I predicted this would become an Issue... And it has.

Bladder bursting blockbusters: Are Hollywood movies too long?

Alfred Hitchcock left behind a legacy that almost passed as a blueprint for future Hollywood successes – never show the monster too early ('Jaws') - make sure to cameo in your own films (enter stage left Quentin Tarantino). Hitchcock even coined the phrase 'The Maguffin' – a term used to describe a meaningless item that is there purely to drive the plot along ('Indiana Jones' would be lost without it).

However, it seems one piece of sage advice was overlooked. "The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder," he once said.

Films like 'Titanic', 'Lord of the Rings' and 'Australia' are conceived as epics. Yes, you could probably shave an hour off the running time of each if you cut out the sweeping camera shots, but then you deny cinemagoers the reason why they chose to see them. They are expected to endure a bum numbing running time because it’s an occasion, a spectacle, an experience.

Can you really say the same for films based on a comic book, theme park ride or 80s childhood toys?

'Spider-Man 3', 'The Pirates of the Caribbean' trilogy and most recently 'Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen' are not the only guilty parties, but they are just an example of the new trend for Hollywood blockbusters – namely fun family films that are in fact bloated, self-indulgent and need as much of a trim as Russell Brand's hair-do.

These sorts of movies would have skirted close to the 90 minute mark a decade or so ago. Look at the first 'Star Wars' and 'Indiana Jones' movies – they are lean, fast paced and endlessly re-watchable. Now look at the new ones.

But it seems that we're entering an age where directors are kings again. The 80s and 90s was a time of studio power, so films were as close as possible to an hour and half to ensure that they make more profit. A 90 minute film costs the same as a 120 minute film but it gets shown fewer times in a day – meaning less money for everyone.

With the exception of Will Smith, not many of today's movie stars can 'open' a film like they used to. So, cinemagoers are latching onto a director's vision like an established brand. You know what you're getting with a Michael Bay, Steven Spielberg and Tarantino movie. But the more succesful they get, the more they believe they can put anything on the screen and audiences will buy into it.

The problem with directors getting to decide on the final cut of the movie is, who dares tell them they need to reign in their 'talents'? How did anyone attached to the new 'Transformers' film not genuinely ask 'Does this really need to be two and a half hours?' The supporting characters have their own supporting characters!

It’s not just summer action blockbusters, comedies are just as bad. Judd Apatow’s 'Knocked Up' and 'The 40 Year Old Virgin' ran close to two hours.

But with Transformers storming to the top of the box office it looks as if the bladder bursting blockbusters are here to stay. Best bring a cushion.

Are blockbusters too long, or do you think that movie prices are so expensive you want your money's worth?

Stolen Without Feeling Any Remorse From HERE