I had an interesting conversation regarding this film on the Disqus comments below the relevant article...
Fella: "...it better be over 2hrs."
Myself: "Ah, yes because as the old saying goes; "quantity over quality". Wait a moment, no it bloody doesn't...
A movie's runtime ought to be dictated by the story being told. Why would it automatically be a better movie if the runtime exceeds the 2 hour mark? For that matter, how much narrative runtime is even needed for a story about a giant ape fighting a monstrous lizard? Two hours would be more than enough, surely?"
Fella: "Because if they add in human elements (which they should honestly work on) it brings down the time of them fighting and all. People just don't got long intention spans anymore. Thats what the real problem is. So if you have a 1hr 30 min film or a 1hr 45min film they will most likly ruin it with long drawn out human scenes that mean nothing at all followed by a 30 min battle 5 mins of random kaijus followed by another 2 mins of random shit blowing up, 15 mins or so of more humans talkin about shit nobody cares about, then end. If they make it a little longer they can flesh it out instead of cramming it all in, I'm not asking for a 3hr movie here. The run time of Skull Island was perfect, perfect blend of everything. I love the last 2 Godzilla films don't get me wrong. But they are very very flawed, and hopefully the writers by now see that and can fix what is wrong with them. 2hrs is perfect or 2hrs 25mins. Thats all I say."
Myself: "I fundamentally disagree with you. I reiterate; a movie's runtime ought to be dictated by the story being told. It's absurd to suggest that a 2 hour minimum runtime will automatically result in a better movie. As for your allocation of plot elements (30 mins for X, 45 mins for Y, 1 hour for Z etc.); the writer can choose which elements to concentrate upon within their own script. Nothing says that X amount of time needs to be devoted to this particular plot element, leaving only a certain amount of time leftover for character development and even less time for the action scenes.
The writer decides what percentage of time to devote to any given aspect of the story. Increasing the runtime of a movie doesn't mean that you somehow magically increase the total percentage of time to allocate to the various aspects, to a total of 150% or more. Ultimately, you're still left with 100% of the total runtime to allocate your various story elements to. The writer still has to choose which aspects to focus on, whether they be plot, character or action related and how to divide that time, regardless of runtime.
Increasing the runtime for the sheer sake of it won't negate the writer's need to choose their focus for the story. Instead it will merely increase the possibility of padding and bloat within said story. Having an unnecessarily long runtime only encourages laziness in writers and filmmakers. It only encourages them to not consider pacing and to not trim the fat, cutting the story back to its lean essentials.
The key to crafting a compelling movie is writing a good script. It's the foundation upon which everything else is build. If the structure is broken, the whole thing comes tumbling down. What you ought to be asking for is a well written script, not a longer runtime. A bad script leads to a bad movie, regardless of whether the runtime is 1 hour 30, or 2 hours 45, or whatever. The script dictates the runtime. The runtime does not dictate the script. Your entire argument is putting the cart before the horse."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still trying to get my head around that "logic"...
