[Ryokan]

I used to watch The Sky At Night with Patrick Moore, didn't understand much being young but it was fascinating and listening to Patrick was compelling.

 

[Davesrose]

If I look up my local cineplex, they are showing Oppenheimer on their Dolby Cinema screen. It is 180 mins long, with a 6:30 and 11:00 screening. More blockbusters that first get shown on their premium screen seem to be over 120mins. So instead of just having high turn over, movie companies are trying to sell premium prices for revenue.

 

[Steve999]

TLDR

I remember long ago, smart people asking for complete reform of the education system after it had been strongly suggested that the average time someone can fully focus on something was around 15mn(In France, teachers went on the street to refuse any change, like always, and nothing happened).
It’s not new and what changed for the internet generations isn’t attention span but that they often don’t bother trying(because they know there is an unlimited amount of other stuff available that can do as well or better than the slightly boring event in front of them). IMO it’s about availability instead of people themselves being radically different. I grew up for a few years with hardly 2 TV stations somewhat watchable(still super noisy due to poor reception). I sure didn’t behave like I do with netflix and however many TV channels(most of which are crap, but they exist at least). Same with music, I had exactly what my parents had at home. Now there’s .... everything! Sticking to a ”meh” choice isn’t the smart thing to do anymore.

About movie length, I feel like we’re actually getting more of the longer ones. But my guess is that it’s a trick to balance out the scandalous price of a ticket. It’s longer so you get more for your money... IDK




Now, a few generations surrounded with lead, teflon, your favorite herbicide, and kids having to grow up on more junk food than ever, surely didn’t help create the smartest, healthiest brains possible. So there is that.

 

[bigshot]

Not really, if anything the opposite is the case. During the “silent era” the vast majority of films were around 15 minutes.

There were many, many feature length films in the silent era and they rank among the greatest films ever made... Safety Last by Harold Lloyd, City Lights by Chaplin, The General by Buster Keaton, Metropolis, Phantom of the Opera, Sunrise, Cabinet of Dr Caligari, The Golum, Battleship Potemkin, Wings, The Man Who Laughs, Metropolis, Thief of Bagdad, Nosferatu, Fantomas... I could go on and on.

Silent features were on the whole longer than sound films. Many of the longest films ever made were silents. Griffith's Intolerance clocked in at 3 hours 15 minutes, Fritz Lang's Dr Mabuse the Gambler was 5 hours long, Abel Gance's Napoleon ran 5 1/2 hours, Lang's Die Nibelungen ran over 6 hours, and the original cut of Von Stroheim's Greed was 8 hours long.

There's a lot of great film making and music making from the first half of the 20th century that you don't seem as well acquainted with as the last half. You might want to look into that because it's every bit as rich and diverse as the era you know, perhaps even more so.

 

[Davesrose]

The first silent movies in the 1900s were under 15 minutes, because that was the length of one reel. Then when they went to projection systems where someone could switch reels, did it go to potentially unlimited duration. Most still being around 2 hours to accommodate the musicians. Dr Mabuse, for example, was released in 2 parts (part 1 being 154mins, and part 2 being released a month later and was 114mins).

 

[bigshot]

It has been wild to watch the World change with time. The World I was born into will be TOTALLY different from the World when I will die. Such change makes one appreciate traditions and nostalgia. I like to watch movies from the 70's and 80's these days. Some things were better in the past. Change doesn't mean increased happiness. It just means tomorrow will be different.

^ This

I started my consciousness around the time Kennedy was assassinated. The changes I've seen are huge. But along the way I was aware of what came before me, particularly when it came to art, movies and music. My parents listened to classical music and took me to art museums. UHF channels played movies from the 30s and earlier on the late show because they were cheap to get the rights to. My brother had antique phonographs and because he preferred Edison, he gave me all the Victor 78s that he ran across. That meant that as a child, I was aware of Monet, Tchaikovsky, Laurel & Hardy and Paul Whiteman. My knowledge of the arts of my father and grandfather informed my appreciation of my own era. I'm delighted by the new things we get in the 21st century, but I still get delight in discovering new things about the 20th.

I will disagree with your point about the past being better than the future though. The nice thing about old media is that the chaff falls away, leaving the good stuff. Mediocrity doesn't have the same staying power as greatness. So the things I find from the past tend to be consistently better than current things. That isn't because the past was better than today, it's just because the crap from back then hasn't survived. The same will be true of the present in the future. "These are the good old days."

 

[bigshot]

The first silent movies in the 1900s were under 15 minutes, because that was the length of one reel. Then when they went to projection systems where someone could switch reels, did it go to potentially unlimited duration.

That was very early. 1906 "The Story of the Kelly Gang" 60 minutes. That's only 3 years after "The Great Train Robbery" which was the first film to incorporate cinematic techniques to convey narrative. So the period where films were only a reel in length was very short.

In the silent era, very long films were screened on subsequent nights. 1950s roadshow pictures had an extra long intermission. You obviously didn't sit for four hours straight. People only do that when binge watching Netflix!

 

[Davesrose]

That was very early. 1906 "The Story of the Kelly Gang" 60 minutes

But still considered the first movies...the first "technical" movie is from 1888 and is 2.11 seconds long On the note of duration of screening and restoring masterpieces: that's what I like about collecting 4K movies from Criterion. Criterion will have good bonus features about the production, and the 4K format is the best spec for storing the resolving power of 35mm film. Or for some older movies from studios, they get an additional remixed Atmos track that can enhance the audio. You also get the chance of watching extended versions of movies that weren't in the theatrical release: for example restoration projects of Lang's Metropolis. Or Von Stroheim's Greed: the main theatrical release was 140mins long. He had troubles editing down the movie, and had one special screening for over a dozen personnel that was over 9 hours: so it's disputed if it was intended to be a rough cut. There is a reconstructed version at 239 minutes.

