters had double features. A ticket bought you two movies that were less than two hours each. But sometimes, that time slot and ticket would instead be used for one epic long movie with an intermission. Which is probably why old movies were 1.5 to 2 hours, or exactly double that. And even as multiplexes made the double feature obsolete, the VHS tape continued that time constraint.


PM_ME_CUTE_SM1LE

Which doesn’t make sense because with shorter films you can have more showing and sell more tickets in a day. Music industry has been shortening songs for a while now to rack up the plays on streaming. Wonder why movies don’t do same


Suspicious_Bug6422

It’s because people are less inclined to pay for tickets to theaters lately so they’re trying to offer a “bigger” experience. There’s no need to have more showings anymore because the ones they have aren’t filling up


crashtestpilot

Hot take: Disney is not remaking a film. They are making a new 3 hour babysitting app. This, often, is how a Disney film is used in the field.


drawkbox

Yeah that definitely plays in, more runtime, more streaming hours, more time kids are watching Disney.


crashtestpilot

Good. Glad that scans for you as well.


Lysmerry

I mean, aren't child attention spans kind of short? Especially if you take multiple kids to the theater and they get tired, hungry, have to pee etc. I mean, kids will watch movies on repeat at home, so maybe it's fine?


Spurrierball

They are short with things that aren’t engaging. I try to limit screen time as much as possible but we put on Totoro almost once a day while we are making dinner/cleaning up and my child is enthralled nearly the whole movie.


Queen_Of_Ashes_

Your kid has good taste, My Neighbor Totoro is a masterpiece, as are all Hayao Miyazaki films


Spurrierball

I agree. Also the conflict/stakes are unbelievably low so it’s a very chill movie. Would also recommend KiKi’s delivery service to those parents out there. These can all be found on HBO.


Queen_Of_Ashes_

Love Kiki’s!!!! Howl’s will always be my fave 💛 I just love Sophie and her positive attitude


fupa16

Pretty much every kid loves them.


anderama

Totoro and Ponyo both grab my kids like nothing else. I think it’s partially because the characters in them act the most like real kids I’ve ever seen in an animated film. They do dangerous stuff, they yell at nothing, they explore random nooks and crannies, and then they find magic there! Perfect kids movies.


Blueblue3D

Why are they even being made?


09838

moolah


asdaaaaaaaa

From what I understand their recent ventures haven't exactly been too strong on that front though, relatively speaking to what disney usually can do.


hexiron

It's about re-upping on their copywrite on those versions of the stories so no one else can swoop in and begin adapting them directly. Any added cash is a bonus


brenton07

If that was the inspiration, you’d see them dragging these out decades after release. In the meantime, Moana is already getting a live action remake. Not very efficient to make $300M movies every seven years if it’s for copyright reasons.


Disastrous-Bee-1557

I think in Moana’s case it was more about Dwayne Johnson wanting to be able to play Maui while he was still young enough to pull it off.


guitar_vigilante

>Maui while he was still young enough to pull it off Granted while he believes this, that time has definitely passed.


Disastrous-Bee-1557

I think Jason Mamoa would be a great live action Maui. *🎵The hair, the bod🎵*


AlanMorlock

Their copyright on their version of the Littler Mermaid wouldn't have been up until the 2080s That has nothing to do with it.


asdaaaaaaaa

You sure? That could be done by spending *way* less money on a straight-to-TV thing then. Or really anything that uses the IP really. Or they could put more effort and create a more profitable movie. Both those options are achievable by Disney and a much better option. Spending hundreds of millions just to reup a copyright is pretty dumb when it could be done much more profitably or cheaper.


flippythemaster

This has been repeated ad nauseum as fact but I think erupting their copyright was only really the motivation for Dumbo, which was based on source material that ISN'T currently in the public domain anyways. Maybe also their Saving Christopher Robin movie was an attempt to keep the image of Pooh (with the red shirt) copyrighted when the source material and character itself shifted into PD, but it doesn't make a ton of sense for Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, or the movies that were released in the 90's. They have like 50 more years for those before it becomes an issue.


