A Few Words About While we wait for a few words about… Killers Of The Flower Moon - in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

I don't know how many people realize this, but Martin Scorsese and his Film Foundation have restored countless classic movies that would've been lost if not for their efforts.

That's another reason why no one should care if he says mildly critical things about Marvel movies.

 

[titch]

I'm going to see Killers Of The Flower Moon again this evening, as the wait for a few words...might be long.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I care how and where he watches movies, but only to the degree where it might impact how he understands what the movie-going experience is for the random person. If he doesn't have to put up with sticky floors, loudmouthed people, people on phones, etc., not to mention worrying about the accumulated costs of going to the movies vs staying at home and streaming, he may well not fully understand (emotionally, not just intellectually) why people make the choices they do.

I don't expect some 81-year-old millionaire filmmaker to have the same movie theater experiences as the rest of the general public with their local movie theater.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'm going to see Killers Of The Flower Moon again this evening, as the wait for a few words...might be long.

I'm going to see it again too.

 

[JoshZ]

All this talk about "trailers" before the movie. Do theaters even really play actual movie trailers anymore? The last time I went to the theater (Across the Spider-Verse), there was only one genuine movie trailer before the feature. There was also one quasi-trailer thing that started out like a movie trailer but quickly segued into being an ad for whatever car brand was featured in that film. The other 35 minutes (and yes, I timed it) of "pre-show entertainment" were all straight-up commercials for stuff like insurance, realtor agencies, Diet Coke, etc.

I took my kids to that one and they just about lost their damn minds complaining about all the commercials until the movie finally started.

 

[jayembee]

I don't expect some 81-year-old millionaire filmmaker to have the same movie theater experiences as the rest of the general public with their local movie theater.

I don't either. My point was that if he doesn't, he's not likely to be able to see things from that perspective.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don't either. My point was that if he doesn't, he's not likely to be able to see things from that perspective.

True, but in his time, Marty spent a great deal of time in movie theaters as indicated by his stories about seeing various movies in theaters.

 

[jayembee]

All this talk about "trailers" before the movie. Do theaters even really play actual movie trailers anymore?

Yes, they do. The first time my wife and I went to see something at a local Apple Cinema -- I think it was Avatar 2 -- they got right into the movie, with no trailers beforehand. Big surprise. The length of that movie might well have been the reason why they didn't show any trailers.

Every time we've been there since, they've had the usual ~6 trailers before the feature. Same with the AMC theater we were going to before switching to the Apple. After each trailer, we'd give each other a thumbs-up or -down to indicate our interest in seeing the film advertised.

 

[AlexF]

There were 12 minutes of pre-KotFM ads when I went to see it in IMAX this past weekend. about 4m of advertising, the rest was taken up by 3 trailers, all three of which I'd seen previously, so didn't really pay close attention to.

Our one local cinema shows typically 15-17m of ads, while the other hovers in the 12-15m range.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

AMC theater locations in NYC/Long Island area typically show 20-25 minutes of trailers, beginning at the published start time. They show commercials prior to the published start times, but not afterwards.

Regal theater locations in the NYC/Long Island are typically show 20-25 minutes of trailers, beginning at the published start times. They show a series of commercials prior to the published start times, and then one “premium” commercial about halfway through the movie trailers, for which they receive a hefty payment that has helped keep their business afloat.

The official ticket seller for both chains, Fandango, clearly states that movies will begin 15-20 minutes after the published start time; they’re not hiding this information. The point of sales systems at some locations will even display exactly when the feature begins and ends when you’re buying tickets. If it does not, the ticket takers have this information printed in front of them and are happy to provide it when asked. Theaters will also tell you over the phone if you call before visiting.

These trailers are also shown with the house lights on. Recliner seating also has resulted in wider rows, meaning that one does not have to climb over dozens of people in the dark to make it to their seat like in the old days.

I have sympathy towards individual circumstances and don’t begrudge anyone’s personal choices about when to arrive, but there’s no reason to show up for 20 minutes of trailers or pre-show commercials if you don’t want to see them. I often skip them, or arrive in time to see just a couple.

They play so many trailers beforehand because studios now pay theater chains to show them. Each studio release is guaranteed one “free” trailer to be shown as part of the film booking but the rest is up to the chains, and the payment they receive for those does a lot to keep them in business, so I don’t expect that to really change.

 

[cda1143]

Please enlighten me, but does anyone know who made the decision of no intermission. Unless I’ve missed something, there’s been no public statement from Paramount, Apple, or Scorsese. The only statement has come from Thelma Schoonmaker: “I understand that somebody’s running it with an intermission which is not right. That’s a violation so I have to find out about it.” This statement merely confirms that it’s a contract violation.

Without any other official statements, we have no idea why, or by whom this decision was made. People from both the pro and con intermission teams seem to claim that this decision is a firm edict from Scorsese. Perhaps Scorsese did feel that it’s better without an intermission; but for all we know, Scorsese may have been fine with an intermission, but the studios opted for one more showing per day instead.

