I think that's the first cut of the film. from what i heard they were trying to trim it down to 3 hours.
shareI've heard it from two different sources. They didn't specify that it was a first cut.
shareWhere did you hear it? Source? Link?
sharehttps://www.instagram.com/p/CrG-GUWNf3L/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
It's not a gossip account either.
As John Holmes's co-stars used to say, way too long.
shareHe's gone full Michael Cimino.
shareScorsese 🤝 Long runtimes.
Runtimes matter. Some people defend long runtimes and that's fair enough however I'd rather watch two 90 minute films over one 180 minute film, you're experiencing more films for the same time investment.
Also the biggest factor is whether you get into the film or not. If you don't and it's only 90 minutes it's pretty easy to make it till the end (for me anyway). When it's 3 hours that can be torturous. I have a completion complex, I detest bailing on a film before it's over. I've only done it a handful of times.
For this reason I'm quite wary of daunting runtimes.
I'm completely fine with a 3 hour film as long as it's good, but you are right that if the movie sucks and it's short, you only have to sit through a 90 minute film.
shareThe book isn't that long, I see absolutely no reason that the story has to be twice as long as the average movie.
The structure of the plot in the book is actually pretty simple: There's the Osage family in the center, and as things go along we get to know the FBI guys on one side of them, and the villain and his minions on the other. All the rest is details, and no film really needs 3 hours of details.
I didn't read the book but maybe the characters are the reason for the long runtime. He need space to developed their backstory and personality. Something similar to The Godfather.
shareIf anything needs developing it's the background, the story of the Osage tribe and their history of being forced into a reservation and then coming into oil wealth which was shared among tribe members, and how the white people around them reacted to that. But that's the sort of thing that a filmmaker who was on top of their game would deal with as precisely as possible, showing headline montages or letting the production design show who was rich and who wasn't, with no long monologues and keeping the exposition-heavy dialogue to a minimum.
The story of the one family who were the focus of the book isn't that complicated, and of Scorcese has any sense he'd center the film around the family to keep the audience feeling emotionally connected to the story. Everything I see makes me suspect that Scorcese is putting in too much detail, and will lose the focus the film would need to be emotionally involving.