▲ 179 ▼ Ridley Scott Has a ‘Fantastic’ Cut of ‘Napoleon’ That Runs Four-and-a-Half Hours and Features Way More Joséphine (variety.com) submitted 2 years ago by Bloodyashes@lemm.ee to c/moviesandtv@lemmy.film 46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] ScorpionFrog@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) 4 and a half hours is too long permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zibobwa@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) How many hours of Stranger Things did you watch? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] regular_human@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) In one go? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) Tbf you don't need to watch a 4.5 hour movie in one go either. Many films used to incorporate intermissions for this very purpose. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Shalakushka@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe they could split it up into even more watchable bits, call them "episodes”. It could be like a series. Not like a whole series, maybe some sort of miniature series. It's OK to make a TV show, Ridley. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 2 points 2 years ago* Why not make it two separate parts, released fairly close together, like a month apart? You'd build up hype and make people want to see the first one before part two comes out, then offer some double feature screenings alongside the normal release to encourage viewings of the second one. It would then also gain a surge in ticket sales as people finally went to see part onento get caught up. Effectively it would mean a single film taking up twice as many screens and pulling in twice as many tickets. All of that's assuming it's any good, of course. But I would think by this point with Ridley Scott that's a decent bet. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago The key words being used to. We need to bring it back, but I fear that's unlikely permalink fedilink source parent [–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) For a theater, yes. But for home video, where people can and often do watch movies in chunks anyway, length doesn't matter as much. I'd love it if he just dropped it as two films, released a month apart. That would drive people to see the first part so that they can be caught up for part two. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Unfortunately that likely wouldn't work great. The only people that would be interested in watching part 2 are the people that watched (and liked) part 1. And business is often a numbers game permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 1 point 2 years ago That's fair. But presumably the same number of people would watch part 1 as would watch the whole thing. And maybe even more, because of the lower time commitment. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zibobwa@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) How many hours of Stranger Things did you watch? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] regular_human@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) In one go? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) Tbf you don't need to watch a 4.5 hour movie in one go either. Many films used to incorporate intermissions for this very purpose. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Shalakushka@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe they could split it up into even more watchable bits, call them "episodes”. It could be like a series. Not like a whole series, maybe some sort of miniature series. It's OK to make a TV show, Ridley. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 2 points 2 years ago* Why not make it two separate parts, released fairly close together, like a month apart? You'd build up hype and make people want to see the first one before part two comes out, then offer some double feature screenings alongside the normal release to encourage viewings of the second one. It would then also gain a surge in ticket sales as people finally went to see part onento get caught up. Effectively it would mean a single film taking up twice as many screens and pulling in twice as many tickets. All of that's assuming it's any good, of course. But I would think by this point with Ridley Scott that's a decent bet. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago The key words being used to. We need to bring it back, but I fear that's unlikely permalink fedilink source parent
[–] regular_human@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) In one go? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) Tbf you don't need to watch a 4.5 hour movie in one go either. Many films used to incorporate intermissions for this very purpose. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Shalakushka@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe they could split it up into even more watchable bits, call them "episodes”. It could be like a series. Not like a whole series, maybe some sort of miniature series. It's OK to make a TV show, Ridley. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 2 points 2 years ago* Why not make it two separate parts, released fairly close together, like a month apart? You'd build up hype and make people want to see the first one before part two comes out, then offer some double feature screenings alongside the normal release to encourage viewings of the second one. It would then also gain a surge in ticket sales as people finally went to see part onento get caught up. Effectively it would mean a single film taking up twice as many screens and pulling in twice as many tickets. All of that's assuming it's any good, of course. But I would think by this point with Ridley Scott that's a decent bet. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago The key words being used to. We need to bring it back, but I fear that's unlikely permalink fedilink source parent
[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) Tbf you don't need to watch a 4.5 hour movie in one go either. Many films used to incorporate intermissions for this very purpose. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Shalakushka@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe they could split it up into even more watchable bits, call them "episodes”. It could be like a series. Not like a whole series, maybe some sort of miniature series. It's OK to make a TV show, Ridley. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 2 points 2 years ago* Why not make it two separate parts, released fairly close together, like a month apart? You'd build up hype and make people want to see the first one before part two comes out, then offer some double feature screenings alongside the normal release to encourage viewings of the second one. It would then also gain a surge in ticket sales as people finally went to see part onento get caught up. Effectively it would mean a single film taking up twice as many screens and pulling in twice as many tickets. All of that's assuming it's any good, of course. But I would think by this point with Ridley Scott that's a decent bet. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago The key words being used to. We need to bring it back, but I fear that's unlikely permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Shalakushka@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe they could split it up into even more watchable bits, call them "episodes”. It could be like a series. Not like a whole series, maybe some sort of miniature series. It's OK to make a TV show, Ridley. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 2 points 2 years ago* Why not make it two separate parts, released fairly close together, like a month apart? You'd build up hype and make people want to see the first one before part two comes out, then offer some double feature screenings alongside the normal release to encourage viewings of the second one. It would then also gain a surge in ticket sales as people finally went to see part onento get caught up. Effectively it would mean a single film taking up twice as many screens and pulling in twice as many tickets. All of that's assuming it's any good, of course. But I would think by this point with Ridley Scott that's a decent bet. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 2 points 2 years ago* Why not make it two separate parts, released fairly close together, like a month apart? You'd build up hype and make people want to see the first one before part two comes out, then offer some double feature screenings alongside the normal release to encourage viewings of the second one. It would then also gain a surge in ticket sales as people finally went to see part onento get caught up. Effectively it would mean a single film taking up twice as many screens and pulling in twice as many tickets. All of that's assuming it's any good, of course. But I would think by this point with Ridley Scott that's a decent bet. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago The key words being used to. We need to bring it back, but I fear that's unlikely permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) For a theater, yes. But for home video, where people can and often do watch movies in chunks anyway, length doesn't matter as much. I'd love it if he just dropped it as two films, released a month apart. That would drive people to see the first part so that they can be caught up for part two. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Unfortunately that likely wouldn't work great. The only people that would be interested in watching part 2 are the people that watched (and liked) part 1. And business is often a numbers game permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 1 point 2 years ago That's fair. But presumably the same number of people would watch part 1 as would watch the whole thing. And maybe even more, because of the lower time commitment. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Unfortunately that likely wouldn't work great. The only people that would be interested in watching part 2 are the people that watched (and liked) part 1. And business is often a numbers game permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 1 point 2 years ago That's fair. But presumably the same number of people would watch part 1 as would watch the whole thing. And maybe even more, because of the lower time commitment. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 1 point 2 years ago That's fair. But presumably the same number of people would watch part 1 as would watch the whole thing. And maybe even more, because of the lower time commitment. permalink fedilink source parent