 

[bigshot]

If I look up my local cineplex, they are showing Oppenheimer on their Dolby Cinema screen. It is 180 mins long, with a 6:30 and 11:00 screening. More blockbusters that first get shown on their premium screen seem to be over 120mins. So instead of just having high turn over, movie companies are trying to sell premium prices for revenue.

That's because of the influence of streaming. Regular movie going was cut into by home theaters and streaming, and COVID put a nail in that coffin. In order to continue theatrical exhibition, theaters have to offer something that home viewing doesn't. Theaters are attempting to reinvent themselves with bigger screens, food service, lounge boxes and other things they didn't offer in the past. It was the same in the 50s when television was cutting into theatrical, so big studios started making widescreen pictures in 3D with stereophonic sound. The economics of turning a house is the same. If the program is longer so the house doesn't turn as often, you have to raise the price of tickets.

Movies as we know it... meaning films with story continuities... began with "The Great Train Robbery". That's when the concept of a group of people coming to a theater to sit in seats and watch a story unfold on the screen began. That is ground zero for movies. Before that, films were novelties shown in Nickelodeons or on Vaudeville programs. Because they were so short, they weren't particularly narrative in form. That period is only about five years or so, from 1900 to about 1905, and it didn't have nearly the social impact that movies had in the two decades that followed. 1906 is the moment in history when movies, as we define it now, started.

 

[Davesrose]

That's because of the influence of streaming. Regular movie going was cut into by home theaters and streaming, and COVID put a nail in that coffin. In order to continue theatrical exhibition, theaters have to offer something that home viewing doesn't. Theaters are attempting to reinvent themselves with bigger screens, food service, lounge boxes and other things they didn't offer in the past. It was the same in the 50s when television was cutting into theatrical, so big studios started making widescreen pictures in 3D with stereophonic sound. The economics of turning a house is the same. If the program is longer so the house doesn't turn as often, you have to raise the price of tickets.

I think it started before that: Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter was mainstream and over 2.5hrs long (and before streaming). I think it could be when HDTVs were becoming common place, and people could wait to rent on blu-ray to watch on a large screen (cutting into theater sales). It seems movie theaters are going to higher ticket prices (for seats and concessions) vs high volume. Besides less screenings, there are less seats in theaters as they compete with how large to make plush recliners. It's now a fine line as to how they set prices: right now it costs $50 for two tickets to a movie at a Dolby Cinema or IMAX screen. I can wait for that movie to make it to 4K streaming or buy a new UHD disc for under $35: I can view it numerous times with other people and get a better audio experience, The only thing the premium screens offer is larger screen and/or 3D.

 

[bigshot]

It seems movie theaters are going to higher ticket prices (for seats and concessions) vs high volume. Besides less screenings, there are less seats in theaters as they compete with how large to make plush recliners. It's now a fine line as to how they set prices: right now it costs $50 for two tickets to a movie at a Dolby Cinema or IMAX screen.

The beginning of that change in theatrical experience started in 2000 when Disney made a deal with IMAX to release Fantasia 2000 in IMAX. At that point, the competition was cable and DVD. In 2007, Netflix started streaming and that really impacted theatrical exhibition a lot.

 

[Davesrose]

The beginning of the change in theatrical experience started in 2000 when Disney made a deal with IMAX to release Fantasia 2000 in IMAX.

I wouldn't pinpoint it to that (it's a 75 minute movie). The AMC 3D IMAX screen at Lincoln Center has been there longer than 2000. I'd go there whenever I visited in the 90s. I guess some of it is recycled concepts of enticing theater goers away form their TV sets (IE what movies in the 50s that were 3D). Now that 3D blu-ray didn't get mainstream for home distribution, cinemas are able to offer that or larger screens as the enticement. It's certainly not overpriced, artificial cheese nachos

 

[bigshot]

No, I'm not saying the beginning of IMAX or anything to do with ultra long films. You mentioned high priced screenings and Fantasia 2000 is when the idea that a regular movie theater experience wasn't enough and a premium priced screening as an alternative to multiplexes began. Before that, IMAX films were educational, not strictly entertainment. (And they were shorter so the theater could turn the house more often.) Fantasia 2000 was the first big studio feature length picture to play in a "deluxe" screening format. It was a resurrection of the old roadshow format which was created to compete with television, except this time they were competing with cable and home video. I added a quote so you'd know what I was referring to.

 

[Davesrose]

Well even if we look at that, I wouldn't point it to one movie. Fantasia might have been the first feature presented on IMAX: but it was shown on screens that were already IMAX. It soon after got a 35mm release to break even. There was a shift from IMAX being a very large screen at science museums to their IMAX cinema brand. Cinema IMAX having smaller screens, and IMAX developing a digital up-res process for movies produced in 35mm: this shift started happening a couple years after Fantasia 2000.

As for "resurrection": it does seem like there are cycles with cinemas. When I was growing up, cinemas were getting stadium seating and smaller screens (compared to a couple older theaters that had much larger screens). I think it's no wonder, then, why cinematography went to smaller gate Super-35mm. Cinemas now having to get back to larger screens to compete with the advances in home cinema. Also interesting to see about what movies might still have 3D versions: very few directors actually shooting with 3D/dual camera. More movies screened in 3D having it applied in post production.

 

[bigshot]

yes, Fantasia 2000 was the first and it continued after that.