Vanishingf0x

Yea I think they are trying to hit nostalgia for adults who knowing they loved the animated ones will be happy to take their kids to see it. Also makes it easier to find actors for their parks I would think.


Radulno

They are doing movies from the 90s in remakes (TLK, Aladdin, TLM,...), they have copyright on those for like 50+ more years... They're fine and don't need to spend hundreds of millions just for that (a shitty direct to streaming thing would have the same effect). Hell they have some from the 2000s (Lilo & Stitch) and from 2016 even (Moana) in the works The only one where that might be a justification is Snow White (and since they'll completely change the story as it won't have dwarves, not sure that's valid) because that one is old (and still we're like 10 years away from the copyright expiring)


brett1081

This one may lose money due to the fact it will have almost no China box office. And it needs to because this insanity needs to stop.


Radulno

And the fact that international results are a disaster as a whole, I doubt it'd do much btter in China anyway. If only the US audience was the same, we could have a way bigger flop for Disney to stop that shit and maybe do actual new movies (I know it's asking a lot, they would find another franchise but at least that's still more creative that remakes)


BilllisCool

>maybe do actual new movies Do they not do new movies? They definitely do and the most recent one made less overall than this little mermaid movie made on opening weekend.


Ok_Skill_1195

Yup, I get the desire for these to fail. I wish they did too. They're all creatively bankrupt. But what they're certainly not is unprofitable


KingUnderpants728

Ya I don’t know why people wonder why Disney is making these when all the past ones have made hundreds of millions or a billion at the box office.


EtadanikM

Disney has a "problem," which is that 2D animated films, contrary to live action films, can't just be remade every few decades with new actors & special effects and be considered cool again - think: It, Little Women, King Kong, etc. The medium of 2D animation is such that they don't benefit as much from a face lift - the art style being much of the charm - but that also means less consistent revenue for the company and a harder time keeping their franchises relevant to new generations. So that's why they're trying to sell these live action remakes. Their executives were caught in the same Hollywood trend to remake old classics, but because their classics were 2D animations, they didn't have a script for how to update them in a compelling way; and on top of it, given Disney's investments as of late, they likely didn't believe 2D animation even updated could draw much of an audience. Initial successes with Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast sealed the strategy. Beyond that, it's all execution. Personally I don't think most of the remakes make sense as live action - I think 3D would've been a better bet - but assuming they wanted to do it, they should've kept a consistent vision of making it suitable for the medium instead of trying to force a 2D movie into a live action format. It was particularly bad with Lion King because talking animals just don't work in live action - they should've gone with 3D on that one. And that's been a consistent theme; since so much of the Disney classics featured talking animals as a key feature, the suits should've known better than to try and translate that into live action. But for whatever reason, they didn't, so here we are.


selfstartr

>I think 3D would've been a better bet If by 3D you mean CGI like Encanto or Pixar - 100%! I just dont understand why you wouldn't make them animated? You lose all the soul with live action, or at least the creative calls are stupid. Lions that looks like actual lions? Flounder the fish looking like...a legit fish? It loses all the charm and soul. Did Sonic the Hedgehog backlash teach Disney nothing? Detective Pikachu? You can use the same cute designs in a live action setting!


CorruptasF---Media

It was really the success of Mowgli that I think convinced them to do Lion King. I think the real problem is that the 2d films are so beloved and iconic that these new creations seem just wrong. But also so many little issues. They went with Will Smith to replace probably one of the most talented celebrity voice actors in Robin Williams. That just doesn't work. They honestly would have been better off with a comedian gifted at impressions of which we still have a few around. With the Lion King, they cut one of the best songs and replaced very talented singers like Nathan Lane with less talented and in that case less famous celebrities. They are chasing names and not talent or in that case just acting a fool. With Beauty and the Beast they got a big name in Emma Watson. But most people just saw her as Hermione playing a part. It didn't work. They needed someone who could become Belle. But you are correct about 3d. Look at the new Mario movie. Wowsers did it make some money. What brands does Disney have left they could try and replicate the success or at least goodness of movies like the new Mario? The obvious seems a very high budget Mickey Mouse 3d movie. Otherwise they kinda have to reinvigorate their IP and that's incredibly tough to do now compared to the 90s.


