Talk:List of longest films/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Berlin Alexanderplatz

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

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.22.30 (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2005 (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)

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)

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)

It's true; and if Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings get a mention, why not Star Wars? Sheavsey33 (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

LOTR was all filmed at the same time. Star wars and harry potter were not. --74.222.32.67 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, The Lord of the Rings (LOTR) was intended by Tolkien to be 1 book, though the publisher wouldn't allow it. :) And an original intention for the movie was 1 movie, or 2 movies. Jackson, etc., then wrote 2 scripts (though there was something else before this, I think), 1 each for the then-suggested 2 movies. When that stalled, he looked elsewhere, and "found" New Line Cinemas which wanted to do it as a trilogy. These movies were also released in Extended versions. Once The Hobbit comes out (if ever), which in some book publications has been called a Prequel to LOTR, all together, they would make quite a long epic! A Wikipedia article says that LOTR is currently "11 hours and 23 minutes (683 minutes) of Extended running time". :) Misty MH (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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) ?
Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and 3 were both filmed simultaneously, were released less than a year apart, and have the same overarching storyline. Should that trilogy be considered one film? Sheavsey33 (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

3. The Nazis: A Warning from History is a TV documentary series in 6 episodes. Surely any TV series would also fit the criteria if the episodes were conflated! I wonder if it was shown on PBS or something, and they edited out the opening and closing credits, confusing the OP? Robin Guest (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Re #3: I've removed The Nazis: A Warning from History. —Mrwojo (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The show ran on BBC America in the US as a single, partially-re-edited film, not a series. It is/was also available from BlockBuster Video and NetFlix in this form as well as in series form. The runtime was listed for the film, not the series. Lostinlodos (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay as long as there's a reliable source and a clarification in the list to distinguish that from the miniseries. —Mrwojo (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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]

"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)

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)

In case you didn't know it, Girolamo Savonarola, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FORUM where you can post your opinion and discussion pages are only used, as their name suggests, to discuss whether or not a certain change in the article should be made, such as moving it, deleting it and so on. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
A "full discussion" appears to have disappeared, or Where is it? -- I don't see it -- though I've added some comment above today (in 2011). :) Misty MH (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Was this added and then deleted? Misty MH (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

How about films that have won many awards or are critically aclaimed? Old ones like Ben-Hur or more recent ones like JFK which is 3 hours and around 30 mins. I know that isnt long but it would be good to have a list of films most people have heard of that are long that arn't 10 hours long. I know alot of films and couldn't recognize a single one on that list. I think that having a list of the longest mainstream films or critically aclaimed films would be good. Now i know that most of the mainstream films i am refering to arn't really that long but films that are 3 hours-5 hours are long enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.157.59 (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Kaaka Kaaka, Nanda, Dhil movies running time.

To my knowledge, in the past decade, no Tamil movie[2] 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)

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)

You're exactly right. It's a trilogy. It's not a "film".--24.129.100.84 (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Confusing

To the casual observer (e.g. me), this article is initially somewhat confusing. The lede says "The longest film, according to the Guinness World Records, is The Cure for Insomnia", but then that film doesn't appear at the top of the list of "Films over five hours long" immediately beneath. Eventually, as you progress down the article, you see it's at the top of the list in the "Experimental films" section, but it's still a bit confusing at first. Perhaps the lede should be updated to say "The longest film, according to the Guinness World Records, is the experimental film The Cure for Insomnia" (thereby preparing the reader for its absence from the first list), and/or maybe the first section should be relabelled as "Non-experimental films". Or maybe the experimental films should be listed first (so that The Cure for Insomnia is the first film listed under the lede). Or something. DH85868993 (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the article to address your concerns. Dhalgren195 (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fanny & Alexander

