Talk:List of longest films by running time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List
This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
NA
This article has been rated as NA-importance on the priority scale.

I'm not sure why it's not on here so I'll refrain from just adding it, there might be a reason for it. It looks at first sight that La Meglio Gioventù by director Marco Tullio Giordana, which, according to [1], is 400 minutes long, should be on the list. -FQuist


Contents

[edit] Until the End of the World

I saw Wim Wenders' director's cut, long version of Until the End of the World, at a special screening in at the Egyptian Theatre Los Angeles several years ago. When it was shown it was shown in three 90 minute segments, with 10 minute intermissions between each, as orginally intended. I believe it has only been shown in this director's cut at special screenings, and that there is a DVD release of this cut planned. Would this version qualify for the list. At 270 minutes, not including intermissions, it would come in at #6, below Das Boot. Supposedly the first director's cut was 8+ hours long, but it is not reconstructable from known available stock. Glowimperial 04:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars

I don't know if this merits a mention, but George Lucas has often stated that he considers Star Wars to be one long movie. If you look at it that way, then it's about 13 hours long. TheCoffee 13:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

The movies The Burning of the Red Lotus Temple and Shoah really don't count as stunt films or unreleased films. The first is a serial, the second a documentry. Also, what exactly should be put under the Serials category?

Satan's Tango is not a stunt film. Also, it had several festival screenings, many cinematheque/gallery/museum screenings, and a limited theatrical release in France.

The Burning of the Red Lotus Temple was the most popular movie series in China at the time. It shall be listed under Movie serials, rather than Non-major releases. -- Toytoy 12:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revise list criteria: suggestions?

1. In the list of major releases, some of the times are for versions that never received major release (e.g. Das Boot, The Lord of the Rings parts). Some of these only exist on DVD home release; there is officially no film or digital tape version for public exhibition. Perhaps there could be more columns in the table? The list would be ordered by run time of the longest major release, with any longer version times listed beside for reference. There could even be another list simply by longest run time of ANY documented version. The way it is now, it implies longer run times for many major releases than actually occurred.

2. This article should be reworked to include a non-major-release section. Many arthouse films are widely viewed but never released to many screens at once. This usually due to the small number of prints --- which is sometimes only one!

If we look at Movie Serials we have The Matrix Reloaded + The Matrix Revolutions, presumably because these two were shot at the same time. This must also be the case with Back to the Future Part II + Back to the Future Part III. But why not the whole trilogy. Perhaps the first in a trilogy was originally shot as one film, and when it became popular they made two more at the same time. Yet in terms of story flow, arguably the first two Back to the Future films fit together better with each other than the 2nd does with the 3rd. What exactly should be put under Movie Serials ? Trilogies with an overarching storyline? Movie's that were shot at the same time (obviously Lord of the Rings and Kill Bill fit this) ?

[edit] Empire: Stunt Film?

Is there any evidence that Empire was produced just to break the length record, rather than as an experimental 'art' project? Considering the nature of Andy Warhol's other films, and comparing it to the other films in the 'stunt' category, I suggest that it would be better placed in the 'non major releases' section, or in a new section of its own.

I'd say most of Andy Warhol's film can be in category or the other. --Fallout boy 22:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ebolusyon ng isang pamilyang pilipino [2004]

Also known as "Evolution of a Filipino Family". 643 minutes, as seen during the 2005 film festival in Rotterdam, supposedly a showing in Goteborg lasted 647 minutes. It's a proper film, it should be inserted into the list. [oliver lenz]

[edit] "Longest film titles" section

This section was, IMO, a bit daft and didn't belong here, so I've removed it. This article is about long films, not films with long titles. There were no criteria for what constitutes a long film title (should this be anything with titles longer than xx words, or with more than xx letters in them?) and it was irrelevant to the main article. CLW 10:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We need to set some defined standards here

These are just my opinions on the matter, but why don't we all agree to sit down and hammer out some sort of consensus here on how we're going to evaluate claimants.

First of all, my main question is how was the film shown theatrically? I don't consider any trilogies, tetralogies, sagas, etc. to count if they were released as separate parts intentionally. The last two Matrix films were shot together, but certainly no one intended a single film to be released at one time. Yes, you can indeed screen them all together as a giant film, and perhaps it has been done infrequently in the past, but what is the intended method to distribute them? And how much did the director accept that? George Lucas may indeed consider, in his mind's eye, the Star Wars saga to be one big movie, but let's face it - that's not the way it was distributed. Nor was it ever anyone's intention to. In fact, there's only been, to my knowledge, one full theatrical screening of the entire series, and it wasn't even in "intended" order.

