Why are the majority of movies around 90-120 min?

[djellison]

Any reason for this?

If they were longer, they would be too long. If they were shorter, they would be too short.

It may seem very obvious, but it's the truth.

 

[Queso]

I think that's the time it takes before that jumbo Pepsi that seemed such a good idea starts desperately wanting to leave your bladder

 

[Rampant.A.I.]

They seem to be getting shorter and shorter, and I don't like it with most films. It seems like the director has to squeeze in a functioning, consistent plot line to keep the ADHD crowd happy.

A lot of movies that could have been very solid seem to end abruptly, either with no real conclusion, or jump ahead to a sudden ending after a long, slow build-up.

I understand some of this is stylistic choice, but they're starting to seem more and more rushed. Which isn't always a bad thing, considering some of the extended shots of absolutely nothing that used to be commonplace in older films.

You know the scene I'm talking about: a 2-minute shot of a busy street or rushing river that has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the plot.

 

[senseless]

Movie experiences used to be longer than 2 hours. Previews, Newsreel, cartoon, feature B, feature A.

Film going today is not great. No cartoon, just lots of annoying previews and commercials. The only films I get excited about are Imax or 3D.