Can We All Stop Caring About These 5 Movie Morsels?
Permanently online types obsess over elements that rarely matter

There’s often too much time between a film’s start date and its scheduled release.
Something has to fill that gap. And that “something” is often microscropic details tied to the film in question. And, almost always, those details barely matter in the long run.
Yet the Internet still can’t quit them in the grand “Brokeback” tradition.
Some items actually do matter. Casting decisions, for one. Creative collaborators, be it directors, screenwriters or producers, greatly impact the finished film.
Other pieces of movie lore are insignificant, or outright distractions. Cases in point:
1. First Reactions
These useless reports, carried by both major news outlets and smaller sites, try to quench our thirst for the earliest film reviews possible. Except they’re wildly unreliable. Mediocre films often get raves. Bad films? A smattering of raves.
Great films? Well, the raves start there and never end.
In short, they’re worthless with one exception. If a highly anticipated film can’t muster consistently good “First Reaction” comments then it’s rocky waters ahead for that title. We saw that recently with Tom Cruise’s disastrous “Digger.”
Otherwise, ignore these stories.
2. Running Times
Who. Cares?
Films tend to run too long in general these days. The great movies of the ’70s and ’80s neared the two-hour mark and knew when to call it a film.
- “Alien?” – 1 hour, 56 minutes
- “Raiders of the Lost Ark?” – 1 hour, 55 minutes
- “Beverly Hills Cop?” – 1 hour, 45 minutes
- “E.T.?” – 1 hour, 54 minutes
Now, we get breathless reports about an upcoming movie’s running time. Who. Cares.
If a major film is 82 minutes long, then Houston, we have a problem. Conversely, if a film’s running time soars past two-and-a-half hours, that’s also newsworthy. Otherwise, it’s best to greet the news with a shrug.
3. Golden Globe Categories
The Golden Globes got a PR makeover in recent years only to watch it crumble under a race-based scandal. Now, it’s a glitzy but minor part of awards season, a gala meant to gin up interest in important films.
The winners won’t see a career bump, nor will an unexpected victory dramatically shift the Oscar odds.
Yet we burn endless calories noting how a particular film is labeled heading into awards season. This year it’s “Obsession.” The horror smash will compete in the musical/comedy category, for example.
It’s absurd, of course. But that’s how the Globes roll.
Just take it all in with the proverbial grain of salt. The Oscars still matter, although not nearly as much as they once did. The Globes? Forget about it, Jake. It’s the award Pia Zadora won.
4. A Movie’s Rating
The new “Godzilla Minus Zero” is rated R, but it’s a pretty mild R by most standards. No nudity, little profanity and a sprinkling of gore. So it’s not very important except for parents who might want their children to skip the latest Kaiju-fest.
Yet movie scribes routinely weigh in on a film’s rating as if it speaks to the movie’s overall quality. It doesnt’. It’s often a minor marketing note.
We’ve seen scary, suspenseful horror movies that earned a PG:13 rating (“The Ring,” “A Quiet Place”). We’ve also seen snorefests that blanketed the screen with blood en route to an “R” rating.
Yawn.
It might be worth noting if, say, a scary franchise dramatically ratchets down the faux blood. If the next “Terrifier”installment gets a PG:13 rating, then the saga is heading in a very weird direction.
5. Streaming Success Stories
It isn’t hard to hit the top of any given streamer’s Most Watched list.
It could be the fact that a film or TV show is brand new on the service. It might reflect a box office dud that people are suddenly curious to see.
“How bad could it really be?”
Or, it’s the kind of low-risk click that can be amended in a few minutes. Have you ever started a streaming film and shut it off 20 minutes later? Has anyone NOT done that?
So a box office bomb getting some streaming attention isn’t much of a story, for the most part.
Exceptions? Clint Eastwood’s “Juror No. 2” had a very long run atop the HBO Max charts, a sign that the film could have done respectable business at the box office (it never graced theaters).
Or consider how well “The Pendragon Cycle” performed on Prime Video. That Daily Wire original drew an impressive crowd despite limited marketing, no major stars and the industry stigma that comes with a conservative platform like The Daily Wire.
Otherwise, we’re looking at clickbait stories and nothing more.
Run time is only significant if it’s really short or really long.
What’s up with all the 70-minute movies lately? That’s basically one episode of a TV show. I expect to get more bang for my buck.
I tend to prefer longer movies. I like the feeling that I’ve just joined the characters on an epic adventure. Had the Lord of the Rings flicks been 2 hours, they probably would have been terrible, trying to rush through the telling of the story.
On the other hand, The Hobbit was a great example of bloated story telling with way too much run time. That should have been one long movie or two moderate-length ones at the most.
At my age, any wonder I still like the old black and white movies?