90-Minute Shows...Too Short?- Page 2

[Jane2]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 11:45pm

When patrons ask the running time of a show, they're relieved to hear it's short and preferably with no intermission.

[lightguy06222]

Posted: 4/14/10 at 2:45am

AC- Well Put.

Sometimes 90 minutes is all that is needed to tell the story people! When it starts to last longer, it DRAGS on, and then you would be complaining about something else!

People are just looking for anything to complain about.

[ashley0139]

Posted: 4/14/10 at 8:48am

If every show could be 90 minutes with no intermission, I would be a happy camper.

[TimesSquareRegular]

Posted: 4/14/10 at 10:20am

I've been to 90-minute shows that seemed longer than August:Osage County.

Hold my attention, and take as much time (or as little time) as the material requires.

[Vespertine1228]

Posted: 4/14/10 at 12:39pm

As both an audience member and as a performer, I prefer shows without intermissions. Obviously lots of shows need them, but I like seeing a show in one whole big chunk.

Also, if the show is bad, there's not that conflict during the intermission of, well I could leave, but I've already put time into this, etc.

My least favorite thing is shows with unnecessary intermissions. Race is a good, recent example.

Posted: 4/14/10 at 12:48pm

Do actors get paid less for appearing in shorter shows? Do designers make less if their set or costumes are only viewed fro 90 minutes?

[tamra2]

Posted: 4/14/10 at 12:58pm

i would rather see a show that is great and runs 90 minutes than the same show that they added stuff to it that diminshes the quality just to make it longer.

i dont care what the run time is as long as i am getting a quality show.

[Marianne2]

Posted: 4/14/10 at 1:41pm

I don't care either way. If I want to see a show, time does not matter, unless I end disliking it.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 4/14/10 at 2:01pm

It's not the length of the show that counts, it's what you do with it.

[bwayrose2]

Posted: 4/14/10 at 2:09pm

I agree, it doesn't matter. If the show is good, you will love it at 90 or 180 minutes. (But I for one, LOVE it when I'm told it's 90 minutes and no intermission.)

[winston89]

Posted: 4/14/10 at 2:40pm

I think that the comment that one act shows should be cheaper is just a stupid one. AS it has been said on here, they don't cost less to produce so why would they charge less?

I used to loath 90 minute shows due to the fact that it didn't feel like a full night out for me etc. Now, as I got older, I don't mind. I mean, yes, I do prefer shows that are full length and have an intermission. However, I can be just as happy going to a show that is a 90 min one act and be just as happy. For me, I just want good theatre.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 4/14/10 at 3:54pm

I feel the length of show depends entirely on the material and its presentation, not an arbitrarily set time limit. I have been to four hour shows that seemed to be over all too soon and I have been to 70 minute shows that seemed like a painful eternity.

[Jane2]

Posted: 4/14/10 at 4:13pm

Diva-LOL!

[Insider2]

Posted: 4/15/10 at 11:05am

Jane, I'm a "patron" and when I ask the running time of a show, I'm not relieved to hear it's short and preferably with no intermission. Not at all. And a lot of other people are not as well. So don't generalize. Some people enjoy the entire experience of going to the theatre as an "event". I totally agree that a show should be exactly as long as it needs to be to tell the story, but often, it feels like these 90 minute (or less) stories are so much slighter in general, and more disposable as theatre. Obviously, there are exceptions to this.

And for the person who thinks this is not a current trend, just look at all the 90 minute or less, intermissionless shows currently on Broadway, such as A Behanding in Spokane, American Idiot, Million Dollar Quartet, Red, God of Carnage, Race Everyday Rapture, etc. And it seems like almost everything I see off-Broadway these days is 90 minutes or less. Yes, it is a trend. And as someone else noted, it is based solely on the fact that our society has become so attention-span deficient, and this is what the new crop of writers is giving us, and apparently what the twittery audiences want.

Soon, we won't even have to go to the theatre. We'll just be twittered a show instead.

[Boq101]

Posted: 4/15/10 at 11:30am

I don't think these shorter shows are merely a set up because of our attention span I think most of the technical aspects of shows have made it easier to give information to the audience. A lot of the longer musicals from before were longer because they followed a formula and now that the formula has been tinkered with enough writers and directors have found ways to condense shows just because they don't feel like they need more information. It's like when Hairspray was shortened in Vegas and then some of the changes were put into the Broadway production because the show worked better. I refuse to believe anyone liked that song Cooties and when they cut it in half I just found that the end of the show ran more smoothly.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 4/15/10 at 11:36am

The best show is 90 minutes without intermission. You're in, you're out, and you can beat the rush to Junior's.

[JRybka]

Posted: 4/15/10 at 11:55am

The BEST example of a short show that is AMAZING.... Once on this Island... It was not a minute too short and not a minute too long. It was perfect.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 4/15/10 at 4:29pm

American Idiot is a 90 minute show that I think Was 10- 15 minutes too long.

90 minute shows are fine. Some are even shorter. I believe The Emperor Jones ran 75 minutes and no one left the theatre feeling cheated at all.

[Jane2]

Posted: 4/15/10 at 4:39pm

Insider - In MY experience, the only patrons who do ask about the running time of shows ARE the ones who want to hear that it's short.. . and in MY experience, every one who asked was relieved. I did not generalize as far as MY experience goes.

[Insider2]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 1:09pm

And God knows, Jane, YOUR experience is the ONLY one that counts. Twitter on, dear.
Updated On: 4/16/10 at 01:09 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 4/16/10 at 2:42pm

Haha, yet another sad sack. ^

toots, we ALL can only post about OUR OWN experiences. You missed the meaning of my capital MYs completely-right over your head.

Not that I have to tell you anything, but I don't have a twitter apparatus.

I'm finished with dealing with you. - you showed what you're about.