My apologies GS. I did not have enough room to say more in my edit summary and it contains an error. Going off a faulty memory I thought you had made a statement about F&A earlier on this talk page but you hadn't. It turns out that I mentioned it in my section about Berlin Alexanderplatz from two tears ago (sheesh have we been editing here that long!) The TV version had a brief US release several years after the movie versions initial release. Where I live it was in one of our art house theaters for 4 or 5 days (Wed or Thur thru Sun). It showed once on weeknights and twice on Sat & Sun. I don't know if it was ever shown at any film festivals over the years but I have a hard time imagining that it wasn't and that has been another avenue for other films inclusion on this list. I would point out that it has been on this list here since I first watchlisted the page all that time ago so I am not quite sure why it came off now. I don't mean to cause offence with any of this because I know what good care you take of these film pages. Let me know what your thoughts are. MarnetteD | Talk 21:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no, that's fair. What we really need to do, ultimately, is properly reference these all, so as to avoid these questions. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Former category contents

From this CfD, the following articles were removed from the following categories, which were deleted:

Category:Films over five hours long

Category:Films over six hours long

Category:Films over seven hours long

Category:Films over eight hours long

Category:Films over nine hours long

  • Shoah (film) note: was also in Category:Films over seven hours long

Category:Films over twelve hours long

Category:Films over twenty-four hours long

— Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia wrong?

I was reading The Guardian today, and came across this disturbing passage:

What was the longest film in history before Cinématon, which the Mirror calls the "dullest film ever made"? According to Wikipedia, which is wrong, Berlin Alexanderplatz (931 minutes or 15 hours) was the longest film. Other long films include Shoah (566 minutes, or nine hours) and Evolution of a Filipino Family (643 minutes, or 11 hours). None is as long as Douglas Gordon's 1993 film 24-Hour Psycho in which the artist slowed down Hitchcock's 1960 thriller to last exactly one day.

Obviously I was quite shocked by the implication that Wikipedia could be wrong, but by closer scrutiny it seems that the journalist – whoever he or she is – has misunderstood the criteria on which the list is based. The list only includes films that were "released to multiple screens or intended for mainstream audiences", which is clearly not the case for Douglas Gordon's 24 Hour Psycho. If you chose to include every movie ever made, then there are longer movies than 24 Hour Psycho, so it seems to be The Guardian who's wrong, not us.

Nevertheless, I think we should at least include that film in the list of experimental films at the bottom, to make the anonymous Guardian journalist happy. And to make sure that no one, ever again, can claim that Wikipedia is wrong about anything. Lampman (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And perhaps it is time to move the "Experimental" section to the top of the article. After all, these are the longest films in the article. I'm going to give it a try. If there are objections, I trust my edit will be undone. Dhalgren195 (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Winds of War/War & Remembrance?

Dan Curtis considers his Henry Family Saga to be one long movie, as do some awards organizations, according to the bonus materials on the DVDs. Anyways, I'm not adding it to the list, because I don't think it fits. Apple8800 (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Not liking minutes

  • agreed.
    I admit that I initially passed off user MarnetteD as just a vandal; but after reviewing the actual comments posted by; I agree, in part, that the list (a list is not an article, fwiw), could use inlines. I'll fix that tomorrow within the next 24 hours. Lostinlodos (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks ahead of time for the work that you will be doing. MarnetteD | Talk 03:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Lining up the links right now; will work on it for a few hours and finish up tonight!!!!
Still working away at this. Lostinlodos (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dates

I've just finished updating lots of references and (since Reflinks always disregards the existing format) converted all dates to mdy format, one of the two formats listed for article content and publication dates in WP:MOSDATE. Checking afterwards, I notice that there were a few iso-dated references in the previous version. I'll just explain here that this was not part of some evil plan to change date formats all over the place, so other editors are welcome to comment here (or I guess just change to something else) if they prefer a different (MOS-compliant) format. --Mirokado (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cinematic film ranking

The section List of longest films by running time#Cinematic films has the comment:

Note: Some releases are extended cuts or director's cuts, and are ranked according to the longest verified running time.

