Originally Posted By ToonKirby >Was Fellowship of the Ring the movie that made long movies "in" again? Or was it something earlier?< Maybe "Titanic".
Originally Posted By u k fan My Brother works for the finance department of a cinema chain here in the UK and despite several attempts to find out he won't divulge the mark up on concessions. It's more than he's job's worth!!!
Originally Posted By smeeeko ^I was recalling Schindler's List (1993) being one of the first 3hr+ films I had seen in a long time.. it was 195min. Gandhi (1982), which is another of my fave films (also starring Ben Kingsley) was slightly shorter running time of 188min.. they had an intermission somewhere in there, where we could leave the theatre and come back with soda or popcorn or whatever. I think that was the last one I went to that had an actual intermission. =) Titanic btw was 194min according to IMDB.
Originally Posted By JeffG I think it was definitely "Titanic" (still the top-grossing film of all time, by a pretty large margin) that ushered in the much longer acceptable running times for commercial films. Basically, that movie showed theaters and studios that they could still make an enormous amount of money, even with longer films. The result has been a bit of a mixed bag. I like that it gives filmmakers more freedom when it comes to telling their story. Certainly, the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy and a few others have benefited greatly from this. On the other hand, I think this has also given us some unbelievably bloated films as well, though. I absolutely think that "PoTC: At World's End" would have benefited greatly from some additional trimming, particularly mainly during the scripting phase. Had the writers been asked to target a 2 hour running time, I suspect that some of the highly unnecessary subplots would have been jettisoned. -Jeff
Originally Posted By threeundertwo The worst one that comes to my mind is King Kong. I really think that could have been about an hour shorter and I would have enjoyed it much more.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb I would say Spidey 3 was the worst bloat offender I've seen lately. If it had been cut down by an hour it might have been a really fun movie. As it was... Yawn (until the final 20-30 minutes).
Originally Posted By TheRedhead "The Right Stuff" had an intermission. I was 10 years old when I saw it. My parents asked me what I thought afterwards. I said I liked the part where the guy peed in his suit. That, and the extra popcorn I got at intermission.
Originally Posted By ladypirate Pirates 3 was very overrated. Totally disappointed when I seen it. The characters were not up to par especially Capt. Barbossa. Swann is a horrible pirate. They should of stopped after Curse of the Black Pearl. The movie industry keep making sequels and they keep getting worse. Quit buying their crap and maybe writers will actually sit down and do what they are suppose to do 'WRITE' something worth paying for.
Originally Posted By basil fan I thought the way Elizabeth became a pirate lord was too contrived. The pirate whose name I forget totally swallows an oblique hint from Jack that Eliz is really Calypso...the whole thing is obviously just a plot device to give her a crew. Contrariwise, the choice to have Will take Davy Jones' place was brilliantly plotted. I knew someone had to kill Jones and take his place, but cringed every time Jack contemplated stabbing the heart. I just couldn't see him willingly choosing that life. As the only way to save Will's life, however, it worked perfectly, IMHO. House of Mouse <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/house.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ disney/house.html</a>
