2023 At The Box Office (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

If I'm watching a movie in a theater, I'm watching the movie and never want to have an intermission. The Hateful Eight had an intermission built in to it and it still just interrupted the movie. Fortunately, they'll never have widespread intermissions again because the theaters won't want to lose money by having less shows or paying employees to be there longer. And no, they won't sell more popcorn or soda because most chains have free refills so people will just refill and not buy stuff meaning that there's only financial downside to an intermission for the theaters.

I've got a much better solution, make shorter movies.

 

[Wayne_j]

I usually get seats on an aisle so I can go to the bathroom during the movie without interrupting people. I would love if there were much more regularly intermissions for movies 2.5+ hours long. The studios would have to be on board with this so the intermission point makes sense.

 

[Joe Wong]

I've mentioned this in some previous post(s), but a film should take as long as it needs to tell its story. As long as it's entertaining / compelling / keeps me interested, I don't mind what the runtime is. (This is separate to the need for an intermission or not.)

A 90 minute film that's boring or sloppily put together (bad script, horrible acting, etc.) can feel too long, while a captivating 150 minute film (with lots of character arcs, twists, plot developments, etc.) can sometimes feel too short.

For example, should The Godfather be crammed into 2 hours? IMO, no.

Objectively, longer runtimes haven't hurt the global box office, as the top 4 films in history (Avatar @ 162 min, Avengers: Endgame @ 181, Avatar 2 @ 192 and Titanic @ 195) average just over 180 minutes each.

And even the #5 film on the global list, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, would likely not be considered "short" @ 138 minutes.

EDIT: I'm certainly not advocating for 4 or 5 hour films, as physically that would be way too long to be sitting in a chair or testing the limits of human concentration! (I'm guessing that's why most exams don't go over 3 hours!)

 

[TravisR]

I've mentioned this in some previous post(s), but a film should take as long as it needs to tell its story. As long as it's entertaining / compelling / keeps me interested, I don't mind what the runtime is. (This is separate to the need for an intermission or not.)

Obviously, it's all dependent on personal taste but I've seen so many big budget action movies in the past five to ten years that would have benefited from being much shorter. Cameron or Jackson or Spielberg usually make long runtimes work but the TV director hired to do a comic book movie is not in the same league as those guys.

Objectively, longer runtimes haven't hurt the global box office, as the top 4 films in history (Avatar @ 162 min, Avengers: Endgame @ 181, Avatar 2 @ 192 and Titanic @ 195) average just over 180 minutes each.

The lack of an intermission did nothing to hinder their box office performance either.

The studios would have to be on board with this so the intermission point makes sense.

The filmmakers would have to be convinced to damage their movie too. Maybe there's more but the only person that I've seen in the modern era that wanted to interrupt their movie was Tarantino (and even that was almost definitely borne out of trying to emulate the roadshow releases). By far, the prevailing feeling is that they don't want to lose an audience with a "commercial break" once they've got the audience interested.

 

[Malcolm R]

The filmmakers would have to be convinced to damage their movie too. Maybe there's more but the only person that I've seen in the modern era that wanted to interrupt their movie was Tarantino (and even that was almost definitely borne out of trying to emulate the roadshow releases). By far, the prevailing feeling is that they don't want to lose an audience with a "commercial break" once they've got the audience interested.

But I think the point is that much of the audience is already making their own "intermission" by getting up and leaving the auditorium at random times along with whatever disruptions they cause to those sitting around them as they exit and re-enter in the darkness. These people are deciding when the intermission occurs and also missing a chunk of the film.

I'd think that would bother filmmakers moreso than creating a planned intermission in a long film where everyone knows they can take a break at the same time and rejoin the story together, instead of randomly losing an entire section of the film and creating multiple disruptions throughout the running time. Most people are not just going to "hold it" because Cameron or Scorsese tell them they're not allowed to take a break.

 

[Joe Wong]

Obviously, it's all dependent on personal taste but I've seen so many big budget action movies in the past five to ten years that would have benefited from being much shorter. Cameron or Jackson or Spielberg usually make long runtimes work but the TV director hired to do a comic book movie is not in the same league as those guys.

For sure - some films could have used a tighter edit. Though I usually comment that certain films have missed fleshing out characters and/or plot because they stuck to a shorter runtime. This has been true for some of the more recent MCU entries (given the complexity and the integrated nature of that universe, I feel the films have earned the right to have longer runtimes), but I'll cite a non-MCU film: Tom Hanks' Greyhound (2020), a WW2 action film that was 91 min long but could have used 20-30 minutes more, IMO.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I've got a much better solution, make shorter movies.

I think this is it.

I think the idea that an intermission would prevent an audience from getting back into a movie is ridiculous. That being said, the vast majority of films being released today are not long enough to need them.

I don't remember anyone discussing whether an intermission was needed for Oppenheimer over the summer even though it was three hours. This issue only really cropped up in regards to Killers of the Flower Moon, which is 3 hours and 26 minutes. Anecdotally, my friend who refused to see Flower Moon theatrically on the basis of its running time did see Oppenheimer theatrically. So it was really the extra 26 minutes that made the difference to him.

