What's the time?

[Drewbacca]

It seems that more movies nowadays are becomming 3 hour flicks, and there within stands a crowd divided on the subject.

The biggest pro for movie-goers is that you get more entertainment for your buck. The biggest negative I can see is people not wanting to see a three hour movie. So where the hell do you stand on the subject?

I personally love the 3 hour format. Lord of the Rings, and Gangs of New York are both 3 hours and are both great movies. I feel as though it gives the characters more time to develop their persona's and move the plot along further. I can, however, see that if the movie totally bombs out then you're stuck there watching the whole thing as to not of wasted 10 bucks or so.

So, I prefer it be longer.

p.s. Star Trek: Nemesis was supposedly going to be about 15 minutes shy of 3 hours but they cut it to roughly 2, 45 minutes right off the top. Gaiden (Whoopie Goldbergs character) supposedly dies and they also explain Wesley Crusher coming back from his 'space voyage' which all of the Trekkies were complaining about. I thought it was a great flick how it was.

Notably the stroke of genius was played with the long pause of the ramming scene, with everything going in super slow motion and the sound being distanted. Very artistic and it had a strong impact - the calm before the finale.

So, your thought friend? Canfidants? Amigos? Muchachos? Dudes? Holmes'? Hombres? Dogs?

[Rumpy]

Depends. Sometimes I don't want to sit through a 3 hour movie. Usually, if it's something I want to see and I go to the theatre, I'll be fine and like it. I'd be less inclined to watch it again though. Sometimes I like a nice hour 45 minute movie. Quality story, enough time to get to see some shit, and I don't get bored.