Simply Stu More Goat Please

The Art of Editing

Wednesday 15th August

We were discussing this after watching Transformers the other night… what is it nowadays with too-long films? Has the art of editing been lost? Fitting your story into a reasonable time is a real art-form, and I wonder if directors now are just lazy. What do you think?

I should note that maybe I’m biased - one of my favourite films of all time is just 11 minutes long; the previously blogged One Minute Past Midnight.

Written by stu

August 15th, 2007 at 11:13 am

Posted in Arts

25 Responses to 'The Art of Editing'

Subscribe to comments with RSS

  1. Fillums that outlast my bladder are just _wrong_.

    Usually special effects replace plot - what an insult to the viewer.

    JG

    15 Aug 07 at 11:40 am

  2. Ah, but if it were shorter it would not be an EPIC.

    sweavo

    15 Aug 07 at 1:02 pm

  3. There a a few films that deserve a long time; namely Lord of the Rings. In that case the Director and Editor must have had a hard time cutting the books down to the length of the films!

    John

    15 Aug 07 at 1:03 pm

  4. I agree. Ben Hur, LotR fine. Yes, they are epics.

    But Pirates of the Carribbean? Transformers? For Pete’s sake.

    stu

    15 Aug 07 at 1:10 pm

  5. Long films are great as long as:

    1) they’re not boring, and
    2) you are watching them at home on DVD where you can
    a) drink beer,
    b) eat whatever you want, and
    c) fall asleep if you like without worrying about
    i) your snoring upsetting anyone else, or
    ii) the waste of £10 entry fee
    (instead of in a cinema full of smelly people).

    rich

    15 Aug 07 at 1:16 pm

  6. I think the ideal length of film is somewhere around 90-110 minutes. Going over two hours should be reserved for real epics where there really is a great deal of story to tell.

    The art of editing is lost; artists seem to be standing up to editors (or perhaps editors are afraid of speaking up). One only needs to look at the increasing thickness and waffle-content of JK Rowling’s books as she became more successful, and therefore felt more able to quash the editors (or the editors felt less able to ask her to cut the drivel).

    Sam

    15 Aug 07 at 2:16 pm

  7. The best example of bad editing is watching the 94 minute “Love conquers all” version of Brazil. The version Gilliam refused to cut. A total travisty of one of my favourite films.

    I like long films for the reasons Rich gave.

    rollasoc

    15 Aug 07 at 2:35 pm

  8. The real art is timing your entrance so you miss all the adverts. I usualy go in 20 minutes after the advertised start of the film, just as they are singing the “lets all go to the lobby” song

    Max

    15 Aug 07 at 6:48 pm

  9. I hate over-long films. I think Sam is right- 90-110 mins. I don’t actually mind special effects replacing plot, if I’m in the mood though.

    chrisb

    15 Aug 07 at 9:23 pm

  10. I remember loving one minute past midnight.
    It’s odd becuase I’ve been thinking this recently. I pick up a DVD at home and think ooh, shall I watch this and then turn to the back and it’s like 130mins!!! 130 minutes!!! 2 hours 10 minutes!!! I don’t want to sit there for that many hours and often I get bored in the middle and go wash up or something :] I don’t watch many films at home for this very reason.

    DoGGa

    16 Aug 07 at 8:21 am

  11. My limit is 2.5 hours during the week. On a school night, I normally watch a film around 9:30pm, so it is really wheter it will finish by midnight or not.

    At weekends it makes no odd, how long it is, since I might watch two or three films in a night. (I think 8 or 9 is the most I’ve done in a day).

    I did do all 3 extended LOTRs in a day last year and earlier this year, did all 6 Star Wars back to back (I refused to rewatch the 2 Ewok movies and the Christmas Special).

    Another annoying thing with DVDs is when the film is less than 90 minutes and then there is a load of deleted scenes. Sometimes it may have been better to pad the film out (sometimes not)

    rollasoc

    16 Aug 07 at 11:11 am

  12. Hmm, watching all the extras are a great way to spoil the ride of the movie. It’s like going on holiday to spain for a week, coming home again, then going to skegness to do your grocery shopping and laundry.

    I was posting to say OH NOES! INVISIBLE MOVIE! The linky to One Minute Past… is dead, does anyone have a nice copy somewhere?

    sweavo

    16 Aug 07 at 11:20 am

  13. There’s a 35 meg file which will be here for a short time…

    http://www.pygmygoat.net/temp/ompm.rm

    stu

    16 Aug 07 at 11:43 am

  14. cheese!

    sweavo

    16 Aug 07 at 12:32 pm

  15. grate barrier reef knot suitable for heavy loads of money bags of fun boy three piece sweet tooth pick and mix

    stu

    16 Aug 07 at 12:34 pm

  16. Yes, movies too long start becoming a mini-series, not something you want to watch in one sitting but over several days.

    Debster

    16 Aug 07 at 12:50 pm

  17. tape worm drive through way point and click wheel of fortune cookie dough nut

    sweavo

    16 Aug 07 at 2:06 pm

  18. job lot a bottle of beer mat finish him tarzan you jane doe a deer john noakes in charnwood a woodchuck chuck

    stu

    16 Aug 07 at 2:25 pm

  19. noakes in charnwood. arf.
    I got it, you can ternimate the linky if you so desire!

    sweavo

    16 Aug 07 at 3:45 pm

  20. ‘k

    ta!

    stu

    16 Aug 07 at 4:01 pm

  21. yay, what a great film. Packs about 4 years into 11 minutes without hurrying!

    sweavo

    16 Aug 07 at 6:23 pm

  22. Exactly.

    stu

    16 Aug 07 at 6:25 pm

  23. And I love the soundtrack, too.

    Archie Bronson Outfit in case you can’t read the credits :)

    stu

    16 Aug 07 at 6:25 pm

  24. you’re a no bullshit kinda guy stu

    boo

    17 Aug 07 at 2:34 am

  25. I went to see Zodiac last week, runtime 2 hours and 38 minutes. Much too long! If they had told the story in just ninety minutes, they would have ended up with a more interesting movie.

    Dakota

    17 Aug 07 at 12:50 pm

Leave a Reply