Can we do something so that the "longest verified running time" appears somewhere? At present the table is not sorted by displayed running times so it isn't clear what the time in the table refers to, what the "longest verified running time" actually was, and whether or not some entries are simply not placed correctly. --Mirokado (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

The article currently lists films longer than 300 minutes (five hours). It seems reasonable to stick to this, with something like half the cinematic films listed less than six hours in length and the article a reasonable size (assuming further matching additions of course). I have added a statement of the scope of the list to the lead. --Mirokado (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe another criteria could be that the film was actually produced and screened, and not just an intention to be finished in 6 years time, as the current "longest" film on on the list ("Ambiancé"). It seems odd. I could announce that I intend to create a film lasting a full year, to be finished in 2030 and release a trailer. 80.71.135.29 (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for films released in separate parts

We need to clarify the criteria for inclusion in List of longest films by running time#Films released in separate parts. I think Lord of the Rings just about qualifies, with more-or-less the same production team and so on, at least partly being shot simultaneously. I think the Harry Potter films do not qualify as they were produced separately except for the final two. Can we formulate a sentence to introduce this section which will clarify what qualifies and what does not? Preferably before someone thinks of Star Wars, James Bond or Laurel and Hardy? --Mirokado (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added a lead for this section. Comments or improvements welcome. --Mirokado (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to make of Harry Potter. But by the basics that allow LOTR, Star Wars should probably also be included. Something along the lines of a single story arc as opposed to separate stories. At the same time something could be said for the HP inclusion on the same lines as that. So we need to figure out where the drop off is. Bottom line for me would be have the films been released on a single-set basis at some point or other.Star Wars has; LOTR has, not sure if HP has or has not, but I believe the first 4, and later 5, films were boxed together. Making that a single film release. Thoughts?Lostinlodos (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Similarly for Les Vampires, which was released as a serial in episodes. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Heimat

Why isn't Heimat on here? Even if we don't count the trilogy as a singular work, the first film alone runs sixteen hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.221.196 (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

List of films always shown in their entirety

I think there needs to be a separate list of just films that are always shown in their entirety. In attempting to actually use the list, I've found that the number of films that were made as a multipart series, but were shown as one continuous film at one time or another, and so qualify for this list, to make finding films that are always shown in their entirety very tough. Given that this is, in my opinion, probably what someone doing research would be looking for, the current list is kinda useless. I think a third list needs to be added. The other two lists can stay as they are. Thoughts?Jmcontra (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be difficult to find reliable sources for "always" and the reader would not be helped by an arbitrary division between "usually shown full-length" and "usually shown in separate parts". If you find a reliable source that says an entry is normally shown full length, or whatever, you can add it as a reference. If there are enough cases like that we can also add a note saying "Normally shown full-length" or whatever. --Mirokado (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

007

Is 007 the longest ( by hours, mins) film series. Should be close to the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 19:33 9 July 2013

That is a film franchise, not any kind of single film. --Mirokado (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I mean one for film series/franchies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Best of Youth

Best of Youth is listed twice in the current article. I'm no film buff so I have no idea which length is correct, but somebody should fix this.

Curtisabbott (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I have clarified the times in a single entry. --Mirokado (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

War and peace needs to be included

I believe it used to be on this list, I don't understand why it's no longer here. ScienceApe (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Human Condition

I believe Masaki Kobayashi's 9 1/2 hour epic needs to be included in this list, either in the Cinematic Films or Films Released in Separate parts section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.68.135 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Should we be happy?

Happy (Pharrell Williams song) has been made into. 24 long music video consisting of various 4-minute segments spliced end to end. As this is not a cinematic film, should it be included in this list? Another option is to create a new chart for media of this sort. Please provide comments below.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 13:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to putting it in the experimental films section. --Ae Daily 17:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ae Daily (talk • contribs)

The Emigrants • The New Land

Does this belong here? The entry in the Films released in separate parts section links to our article on The Emigrants (film), which repeatedly calls The New Land a sequel and a wholly separate film. Apparently both films were part of a joint Blu-Ray release (on two discs) and they both won the same award at the 1973 Golden Globes, but the awards website lists them as separate films.[3][4] Daß Wölf 01:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The description of the relevant section on this article says This section lists films conceived as an artistic unity and produced simultaneously, or consecutively with no significant interruption or change of production team, even though they were released with separate premières., The Emigrants (film) article says Ullmann said that for the two films, shot at the same time, [...] .[1], and The New Land article says Actress Liv Ullmann said that The New Land was filmed concurrently with The Emigrants over a year.[2]. Going by that, it belongs here. TompaDompa (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't notice they were filmed concurrently. That clears this up. Daß Wölf 03:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Liv Ullmann, Liv Ullmann: Interviews, University Press of Mississippi, 2006, p. 6.
  2. ^ Liv Ullmann, Liv Ullmann: Interviews, University Press of Mississippi, 2006, p. 5.