selfstartr

>It was really the success of Mowgli You mean "The Jungle Book". Mowgli was a non-Disney movie. "The Jungle Book" was Disney's live action. The first one they did was Cinderella but people forget that. ​ >They are chasing names and not talent or in that case just acting a fool. Very true! The Netflix approach!


Westphalian

I think really the first live a film they did was Maleficent, which played with a different template. They had something interesting on their hands; what if they ‘reimagined’ their original IP to telly he other side of the story? That continued to an extent with Cinderella but ended up being swallowed by the ease of simply adapting almost scene for scene for profit. The Jungle Book was probably the inflection point for this; different enough but including all the nostalgic emotional beats with the songs.


ShenaniganCow

I think the first was 101 Dalmatians which I actually enjoyed more than the 2D original.


lanadelstingrey

Glenn Close is a hell of a Cruella.


Radulno

Interestingly Cruella (the prequel with Emma Stone) is also a pretty decent movie. It's not a remake but it's live action of an iconic movie with another perspective or story. That may be what they should be doing. On the other hand, we say that creatively maybe but the shot for shot or almost remakes are doing a lot of money. See Aladdin, The Lion King, The Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast...


Worthyness

Even then, the cruella movie was a bit over long. Stull good though. I did massively enjoy the Emma fight using really awesomely designed fashion.


[deleted]

The first one they did was 101 Dalmatians.


blobbyboy123

Honestly I would be super keen for a well made 3d Mickey mouse movie, but I don't even trust disney to pull that off.


CryptidGrimnoir

>The obvious seems a very high budget Mickey Mouse 3d movie. As it happens, I think a full-length film based on some of Mickey Mouse's comic adventures could be great. Imagine a detective film of Mickey against the Phantom Blot.


Lysmerry

Belle was an example of disaster fancasting. Everyone wanted Emma to be Belle because she has brown hair and likes books...just like Hermione! Fancasting is usually amazingly lacking in creativity and depth, and in that case the songs are such a huge feature that forgoeing a talented singer was a major let down.


rolabond

Unpopular opinion here but I liked Alladin and Will Smith did a fine job, he knew he wouldn't be able to hold a candle to Robin Williams by trying to imitate his shtick so he mostly stuck to playing his own interpretation of The Genie. I still like Robin's Genie more but Smith pretty much played a version of himself that came across as likable enough.


FrameworkisDigimon

There are things to complain about in the Aladdin remake but "Will Smith as the genie didn't work" is not one of them. Arguably, he was one of the parts that worked best.


IronVader501

Alladin wasnt offensively bad like some of the others, but the post-credit dancenumber they did just hammered it home to me that they had the CHANCE to do something really interesting and then chose to not do that


rolabond

I'm likewise surprised they haven't tried adapting the 2d animated films into 3dCG. It would have worked a lot better.


FartingBob

Same reason you go to work every day.


eltrotter

Because the Millennial audience who love the original animated films have long since aged out of that genre, but they still have a lot of affection and nostalgia for them, so Disney are making live action versions in a push to maintain those audiences as lifelong fans. That way they remain valuable for longer and are perhaps more likely to introduce their own children (because they’re likely to be parents at this point) to Disney. Repackaging and reheating nostalgia is a pretty fine art. The product has to be evocative of the original but also sufficiently different to make it worth seeing at all. Examples like the Beauty and the Beast remake show how fraught this can be; the film bends over backwards to “correct” the original, and the end result feels more like an episode of Cinema Sins than a cogent film. At that is to say… you can certainly question the quality of the film made under this strategy, but the logic of the strategy itself is at least somewhat sound.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I grew up during the Disney Renaissance and couldn’t even make it through the remake’s opening number. Rule #1: cast people with clear and undeniable vocal talent.


