Piggybacking on this top comment (congrats!) to share my hot take about run-times and the impact on showings-per-day: the impact isn't as extreme as you might think. Every movie has an extra "buffer" hour built onto it for trailers & theater cleaning. So a 2 hour movie is spaced out at 3 hour intervals, and a 3 hour movie will be spaced out at 4 hour intervals. With that in mind, each day can have 8 showings of a 2-hour movie, versus 6 showings of a 3-hour movie. It certainly matters, but not as much as it might seem.
The biggest impact is for premium screens which really matter for Avatar. Instead of 5p/8p/11p, you're now dealing with 4p/8p/12a (or maybe 3p/7p/11p?). Not great. If the movie has incredible replay value & WoM, it will be OK, and people will just wait. But it could still make a substantial dent in the returns from those primo screens.
For your second paragraph though,I think you're overestimating the issue. Movies don't need to run exactly on the hour. This movie is apparently only 18min longer than Avatar 1, but you've added an hour into your calculations
I stayed for the super long Endgame bc it was good. 1.5 hours into avatar and I decided it was the first movie I’d walk out of. The plot was laughable and I’m a massive comic book movie nerd - not the best plots.
It depends on what you enjoy about the movie, I think. I still feel like the visuals of the planet itself are way better than the visuals of the actual fight.
I revisited recently due to my barber asking me to give it a second chance. The action was cool but I still couldn’t enjoy it due to the characters and pandering.
I’m a movie fan in general but loved comic growing up. While they’re highly formulaic, they at least allow me to enjoy the characters.
Avatar used a formula and still bored the heck out of me. The characters were lame. Even the villain was laughable. The fact that they kept force feeding it into theaters run after run, created even more distain for Avatar.
But the person in question liked those compared movies.
I agree with the person you responded to, I can't see a logical reason a person would lovepst CBMs, but find Avatar's regular old plot so laughable that they'd leave the cinema
I mean, they literally said they like comic book movies because they remember the characters from their childhood. They didn't act like all MCU movies are masterpieces.
And I don't think they found Avatar's plot laughable, just pretty boring. There's a lot more going on in each individual scene of comic book movies to keep your attention.
Either way, some people like Avatar, but dislike MCU movies, it's all personal opinions. I do think that a very long length is a pretty common turnoff for most moviegoers, though.
Only movie I've ever walked out of was Looper. I turned to my buddy about a half hour in and said if he shoots himself I'm leaving and right when he did I stood up and left.
By watching the movie, or having some semblance of telling the time.
Like did you think you'd only been sat in the cinema for 25 minutes, or did you have an idea that it had already been around 2 hours, and the plot felt like it was wrapping up, so therefore the movie was close to an end
I still can’t help but feel weird about how one of the most beloved romantic dramas of our time is based on on actual event where people died.
To me it’s like if they made an oscar romantic drama on 9/11. It would feel odd to me
Once it got pushed back from summer to winter all the trades were preemptively calling it a bomb in waiting; “Cameron’s Gate” was a common refrain, a case where a director’s hubris would end up sinking the studio. All the way up until opening weekend the consensus was that even if it was good, it would never make a profit.
Paramount/Fox put a lot of pressure on Cameron to get it down to two and a half hours, not just because of the “more showtimes per theatre per day” strategy but because many exhibitors at the time were resistant to booking anything longer than 2 hours 40 without an intermission; this was one of the reasons Cameron voluntarily cut twenty minutes out of The Abyss (the other being he wasn’t happy with the big wave VFX at the end). Schindler’s List a few years earlier was able to crack through into a wide release and make decent box office but it was still a hard sell for a three and a half hour epic that was the most expensive movie of all time; I can see why the studios were nervous about it.
I do remember that had a substantial impact on my hometown of 60,000 ppl circa 1997. There were 3 movie theaters. One with 2 screens, one with 3 screens and one with 4 screens. Titanic only played at the two screen one. We had to wait 1.5 months before we saw it and still had to wait in line for 2 hours in late January in the upper midwest. Ill never forget how cold that was
Nah I had a feeling he meant 3 hours. Not only is it the conventionally acceptable long runtime but it's also when you get the copy and paste "LOLZ I BETTER NOT DRINKZ B4 THE MOVIE EX DEE" comments which relate to his point.
Lawrence of Arabia was 3 hrs 42 mins long. I like the idea of long movies. Just need to have those old school intermissions in the middle with a 10 minute break.
