Do you think directors being forced to sometimes take up to 30 minutes out of their film to make it fit within under 2 hours, is a good practice?

Is editing good for most movies? Or does it take out too much of the story in order to please a supposed impatient audience?

i thought this was about something COMPLETELY different

I don't care how long their film is, as long as they're circumsized.

doctormcmeekle said:

Right. I ALSO thought this was a thread about circumcision.

Case said:

Me too!

I prefer mine uncut

Dewrede said:

I'm lost. Are we talking movies or penises?

uncut, as long as im not tired prior to going to see it theres no problem cause the directors probably appreciate the value of the scene

AsianBomb777 said:

i think for widespread commercial success a movie must be edited into a format that 'works' for its target audience. that is, the plot and script should assume a shorter attention span for viewing audiences.

but, i've seen movies that were three, four hours long (check out 'heat') that were really excellent.

the whole time i was watching heat though i couldn't help wondering if al pacino was circumsized or not. maybe it was something about the title of the movie.