2:45... I've heard enough.

Assuming you are saying it's too long, then you and I are opposites. Generally hearing that a movie is long makes me more interested in seeing it. I like long, epic movies.

The Dark Knight was 2:32
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was 2:58
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was 3:21
Braveheart was 2:57
The Matrix was 2:16
Star Wars was 2:01
The Empire Strikes Back was 2:04
The Godfather was 2:55
Terminator 2 was 2:17

Sounds like you'd rather judge a movie solely based on the length. Pretty silly, don't you think?

Orme is the new Cicely. Great.

Fellowship of the Ring's walking was too much? I disagree... all that walking emphasized the size and beauty of Middle Earth. I *liked* seeing "all that walking." This made the movie better.

Maybe you can make a flash movie and show us just how funny you can be.

ok this is Dances with Wolves in space

I didn't think Dark Knight was too long at all; I enjoyed it all, including the Two Face bit.

Fellowship of the Ring's walking was too much? I disagree... all that walking

{snip}

maybe you'll like it. It was definitely a beautiful movie, so if it lingered a little too long on the scenery for your tastes I can't say much about it.

And you're a fat fuck

I have heard Avatar called "Dances with Smurfs"

It just seemed like they were sucking the church's cock.

Don't have a cow, man.

I wouldn't be able to condense the Lord of the Rings down to a few short sentences and have it contain any more wit or meaning than a common catchphrase.

I wouldn't be able to condense the Lord of the Rings down to a few short sentences and have it contain any more wit or meaning than a common catchphrase.

I finally saw 500 days of summer last night. It was surprisingly good! I was quite moved by it.

Angels and Demons Meh. Its the sequel problem (although apparently the book is a prequel). Implausibilities abound and the main actress' accent is all over the place.

Angels and Demons was simply the first book. The Da Vinci Code is actually the sequel. I haven't seen A&D the movie, so I am assuming they treat it as happening after hte Da Vinci Code, but that's not how the books were released.

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what length has to do with a movie's quality. I read all of Orme's posts and I'm still baffled. You could have, for example, a 10 minutes of good film with 30 minutes of "prattle"(as Orme calls it). That's a pretty short movie. You could also have a movie with 3 hours of goodness and 10 minutes of prattle. He pointed out the couple of rare exceptions.

What's the rule of thumb here? Is the suggestion that you cannot have prattle once you reach a specific time limit? Why does almost anything beyond 2 hours breach that time limit? If so, what does that say about good TV series(or miniseries, made-for-TV multi-part movies, etc) that reach 30+ hours in length?

I'm just not seeing the correlation between time and quality. They're two entirely separate beasts.

Wow, this is a great way for me to wrap up my point about movie lengths. When movies run long, they tend to dwell on ideas that have already been developed.

Let's use this post from VEnen as an example. It is much like the 4th or 5th slo-mo shot of Sam on the volcano in LOTR3. He has made absolutely no new points. Instead, he simply rehashed everything that has already been discussed. His post and this thread woudl have been better off with him either not posting or simply saying: Yeah, Orme's a fucking tard - he can eat my shit.

Instead, I have to drown in his psuedo-intellectual recap of the "length doesn't matter" discussion.