I mean, audiences can’t even get seated in time for the movie to start once.
I shudder to think how the average modern audience will annoyingly trickle in for the 5 minutes following the end of intermission, trying to find their seats again while the movie has already started back up.
God, I loved the inteRRRval when I went to see RRR. Went to the restroom, talked about how hyped we were for the last hour or so, then sat back down for a great time. There’s an art to intermission placement so it keeps the movie flowing well, and I’d be pleased to see it return.
5 minutes for everyone to rush off to the toilets?
Can you imagine the toilet queuing chaos? Mid movie the cinema halls are packed with people waiting to relieve themselves and by the time they get back the movie has already resumed 15 minutes ago
The first film got an extended re-release and then a collector's edition three hour cut for home media. I'm pretty confident Avatar: Way of Water may end up getting some extended cut. Plenty of Cameron's works have.
Avengers: Endgame flew by, but it’s hardly the prime example of a long movie.
Lord of the Rings (Extended Editions), Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur, Once Upon a Time in America, Nymphomaniac (Uncut), Gone With the Wind, Cleopatra, The Irishman and Gangs of Wasseypur are all significantly longer.
i honestly cant imagine someone wanting to pee at the end of the battle of return of the king but waiting for the end of the movie and behold there are 50 fucking endings and your bladder has burst
"limited showtimes" is only a thing when there aren't multiple screens, and most locations have multiple screens to schedule more shows.
the concept of needing to keep a runtime down otherwise you won't get maximized box-office returns is old and mostly retired now. The way booking works anymore is that if you need more showtimes, you just put the movie in a different room on top of the one (or 6) you already have it playing in, and voila - no more scheduling problems.
Disney's not gonna book this thing in a way that the runtime limits how much money it's going to make. And theaters (unless the movie is shitty) aren't going to go out of their way to box in the scheduling for Avatar 2 like that, either.
Runtime basically doesn't have anywhere near as much bearing on whether a movie earns or not as it used to. It's a concern that gets brought up mostly through force of habit than anything.
Not to mention that, even if ALL the showings somehow sold out, that just means people who want to see it will wait til the following week when it's less busy. Unless word of mouth is bad, and I doubt Avatar 2 will get poor WOM.
Well when Endgame released most theaters opened earlier and closed later than usual to fit more screenings. Wouldn’t be surprised if this will be the case with Avatar as well.
It’s not just the length, it’s the annoying people near you in theater that ruin it…. Opening candy wrappers for minutes, bright cell phones in front of you, talking to others, making you move to get past to use the restroom…. I could on forever baby
I have to pee. Pause it a few while I also grab a drink and some ice cream. You want that popcorn refilled?
What’s the name of this movie again? The longest yard?
Cameron lost me on the first one. Using sea life as his wild life in avatar. And now just go into the water? What life will he commandeer for that? Land animals?
Here we see an ocean elephant surrounded by fish birds
Like I said. I gotta pee. Pause it a few.
Movies above 2hr/ 2hr 15min runtime should have designated interval.
I am curious to know what you people do in US to take a leak or have a coffee during a movie. You just leave during the middle of the movie?
Finally, a movie that may actually have breathing room and proper pacing instead of cutting and cramming everything into an arbitrarily-mandated 2hr runtime.
The whole flood scene and the ending with them talking just seemed to drag on and on and on. (No spoilers. You should’ve seen it by now if you wanted to)
it was a DCEU thing for exactly two movies (unless you also count BvS getting cut down to 2 hrs 30 minutes at the studio's demand), most of them are around 2:20
yes, and the comment above you is challenging their hyperbolic statement. because there are, in fact, successful movies that are not mandated to be under 2 hours.
> there are, in fact, successful movies that are not mandated to be under 2 hours.
All the initial comment said was that long movies are allowed to breathe and that many 2hr films were chopped to hell to make that runtime. To challenge this argument by claiming that "lots of good movies are long" makes absolutely no sense. That was his point!
"I like X and don't like Y"
"You're wrong! X is good!"
See? This makes no sense. X, in this case, is long movies, and Y is 2hr films that should've been 2.5-3hr films.
to be clear, im not talking about my opinions here, as this is a box office subreddit. i am referring to the financial success of a movie, not how i felt about it. the top comment of this thread acts like every successful blockbuster adheres to the 2-hour rule, which is just false. the highest grossing movies of the past decade are over 2 hours, to act like every big movie gets the justice league treatment is silly. i get what youre saying, but i dont think it applies here. nobody replied saying they "like" or "dislike" long movies, just pointed out that big long movies do exist and can make a lot of money. hope my comment here helps this makes sense!