Furthermore, art-house releases do not equate to avant-garde releases. I consider Andy Warhol's films to be experimental films first and foremost, and certainly with little expectation of anything approaching a mainstream exhibition or audience. On the other hand, films like Satantango and Shoah, while certainly not cut out for everyone, are films which are made with the intention of reaching a wide mainstream audience in as many venues as will accomodate them. While I doubt Bela Tarr films are gonna be hitting thousands of screens in multiplexes anytime soon, I don't doubt that they would if distributors felt it was viable. I tend to believe that Warhol was trying to be underground to a certain degree. That's another discussion.

Getting back to larger films - the theatrical showing is the key for my consideration of the matter. And the frequency of that showing matters too. I'll accept Apocalypse Now Redux, because it got a decent theatrical screening upon release. The Godfather Saga and/or Trilogy (the latter including Part 3, the former not) does not count, because it has only been released on video. Most people watch these films one at a time as single films. Maybe back-to-back, but still as Parts 1, 2, and 3. And Coppola certainly did not have the intention of making sequels originally. The extended versions of LOTR would, by these standards, count since they were given a decent theatrical run later (IIRC).

I have an issue with the 1968 version of War and Peace topping the list. I can't find any verifiable information that it was given any widespread release as a single showing. According to the IMDb it was typically split into at least two parts, sometimes four. But I don't have much information on the matter. And furthermore, does that matter if the entire thing was filmed as a single film, edited as one, and released together as a single film in several screenings?

Which brings up the point of miniseries(es) and serials. I submit that it is reasonable to at least consider any that were given a significant theatrical release (such as Best of Youth or Les Vampires) on the basis that the whole thing was filmed and edited as a whole and distributed so as to allow all parts to play concurrently. That suggests that the film is being split up for exhibition reasons, not creative intentions. Serials meant to trail off with cliffhangers and not released at once in whole obviously would not count.

In summary, I'm interested in the theatrical release and whether or not it was widespread or not and how concurrent any parts may have been, if it wasn't able to be typically screened in one go. One-offs such as the assembly of a trilogy into a single film for one festival shouldn't count.

Thoughts and critiques? Girolamo Savonarola 02:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, nagging problem about the claim of Film Stock at 908 hours...First, is there a reliably sourced citation for this? All I can find online are answer-man type things without any references. Furthermore, it suffers from the problem that it claims that the footage was screened once and then used to make other films. If you expose the stock to play it on a projector, then you can't really use it, can you? I suppose if it were clear stock it could have some limited application use for various things, but right now I have the impression that it was used to shoot other films, which would be impossible. Again, anyone with some good verifiable sources, please. Girolamo Savonarola 22:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe there should be two lists, one that chronicles the longest films, period, regardless of their release status, and a second one that requires that the film have had legitimate theatrical release (no only shown once, experimental art films, etc...). Glowimperial 00:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a brief summary of this section in the main article, with links to any similar pages on long series/serials. That way, people know how the list was assembled, and can easily check the other categories. Zhochaka 12:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film Stock

Theres a message just above which mentions this, and I'm starting the main discussion to say, it's not a real movie and I don't think it should be on the list. It has zero information and nobody seems to know anything about it. Looks to me like someone just watched all of Warner Brothers' film stock in one go for some bizarre reason. But then again I just made that up. In closing, I want to say until there is proof it's a real movie then I think it should be taken off the list. Gohst 13:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some major restructuring

Changes I've done and rationales:

  1. Shoah and Satantango were placed among the major releases list. These are mainstream films, although not as popular as the average Hollywood film. But they have gotten regular release. The other list will be for experimental releases (note that this does not mean foreign or obscure - just experimental).
  2. I've massively cut the fat from the list to begin with. Do we really need to list every popular movie that's three hours or longer? That's easily several per year that we'd have to add to the list. While it's relatively unusual to have a movie in current release with a 200+ minute release time, it's not that unusual...the length of the old list is surely proof of that - a very incomplete list of films comprising that rough length. It seems that making a lower limit of 5 hours makes for a more readable list of films which also have serious claim to being among the longest films.
  3. I've deleted the movie serials section and moved Lotus Temple and Les Vampires to the main list. While the former was ultimately released in installments, it was produced with the intention of creating one big film. See the IMDb for more info. The latter also was created in one go and was intended to be a complete work from its conception, which is in contrast to most early serials. I don't see the point of showing the collective times of the Godfather trilogy, or Back to the Future, or Matrix, or what-have-you. Of course trilogies and movie series are meant to be seen in their entirety - that doesn't mean that they actually are one big film, even if they were filmed back to back. Wouldn't that make the James Bond series the longest movie in history? C'mon.
  4. I've added Best of Youth, because despite being originally produced for TV, it was both filmed in one go and, crucially, ended up receiving worldwide release as a theatrical feature. In fact, I am currently looking at all of its 20 reels of 35mm film... (Some places screened it in two parts, others in one go.)

