[Topic] Lengthy movies good or bad?

    To be completely honest with the amount of never-ending TV shows that expand for countless seasons (Doctor Who, Supernatural etc. as example), which add hours upon hours of content, it is interesting for me to hear the argument of "This movie is too long". It sounds really strange.

    Even excluding TV shows, if we look at movie franchises that get constant sequels, the argument of time length becomes even weirder.

    But is it a good or a bad thing? Is such a criticism a valid thing?

    My answer is - both 'yes' and 'no'. Since it is all an industry and audience perspective. From the industry point of view these people are still professionals, but also individuals and shoot their movies however they deem appropriate and the audience being so diverse also have different vision on movies.

    The whole notion downed on me once again during one YouTube video, more like a video essay, that I absolutely loved and it was dedicated to Denis Villeneuve's "Blade Runner 2049"

    I'll put the video here, because it is really interesting.

    Unfortunately, what waited "Blade Runner 2049" after the release was the expected faith of majority of neo noir movies. The movie was received well, of course not without conflicting question of time/pacing. Even Ridley Scott, the director of the first movie, said he'd cut at least half an hour from the timerun. But I personally, being not convinced by many latest Scott's projects don't take his criticism seriously. And it's also ironic, since Alien is also a franchise, which under Scott's leadership went out of control and lost any of its original charm.

    As it happened the 'long' in case for the audience were scenes in BR2049, which is indeed true, some shots do take their time to linger and intensify the atmosphere, it's a pity many times these moment were underappreciated. Personally, I had no problem with long cuts, since I watched this movie in one breath. BR2049 never positioned itself as an action movie in the first place and neo noir movies are like that.

    The other day I had what I call a HP marathon, because when you re-watch HP movies you need to watch all of them, including Fantastic Beasts. And I must say, despite being such a popular franchise that grossed so much money wordwide, it's a pity that it suffered from being cut short. I bet no Potter fan would ever say that they're against the movies to be expanded to add a little flavor to the characters and events. Though partially I understand where directors came from. After all the readers would watch and in their mind it would create a simbiosis of some sort, I had the same feeling that interconnected all versions of Mo Dao Zu Shi/Grandmaster of Diabolism in my head, although versions might have been flawed, but my knowledge of other adaptations filled in the gaps. But for average viewers they might not need those details and they might not realize the reference and see the movie as it is.

    It's really amazing how sometimes single movies are considred too long, but other franchises who get continuous sequels (like Star Wars is the best example) don't receive the same criticism (except for random viewers). And ironically the producers of such franchises openly say - it will never end, while people keep watching it.

    But do movies suffer from such treatment? Absolutely. Although it is a needed evil. From one point you understand that you don't need 20 movies on Pirates of Caribbean (well, many ppl agree on that, remembering the criticism), because they might not bring you anything (I don't take such movies seriously). But what most viewers want is to be taken on adventure, not to a brain ring where they have to explore their minds. People want to be entertained. And that deeply affected any other genre that doesn't comply with it. Thus they don't earn as much, they are not as popular. Which is a pity.