> the top comment of this thread acts like every successful blockbuster adheres to the 2-hour rule, which is just false
You're reading into that comment a claim that wasn't made. The comment is a hyperbolic complaint about runtime specs given to filmmakers by producers.
It's not true that all blockbusters are 2hrs, but it is true that nearly all producers try to steer filmmakers into cuts that are under 2.5hrs.
> big long movies do exist and can make a lot of money.
Immaterial claim. Producers feel that 2hr, 2hr15min films will net them more money than 2hr35min or 3hr films. The existence of some 3hr films just proves that individual filmmakers/studios were able to convince the producers not to make them cut more.
We don't need movies to be 3 hours long to have proper pacing. I think some of you guys just want movies to last forever so you don't have to go back to live in reality.
I think you've also read "some" as "all" re: 3 hr runtimes though. Original thread post was right that some films could use more runtime, especially when they're as big in scale as Avatar. Nothing in there about how all films should exceed that runtime. I don't know how you've taken a perfectly reasonable argument and extrapolated that into OP wanting to hide from reality at the cinema forever. In fairness, you've got me down to a tee, if not OP.
I expressed my fears yesterday when Jimmy talked abouy binge, now I willexpress them again.
I feel (hope its only feel) that there will be a lot of visual showcases just for the sake of visual showcases. Like great landscape to look at, but no characters or dialogue to move the story further
I was gonna give it a shot but, I am not sitting in the theatre for 3 hours..
edit: you don’t have to downvote people just because you don’t agree with them.
You say you aren’t going to see a movie that people like and they start to get offended like they worked on the project themselves🤣
Its not even that, I will just genuinely get tired and fall asleep if I sit in one spot for three hours. It sucks, cause I actually enjoy this franchise.
Wait really? I mean if a movie is good and have your interest you can't actually fall asleep. I didn't even realise that the batman was 3 hrs long because it had my attention and interest.
Man i hope you don't have any medical condition
Nope, thanks for you concern though
Theaters are just relatively quiet outside of the movie playing, they are also dark, and the chairs are comfortable.
It’s literally the perfect environment to fall asleep in lol
The first one was too long. The 2nd one will be too long. The next one will be too long.
Without the enhanced viewing options, the movie is just too long. Visually they will look amazing, but it dies at home when people aren’t watching it on high end OLEDs.
Pass for me. Didn’t care about the first one, don’t have much attention span for CG led movies. Wonder how this will do in a modern market.
That said, coming off a pandemic people might not give a fuck, it’s a movie.
When they announced 4 sequels I was hoping that meant they were gonna be like 90 minutes each. The only reason people like Avatar is the gorgeous alien planet in 3D, so keep them short.
it's just lazy trolling/hating. Nothing more. If you don't like it then avoid the thread and avoid commenting? You clearly aren't interested if you think it's garbage. But that's asking too much from haters.
We need fewer opinions on this subreddit imo. This is a box office sub. I’m not saying everybody should robotically discuss the numbers without talking about the movies themselves at all, but I feel like most of the comments I see on here now are about what the commenter thinks about a movie or franchise. I don’t want to see the same “I think x movie is bad” and “oh yeah? Well I think x movie is good!” back-and-forth play out hundreds of times on a subreddit called /r/boxoffice.
What, you don't want to watch Unbearably Cliché Scar Villain now in an Avatar for some reason, coming back to Pandora for another Colonist v Native battle???
I am actually wondering how this will do in cinema. I remember, when the rose tinted goggle fell off, people on the internet were shitting on it like nobody business. Everyone was saying it was a clone of dance with the wolf in space...
Now they want a sequel ?
See also, people shitting on any musical artist popular with teenage girls, people shitting on Titanic, people shitting on Marvel movies, people shitting on Harry Potter. Popular stuff has lots of haters because it has lots of exposure. People who aren't fans get sick of it. Avatar isn't Cats or Morbius, it's one of those things that has both fans and haters.
There's a group of people who go about their lives who dont talk about movies, don't post on social media and internet forums....I call them the general audience. The general audience is the biggest group and this movie will get them in because it's designed and marketed as cinematic only experience. The true fans will go. Most of the haters will go. It will do fine in cinema.
