174
Film Students Are Having Trouble Sitting Through Movies, Professors Say
(www.hollywoodreporter.com)
this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2026
174 points (97.8% liked)
movies
2680 readers
640 users here now
A community about movies and cinema.
Related communities:
- !television@piefed.social
- !homevideo@feddit.uk
- !mediareviews@lemmy.world
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
Rules
- Be civil
- No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
- Do not spam
- Stay on topic
- These rules will evolve as this community grows
No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Does this mean we can see the end of the overly long film trend?
I miss films being ~80 - 90 minutes. I've had a long day, I don't want to commit to three hours unless it's something really special.
I hate short movies
Stories feel rushed and theres not enough time for good story arcs
A well constructed film does not feel rushed in a shorter run time.
I like long films, like really long ones. Ones where the length is part of the experience. For example, I loved Apocalypse Now Redux.
What I don't like is films that are substantially longer than they need to be. I don't want them pared down, I want them built around the format their story suits rather than padded out. I like breathing room (mostly!) but it's a fine line to walk.
A good film opening gets on with things quickly, getting the viewer up to speed, but too often I find myself quoting Springfieldians from Marge vs. The Monorail - "GET TO THE MONEY!"
I honestly love when I get really engrossed in something, credits roll and I look at the scrub bar... ”wtf that was barely more than an hour?"
A well constructed, long, film also doesn't feel long
True, but it's a lot easier for me to find 90 minutes than 180 minutes on a weekday night.
That's a completely different problem. You were arguing if a film deserves to be long (it does if it's worth it). Now you're arguing that you don't have time for a long film.
Convenience isn't an Oscar category. A good film can be short or long, it depends on many factors.
Sigh, I was trying to meet you in the middle. I'm in no mood to fight with you.
Sigh. I'm not the person you were arguing with.
Well in that case let's revise my comment to "I was trying to meet the person that I was replying to in the middle".
Trying to gotcha me is just going to end up with me being an aggressive arsehole. That's no fun for anyone and isn't going to result in you catching me out, so it'll be frustrating for you and tiresome for me. I'm going to bed.
Yesssssss, thank you. 1:30 is the sweet spot. It can go up to like 1:50 and i still totally dig it. Once it goes above 2 hours it starts to detract from my enjoyment of the experience instead of adding to it
My sweet spot is the 2:00 to 2:15 mark. Any less than that feels like an extended TV episode to me.
For some reason, horror movies are good at 1:30 to 1:45.
There's this thing called "TV shows" for the quick hit you want.
Why would you want to watch the quality and content of a 90 minute film drastically stretched to fit a whole season?
Why would you a compelling story squished into a ninety minute marketing pitch?
Not all shows are serialized, either.
Could it be that different stories require different lengths of time to tell? No, that'd be silly. Clearly you two should keep arguing.
That would indeed be very silly
Thank you for the educational response.