Our attention is constantly solicited by an incessant flow of content, ever more numerous and often very short: posts on social networks, reels , TikTok videos, etc. Faced with this saturation – not to say hypertrophy – of the audiovisual space, some authors have highlighted the risk of seeing our attention span compromised. This is the case of Nicholas Carr and his now classic Does the Internet Make You Stupid?
One might therefore assume that films and series are following this trend, towards ever greater conciseness; but on the contrary, the length of films continues to increase.
More minutes please
The increase in screen time is noticeable in films intended for cinemas. This is the case in The Brutalist (Brady Corbet, 2025), with 214 minutes, Dry Grass (Nuri Bilge Ceylan, 2023) with 198 minutes, Avatar: The Way of Water (James Cameron, 2022), with 192 minutes, Babylon (Damien Chazelle, 2022), with 188 minutes, or the blockbuster Avengers: Endgame (Anthony and Joe Russo, 2019) and its 181 minutes.
Also read: “Babylon,” from dream factory to Hollywood nightmare
But this trend is also found in films designed primarily for streaming platforms – such as The Irishman (Martin Scorsese, 2019), with 209 minutes of footage, and Bardo (Alejandro González Iñárritu, 2022) and its 159 minutes – or those intended for more minority circuits, traditionally linked to independent or auteur cinema. In this sense, we can mention Pacifiction (2022), the 166-minute film by Albert Serra.
How can we explain this increase in the length of films?
First of all, it’s worth noting that there have always been longer-than-average films. Consider, for example, classics such as Gone with the Wind (Victor Fleming, George Cukor, and Sam Wood, 1939), with a running time of 238 minutes, and Ben-Hur (William Wyler, 1959) with its 211 minutes, to name just a few well-known examples.
But one might still wonder why films are getting longer and longer at a time when everything indicates that the trend should be going in the opposite direction: the success of series, the wars between streaming platforms , the battle for attention and the endless supply that encourages accelerated consumption.
Also read: With “Avatar 2,” James Cameron tells us about the Anthropocene
Multiple causes
There are three potential reasons for this change: first, the desire to expand narratives, second, the need to differentiate from television fiction (or streaming ), and third, finally, the attempt to justify the increase in the price of cinema tickets.
This question, however, is not an absolute novelty, but rather accentuates characteristics already present in the film industry since the Hollywood of the 1950s . Already at that time, the need to stand out from the television offering led studios to opt for longer films, with more stars, more effects, more spectacle. A bit like what happens today with productions like Avatar or the Marvel films.
In previous decades, cinemas had opted for a double-screening model, inherited from the past, or three screenings in a row. This is one of the reasons why the average film length was 90 or 100 minutes.
Ironically, blockbuster-style productions, which are a few minutes longer than the average, such as Alien (Ridley Scott, 1979; 116 minutes), Back to the Future (Robert Zemeckis, 1985; 116 minutes), Ghostbusters (Ivan Reitman, 1984; 107 minutes) and The Goonies (Richard Donner, 1985; 114 minutes), to name just a few examples still fresh in the minds of readers, have gone from being the exception to the norm and have ultimately given the industry a new direction.
On the other hand, the attempt to expand the narratives (which, paradoxically, could be considered an “attempt to resemble the series”), without constituting something entirely new, presents different nuances.
Robert McKee, in his book Story , points out the existence of works with more acts than the traditional three. In this sense, he cites Four Weddings and a Funeral (Mike Newell, 1994), with five acts; Raiders of the Lost Ark (Steven Spielberg, 1981), with seven, or The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover (Peter Greenaway, 1989), with eight.
An exception that has become the norm
Today, what was once an exception is beginning to become the norm.
This leads us to the following conclusion: cinema is facing several problems . These include changes in the consumption habits of spectators – including a decline in cinema attendance –, the primacy of series (more in line with the idea of domestic and dynamic consumption), the greater audiovisual offer and the price of cinema tickets – similar to the cost of a monthly subscription to any streaming platform.
For all these reasons, the film industry, especially the theatrical-oriented one, seems to have concentrated its offerings. Thus, it has favored long, big-budget films with more subplots and greater spectacle. All these characteristics seem to justify the admission price and discourage people from subscribing to a streaming platform or other distribution channels.
In the case of more independent productions , the longer duration would respond to a desire to explore new narratives, further removed from television or mainstream discourses and large productions.
In any case, and while confirming the industry’s drift, it might be wise to order the popcorn in XL format, if you don’t want to run out before the lights come back on in the screening room.
The original version of this article was published in Spanish
About Post Author