Scorsese values the theatrical experience and really wanted Killers of the Flower Moon to be seen that way. By denying theaters the opportunity to include an intermission, he limited the number of people who would be willing to see it the way he wants into be seen. As I said previously, it is difficult to quantify how many people skipped it because of the length as opposed to some other reason. But it seems to me that, as much as he is a proponent of theatrical, he preferred to dictate a scenario where fewer people saw it without an intermission than might have seen it with one.

 

[TravisR]

But I think the point is that much of the audience is already making their own "intermission" by getting up and leaving the auditorium at random times along with whatever disruptions they cause to those sitting around them as they exit and re-enter in the darkness. These people are deciding when the intermission occurs and also missing a chunk of the film.

I'd think that would bother filmmakers moreso than creating a planned intermission in a long film where everyone knows they can take a break at the same time and rejoin the story together, instead of randomly losing an entire section of the film and creating multiple disruptions throughout the running time. Most people are not just going to "hold it" because Cameron or Scorsese tell them they're not allowed to take a break.

Then those people leave at a point that works for them and those that don't have to leave, don't have an artificial break jammed into the movie they're watching and the filmmakers don't have to create a commercial break in the middle of the movie. Also, viewers won't know if the intermission is two hours in or 90 minutes or 2:15 so if they have to use the bathroom after thirty minutes, they'd probably be more comfortable taking care of it then (at least, I would ) and come back rather than wait another hour or more.

There's also the problem for movie theaters where they'd have to deal with people who are unhappy that the movie that they paid $13 to watch is just stopping when they're watching it. Intermissions were a thing five decades ago but it's not something the vast majority of viewers have ever dealt with or probably even know about.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Modern commercial theaters aren’t equipped to routinely present intermissions. For the few Fathom-type events that have featured movies that have intermissions, they weren’t presented well.

A big part of the issue is that everything is automated now. A technician comes in and programs the entire week’s showtimes, including the lighting cues for the auditoriums, and then they’re not back until the following week. On most days, there isn’t anyone in the theater that is capable of changing anything about the shows.

So what happens on the rare occasions when they get an intermission is that the intermission is built into the DCP as a fixed length of time. The movie file doesn’t stop playing from the server - it’s just playing blank video for a predetermined time. Sometimes the technician doesn’t know or forgets how to program for that, so you wind up with ten minutes of darkness and no house lights coming up for the break. Or you wind up with house lights that come up for the break and the technician forgets to program the cue to turn them back off when the film resumes, and you wind up with the second half being shown with the lights on - in either scenario, there’s nothing that can be done to fix it until the technician is back the following week. There’s no one on site who can extend the intermission if the audience hasn’t returned from the restrooms or concessions; conversely, if the audience returns in advance of conclusion of the predetermined waiting period, there’s no one who can start playing the film again earlier than programmed and the audience sits there impatiently.

The only way to do an intermission properly is to have someone supervising in the booth, and there hasn’t been anyone up there in over a decade. Some new theaters don’t even bother building actual booths anymore since it’s no longer a manned position.

The infrastructure just doesn’t exist for that kind of presentation as a matter of routine anymore. In my opinion, it’s better to enjoy rare instances of intermissions at art theaters, repertory theaters and other special presentation venues that can handle them, and not to ask or expect multiplexes to do something that goes against how they were designed to operate.

On a personal level, I wholeheartedly agree with Travis about not wanting my immersion in a film’s world broken at some arbitrary point. My favorite movie is “2001” and I thought the intermission was cool the first time I saw it presented that way, but nowadays I would much rather the film simply continue on rather than stopping for a 20 minute break when there’s only 40 minutes left to go.

 

[TravisR]

And how long until a theater chain decided that the intermission was a perfect opportunity for some more advertising?

 

[Malcolm R]

Intermissions were a thing five decades ago but it's not something the vast majority of viewers have ever dealt with or probably even know about.

I think they'd figure it out. Most other entertainment has one, like stage productions. Most sporting events have a halftime or intermissions (hockey). Baseball even celebrates the seventh-inning stretch and most of those games are less than 3 hours these days.

And how long until a theater chain decided that the intermission was a perfect opportunity for some more advertising?

I wouldn't really care as long as I wasn't missing a chunk of the movie I paid to see because I can't hold my water for over 3 hours.

 

[Patrick Sun]

@Homepage3

runpee.com

 

[Malcolm R]

Wonka previews at $3.5 million. Looking for $35 to $40 million weekend.

EDIT: The Numbers is predicting around $32 million, but states that up to $40 million may not be "out of the question".

