ST Alpha - "I don't know what we're fighting about, but my two cents is that I work 20-25 hours more per week now than I did pre-covid, so a three hour movie is " (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 162

In response to "No, your issue was that Run Time is a factor. It isn't. It never has been. Interest in the properties is the only factor." by Will Hunting

I don't know what we're fighting about, but my two cents is that I work 20-25 hours more per week now than I did pre-covid, so a three hour movie is

Posted by amanda jeans (aka amanda) Jan 20 '22, 13:35

HARD because it eats up all of my free time and then some for a day. a three hour movie plus trailers plus travel will cost me work time over two or even three days.

I'm just not interested in having my "fun" be so costly timewise. spider-man was an anomaly because charming. no way am I spending four hours on the batman. I have enough dark and depressing in the real world, one, and two, my time is worth too much.

not just me. (www.shrm.org)

Responses:

I totally agree with this. Length was the reason we didn't see West Side Story or House of Gucci. - zunk xometimes Jan 20, 13:51 2
- I would watch WSS at home maybe? maybe? HOG only if it was a drinking game, you know? -- nm - amanda jeans Jan 20, 13:52 1
  - I want to see WSS, but I went to The 355 instead since it saved me 30 minutes. -- nm - MDH Jan 20, 13:57
Your IM hits the nail on the damn head. Thank you. -- nm - MDH Jan 20, 13:38 2
- amanda's IM makes a lot of sense, but also there are enough people invested in Batman for it to be successful without disproving her point. - Roger More Jan 20, 14:49
- I think by mid-March you'll be calling Batman another exception to this new runtime rule. -- nm - Inigo Jan 20, 13:52

Post a message top

I don't know what we're fighting about, but my two cents is that I work 20-25 hours more per week now than I did pre-covid, so a three hour movie is

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.