Twin Peaks: The Return

Why isn't Twin Peaks: The Return on the list? The creator David Lynch stated several times that he sees it as a long film in 18 parts rather than a TV-Series. Especially given that productions like The Lord of the Rings is there which has three finished story arcs with «cliffhangers». Twin Peaks: The Return does not offer cliffhangers and/or regular TV show episode structures in every episode.

The first reference shows Lynch saying "I see it as a film" is a response to his directing all 18 episodes. The second calls it a "TV series". It was conceived, marketed and released as an episodic television series.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of longest films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Whoa! I'm impressed!

Whoa! I'm impressed! I mean, who wouldn't be impressed at Logistics' length of one month, 5 days, 17 hours? --Fandelasketchup (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


Movie "100" with 991 hours long

Marco Romano from San Marino filmed the movie with 991 hours runtime. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10844584/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_1

And other movie "Qw" with 10 062 minutes (167 hours). https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10844900/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Сельджуко (talk • contribs) 16:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

IMDb is not considered a reliable source, see WP:RS/IMDB. TompaDompa (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Other sourses are movie file at Google.drive and director's YouTube channel. I think, they are not good sourses. But how many times wait new available sourses with new information of world movie record? Сельджуко (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The film(s) would need reliable sourcing that such films were made and otherwise screened and/or released.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Greed (1924)

It seems like the article says the original cut was 462 minutes. IMDB lists the cuts which are significantly smaller. The article text says that only 12 people saw the original cut. Would this be suitable for this list? S-1-5-7 (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No, unless we get a proper source for it. I don't think the reasoning at the film's article (using the known number of reels, positing that standard-length reels of that era would take a certain amount of time to play at a specified frame rate, and multiplying the two figures together to estimate the runtime) passes WP:CALC. TompaDompa (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I would say no also, but for a different reason. That original 12-person screening was not a "release", it was more like a viewing for certain select individuals and comes well (almost a year) before theatrical release.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

La Flor released in separate parts

La Flor (Part 1) was already shown at the IFFR 2016. The rest of the film premiered two years later. Does this count as separate release? Klaspas (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Do not believe it should. Showing Part/Edisode 1 seemed like the equivalent to showing an extended teaser at a convention. Filming and production of the entire film were ongoing and the overall intent was to release the six parts as one continuous entity.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Longest movies with wide theatrical release??

Would be a lot more interesting and useful to see a list of movies that actually got a wide release. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we get a confirmation on the length of Amra Ekta Cinema Banabo (The Innocence)?

I am highly suspicious that this film is as long as it claims to be - it appears that the film's length is only being purported by the filmmakers themselves, so I think we should confirm it somehow. All of the footage available of it online appears to come from the same source and it's mostly the same footage re-cut into different trailers. I also just can't see how it's over twenty hours long. Lav Diaz is slow, Wang Bing's films are long stretches of documentary footage, The Deluge is an epic, etc. But "Amra Ekta Cinema Banabo" looks like a student film. Bagabondo (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Serials

I don't believe film serials should be represented on the list of Longest films released in separate parts, as I don't think they fit the definition of a "film". They were produced in separate episodes to be shown on a weekly or so basis, like a Television drama. They were meant to be shown on their own as well as apart of a complete story. Plus, most serial ran over 5 hours long, depending on how long they ran for, some could run for years. I think it deserves a second category or a separate page itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moviebuff1921 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame

