Thanks Thanks:  0
Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    39
    Credits
    1,105

    Question Why were most Eighties action, adventure and comedy movies 90 minutes or less?

    Can somedody tell me why most Eighties action, adventure and comedy movies were 90 minutes or less?

    I was watching Teen Agent (UK title) aka If Looks Could Kill last night (Sunday 11th) and I thought how a potentially clever and innovative movie was spoiled by wrapping everything up in less than an hour and a half!

    My reasoning (so far) is that movie studio executives were terrified that if a movie was longer than 90 minutes they'd start to pick out the plot holes in the script, so therefore it was an incentive to get them in and out of the movie theatre quick - plus they could also see another film that day/week.

    You only have to look at most of the teenage movies like John Hughes films and buddy-buddy comedies (48 hours, etc)

    I've worked out the eighties action movie timescale like this: in 90 min

    00-15 min - establish characters, initial location
    15-30 min - establish bad guy(s), second location, plot, 'good' guy(s) motivation
    30-45 min - first set piece, what bad guy(s) can do, travel to second location
    45-60 min - travelling scene to final location (preferably set to soft-rock music )
    60-75 min - good guy(s) meet/are captured by bad guy(s), final evil plans are announced
    75-90 min - IMPORTANT: all HELL breaks loose, 'good' guy(s) escape, gunshots, fighting, a climatic battle between the main bad guy (THAT MUST END IN 5 MINUTES!) and escape from (preferably exploding and burning location), cue more soft-rock music, roll credits...

    Now these days IT'S ALL DIFFERENT (sorry about the caps use!), people complain if movies aren't long enough! Kids can happily sit through two and a half hours of Harry Potter (I know I couldn't) and fans all over the world salivate over extended editions of the Lord Of The Rings movies (why?)

    But with with 90 minutes thing, you KNOW I'm right, right?





    Right?
    Last edited by water49; 04-12-2004 at 01:36 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,440
    Credits
    1,105
    they was probably short movies due to the budget, i would believe.... whereas most of the long movies that uve mentioned such as LOTR and HP seem to be high budget movies.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,565
    Credits
    1,105
    or time change.
    Back than a 150min movie was considered very long. today its not unusual.

    Back in the 30s and 40s movies were usually 45-60 min long.
    Last edited by Gaumont; 04-12-2004 at 02:53 PM.
    "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." / Carl Sagan

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Ottawa, ON - Canada
    Posts
    2,902
    Credits
    1,057
    Most movies that are short (ie: under 90 minutes) are because there isn't enough story to drag it on any longer. This is the case with most Saturday Night Live movies, where there's enough material for a 10 minute skit, but they drag it out as long as possible.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Mel, AU
    Posts
    5,081
    Credits
    1,091
    Quote Originally Posted by water49
    Now these days IT'S ALL DIFFERENT (sorry about the caps use!), people complain if movies aren't long enough!
    Not always true: people still loath about Pearl Harbor for being a long bad movie.

    In fact, if a movie sucks, people will think it's too long no matter it's 90, 40 or 360 minutes.

    At least, a formula-action movie from the 80s won't take up that much of your precious time (esp when your kidney/gull bladder's failing and you don't wanna get all the way up/down to the loo).

    "The idea was to be a symbol. editman could be anybody, that was the point."

    Trolls destroyed the Forum

    my DVD/blu-ray List

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    aachen/köln
    Posts
    966
    Credits
    1,083
    Quote Originally Posted by editman
    In fact, if a movie sucks, people will think it's too long no matter it's 90, 40 or 360 minutes.
    hehe, exactly
    good movies are always too short and bad movies are always too long

    while watching them, scary movie 3 (84 minutes) feels longer to me than fight club for example which is almost an hour longer.

    but imo it's not that bad when action movies only last about 90 minutes. most of them don't contain enough story for me and i get bored fast if i see the same stunt over and over again. i'd rather see a fast paced action movie that's 90 minutes long than a repetitive one that's 120 minutes. it's the same with horror films for me. in some genres i prefer to have less character development than in others
    somebody told me you have a boyfriend who looks like a girldfriend that i had in february of last year the killers

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    389
    Credits
    1,105
    My guess is that the world-wide box office growth plays a big part in longer movies. Look at this list of all-time world-wide grossers. They are almost all big budget, FX-driven, LONG action flicks.
    "34 million American adults are obese. Putting together that excess blubber would fill the Grand Canyon two-fifths of the way up. That may not sound impressive, but keep in mind it is a very big canyon."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    235
    Credits
    1,105
    Question: Why are most 00's movies (almost all) more than 90 minutes ?

    most of them do not gain any bonus points with lenght... and some are streched like 'monday' (translation of old Slovenian fraze)
    Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads!
    [My Top 20 Movies @ YMDB] [My Bottom 20 Movies @ YMDB]

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South-West England
    Posts
    2,753
    Credits
    1,075
    Technically though, if you have a shorter movie, the more screenings and that equals money. They claimed that Jackie Brown lost half it's potential profit because of the long running time.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    aachen/köln
    Posts
    966
    Credits
    1,083
    Quote Originally Posted by I Got Trailers
    Technically though, if you have a shorter movie, the more screenings and that equals money. They claimed that Jackie Brown lost half it's potential profit because of the long running time.
    i hate those damn studio excuses if a movie doesn't live up to its expectations.
    pulp fiction was even a few minutes longer than jackie brown and made much more money. and probably those people should remember how long the most succesful movies of all time are
    titanic with its gross of 780.000.000$ (adjusted for inflation) is 3 hours long and gone with the wind with 1.200.000.000 (adjusted) is even almost 4 hours long

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    39
    Credits
    1,105

    Thumbs up Enjoying this thread? I know I am!

    Well this thread's got you all talking!

    Hey, can somebody tell me why the most popular teen actors in the '80s were called COREY? (as in Corey Feldman and Corey Hart?)

    Also let me add something. My definition of a good (action) movie is that it should be 2 - 2 1/2 hours long, because I'm paying my £7 (in Britain) at the movie theatre and I want to feel I've seen something dammit! :big grin:

    That's why my favourite movies are the 2hrs+ movies like... Die Hard 2 and 3, The Rock and Face/Off. That's not to say I don't like films that are shorter as it depends on the plot. But if I go to the movie theatre I want to see a movie that gives me (and the actors) time for some character development, funny dialogue, good scenery... and of course big explosions.

    That's why I avoid movies like TORQUE like the plague . As much as the trailer looked fancy, THAT was a triumph of editing (don't let me start with the CGI bike on top of the train??) over common sense, just like the movie. Plus the fact that the whole stupid movie was wrapped up in 85 minutes?? That's pathetic! Kids' (leaving out Harry Potter) movies are that length! I'll probably catch Torque on DVD at a friend's house or on cable, but I wouldn't spend my hard-earned on it!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Keene, TX
    Posts
    233
    Credits
    1,086
    I think another reason that the formula movies of the 80s were that short is that they were looking forward to televison showings. If they are under 90 minutes, they can easily fit in the 2 hour evening movie time slot with very little editing.... just add commercials.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    1,685
    Credits
    1,085
    /the problem is that pure action and length is a bad combo. Bang vbang boom boom is all well and good but keep it under 2 hours. A longer movie needs something more to keep it going; same with computer games, 10P arcade and I want a quick fix; £40 to take home and it better not get repetitive. Movies are the same in regards to the time you ninvest; Lord Of The Rings with it's strong characters; theme driven story; varied action scenes and different locations can hold your attention for 4 hours, but films like Bad Boys 2 are doing what other films have done; spending the entire film doing the same pointless things; and then expecting it to hold your attention for too long.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •