I Completely Agree

Movies are too long, in general. Look at the chart.

I do tend to agree w/ Ebert on this issue: no good movie is too long and no bad movie too short. However, most movies don't fall into the easy GOOD/BAD dichotomy. Most, for better or worse, are in between. As a trend, most people will tell you, and I tend to agree with them - movies are too expensive and too long.

The reason for cost increase: the studios and theater chains are trying to mask losing attendance by pumping up box office numbers. They do this by increasing ticket prices, assuming the marginal loss in attendance will be made up by the marginal increase in price raising.

*why I think this is stupid - you're not just losing one customer to one movie, you're losing one customer to LOTS of future movies. Once a potential movie-goers stops going to see a certain caliber of movie because of the cost, over the length of their lifetime, they are probably not seeing HUNDREDS of movies. Thus, it doesn't just affect one movie at the box office one weekend, but it affects the overall box office for a long time in the future. Movies lose market share to other activites.

The reason movies are too long: the balance of power between creative and business interests often swing back and forth. It is this tension which makes movies what they are. Many national cinemas died because "artistic" interests trumped business interests - see France (when is the last time anyone watched a movie made in France?). *Also see the state of Theater in America for a parallel example.

Business has generally trumped art in Hollywood since Irving Thalberg famously cut Eric Von Stroheims 9 hour cut of "Greed" into a 2 plus hour film. Although generally pooh-poohed by arty types, this is a good thing (who wants to bet the 9 hr version is totally unwatchable?). This is why we actually watch movies - I am not using the term "business" in the cynical sense.

But movies aren't just products churned from an assembly line, which is why we love them. We need creative people to come together and bring their experiences and talent to bear to make an enjoyable audience experience. Power in Hollywood today has shifted too far over to the stars - whether it be directors or actors. When the creative types get too much control, everyone thinks their making their Godfather or Citizen Kane and figures length = meaning.

Why are we in this situation? I think it has some to do with the corporatization of the movie business. Back in the day, studio heads answered to no one. They were movie people who were concerned with business. Today, studios are small, glamor sections of huge corporations. Studio heads answer to CEOs and boards and stockholders and ultimately, are highly empowered middle men who can be fired based upon the viccissitudes of the market. They are businessmen who like the glam of movies.

You would think this would yield to business concerns. But the opposite seems to happen. These business guys think the artistic types need free reign. They are afraid of hurting brand names like Lucas, Spielberg, and Tarantino and they mistakenly think great movies are made by giving artistic license, as opposed to setting up restrictions and creating artistic tensions. They try to cash in on existing brands and cynically think to themselves - the filmmaker will take the long term hit on a shitty movie, while we'll make the short term gain by cashing in on the box office.

**i've spent too much time on this entry, tbc.