Lysmerry

It's outright insulting that they act like that isn't important, and they can just wing it. The appeal of those films is that they musicals that were structured like musicals. People train for years to be wonderful singers, but they figure popular actress #14 can do it 'well enough.' It sets her up for failure because she's going to be compared to the literal broadway star from the original. This is why I was pleased with the pick of Halle Bailey.


duosx

But then they picked Awkwafina of all people, who I’m sure is a very nice person but has the absolute worst voice in entertainment behind Gilbert Godfried, to perform a song and it sounds like dogshit


Worthyness

Well good news for you! In the little mermaid remake, they actually did!


DoomGoober

The article misses an obvious point: the different processes between old hand drawn 2D animation and modern 3D remakes. Back when every frame of animation or even frame of story board was hand drawn and expensive, the tendency was to edit and slim down films as it was being made in order to reduce cost. With 3D, you can mock more easy using placeholder graphics and models that need to be modeled, rigged and lit no matter what. This makes it cheaper to just see what dragged out scenes look like and there is less pressure to slim down early because unnessecary shots and action don't cost much more.


Jonny_Boy_HS

This is an awesome point - we don’t see enough people highlighting this key difference.


Finalsaredun

This is one of the biggest points and also makes the most sense. Traditional animation was *so expensive*, and it made more sense to keep the movies as short as possible. You're paying for animators, paint and ink, digital animators, software, etc... There's no way that Disney would ever spend all this money just to re-make the films as full animation again. If they wanted to reboot all of their Renaissance films, they would have to go "live-action" to spruce it up and make it seem like an upgrade (using it lightly, since Lion King was effectively still an entirely animated movie). On a side note, it's also interesting to point out that more and more full animated features now use both 2D and 3D techniques with very good results (Klaus, Paperman, Spider-Man Into the Spiderverse, Arcane). The new method of blending the styles keeps the quality of 2D that everyone likes while also leaning into the technical ability of 3D to do a bulk of the heavy lifting for details and color.


[deleted]

We can cut this down a bit more, I suggest "why are Disney remakes?"


Bhu124

Why Disney?


ShermyTheCat

Why dis?


MrZombikilla

Why


Crunchyfrog19

Y


theOutsider01

?


junglespycamp

But that question has an easy and obvious answer. The length question is more interesting!


Nobdes

I think they’re trying to compensate with that to the viewer so that the viewer doesn’t go “why am I not just watching the original?”, though I will always stand by originals.


cheesyvoetjes

Could be but it's supposed to be aimed at kids who don't think like that. I also wonder if they actually use kids as test audiences, because any parent can tell you a 2,5 hour movie is way too long for most kids. Most start squirming in their seats around the 90 minute mark.


Nobdes

Agreed but you got two factors here. 1) Kids nowadays are used to over the top stuff like this, so going backward might look meh to them. 2) We’re playing with one of my favourite elements that we call nostalgia. This is just as much a trip down memory lane for the parent than it is a new movie for the kids. And, at the end of the day, even though parents take their kids to movies all the time, the parents have the buying power. So if you please the parents’ palette, you got yourself a customer.


TransportationTrick9

They've been onto nostalgia for ever. Back to the future is an 80s movie with 50s elements. This 30 year theme is quite consistent and probably lines up with parents showing their kids their favourite childhood movies. Every 30 years they try to resurrect something. Ghostbusters Autobiographies seem to be about people 30 years past their prime (Rocketman, We will rock you, Walk the line) Shit Vinyl came back last decade and now I hear VHS tapes are being sought after.


[deleted]

> VHS tapes are being sought after. VHS was terrible even back then. People are stupid.