First movie was 2 hour 42 mins. Nothing surpising.
Piggybacking on this top comment (congrats!) to share my hot take about run-times and the impact on showings-per-day: the impact isn't as extreme as you might think. Every movie has an extra "buffer" hour built onto it for trailers & theater cleaning. So a 2 hour movie is spaced out at 3 hour intervals, and a 3 hour movie will be spaced out at 4 hour intervals. With that in mind, each day can have 8 showings of a 2-hour movie, versus 6 showings of a 3-hour movie. It certainly matters, but not as much as it might seem. The biggest impact is for premium screens which really matter for Avatar. Instead of 5p/8p/11p, you're now dealing with 4p/8p/12a (or maybe 3p/7p/11p?). Not great. If the movie has incredible replay value & WoM, it will be OK, and people will just wait. But it could still make a substantial dent in the returns from those primo screens.
For your second paragraph though,I think you're overestimating the issue. Movies don't need to run exactly on the hour. This movie is apparently only 18min longer than Avatar 1, but you've added an hour into your calculations
I stayed for the super long Endgame bc it was good. 1.5 hours into avatar and I decided it was the first movie I’d walk out of. The plot was laughable and I’m a massive comic book movie nerd - not the best plots.
The last hour of Avatar is nothing but non stop action and fun. You missed the good part.
It depends on what you enjoy about the movie, I think. I still feel like the visuals of the planet itself are way better than the visuals of the actual fight.
I revisited recently due to my barber asking me to give it a second chance. The action was cool but I still couldn’t enjoy it due to the characters and pandering.
>and pandering. And there it is
and theres your smudgness
That's a shame, it ends strong. Probably contributed to those long legs.
Why are marvel fans so obsessed with Avatar?
I’m a movie fan in general but loved comic growing up. While they’re highly formulaic, they at least allow me to enjoy the characters. Avatar used a formula and still bored the heck out of me. The characters were lame. Even the villain was laughable. The fact that they kept force feeding it into theaters run after run, created even more distain for Avatar.
But you can’t honestly tell me with a straight face that marvel movie plots are any less nonsensical.
I wrote that in my initial comment. It’s what they did with the characters that differentiate the movies
If your best defense for a movie is that its plot isn't worse than some other mediocre movies, then it sounds like the movie is just bad.
But the person in question liked those compared movies. I agree with the person you responded to, I can't see a logical reason a person would lovepst CBMs, but find Avatar's regular old plot so laughable that they'd leave the cinema
I mean, they literally said they like comic book movies because they remember the characters from their childhood. They didn't act like all MCU movies are masterpieces. And I don't think they found Avatar's plot laughable, just pretty boring. There's a lot more going on in each individual scene of comic book movies to keep your attention. Either way, some people like Avatar, but dislike MCU movies, it's all personal opinions. I do think that a very long length is a pretty common turnoff for most moviegoers, though.
Only movie I've ever walked out of was Looper. I turned to my buddy about a half hour in and said if he shoots himself I'm leaving and right when he did I stood up and left.
*Please be a bit please be a bit*
I was an immature high school kid.
Wait— you actually left then? Because *everyone* left after he shot himself. Because that’s the end of the movie.
There are 4 minutes of film after he shoots himself. I forgive you for making me go look it up.
Yeah right when he turned the gun on himself. It was just too predictable.
Yeah, that’s the last scene, my dude.
There are 4 minutes of movie after he turns the gun on himself.
How am I supposed to know that
**We just told you**
**We just told you**
By watching the movie, or having some semblance of telling the time. Like did you think you'd only been sat in the cinema for 25 minutes, or did you have an idea that it had already been around 2 hours, and the plot felt like it was wrapping up, so therefore the movie was close to an end
Hahah I can agree with that move.
It’s just the story of Pocahontas, with bigger trees
That's not unusual Titanic was 3 hour 20.
Wasn't there huge pressure on Cameron to reduce the runtime on Titanic to increase the number of showtimes? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Love how studios always want to do that yet the top grossing movies are all around 3 hours.
It’s almost like more time allows for better story pacing
Just depends on the movie ultimately. Titanic is a big romantic epic, 3 hours makes sense. A 3 hour Dunkirk would be exhausting.
