• Flamekebab@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 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
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 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
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 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?