In fast-paced world, films take sweet time
By Rebecca Keegan and John Horn
Published: Tuesday, Jan. 1, 2013, 8:43 p.m.
You can fly from Los Angeles to Seattle in less time than it takes to watch “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.” Elite runners can finish a marathon faster than the total time of “Django Unchained.” And you can roast and carve your Christmas turkey quicker than going to see “Les Miserables.”
Daily life might be swinging toward two-minute YouTube videos and brutally succinct tweets, but there's still one place where time practically stands still: the multiplex. Extra-long films have proliferated this holiday season, a consequence of “final-cut” directors who wield near unilateral control over their films' running times and digital filmmaking tools that allow for longer and repeated takes.
Some movie theater owners say the current crop of long-winded movies are costing them at the box office, as films approaching three hours in length can be shown only once an evening. To squeeze in extra showings, some are forced to book fewer films, giving ticket buyers fewer options.
Exhibitors and more than a few movie critics have bemoaned this spate of prolonged productions. Yet some members of the most important constituency in the film business say the long films don't really feel that time-consuming.
“It never lagged,” said 12-year-old Jesse Serrato, who joined his family for the 169-minute “Hobbit” movie last week in downtown Los Angeles and clearly has more fortitude than many adults. Added 15-year-old Jeremy Saborio: “It should have been even longer.”
The young men are not alone: In a recent online survey conducted by the ticketing company Fandango of more than 1,000 moviegoers, 78 percent of the respondents said they feel long movies give them “more bang for their buck.”
The year's maximalist movies include not only typically longer prestige titles such as “Lincoln” (149 minutes), “Les Miserables” (158) and “Zero Dark Thirty” (157) but also a comic-book movie (“The Dark Knight Rises,” 164), a James Bond sequel (“Skyfall,” 143) and even a comedy (“This Is 40,” 134).
The epic running times haven't hurt some of these long movies at the box office. “Skyfall” has garnered domestic ticket sales of $272.6 million, “Dark Knight Rises” took in $448.1 million in North American theaters and “Lincoln” has grossed $108.5 million domestically.
But those outsized revenues have largely come from megaplexes, where theater owners can use more screens for a hit film. The operators of smaller complexes say they don't have that latitude, and are, consequently, suffering.
Ted Mundorff, chief executive of the 229-screen Landmark Theatres, said that when movies exceed a little more than two hours, exhibitors lose a showtime a day — at a cost of about $3,600 per theater per night. With an average-length movie, Mundorff can book about five showings a day, with two in the sweet spot between 7 and 9:30 p.m., when theaters generate about 80 percent of their business. But movies like “The Hobbit” can be shown only four times a day, with one prime-time screening.
“We know there's going to be a cap at our box office,” Mundorff said, adding that running times this holiday season are “way worse” than in previous years.
Traditionally, Hollywood's longest movies were historical epics such as “Gone With the Wind” and “Lawrence of Arabia,” and running time was synonymous with prestige. But now even genre films have grown longer, thanks in part to digital filmmaking tools that enable directors to work faster and cheaper but sometimes with less narrative discipline, according to Jan-Christopher Horak, director of UCLA's Film & Television Archive.
When filmmakers used real film, directors shot roughly 40 minutes of footage for one minute of screen time, Horak said. Now shooting ratios are closer to 200 to 400 minutes shot for every one minute on-screen, because crews are no longer concerned about wasting costly film stock.
“There's a kind of overkill at work here,” Horak said. “Film directors have this mistaken notion that digital is free, so they shoot a lot more footage. And they're in love with what they shoot.”
Many of this year's longer movies come from filmmakers who have racked up enough clout with their studios to win the running-time fight, like “This Is 40” director-producer Judd Apatow, whose comedies “Bridesmaids,” “Knocked Up” and “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” were box-office hits for Universal Pictures.
But, at almost an hour longer than most comedies, “This Is 40” has inspired some in Hollywood to refer to the movie as “This Is 40 Minutes Too Long.”
“It's hard to get out of the house to go the movies,” Apatow said of his movie's long running time. “Movies are expensive, parking is expensive — why is everyone in a rush to go home? An extra 15 minutes won't kill you. Everyone thinks everything is like a two-minute YouTube video. And I refuse to adjust for them.”
Rebecca Keegan and John Horn are staff writer for the Los Angeles Times.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.