Search found 1 match: Sid Caesar

I don't think it has to do with being Oscar-worthy. If anything, it's backwards -- I thought 12 Years a Slave was far too short for its subject matter, and a Spider-Man movie doesn't need to be two and a half hours long.

My guess is that it's the modern equivalent of the sword and sandal epics or musicals of the early 1960s. Those were made in an era when television was starting to become a household thing instead of just a luxury, with the idea being to lure people back into theaters with gimmicks like Super Panavision or whatever the hell-o-rama How the West Was Won was shot in. Now instead of just competing with television, studios also have to contend with video games, social media and, well, television still, which has since become a hub for legitimate, quality entertainment as opposed to Sid Caesar yelling at people.

The fault is the mindset that "epicness" is directly correlated to length. Epics have lots of things happening, and if you have more time, you can do more things! The problem is that when you've cluttered your films with things that aren't memorable, viewers will mentally blot out the filler anyway, so your movie with 100 minutes of fine content is just carrying 40 minutes of baggage that does nothing but present the image of quality, when it wouldn't be necessary if they'd stop bloating films in the first place.

I'd like to blame the audience too, but I'm not sure what they're to blame for. When I went to see Captain America 2, I noticed that there was very little action until the very end of the movie. It was mostly just talking about politics, yet people weren't leaving in droves -- maybe, like, two people? I've come to the conclusion that audiences will just watch anything, so what's the point of blowing up these films with a buncha malarky and other grandpa words?