That's all for now. I've been bold, and if any of this seems a bit much, let's discuss! :) Girolamo Savonarola 21:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Great work, very impressive. The lists are definately more readable and the article is definately alot more clean. The removal of the total running times for trilogies, etc. was a good move and I certainly agree with the reasons you gave for doing it. In my opinion, this is just what this article needed. Gohst 04:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 200 minute limit

I think this topic need discussion. All will agree that 200 minutes movie is long movie. It doesn't make a difference that there are quite a few movies. Remember this is an encyclopedia not a record book that you need to enter only ten longest movies ever made. You (Girolamo Savonarola) did a good job cleaning up the article. I have readded the 200+ minutes movies. If there are missing entries we must add them not delete/trim the record list. Its a progressive work, someday it will get its best form, if not deleted that is.

Enter the 200+ movies if missing. And trim before there is a conclusive discussion on the subject.Vivek 17:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There are easily over 100 films which are over 200 minutes in length. It's a trivial limit - the potential of the list to explode to overly long proportions is boundless. And yes, that matters. Why should we list the 86th longest film made, for instance? Yes 200 minutes is a long movie. And 201 minutes is a longer film. So? This is not a list of long movies. It's a list of LONGEST films. And I don't see what lowering the bar will do except allow more incompleteness, more non-notability, and less of an encyclopedic content.
I suspect in large part there is a desire to reinclude these films because it allows more mainstream films to be included in the list. Well, there should be no surprise at the lack of mainstream films over 300 minutes - it's hard to find a large audience willing to sit through something so long! By definition it bucks against the mainstream to make one of the longest movies. Lack of popular movies is not a good enough reason to lower this limit.
I appreciate the fact that you have discussed your edits here, and I want this dialogue to continue. However, in light of the fact that I brought up the topic several weeks ago and only received a supportive response, I think that perhaps it is...too bold (yikes!) to have reverted the changes without finishing the conversation. I therefore propose that your changes be reverted for the time being, and invite in more opinions through RfC. Girolamo Savonarola 19:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Request for Comment: Consider the eventual result of the number you set. Don't set a limit so weak that the article could become more than 3 pages long.--Urthogie 20:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

For the first time I have seen a page loosing information so fast and that too just one user it off. This is not personal but have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_mountains the page got 109 entries. They put it logical way. Now don't go trimming that article saying it says highest so there is going to be only one entry. There is one article on use of word 'fuck' in movies. It has also got long list. Don't go trimming is. THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA (A reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular speciality, [source:wordweb]). Don't make it a personal recordbook. In case of reverting again, compensate for tha data loss by making another page with entries of movies longer than 200+ minutes. Please do so.Vivek 22:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to make a list of films longer than 200+ minutes, that is your business. (Although I would have to say that I don't think it's notable or encyclopedic.) However, this page is a list of the longest movies. Not 200+ minute ones. I don't think it's at all absurd to suggest that at least three to five films are released every year that exceed the 200 minute mark. And LOTS of documentaries. Should we include miniseries? "Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information." See Wikipedia:Listcruft as well. Also, Is the list's criteria so open-ended as to welcome infinite results or abuse? from Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia. There is no prohibition from deleting information from Wikipedia, but it is strongly encouraged to discuss it either before or after. Not all information is sacred.
I would suggest that you create a category for films above that length, because theoretically there's no reason not to create additional categories for other lengths as well, and indeed many films could belong to both categories. It would allow for them all to be collected together without inundating a list which is specifically supposed to define the longest, not the long. I don't consider movies that are five hours or less exceptionally long. Just long. (That being said, watching Leonard Part 6, while only 85 minutes long, feels like eternity! :) )
As far as a revert war goes, I am not going to engage in one. However, I will note that at the moment, I am not just speaking for myself, as the others who have spoken here since my initial cuts have been in support. I would like to hear from enough other voices to clearly mark consensus. Unless there is a shift within the next few days, I don't think I'm being unreasonable to revert it back to my cuts. Girolamo Savonarola 23:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
PS - If you're really serious about including all 200+ minute films, you should look at the links here first, so that you can get an idea of how many films you're proposing to add. Girolamo Savonarola 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Cure for Insomnia