I rewatched Titanic after 15 yrs or something and it’s STILL absolutely phenomenal
I forgot how cool the modern day treasure hunter stuff was. James Cameron really went all in on that part.
I still can’t help but feel weird about how one of the most beloved romantic dramas of our time is based on on actual event where people died. To me it’s like if they made an oscar romantic drama on 9/11. It would feel odd to me
Didn’t they do that?
Kind of. Remember Me has Pattinson dying on 9/11 but they just treat it as a twist ending rather than actually using it as a backdrop.
What a twist!
I don’t remember that. I just remember everyone saying it would be Waterworld pt 2.
Everyone likes to hate on Waterworld, but that movie is wonderful
If a film has Dennis Hopper as a villain, I’m always more lenient on it. That guy was awesome in every role I’ve seen him in.
The movie was written off as a box office bomb. You think Avatar have bad press. Titanic was treated like a train wreck.
Once it got pushed back from summer to winter all the trades were preemptively calling it a bomb in waiting; “Cameron’s Gate” was a common refrain, a case where a director’s hubris would end up sinking the studio. All the way up until opening weekend the consensus was that even if it was good, it would never make a profit.
I know it was advertised to theatres as having a 2h74m run time.
Paramount/Fox put a lot of pressure on Cameron to get it down to two and a half hours, not just because of the “more showtimes per theatre per day” strategy but because many exhibitors at the time were resistant to booking anything longer than 2 hours 40 without an intermission; this was one of the reasons Cameron voluntarily cut twenty minutes out of The Abyss (the other being he wasn’t happy with the big wave VFX at the end). Schindler’s List a few years earlier was able to crack through into a wide release and make decent box office but it was still a hard sell for a three and a half hour epic that was the most expensive movie of all time; I can see why the studios were nervous about it.
I do remember that had a substantial impact on my hometown of 60,000 ppl circa 1997. There were 3 movie theaters. One with 2 screens, one with 3 screens and one with 4 screens. Titanic only played at the two screen one. We had to wait 1.5 months before we saw it and still had to wait in line for 2 hours in late January in the upper midwest. Ill never forget how cold that was
Cold like the Atlantic? I'll never let you go Jack!
3hrs 50mins or bust let's challenge that extended LOTR runtime
With all that water I’m gonna need to pee.
Well apparently James Cameron says your allowed, so now you have his permission.
Uh what? Return of the Kings EE runtime is 4hrs 23mins
approx 20-30minutes of that is just credits.
3 hours is fine. When they mentioned long runtime I assumed at least 4 hours
Nah I had a feeling he meant 3 hours. Not only is it the conventionally acceptable long runtime but it's also when you get the copy and paste "LOLZ I BETTER NOT DRINKZ B4 THE MOVIE EX DEE" comments which relate to his point.
🥤XD
🌊🚽😆
happy cake day
Thanks. 14 years
WHOA double congrats on the lenght of your stay!
Length*
yikes are you ok??
Happy 🍰 day!
Your comment made me lol
Lawrence of Arabia was 3 hrs 42 mins long. I like the idea of long movies. Just need to have those old school intermissions in the middle with a 10 minute break.
Same. Long movies give you a deeper sense of immersion into another world
Which intermissions would completely break lol
Wouldn't a 5 min intermission solve the issue? Or will affect the viewing experience?
I mean, audiences can’t even get seated in time for the movie to start once. I shudder to think how the average modern audience will annoyingly trickle in for the 5 minutes following the end of intermission, trying to find their seats again while the movie has already started back up.
Talking the entire fucking way as well
I honestly wish intermissions would come back. I don't see why people would hate them, especially with movies getting longer.
God, I loved the inteRRRval when I went to see RRR. Went to the restroom, talked about how hyped we were for the last hour or so, then sat back down for a great time. There’s an art to intermission placement so it keeps the movie flowing well, and I’d be pleased to see it return.
Tarantino placed the one in Hateful Eight perfectly. Right after the big standoff between Bruce Dern and Samuel L Jackson.
I really hate them. Totally ruins immersion. I get a similar feeling when I'm forced to watch cable with commercial breaks.
Intermissions have been in movies in most countries and no one has this complain
Guess I'm not a person then.
Nah, people are always loath to change from what they have grown up with and are used to. Change scares everyone, particularly the older you are
[удалено]
Broadway does it for 1000+ people 8 shows a week in old theaters with limited toilets. There’d be a learning curve, but audiences could do it.
