|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Oct 19, 2012 11:25:04 GMT
I think the current obsolescent standard of 90 minutes, was much steered by commercial interests, the most efficient solution of herding the audience in and out to maximize the night's profit. You're pretty fortunate if you can see a film that is as short as 90 minutes these days. |
|
|
|
Post by ramseycampbell on Oct 19, 2012 11:48:44 GMT
I think the current obsolescent standard of 90 minutes, was much steered by commercial interests, the most efficient solution of herding the audience in and out to maximize the night's profit. You're pretty fortunate if you can see a film that is as short as 90 minutes these days. Actually, there have been quite a few of late. A surprising number clock in around 80, in fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Oct 19, 2012 12:21:59 GMT
You're pretty fortunate if you can see a film that is as short as 90 minutes these days. Yes, so I have noticed. Well, I was speaking only generally, for long, full-feature films, 90 minutes being the standard. The principle is the same, tempting the audience to pay by the minute, rather than for inner quality. That is not all true, but certainly partly. The longer the "better". We live in a very materialistic time, where people tend to run for that which gives them the most quantity for their money. |
|
|
|
Post by ramseycampbell on Oct 19, 2012 12:45:41 GMT
You're pretty fortunate if you can see a film that is as short as 90 minutes these days. Yes, so I have noticed. Well, I was speaking only generally, for long, full-feature films, 90 minutes being the standard. The principle is the same, tempting the audience to pay by the minute, rather than for inner quality. That is not all true, but certainly partly. The longer the "better". We live in a very materialistic time, where people tend to run for that which gives them the most quantity for their money. There have been many great films under 90 minutes, but there have also been many great ones that run well over that length. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Oct 19, 2012 16:05:58 GMT
I've just remembered that I used to be quite happy to sit through a double-bill in the cinema, when those still existed in the 1980s. Either the films were considerably shorter or I've grown more restless with time. Mind you, I am pretty sure we get a lot more trailers and ads now as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Craig Herbertson on Oct 19, 2012 16:18:52 GMT
I've just remembered that I used to be quite happy to sit through a double-bill in the cinema, when those still existed in the 1980s. Either the films were considerably shorter or I've grown more restless with time. Mind you, I am pretty sure we get a lot more trailers and ads now as well. I'd clean forgotten about that - the whole ethos behind a B movie... |
|
|
|
Post by Knygathin on Oct 19, 2012 17:16:26 GMT
There have been many great films under 90 minutes, but there have also been many great ones that run well over that length. Oh yes. And I have nothing against very long films. Some stories demand their time to tell. Especially if you go to film festvials, you can find great shorter films. Or if you are energically searching and digging elsewhere. It would be nice though with some kind of cultural shift, on a larger scale, to break the total dominance of long films in theatres. |
|
junkmonkey
Crab On The Rampage
Shhhhh! I'm Hiding....
Posts: 98
|
Post by junkmonkey on Oct 20, 2012 22:44:08 GMT
My local community-owned cinema www.obanphoenix.com/ is showing this as part of it's Hallowe'en program (on the 28th). I may well make the journey if I can drum up a couple of others to make the trip with me - it's only an hour's drive away. |
|
|
|
Post by Swampirella on Nov 29, 2016 1:42:58 GMT
Just watched the original. I'd seen it a long time ago, back when the CBC would show it once a year or so, at or after midnight. I'm glad I saw it, but was never/won't be in love with it. To me, as far as 60s and 70s horror goes, "Rosemary's Baby" is scarier and more ominous.
|
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on May 31, 2023 8:54:59 GMT
Robin Hardy and Anthony Shaffer - The Wicker Man (Crown Publisher, 1978, 216 pages, this edition Hamlyn, 1980)  Cover found on the net.
It's a classic, which in this case is true for once.
|
|