This movie since was even declared The Longest Movie Ever Made by Guinness Book of World Records, and is even certified deserves a place among the movies not sidelined in experimentals. Please discuss. Vivek 18:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Certified as the longest film does not make it mainstream. Read the page describing the film. I find it hard to believe that anyone, including the creator, would call it anything but an experimental film. I'm reverting. Girolamo Savonarola 19:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"Read the page describing the film." Which is the page of reference here. The one on wikipedia.org? whichever, I would like to hear a sharp definition for "mainstream" movie. Well no movie with the more than say a thousand minutes will anything but an experiment. Why removing this from "mainstream" movie, irrespective of the fact that it is or not an experimental. I hope you are not saying that Guinness Book of World Records and IMDB are making a mistake calling it a proper movie. For information it was properly premiered in full length. And also that "The Burning of the Red Lotus Temple" was never ever screened for its full length (source IMDB trivia) and was neither premiered as it was made from a serial, then how could this make your so said "mainstream". Therefore Reverting. Vivek 22:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, keep cool. Guinness only verifies that it is the longest film. Not that it was made for any mainstream audience. I am not saying that it isn't a proper movie; I'm saying that it clearly wasn't intended for a normal theatrical run. Lotus Temple, if you'll re-read the trivia, was clearly meant to be screened as one piece; it merely was re-cut for economic reasons. A sharp definition of mainstream film is one that is not created merely as a demonstration of endurance, and is screened through normal exhibition channels. Of course, that's my definition, and we can certainly discuss and hammer out exactly what qualifies as one or another, but I'd say that to a certain extent it's like Potter Stewart's famous quote about pornography: ""I shall not today attempt further to define [hardcore pornography] ...But I know it when I see it." I'd say you'll find it hard to find any film scholars who don't consider Cure to Insomnia an experimental film. Calling a film experimental is not an insult (I like experimental films!), but I think it's fair to separate films made for the sake of being long and nothing else from films actually made with some degree of narrative intent. Running between 80-90 hours in length, the film follows no plot. Instead, it consists of L.D. Groban reading his poetry over the course of four days inter-spliced with occasional clips from heavy metal and X-rated videos (from the Wikipedia page of The Cure for Insomnia) is not the same as shooting an epic based on a work from Tolstoy (War and Peace) or a documentary attempting to dissect the Holocaust (Shoah). Girolamo Savonarola 23:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The Guinness Book of World Records actualy gives "The Burning of the Red Lotus Temple" as the longest movie, in this years edition at least, and in last years as well if I can remember. It has also in the past listed "The Cure for Insomnia" as the longest movie. It would seem Guiness actually recognises to categories, as does this page. The movies which appear in the Experimental Films category are quite clearly different from those which appear in the 'mainstream' category; althought the mainstreem movies aren't necessarilly that mainstreem - any long movie will hardly be mainstreem - they do differ from those films listed as Experimental, for the reasons listed in the above post (eg. being simply a splicing together of random footage). - Matthew238 00:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to add that The Cure For Insomnia belongs in the "experimental" category, because, well, that's what it is: an experiment. It says on all the "Cure For Insomnia" sites on the 'net that it was made to re-program the bodyclock's of insomnia sufferers. If that's not an experiment, I'm not sure what is. Also in a filmic way of looking at the term "experimental" it's really quite clear. Though there is certain amounts of blurring, as with all definitions, the general rule of thumb is this: It's mainstream if it has characters and a story to follow, it's experimental if it does not have a story. The Cure For Insomnia does not have a story, it's a long as heck poem and rock/porn footage. So by that term it belongs in the "experimental" category. And, if I'm not mistaken, that means any which way you slice it, it's experimental.
Let me also add that if it got a DVD release it MIGHT maybe be considered to be commercial 'hit' depending on its success but for now and probably for all time it will be an obscure film generally unknown and unheardof by the general population. Which means it's not mainstream, again... Gohst 09:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berlin Alexanderplatz

Berlin Alexanderplatz seems to be a particularly conspicious omission. Pcb21| Pete 23:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

According to our article, the 15.5 hour version of Berlin Alexanderplatz was developed as a miniseries. I would think that this would make it ineligible for the list of longest movies.

I have moved the previous two entries from the top of the page to this spot so that all of the discussion will be in one place.