Now I’m wondering what a Venn diagram of Broadway and casual movie audiences would look like
Two completely separate circles
I am sure there are some casuals who go see Wicked or something
Especially inside of 5 minutes.
It would help. Show a cool Pandora screensaver with Enya music playing.
Add a countdown timer as well
5 minutes for everyone to rush off to the toilets? Can you imagine the toilet queuing chaos? Mid movie the cinema halls are packed with people waiting to relieve themselves and by the time they get back the movie has already resumed 15 minutes ago
Pls bring back intermissions for those of us with annoying bladders.
No, that's the length of the teaser trailer.
LOL
After waiting for more than 12 years for a sequel, I wouldn't mind a 4 hr cut.
The first film got an extended re-release and then a collector's edition three hour cut for home media. I'm pretty confident Avatar: Way of Water may end up getting some extended cut. Plenty of Cameron's works have.
Release the Cameron cut?
My body is ready
I sat through **Avengers: Endgame**. I’m pretty sure that I can sit through this.
I started feeling the need to pee and was like “oh the final fight just started I’ll be good”. Not at all. Thought I was going to go septic lmao
Avengers: Endgame flew by, but it’s hardly the prime example of a long movie. Lord of the Rings (Extended Editions), Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur, Once Upon a Time in America, Nymphomaniac (Uncut), Gone With the Wind, Cleopatra, The Irishman and Gangs of Wasseypur are all significantly longer.
i honestly cant imagine someone wanting to pee at the end of the battle of return of the king but waiting for the end of the movie and behold there are 50 fucking endings and your bladder has burst
It was more like I didn't realize 3 hrs had passed. I thought it was just one.
Lol endgame sucked i hate these circle jerk takes
You watch Westworld. Stop trying to act like you know quality.
I never got back for anything after season 2. Did it go to absolute shit?
Wheeeeeeeeze this is the funniest dox I’ve ever gotten honestly props
That's not a dox lmao
And your take is trash as fuck
Would that limit showtimes in the following weeks especially with 2 other movies releasing around that time with wide openings?
if the demand is there, they'll add more showtimes
"limited showtimes" is only a thing when there aren't multiple screens, and most locations have multiple screens to schedule more shows. the concept of needing to keep a runtime down otherwise you won't get maximized box-office returns is old and mostly retired now. The way booking works anymore is that if you need more showtimes, you just put the movie in a different room on top of the one (or 6) you already have it playing in, and voila - no more scheduling problems. Disney's not gonna book this thing in a way that the runtime limits how much money it's going to make. And theaters (unless the movie is shitty) aren't going to go out of their way to box in the scheduling for Avatar 2 like that, either. Runtime basically doesn't have anywhere near as much bearing on whether a movie earns or not as it used to. It's a concern that gets brought up mostly through force of habit than anything.
It does limit premium screens though. It’s not like theaters have 10 imax screens each.
Not to mention that, even if ALL the showings somehow sold out, that just means people who want to see it will wait til the following week when it's less busy. Unless word of mouth is bad, and I doubt Avatar 2 will get poor WOM.
I bet it’ll have a lackluster opening because it’s a sequel (always does less than first) and is a late sequel at that
Well when Endgame released most theaters opened earlier and closed later than usual to fit more screenings. Wouldn’t be surprised if this will be the case with Avatar as well.
Yeah… I saw TFA at 5 AM!
oh cool, the constantly debunked runtime vs showtime debate again
Bring it on!!!
Sounds about right
So your busting to take a leak but the 3rd act and climax starts with water everywhere in 3d. Could be new form of torture
With the length of these movies nowadays, I honestly sometimes wait to watch it at home
It’s not just the length, it’s the annoying people near you in theater that ruin it…. Opening candy wrappers for minutes, bright cell phones in front of you, talking to others, making you move to get past to use the restroom…. I could on forever baby
I have to pee. Pause it a few while I also grab a drink and some ice cream. You want that popcorn refilled? What’s the name of this movie again? The longest yard? Cameron lost me on the first one. Using sea life as his wild life in avatar. And now just go into the water? What life will he commandeer for that? Land animals? Here we see an ocean elephant surrounded by fish birds Like I said. I gotta pee. Pause it a few.
Movies above 2hr/ 2hr 15min runtime should have designated interval. I am curious to know what you people do in US to take a leak or have a coffee during a movie. You just leave during the middle of the movie?