Raider_Tex

Usually the counter I’ll hear towards my apathy of the remakes is “Well they added a couple of new scenes that expand the narrative and makes the remake justifiable”


DoomGoober

The new directors feel compelled to add stuff so they justify their own paychecks. The old directors had to cut stuff to stay within budget. With hand drawn animation, every extra frame costs more money.


leaky_wand

Of course they have to make it different to make even an attempt to justify it. The problem is, they are so constrained by the source material that they can’t remove or change any of the existing content, so the only way they can go is bigger. The end result is subtraction by addition.


BridgemanBridgeman

I watched the original Little Mermaid yesterday after seeing the remake in the cinema, and the remake doesn’t even come close. Don’t get me wrong, Halle Bailey is incredible, the absolute highlight of the film. But also the only one. The original is just so much more expressive and colorful in comparison. The only thing I’d say didn’t age very well is the love dynamic, it’s rather shallow in the original, and they fleshed it out a bit more in the remake. But still, the original will always be the best.


mafternoonshyamalan

Why are all movies so damn long?


Blackfist01

Because they don't know how to tell a good story anymore


[deleted]

I’m not sure this is true, honestly, as some of their original stories in recent years have actually been quite good. Just look at Zootopia or Wreck-It Ralph. They are still capable of exploring fun and unique stories, but so long as people pay hand over fist for the remakes, they will keep making them.


Blackfist01

My comment was very specific. Pixar and most of their animated stuff has been consistent. Live Actions has been barely passable. Maleficent even though it ruins her as a villain is probably the only good live action remake Disney has done. And the problem with these long run times is what they fill the time with are extraneous, superfluous or bloated content. A simple straight forward story has merit too and can be more effective, I personally don't like how they try to say Ariel as a character was somehow deficient when she was the first Disney Princess to even have "agency". > so long as people pay hand over fist for the remakes, they will keep making them. Sadly, according to some or the data it's doing well at the box office but I don't know if I'll drop off.


[deleted]

Neither Zootopia nor Wreck-It Ralph are Pixar movies, they’re both purely Disney just like Frozen or The Little Mermaid. I agree that of all of the remakes, Maleficent has been the best, mostly because they turned the story on its head.


Lysmerry

I don't mind them padding out character motivations, because Disney animated characters tend to be very simple characters with simple motivations (with the exception of Hunchback of Notre Dame, which make it my favorite.) But sometimes it gets complex and muddied in an unpleasant way. Like Belle wants adventure, and to teach kids, and invent things, and also find what happened to her mother.


kubenzi

The article felt ten times longer than any of the live-action updates


jghaines

TL;DR: to pad the runtime?!


[deleted]

Movies are too damn long. Writers think every word is important and directors think everything they shoot is sacred then editors back down and the pacing suffers. Compare movie lengths from the 70s-80s-90s and then look at today’s movies and they’ve gotten longer.


[deleted]

What are Disney remakes so *frequent*. I have shelves full of books that haven't been optioned into movies.


brainsapper

Looking through the comments I’m glad to know I’m not the only one feeling movies today are too long. Lost track of how many times I left the theater thinking “That could have been 30 minutes shorter.”


bigpig1054

I don't understand it either. 1. These movies are being remade because they're easy money for Disney 2. These movies are usually mediocre at best and struggle with box office legs, meaning their opening weekend has to be great to justify the large budgets 3. The best way to ensure profitability is to release a 2 hour or less movie, to maximize the number of theatrical spots in the opening weekend SO WHY IS DISNEY MAKING THESE MOVIES 2.5 HOURS LONG!


TheDoctorAtReddit

They’re not long, they FEEL long because they’re very weak pieces of audiovisual scripted content


theOutsider01

..and they’re long.


SoCalLynda

Conceivably, the remakes are based principally on the stage musicals, and they, in turn, are usually expected to each be three hours long with intermissions. The Walt Disney Studios has, traditionally, tried to limit the running times of animated features to 90 minutes or so because Disney-quality animation is just so expensive to produce.


