• Flamekebab@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      True, but it’s a lot easier for me to find 90 minutes than 180 minutes on a weekday night.

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 days ago

        That’s a completely different problem. You were arguing if a film deserves to be long (it does if it’s worth it). Now you’re arguing that you don’t have time for a long film.

        Convenience isn’t an Oscar category. A good film can be short or long, it depends on many factors.

        • Flamekebab@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 days ago

          Sigh, I was trying to meet you in the middle. I’m in no mood to fight with you.

          Edit: It’s a new day and I see people have decided to upvote you so fuck it, arsehole mode is go.

          I was agreeing that a film doesn’t have to feel long despite being long, however whether a film feels long or not has no bearing on its runtime.

          Film length has no inherent bearing on whether a film is good or not, when well executed, and therefore I want more short films because I have time for them.

          BECAUSE IT DOESN’T MATTER FOR QUALITY PURPOSES, as you just said.

          I was not arguing about whether it “deserves” to be long. That’s an entirely different question and fuck off for trying to put words in my mouth. Couldn’t just not be a cunt, could you?