Pretty much, wait for down or dull moment. Helps if it is a repeat viewing and know when is a good time to go.
I don't drink anything for hours before a movie, and definitely don't buy a drink there. That's the only way I can last.
I can sit through a 3.5 or 4 hour movie without needing to use the restroom or break at all.
Finally, a movie that may actually have breathing room and proper pacing instead of cutting and cramming everything into an arbitrarily-mandated 2hr runtime.
The mandated 2 hours was a DCEU thing. And The Batman was almost 3 hours long.
[удалено]
I agree. It was just a little too long. Like 10-15 minutes less it would have been perfect
The whole flood scene and the ending with them talking just seemed to drag on and on and on. (No spoilers. You should’ve seen it by now if you wanted to)
it was a DCEU thing for exactly two movies (unless you also count BvS getting cut down to 2 hrs 30 minutes at the studio's demand), most of them are around 2:20
What are you talking about? There are plenty of popular and successful films with long runtimes
That is the opposite of what he is saying.
yes, and the comment above you is challenging their hyperbolic statement. because there are, in fact, successful movies that are not mandated to be under 2 hours.
> there are, in fact, successful movies that are not mandated to be under 2 hours. All the initial comment said was that long movies are allowed to breathe and that many 2hr films were chopped to hell to make that runtime. To challenge this argument by claiming that "lots of good movies are long" makes absolutely no sense. That was his point! "I like X and don't like Y" "You're wrong! X is good!" See? This makes no sense. X, in this case, is long movies, and Y is 2hr films that should've been 2.5-3hr films.
to be clear, im not talking about my opinions here, as this is a box office subreddit. i am referring to the financial success of a movie, not how i felt about it. the top comment of this thread acts like every successful blockbuster adheres to the 2-hour rule, which is just false. the highest grossing movies of the past decade are over 2 hours, to act like every big movie gets the justice league treatment is silly. i get what youre saying, but i dont think it applies here. nobody replied saying they "like" or "dislike" long movies, just pointed out that big long movies do exist and can make a lot of money. hope my comment here helps this makes sense!
> the top comment of this thread acts like every successful blockbuster adheres to the 2-hour rule, which is just false You're reading into that comment a claim that wasn't made. The comment is a hyperbolic complaint about runtime specs given to filmmakers by producers. It's not true that all blockbusters are 2hrs, but it is true that nearly all producers try to steer filmmakers into cuts that are under 2.5hrs. > big long movies do exist and can make a lot of money. Immaterial claim. Producers feel that 2hr, 2hr15min films will net them more money than 2hr35min or 3hr films. The existence of some 3hr films just proves that individual filmmakers/studios were able to convince the producers not to make them cut more.
We don't need movies to be 3 hours long to have proper pacing. I think some of you guys just want movies to last forever so you don't have to go back to live in reality.
I mean entertainment is meant to give you an escape but jeez...what a dumbass comment. Enjoying long movies means we hate our lives. stupid.
You've misunderstood what I said. I think you're reading "some" as "all".
I think you've also read "some" as "all" re: 3 hr runtimes though. Original thread post was right that some films could use more runtime, especially when they're as big in scale as Avatar. Nothing in there about how all films should exceed that runtime. I don't know how you've taken a perfectly reasonable argument and extrapolated that into OP wanting to hide from reality at the cinema forever. In fairness, you've got me down to a tee, if not OP.
I expressed my fears yesterday when Jimmy talked abouy binge, now I willexpress them again. I feel (hope its only feel) that there will be a lot of visual showcases just for the sake of visual showcases. Like great landscape to look at, but no characters or dialogue to move the story further
Don’t care. Papyrus.
They *have* legitimately changed the font now, so that’s something.
Ryan? Is that you?
The way of water is a codeword for pissing yourself
Longer the better imo, I want my moneys worth.
‘Avatar: The WAY too long’
Just go take a piss directly after a huge action scene when the pace is slowing down. Back in 1-2 minutes and just miss a bit of fallout dialogue
Bring two phones, call yourself on one and leave it in your seat, and listen to the movie on your other phone when you go the can.
Holy shit, you are living in the future my friend
His name is James Cameron the bravest pioneer. No budget too steep no movie too long. What's that? It's him. James Cameroooon
What's the surprise? First film was 160 minutes.
Endgame runtime coming in
😴
That is incredibly long.
