Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by praneshp | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

praneshp·

> Esp long movies like "Wolf of Wall Street" are not practical to watch in a single sitting.

Ha ha, some moviebuffs will skewer you for saying that (about any movie). I feel your pain on the 48h limit though.

View on HN

Meh, Lawrence of Arabia had an intermission and I doubt many film buffs would say that ruined the art of it.

Oh, I took OPs comments to mean several sittings per movie. While Lawrence of Arabia is an outlier imo, most Indian movies have an intermission (and make up the majority of what I watch)

That’s really interesting. Is running length generally more common in Indian cinema?

Yes (and it's probably also good for snack sales.)

Yeah, most movies hit almost 2.5 hours. For me, many movies build up really well to the intermission and then take some time to get back to that intensity and setting up for the climax. Then how well the climax is done determines where it ends up, rating wise.

It's also standard to spend money on snacks during the intermission.

Agreed. I wish more movies were 3-5 hours long with maybe a 10 minute intermission where the director shows something metaphorical.

I love deep story telling and will gladly sit through a 3-4 hour movie

Avengers Endgame is over 3 hours long.

I assume he or she has a child. I know for us, with a two year old, it's very rare to have 3 hours of uninterrupted free time. We used to be big movie watchers, but no longer.

Haha, we are watching a movie with a close friend couple that have a kid. We went from a movie a week to once in 6 months or so

> I assume he or she has a child

LOL. I have cats.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com