I just want to make a case for the inclusion of this film on the list based on a couple of factors.

  • The unsigned edit claiming it to be a miniseries is partially correct, although the term episodic television event might be more accurate. But, there are films on the list that could also have the same criteria applied to them. The Best of Youth and Fanny and Alexander were both developed for, and first viewed on, television - in much the same manner as BA was. The Russian version of War and Peace was a film but its four parts were originally released to theaters in the Soviet Union over a period of years.
  • In his comment above User Girolamo Savonarola (who I must say I admire the work and care he puts forth in taking care of this and other pages here at wikiP) states the following:
I've added Best of Youth, because despite being originally produced for TV, it was both filmed in one go and, crucially, ended up receiving worldwide release as a theatrical feature. In fact, I am currently looking at all of its 20 reels of 35mm film... (Some places screened it in two parts, others in one go.)
In the case of all three titles that I mentioned above their first movie theater versions (in western Europe and America) were edited down from their original run times. In the case of the three examples listed above at least an hour and a half from W&P, over two hours of F&A and forty minutes from TBoY were gone and full length showings, except for special one-off screening events, have not occurred. Perhaps it is better to say that there has not been a widespread general theatrical release of the full length versions of these three films.

Now, as to these points in relation to BA, while it was made for TV, when it was released to theaters in the early 1980's the entire film was shown. It was shown over five nights at the Ogden Theater (then an arthouse movie theater; it now hosts live music) in Denver, Colorado and I went to see it based off of my interest in Fassbinder and Siskel and Ebert's review of it.

Also, the filmed in one go criteria does apply to BA, but has some problems in relation to W&P as it was filmed over seven years and there were occassions when filming had stopped for a period of time.

Various (well at least two) film journals (Premiere and Film Comment) that I have read over the years have considered BA as a film and one of the longest ever made.

I am not insisting that this film be added, as I am sure there are reasoned arguments for its exclusion, and I know that basing things off of my memories does not constitute verifiable sources. I am simply stating this so that if anyone who comes to this article has some questions they will be able to see that some thought was put into why things are the way that they are.

One last comment to all. Please be careful when using IMDb as a verifiable source. While it is largely accurate about films made since the website started it is riddled with errors about films made before the mid 1990's. MarnetteD | Talk 19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Some musings: I can confirm that Best of Youth was shown as a complete six hour film (usually in two halves) in the UK. Seen it three times in the theater, and projected it once. I can probably dig up confirming sources if need be, but not today. I can also see justifying inclusion of Berlin Alexanderplatz if there is significant evidence that it had a theatrical run - this may in fact be the case in the near future, as it is being restored, IIRC. As for "breaks in filming" for War and Peace, almost all big films do not shoot every single day, and plenty of films have logistical reasons for breaks (reshoots, actor schedules, big location moves, etc). If the film is produced in separate parts, even if back-to-back (a la Matrix or LOTR), then I'd consider it a separate film. Or if there's an intention to release parts as the shooting continues. And so on. To the best of my knowledge, War and Peace was intended (and often shown) as a single piece. But admittedly, my research on this film is less than exhaustive. I would also like to add vociferous agreement to your sentiments regarding the IMDb as a fallible source. That being said, however, it can sometimes be the sole source for certain information, and thus (as always) needs to be considered against other considered sources where possible. I certainly wouldn't blame someone for falling back on it, as any counter-claims would also need evidence. Girolamo Savonarola 19:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a category of episodic films and a category of films as one? How about putting some kind of a footnote after each title indicating that one movie is shown entirely at once, while others in parts? - bombaclat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.179.11 (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Although this comment goes back to a conversation from awhile ago I have learned from the extras on the RUSCICO release of War and Peace that the filming of films 2-4 (and pt one actually) was produced in separate parts. Shooting continued the next film while the previous film was being shown in Soviet theatres. It is possible that either we should adopt a more lenient attitude to allowing these kinds of films onto this page of we should separate them out as suggested by the anon IP last January. MarnetteD | Talk 20:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Difficult to say with that particular case. It won an Oscar as a whole piece, IIRC, and no subsequent screenings or releases since then have treated the subunits as discrete films. Unfortunately, there are many factors that need to be considered in most of these cases, so looking only at one or two pieces of evidence can be misleading. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Truer words were never said GS. Also, as I go over the various discussions on this talk page it seems that a films status for the main page changes with time and events. For example Berlin Alexanderplatz was at one time not allowed here but now is. What do you think about the suggestion by bombaclat above about either separating them to different pages or giving them a footnote on this page? MarnetteD | Talk 22:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lord of the Rings

As so many of the films featured were released in parts, over a number of years, surely LOTR with its running time of 11 hours would make the list, and Peter Jackson has often said they are one long movie, and they are even from a book which was one long book but was split and released at different times.