The two films were shot back-to-back and were originally going to be shot simultaneously and originally titled Infinity War: Parts 1 & 2. Should this count as one of the longest films released in separate parts? Granted, two palette cleanser non-Avengers MCU films came out in between the two films, specifically: Ant-Man and the Wasp and Captain Marvel but the former was made simultaneously with Endgame and the latter was made after Endgame finished filming, and the previous Avengers films were not made in conjunction with each other nor with Infinity War/Endgame, so can listing the Infinity War duology as one film count. For reference, the duology is 331 minutes (5 hours and 31 minutes) long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.125.114.164 (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a section on this page called: Films released in separate parts. Give that a read. IW & EG were shot back-to-back, same cast and crew, second film picks up pretty much where the first left off. There's film trilogies on there such as The Hobbit, so no reason why this pair can't be added. The only other factor is running time (major factor, actually). Combined, these two films are 330 minutes or 5½ hours (IW 149m/EG 181m). That's longer than at least 2 entries, so perhaps these should be added as well. JMHO - wolf 11:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done - wolf 11:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Language

Thinking about adding a "language" column to the tables. (Eg: the dialog, not the country of origin - they're not always the same). Don't want to go through the effort of it's just gonna be shot down. So, looking for feedback first. If any. - wolf 12:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Why? I'm not sure what the benefit would be. There are many different columns we could potentially add (director, country, studio, genre, budget, worldwide gross, and so on), so why language? TompaDompa (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Why not? If it's in language the reader understands, then they don't have to be concerned about subs or dubs. That's arguably one of the first questions to go through a film buffs mind. Providing an answer is a obvious benefit. The real question is what's the downside? - wolf 22:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The downside is that it would add a column to the table. Information that doesn't add anything to the readers' understanding of the subject (this is a list of longest films – dialogue languages are not important for understanding film runtimes) shouldn't be on the table as it would just get cluttered. I could equally well argue that one of the first questions to go through a film buffs mind would be who the director was—or what country the movie was made in, or what genre the film belongs to, or who starred in it—and that Providing an answer is a obvious benefit, but as Betty Logan put it when discussing adding a "distributor" column to List of highest-grossing films: it is all basically "white noise" (see Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 14#Distributor Column).
What's more, this is not necessarily altogether straightforward. What language is The Lord of the Rings in? English, of course—but not exclusively. There is also Sindarin, Quenya, Khuzdul, Black Speech... so what do we write? Maybe only English, since the other are constructed languages? Of course, so is Esperanto, and there have been films exclusively in Esperanto, such as Incubus. But no Esperanto-language film is longer than five hours, so I guess that is purely academic for now. Well then, what do we do about films like Shoah, which is in several non-constructed languages? And what about silent films like Napoléon? I watched Napoléon with English intertitles, since I watched the BFI restoration—does that mean that we should list the language as English? It was obviously originally in French (i.e. French intertitles—there's no spoken dialogue, of course), but we list the runtime of the BFI restoration here. And finally, what on Earth would we do about something like Baahubali, which is in Telugu or Tamil. Not "and", or – it was shot in both languages in parallel. TompaDompa (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
In truth the argument could be made for adding such a column like this to any film list. The advantage is that it provides a little bit more information. The downside is that it is not essential information and bloats the table, and encourages further columns hosting indiscriminate information (indiscriminate in the sense that it does not contribute to the encyclopedic scope of the topic). I have always been a minimalist when it comes to tables i.e. give the reader the information they have come to the page for but don't make any assumptions beyond that. Personally I would only include the language where it helps to define the encyclopedic scope of the list, such as at List of most expensive non-English-language films. Betty Logan (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
This is is why I didn't add the column beforehand. It's useful information, it can certainly be sourced, and it would take a strong, consensus backed argument to determine it as unencyclopaedic. But a couple of editors oppose it for reasons, and that's that. The argument about "well gee, I wanna know who directed the film" doesn't apply. Though that info is useful, is doesn't impact the viewer's ability to watch the film. (and let's not be literal, "watch" in this case includes "understand") The comments about about the fictional languages within the LotR film series are facetious and not on point. While I can appreciate a need for minimalism on tables at, for example, List of highest-grossing films, the tables here are quite stark, and could benefit from additional, useful info, without becoming bloated. The arguments here are largely reactionary, but that's expected now on some pages, and as I said, why I didn't bother with the additon. - wolf 14:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I came across as being facetious, that wasn't my intention. What I'm trying to do is to problematize the issue.