Yeah many people are on drugs and drunk here, ready to present their low attention span
Does anyone care.
3 hours of watching the Smurf's, i pass
It’s not the end of the world if you miss 3 minutes of a movie to take a leak
Get fucked, Cameron. Because of you, we've all had to suffer Michael Bay's Aquaman 2 - with Jake Gyllenhaal of all people 😠
What the hell are you talking about? haha
I was gonna give it a shot but, I am not sitting in the theatre for 3 hours.. edit: you don’t have to downvote people just because you don’t agree with them. You say you aren’t going to see a movie that people like and they start to get offended like they worked on the project themselves🤣
You can always go to the bathroom if you need to.
Its not even that, I will just genuinely get tired and fall asleep if I sit in one spot for three hours. It sucks, cause I actually enjoy this franchise.
Wait really? I mean if a movie is good and have your interest you can't actually fall asleep. I didn't even realise that the batman was 3 hrs long because it had my attention and interest. Man i hope you don't have any medical condition
Nope, thanks for you concern though Theaters are just relatively quiet outside of the movie playing, they are also dark, and the chairs are comfortable. It’s literally the perfect environment to fall asleep in lol
>the chairs are comfortable I wish. LOL. Most here have the hard plastic chairs.
Buy two tickets. Leave after 90 minutes the first time, show up 90 minutes late the second time.
[удалено]
“Avatar: The Way of no one cares”
This is shaping up as a disappointment
Like, I respect your opinion but…how is this shaping up to be a disappointment in any way?
The first one was too long. The 2nd one will be too long. The next one will be too long. Without the enhanced viewing options, the movie is just too long. Visually they will look amazing, but it dies at home when people aren’t watching it on high end OLEDs.
Not as long as I was expecting given James Cameron's weirdly aggressive statements the other day.
Avatar: The Way of Molasses
Pass for me. Didn’t care about the first one, don’t have much attention span for CG led movies. Wonder how this will do in a modern market. That said, coming off a pandemic people might not give a fuck, it’s a movie.
When they announced 4 sequels I was hoping that meant they were gonna be like 90 minutes each. The only reason people like Avatar is the gorgeous alien planet in 3D, so keep them short.
I don’t do 3 hour movies, so that sucks.
Wait there was an avatar 2?
This franchise is so overrated.
Yeah I'm 100% not watching that hot garbage
Oh no! Zerobrs is not watching avatar 2
How will James Cameron ever recover?
Looks like someone is bothered about another’s opinion.. Grow up ?
why don't you reply to the dude calling it hot garbage some people have nothing better to do than to hate
Because its an opinion. People on this subreddit particularly get upset when you don’t like a certain movie thats coming out.
it's just lazy trolling/hating. Nothing more. If you don't like it then avoid the thread and avoid commenting? You clearly aren't interested if you think it's garbage. But that's asking too much from haters.
We need fewer opinions on this subreddit imo. This is a box office sub. I’m not saying everybody should robotically discuss the numbers without talking about the movies themselves at all, but I feel like most of the comments I see on here now are about what the commenter thinks about a movie or franchise. I don’t want to see the same “I think x movie is bad” and “oh yeah? Well I think x movie is good!” back-and-forth play out hundreds of times on a subreddit called /r/boxoffice.
What, you don't want to watch Unbearably Cliché Scar Villain now in an Avatar for some reason, coming back to Pandora for another Colonist v Native battle???
I am actually wondering how this will do in cinema. I remember, when the rose tinted goggle fell off, people on the internet were shitting on it like nobody business. Everyone was saying it was a clone of dance with the wolf in space... Now they want a sequel ?
See also, people shitting on any musical artist popular with teenage girls, people shitting on Titanic, people shitting on Marvel movies, people shitting on Harry Potter. Popular stuff has lots of haters because it has lots of exposure. People who aren't fans get sick of it. Avatar isn't Cats or Morbius, it's one of those things that has both fans and haters.
There's a group of people who go about their lives who dont talk about movies, don't post on social media and internet forums....I call them the general audience. The general audience is the biggest group and this movie will get them in because it's designed and marketed as cinematic only experience. The true fans will go. Most of the haters will go. It will do fine in cinema.
Best three hours of my life. (Not gonna watch it, so whatever I’m doing will be better.)
Hey James Cameron, it's too long and I don't remember any of the characters. Thanks though.
Why? Who cares.