this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2026
37 points (91.1% liked)

movies

2498 readers
269 users here now

A community about movies and cinema.

Related communities:

Rules

  1. Be civil
  2. No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
  3. Do not spam
  4. Stay on topic
  5. 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
atomicpoet@piefed.social
BoozeOrWater@piefed.social
TheImpressiveX@piefed.social
37
Make films shorter if you want them shown in cinemas, says Picturehouse director (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 1 day ago by TheImpressiveX@piefed.social to c/movies@piefed.social
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mthomsonkiwi@piefed.social 1 points 9 hours ago

Considering there's often 30 minutes of advertising, perhaps they should cut that. Most of the cinema showings I've been too are lucky if there are 10 people in there. Cinema advertising made sense when we were growing up and the theatre was packed for weeks for a movie, but not anymore. Now it's just 30 minutes of annoyance. But sure the movie runtime is the problem.

[–] wiccan2@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Honestly, if they cut the 40 mins of ads so it wasn't nearly 4 hours for a 3 hour movie it'd be a good start.

3 hours is a long time to sit still and is complicated by the cinema insisting you buy their 1L "cup" of drink. They should bring back intermissions, gives them a reason to push the concessions stand more.

For a single uninterrupted sitting, 2 hours seems like a good length and any less than 1.5 hours isn't worth it.

[–] IWW4@lemmy.zip 3 points 19 hours ago

It really wont make a difference to me. There is nothing that can make me go to the theater more.

There is nothing that movie makers can do that can compete with my living room.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Honestly, if they just played the trailers before the movie is scheduled to start, I'd be much more into them. Having something to watch for the period between when you get there and the start time would be great. If anyone wanted to see more trailers, they could just arrive earlier.

[–] ApollosArrow@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

But… how will we keep Maria Menounos employed if there is no more Novie to watch before the movie starts?

[–] roserose56@lemmy.zip 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Bro, no! A story is a story, and the one making a movie can do what ever he wants, if this 2 hours or 30 minutes or 1 hour. Not all perfect movies are Short.

[–] yakko@feddit.uk 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

A story is a story, but the 90 minute format was a standard for a good reason. If you're not sticking to a three act structure, use whatever time format you like. Just make sure you're using the audience's time respectfully. I'll forgive a 90 minute 'meh' movie far easier than one that took 200 minutes.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 1 points 17 hours ago

I guess it's time to change the name of Fuddruckers.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Ah yes, let's further reduce the art so that the dollars flow better.

How about starting with the 30 minutes of previews? Just don't show them.

Costs have to come down. Movies need to stop going on streaming a week after being in theaters.

This industry's death is owned by shareholders and corpos. It isn't the artists who are failing.

[–] IWW4@lemmy.zip 2 points 19 hours ago

Or here is an idea..

Just give up on test Cinema. Going to the cinema is not how movies are consumed anymore.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 2 points 19 hours ago

They're talking about films that are over 3h30 in runtime. There's real data showing that films are creeping up in length image

[–] OpticalMoose@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

100 minutes is the sweet spot for me. If I'm sitting in a theater longer than that, I start getting bored.

[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

I kind of get this guys point. 90 minutes for the total movie is fine, 120 is pushing it. Any longer and Ill wait and watch it at home where I can get proper comfy and pause if I need a pee.

[–] call_me_xale@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 day ago

Forget boredom, I get physically uncomfortable, even assuming I don't need to use the bathroom...

[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 day ago (5 children)

So the cinema can get more showings in and make more money or because the younger generation can’t pay attention?

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 points 19 hours ago

RTFA, they talk about it. Yes, it's so they can get more showings in... than one in an evening, which longer films force them to cut down to.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

And us older generation can't hold our piss that long.

[–] neuracnu@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago

One of the best cinema experiences I've had in the last few years was going to a 10:30 am screening of The Brutalist, with an intermission and a head-up on how many ads and trailers were being shoved in before the show started.

[–] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 0 points 1 day ago

Because they makes shit costcuting, now they’re thinking « why people don’t want to see our shit ? »

People are fucking going to see LotR extended version in cinema and this fuck face think is intelligent

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 4 points 1 day ago

And reduce the ads, including trailers.

[–] pglpm@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

"Keep it to 20 words or less!" – Saitama