I think listing Sindarin as one of the languages for The Lord of the Rings is a valid way of doing it. IMDb does, for instance (IMDb is of course not a WP:Reliable source, but it is—per their own assessment which I reckon is correct—the world's most popular and authoritative source for movie, TV and celebrity content, and I think that counts for something). I'm guessing most sources wouldn't list Sindarin as one of the languages for the movie, however. The DVD or Blu-ray case almost certainly wouldn't, for instance. My intuition would be to only list English in this case.
Shoah is, according to The Criterion Collection, in French, Italian, German, Hebrew, Yiddish, Polish, and English. That's seven languages. There are two ways of listing seven languages in a single cell in a table, you either separate them horizontally with commas or vertically with line breaks. Neither option is ideal; doing it horizontally means we get a very wide table, and doing it vertically means we get a disproportionately tall row for that particular movie. Either way, the table layout suffers.
There's also the issue of what order to put multiple languages in. There are two ways of doing this that are logical to me: either in order of how much the language is used in the movie or in alphabetical order. The first is likely to be the order whatever source we cite uses. So in most cases, we have no problem: we just need to decide whether to use the same order as the source or alphabetical order and then apply that consistently across all movies. But we run into a problem with Baahubali; we can't very well just write "Telugu", "Tamil", "Telugu and Tamil", or "Telugu or Tamil"—we would need to explain that there is a Telugu version and a Tamil version, and that they are both equally official and neither is "the original". That is of course something we could do, but we have to ask ourselves if it's worth going into that much detail about what is frankly not a terribly important aspect of the matter when it comes to which the longest films of all time are.
According to the BFI, Napoléon is silent with English intertitles. Now that is unambiguously true of the 332 minute version, but it seems a bit off to say that about the movie itself. On the other hand, saying that it is a silent film with French intertitles better reflects the film as it was created, but it is not an accurate description of the version of the film that qualifies to be on this list. So what do we do? I suppose we could just write that it is a silent film, but I feel like that is something of a cop-out since it doesn't actually answer the question of "what language is this movie in?".
The argument that we should add the language to help the reader determine whether they are able to watch and understand the movie is bit silly to me, for several reasons. Firstly, people watch movies in languages they don't speak using subtitles all the time. I find it very odd that you think that the necessity of subtitles (or a dub) would be so significant an obstacle to the reader who is interested in viewing a film that it would be important to list the language here, considering that the largest and most obvious obstacle would be getting one's hands on a copy of the film, and the second-largest would be the extreme runtime (seeing as the film is on this list to begin with). If someone is sufficiently interested in watching Sátántangó to first obtain a copy and then set aside more than seven hours to watch it, I don't think the language being Hungarian is going to dissuade them simply because they'll need subtitles. Secondly, that's not what we're here to do. We're not here to provide movie recommendations. The purpose of this list is not to get people to watch these movies (and if it were, we would be better off pointing people in the direction of where to get a copy). Thirdly, I wouldn't expect anyone to decide whether or not to watch a movie solely based on what they read on this page without any further research on their part. I would expect them to at least look up what the film is about first.
You're dismissive of the comparison with listing the director, but I put it to you that the director—or indeed the country of origin—is way more standard to present alongside the title (and year, which is virtually always included) than the language the movie is in. Rashomon is far more likely to be referred to as a film by Akira Kurosawa or a Japanese film than a Japanese-language film, and Citizen Kane is likewise far more likely to be referred to as a film by Orson Welles or an American (or US) film than an English-language film. Even the genre is more standard than the language—in fact, I reckon that for the kind of person interested in watching movies longer than five hours, the content of the movie is a more important factor than the language. For that reason, I think the case to add a column for a brief synopsis is far stronger than the case to add a column for the language, though I would also oppose a synopsis column.
So what we end up with is that adding a column for the language(s) would inescapably result in an unbalanced (and generally poorer) table layout, would require quite a bit of effort to attempt to resolve the issues mentioned above and others to the extent that it is possible (a few problems would almost certainly remain no matter how we do it), and would encourage/invite the addition of further columns hosting indiscriminate information, as Betty Logan put it. And for what? To give the readers information that isn't directly relevant to the topic of the article, isn't the most relevant of all indirectly relevant information, isn't particularly helpful to somebody who is interested in viewing the film in spite of your assertions to the contrary, and which for every single entry with a stand-alone article (and it could be argued that we shouldn't have any entries without stand-alone articles) is only a click away? I don't think it's a good idea, because I don't think it improves the article. I think it puts us in more of a position of "if we have a column for this, we should have a column for that" than you let on. I think the problems with the column itself—some of which I've outlined above—are larger than you realise. I would go so far as to say the problems with the column itself would make it detrimental to the quality of the article rather than improving the quality, even without taking into account the indirect problems it could cause such as edit wars and the addition of further columns.
In summary, I think adding such a column would be a net negative. TompaDompa (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Tl;dr- but I got the gist of it from the last sentence. - wolf 03:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