Please see the full discussion page above. Girolamo Savonarola 04:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular and well know

would be good if there was a list of the longest popular and known films.

By what standard would you decide this? Girolamo Savonarola 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaaka Kaaka removed as the wiki entry conflicys with the time showed

and so is Dhill and Nanda.. for the same reasons.

Can you cite a source that confirms this? Wikipedia can't source itself, and the IMDb contradicts these running times (which is not to say that IMDb is right, but simply that it is the only citable source I know of). Girolamo Savonarola 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaaka Kaaka, Nanda, Dhil movies running time.

To my knowledge, in the past decade, no Tamil movie has been made to run more than 180 minutes. In our context, following the hyperlink that the movies Kaaka Kaaka and Dhil point to, we can find the running time of the movies on the right side (inside the summary box).

Links : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaka_Kaaka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhill

Am sure even 'Nanda' is less than 300 minutes. Five hours of running time is ridiculous around here(Tamil Nadu) these days, but I can't find a link to substantiate that. nsiva 17:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as stated above, you cannot source another Wikipedia article. I'm not really too bothered either way, but unless there is a reliable and verifiable primary source, the IMDb times will have to stand for the meantime. Perhaps someone could acquire a (legal) copy of the films? Girolamo Savonarola 16:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wang Bing

Should the Wang Bing film, TIE XI QU be listed? It lasts 9 hours all in all but is separated in 4 parts. www.inventaire-invention.com/ellipses/wang_bing.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beforedecay (talk • contribs) 23:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Imdb lists it in parts. That's not necessarily an authoritative piece of evidence, but it does seem to indicate it as a work not typically shown as a whole. Girolamo Savonarola 11:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've reinstated Tie Xi Qu (and added Crude Oil, which should be less controversial). Even after reading the Talk Page I still have no idea what if any coherent guidelines exist for "multi-part" films -- I don't really see why Tie Xi Qu should be ineligible as a "multi-part" film while Berlin Alexanderplatz, Out 1 and the Heimat trilogy (all originally made for television and split into discrete episodes) are not. Yes, they were and are theatrically exhibited, but rarely if ever in single-day "marathon" sessions (for example, the recent revivals of Out 1 were usually split over two days, and theatrical screenings of Berlin Alexanderplatz are typically spread across five or more days). Tie Xi Qu has been programmed in a variety of ways (including one-day screenings) but critics invariably treat it as a single film in three sections (cf. the Village Voice/LA Weekly Film Poll, Variety's review, the Yamagata Documentary Festival).
Personally I would say that multi-part films should qualify so long as they are meant to be seen as a whole -- so something like the LOTR trilogy wouldn't qualify, since they were isolated releases (odd as it would be to see The Two Towers or Return of the King without watching their predecessors first), but Berlin Alexanderplatz and the like would, since they were premiered more or less in their entirety and no one would even conceive of screening one part without the others. (That said, some multi-part films that have been screened in isolated segments would have to be removed -- How Yukong Moved the Mountains is the most obvious candidate.) Josh Martin (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that you're veering dangerously into OR territory there. Longer films may not be exhibited in a single session due to technical and social limitations, but the question is if it is theatrically presented as a whole piece. It is implausible to think that an exhibitor would only show a part of BA or Out 1 without the rest of it, and all theatrical presentations of those titles are complete presentations of the entirety of the pieces - with reasonable breaks for audiences, as it is unreasonable to ask any human to sit thru 12 hours of a film without a single break for both physical and mental reasons. Now, I think that your references there do seem to support your assertion regarding this particular series, so it would stand. But trying to somehow formally define meant to be seen as a whole is ambiguous because the phrase does not define who meant it to be shown that way, whether or not they meant that they wanted the parts all to be seen side-by-side or as a single discrete film, and the question of whether or not their otherwise unactioned intentions are relevant to what is otherwise supposed to be an objective list. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As the issue has been raised again, I must admit that I am disposed to keeping Tie Xi Qu on the list for the moment - to the best of my knowledge, the film has always been exhibited as a trilogy. (ie, there aren't one-off screenings of only one or two parts - it always screens as a whole or in successive parts on successive nights.) Of course, if evidence to the contrary exists, that should be brought up for consideration. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)