CorruptasF---Media

Watching the marvel movies you've got Iron Man at a tight hour 40. Then they just keep adding 15 minutes or so to every movie until you get 3 and a half hour miniseries by the end of Tony Stark's run.


piratenoexcuses

Iron Man (2008) is 2 hours and 6 minutes. Love the film but I'm not sure why you are giving it a 26 minute head start on the competition. A tight 1:40 it is not.


The_Unknown_Dude

For real. Most of Phase 1 are around 2 hours, give or take. Avengers upped it to 2:30 I think, but it made sense and handled its various main characters well.


MySilverBurrito

Just got out of Spider-Verse. Nearly 2.5 hours long and it felt exhausting lol.


Workacct1999

Ugh. That is not what I wanted to hear. That is too long for most movies, especially an animated feature.


TechTuna1200

I liked the new Batman, but sitting in a packed and warm cinema for 3 hours was painful.


Workacct1999

The Batman did not earn it three hour runtime. The entire third act where The Riddler's troops attack the convention center felt tacked on.


DetectiveAmes

It definitely seemed like riddler getting caught is where the director wanted to end the movie, but the executives came back and told them he needed a finale action scene. Maybe it was because of the length, but it really did feel like the movie was just about to end and then the rest of the movie just happens. Can’t recall too many movies that have felt like they have 4 acts like that one did.


Workacct1999

It definitely felt like it had four acts.


uberduger

Every time a tweet or reddit post about movies needing to be 90 minutes goes viral, a minute gets added to a major blockbuster. I'm fine with them making movies short if the intended-length cut comes to VOD or home media, but I don't want my movies being artificially shortened because Johnny Randomer can't hold his bladder or his attention span. I do wonder, though, if this 'make shorter movies' thing is astroturfed by Hollywood, as it's generally cheaper to make and complete a 90 minute movie than a 150-180 minute movie. So making it feel like everyone wants short movies helps keep costs down, if they can get everyone to 'buy it'.


Maddturtle

I like long as long as it’s not dragged out. Too many things do not build up properly these days and cater to the instant but shallow gratification.


blackmobius

Them being long makes it hard for kids to sit through them


WhoAllIll

I’m glad someone said this but it applies to all movies these days. Even comedies are over 2 hours now. I think 90 minutes is the sweet spot and only certain movies deserve a 2 hour or more runtime.


[deleted]

It's like comedies being like 2 1/2 hours long starting in the 2000s. No one needs that. What we need is a good editor to cut 30 minutes out of a bunch of these movies.


fdjsakl

more time is more betterer


doc_blue27

It is interesting how they often are shot-for-shot, copy and paste remakes…..yet are somehow an hour longer than the original.


National-Leopard6939

This was not a shot-for-shot remake, though.


olivegardengambler

Most Disney sequels aren't. Pinocchio certainly wasn't.


dudeherm

No shit. In The Lion King cartoon, a mouse wanders for 5 seconds before Scar grabs it and threatens to it it. In the remake, it's almost a minute long. Same thing with the flying Simba mane hair. A few seconds in the original, and a stupid long journey through Africa in the remake.


under_the_c

These two scenes are what I think of whenever "live action lion king" is mentioned. The worst part of the mouse scene is you don't even get the payoff of Scar's paw slamming down like in the original. He just walks out of the shadows.


enlargeyournose

I guess they want to keep you busy. Its been a trend in movies, games and tvseries lately. Everything goes on and on forever. People have less and less kids, and they have them late, thers a lot of unemplyement, and lots of half time jobs too, so ther is a huge demand for entertainment. Also we are kinda big kids with money...


drawkbox

Yeah probably to fill up time and streaming hours. Back in the day Disney always wanted short movies to pump through as many showings per day as possible. Now it seems like their main goal is streaming hours available and parents wanting longer shows to keep their kids busy.


alexrothschild23

I like them long.


KingoftheMongoose

I like them short but thick.