La Révolution française

La Révolution française (film) is a two-part film with a combined runtime of 360 minutes, making it one of the longest films to be released in separate parts. Should this be included? Thanks, --Anonymous 7481 (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. - wolf 22:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Also just found Aszparuh with 323 minutes in three-parts, though the international release was a much shorter 92 minutes. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Sure, add that one too. - wolf 22:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you :) Anonymous 7481 (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Amra Ekta Cinema Banabo

Actually, there is a version with an extra intermission that pushes the runtime a further 5 minutes Lostinlodos (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

None of the attached sourcing supports that. - wolf 11:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

cinematic vs experimental

are there any set guidelines for how a film should be categorized for the sake of these purposes on this list? i don't see much consistency to it. for example: bing wang's Cruel Oil is listed under the experimental section, yet his Tie xi qu is under the cinematic section. similarly, Karamay is listed as a cinematic film (despite being similarly unforgiving as a bing wang project) yet How Yukong Moved the Mountains is listed as experimental despite being more of an anthology project of sorts and is no way meant to be seen as an installation piece in particular. i also thought maybe it was related to the distribution of the films rather than the content, but then stuff like DAU. Degeneration was only screened in a couple of places and then put online for purchase yet is listed as cinematic, and something like Hitler: A Film from Germany had about as much of a rollout as can be expected from a project, is in no way meant to be seen only as a portion of a whole, and yet is listed as experimental. this is my first post on wikipedia, so if i'm completely off here then let me know. i do think that this needs to be cleaned up or at least have the descriptions be organized a bit better.

52.128.53.73 (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

All content should be supported, so the sourcing should determine which category the film falls under. - wolf 11:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Heimat

Edits were removed as deemed “ineligible previously due to episodic release”. The original Heimat and the two main sequels were made and released no differently than other films present on the list.

Comparing Heimat to the Middle Earth films, we have two trilogies filmed at the same time and released separately. Heimat, just like The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, Dekalog, Fear Street, Avengers Infinity War/Endgame were “conceived as an artistic unity and produced simultaneously, or consecutively with no significant interruption or change of production team, even though they were released with separate premières.”

“Episodic” means consisting of a series of separate parts or events (whether by months or a year). This can also apply to Lord of the Rings (all produced simultaneously and released separately) and also Fear Street (same as above).

Going back to first comparison, Heimat is similar to the two middle Earth trilogies with each main ”part” (LOTR and The Hobbit) filmed at the same time and released separately. But with Heimat we have three main parts, each filmed at the same time and released separately. The Heimat films come under same original classification as currently written - “conceived as an artistic unity and produced simultaneously, or consecutively with no significant interruption or change of production team, even though they were released with separate premières.”

To not include the sequels along with the original would be like excluding The Hobbit from the same list. ~ 82.42.87.59 (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to set me straight. Disagree, discuss, agree.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

How Yukong Moved the Mountains

Why is it considered an experimental film? I've watched it, except for it's length it's a pretty normal, dry documentary on China. This should be among the cinematic films, as it's much more accessible than many of the other titles there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.179.246.244 (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

As of today it is in the "Cinematic films" table. - wolf 11:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

On which list should Amra Ekta Cinema Banabo be?

It's currently listed both under the "released in parts" and the main cinematic list. 2803:4600:1116:12E7:BC18:B43B:E555:F081 (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed ([5]) - wolf 11:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_longest_films/Archive_1&oldid=1176853469"