The pro/con intermission discussion is worthwhile, both in general and regarding this film. But unless someone knows who made this decision, let’s not assign blame or canonical law.

 

[mark brown]

Interesting. I have never equated running time with the quality of a film.

 

[JoshZ]

Please enlighten me, but does anyone know who made the decision of no intermission. Unless I’ve missed something, there’s been no public statement from Paramount, Apple, or Scorsese. The only statement has come from Thelma Schoonmaker: “I understand that somebody’s running it with an intermission which is not right. That’s a violation so I have to find out about it.” This statement merely confirms that it’s a contract violation.

Without any other official statements, we have no idea why, or by whom this decision was made. People from both the pro and con intermission teams seem to claim that this decision is a firm edict from Scorsese. Perhaps Scorsese did feel that it’s better without an intermission; but for all we know, Scorsese may have been fine with an intermission, but the studios opted for one more showing per day instead.

Without addressing the intermission controversy directly, Scorsese did recently say this:

“People say it’s three hours, but come on, you can sit in front of the TV and watch something for five hours,” Scorsese said. “Also, there are many people who watch theatre for three and a half hours. There are real actors on stage — you can’t get up and walk around. You give it that respect; give cinema some respect.”

 

[Jake Lipson]

Interesting. I have never equated running time with the quality of a film.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

You've never seen any film and thought it was too long? Or thought it was too short and needed more time to focus on a particular story point?

The quality of the film is all about how the filmmakers choose to tell the story. The amount of time taken to do that, and whether it is effective or not, is part of that.

Below, I'm quoting Joe's quotes of Scorsese, but I understand I'm not responding to Joe's personal sentiments.

“People say it’s three hours, but come on, you can sit in front of the TV and watch something for five hours,” Scorsese said.

This ignores the fact that the viewer has more control over the experience on television. You can get up and stretch or move positions. You can pause the movie to go to the bathroom and come back without missing anything.

“Also, there are many people who watch theatre for three and a half hours. There are real actors on stage — you can’t get up and walk around. You give it that respect; give cinema some respect.”

This statement ignores the fact that intermissions are a staple of live theatre. There are one-act plays, but those usually run about 90 minutes. Full-length shows whee you're spending two hours or more in the theatre almost always include an intermission. Shows are designed that way and, if they are well-written, usually build to an appropriate and exciting place to finish the first act. The narrative does not suffer. This practice not only gives the audience a break but the performers as well.

 

[maxfabien]

Without addressing the intermission controversy directly, Scorsese did recently say this:

“People say it’s three hours, but come on, you can sit in front of the TV and watch something for five hours,” Scorsese said. “Also, there are many people who watch theatre for three and a half hours. There are real actors on stage — you can’t get up and walk around. You give it that respect; give cinema some respect.”

Marty has a point. But when you watch tv for 5 hours, it usually has commercial breaks, or at least there are breaks between programs. Or most of the time you can paused the program with your remote, then resume it.

 

[mark brown]

No, to respectfully answer your question! One of the greatest films ever made, in my opinion, is Bondarchuk’s War and Peace, at 8 plus hours.

 

[mark brown]

By the way, I don’t have a problem with intermissions either.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Please enlighten me, but does anyone know who made the decision of no intermission.

The filmmakers and/or studio.

It’s standard contractual language in any present day theatrical release that theaters may not alter the presentation that they are provided with. If the studio does not provide explicit permission to add an intermission, and/or an alternate DCP which includes an intermission baked into the presentation, a theater may not add one of its own volition.

 

[Jake Lipson]

One of the greatest films ever made, in my opinion, is Bondarchuk’s War and Peace, at 8 plus hours.

If you like War and Peace at eight hours, that's great.

But longer is not necessarily better in all cases ever made. It all depends on what the specific film needs and how the filmmaker can best tell the story. I've seen films that I think are good where it would have been even more effective if they'd been shorter and more focused. Killers of the Flower Moon falls into this category for me.

 

[titch]

Having seen it again, I don't see that this film craves a huge cinema screen. Killers Of The Flower Moon is not an epic picture - but it does have an epic length. The trailer showing before the film was for Ridley Scott's Napoleon - that one will most definitely need to be seen on the largest screen possible!

Killers Of The Flower Moon is a tragedy, an intimate drama, with the most of the characters in close up, or two-shots, during the vast majority of the running time. Sure, there are some set pieces and a few wide Oklahoma landscapes, but these almost seem incidental. Everything is downplayed, including the action pieces and Robbie Robertson's score. The editing is languid and there was really only one "Scorsese tracking shot", which called attention to itself. I thought the most bravura scene, was the stunning, final, crane shot of the dance. I wonder if the film would have been better without DiCaprio in the leading role? I find him too distracting.