 

[Tino]

Deadline

Sunday studio reported estimates:

1.) Wonka (WB) 4,203 theaters, Fri $14.4M, Sat $14M Sun $10.5M 3-day $39M/Wk 1

2.) Hunger Games: Songbirds & Snakes (LG) 3,291 (-374) theaters, Fri $1.7M (-37%) Sat $2.3M Sun $1.7M 3-day $5.8M (-38%), total $145.2M/Wk 5

3.) Boy and the Heron (GKIDs) 2,325 (+120) theaters, Fri $1.4M (-75%) Sat $2.1M Sun $1.6M 3-day $5.1M (-60%), Total $23.1M/Wk 2

4.) Godzilla Minus One (Toho) 2,622 (+82) theaters, Fri $1.34M (-41%) Sat $2M Sun $1.47M 3day $4.88M (-43%), Total $34.2M/Wk 3

5) Trolls Band Together (Uni/DWA) 3,157 (-294) theaters, Friday $930K (-34%) Sat $1.7M Sun 3-day $4M (-34%) Total $88.7M/Wk 5

6) Wish (Dis) 3,100 (-310) theaters, Fri $730K (-38%) Sat $1.39M Sun $1.08M 3-day $3.2M(-39%), Total $54.3M/Wk 4

7) Christmas With the Chosen: Holy Night(Fathom) 2059 theaters, Fri $875K Sat $1.05M Sun $1M 3-day $2.9M, Total $4.6M/Wk 1

8) Napoleon (Apple/Sony) 2,601 (-749) Fri $640K (-45%) Sat $955K Sun $630K 3-day $2.2M(-46%), Total $57M/Wk 4

9) Renaissance/Beyonce (AMC) 1,723 (-819) theaters Fri $553K (-66%) 3-day $2M (-63%) Total $30.88M/Wk 3

10) Poor Things (SEA) 82 (+73) theaters Fri $488K (+75%) Sat $422K Sun $365K 3-day $1.275M (+93%), Total $2.2M/Wk 2

Other:

Saltburn (Amazon MGM) 476 (-231) theaters, Fri $221K Sat $247K Sun $185K 3-day $653K (-40%), Total $10.1M/Wk 5

 

[Jake Lipson]

-60% is a sizable drop for The Boy and the Heron after its amazing opening last week. I suspect the Miyazaki faithful considered it an event and rushed out the first weekend. Of course, it has already become the highest-grossing film Gkids has ever distributed, so I'm sure they're thrilled anyway. But it is so good and the word of mouth is good (A- Cinemascore), so I was hoping it might expand its audience this weekend a bit more. Oh well. It's still a win.

$39 million would sound good for Wonka, and the trades are saying it revived the musical. It seems like every few years a musical does well and always gets credited for reviving the genre. As is the case with almost any genre, some work and some don't. I don't understand why they have to treat musicals like every single one of them has the weight of the entire genre on its shoulders. But Wonka cost $125 million to make. It is going to have to stick around for a while in order tobreak even.

 

[Wayne_j]

Before Wonka played today there was a Disney trailer for Soul, Turning Red, and Luca. They are finally getting theatrical releases for (Soul) January, (Turning Red) February, and (Luca) March.

 

[Tino]

1.) Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (WB) 3,706 theaters, Fri $13.7M, Sat $9M, Sun $5M 3-day$27.7M, 4-day $40M/Wk 1

2.) Wonka (WB) 4,213 (+10) theaters, Fri $6.5M (-55%) Sat $7M Sun $4.55M, 3-day $18M (-54%), 4-day $28M/Total $85.5M/Wk 2

3.) Migration (Ill/Uni) 3,761 theaters, Fri 3-day $5.8M, Sat $4.1M Sun $2.55M 3-day $12.4M, 4-day $17.5M, Wk 1

4.) Anyone But You (Sony) 3,055 theaters, Fri $3.4M, Sat. $1.77M Sun $755K 3-day $5.9M, 4-day $8M, Wk 1

5.) Salaar Part 1 Ceasefire (Prath) 796 theaters Fri $3.8M, Sat $1M Sun $857K 3-day $5.66M 4-day $6.9M/Wk 1

6.) Iron Claw (A24) 2,771 theaters, Fri $2.5M, Sat $1.55M Sun $814K 3-day $4.86M, 4-day $6.5M/Wk 1

7.) Hunger Games: Songbirds & Snakes (LG) 2,509 (-782) theaters, Fri $1.2M (-29%) Sat $1.2M Sun $628K 3-day $3.04M (-48%), 4-day $4Mtotal $153.3M/Wk 6

7.) Dunki (Yash Raj) 686 theaters, Fri $903K Sat $973K Sun $824K 3-day $2.7M 4-day $4M/Total $4.9M/Wk 1

9.) Boy and the Heron (GKIDs) 1,580 (-745) theaters, Fri $977K Sat $1.1M Sun $1.05M 3-day$3.15M (-42%),4-day $3.8M Total $31.2M/Wk 3

10.) Godzilla Minus One (Toho) 1,985 (-637) theaters, Fri $950K (-29%) Sat $1.1M Sun $650K 3day $2.74M (-46%), 4-day $3.24M Total$40.8M/Wk 4

11) Poor Things (SEA) 800 (+718) theaters Fri $1M (+104%) Sat $688K Sun $406K 3-day $2.09M (+63%), 4-day $3M Total $5.9M/Wk 3

 

[Malcolm R]

Wonka passed $100 million domestic yesterday, and is getting close to $275 million worldwide.

Aquaman 2 slipped to #3 at the box office on Wednesday, behind Wonka and Migration.