Intermissions in long movies (1 Viewer)

[Rob P S]

Are you for or against them? Read this article and then debate and discuss.

http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/20030...ssionae1p1.asp

 

[ThomasC]

How long does the movie have to be in order for the film to have a mandatory intermission? Movie projection systems can't take more than a certain amount of movie reel, right? What's the time limit, 3 and a half hours before the reel has to be split?

 

[DaveGR]

I think an hour and a half movie can have an intermission,,Remember Monty Python and Holy Grail,,hehehehehehehehheheeh HAHA

 

[Jason Seaver]

Once it gets over 3.5 hours, yeah, I could use an intermission, although only if it's well-placed. If the movie's much shorter, though, I think it would seem like neither half was long enough, even for a 3.25 hour movie.

It also depends where I'm seeing the film. When I saw Lawrence Of Arabia and 2001 at Coolidge Corner, there was at least a decent-sized lobby (and the auditorium itself was spacious) to stretch my legs in. But, I remember a tiny second-run place in Portland, ME, showing Gettysburg a few years ago, and I imagine that was far too crowded.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Intermissions add to the cinematic experience.

How many of you are willing to watch Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur, or Abel Gance's Napoleon without an intermission? (FYI, the 5 1/2 hour Napoleon has TWO intermissions)

After all, you have to get rid of that 44 oz. Diet Coke eventually.

 

[Jason Seaver]

After all, you have to get rid of that 44 oz. Diet Coke eventually.

Bah! Know your bladder!

(Only half kidding. You'd think grown men would know how much soda they can drink without having to climb over me halfway through the movie)

I don't really think having intermissions really can be said to "add to the cinematic experience" - or at least, not the modern one. Cinema is, in part, about being immersed in the sights, sounds, and stories. Just about every advance in motion-picture technology, from sound to color to rounded wide screens to sensurround to stereo to surround to special effects to IMAX 3-D, and the evolution of film acting from the broad gestures of silents to todays naturalistic style, has been to make the immersion more and more complete. Intermissions, on the other hand, are a throwback to when film was more like live theater.

(Not that I dislike live theater, or think it's more primitive than film or anything like that - they've just evolved into two different art forms)

So, while I can understand intermissions when there are practical considerations - Return Of The King: The IMAX Experience, for instance, will have an intermission because you can only fit 2 hours on an IMAX platter, and a lot of people cramp up when they sit in the same place for 3+ hours - I can't see how having them makes a movie more cinematic.


Incidentally, what is the status quo on intermissions internationally? I remember in college, a Greek friend said she was surprised we didn't have them - that she was used to even a 2-hour movie stopping midway through and theater employees walking through the auditorium, flogging snacks & drinks!

 

[Gui A]

How long does the movie have to be in order for the film to have a mandatory intermission? Movie projection systems can't take more than a certain amount of movie reel, right? What's the time limit, 3 and a half hours before the reel has to be split?

I thought each reel was around 20 minutes or so. Every time you see a 'cigarette burn' on the top right, that's the end of a reel.
It's IMAX that has a maximum time limit of about 2 hrs. and it takes a lot longer than 12-15 minutes to change reels on those behemoths.

And honestly, while I and my bladder would enjoy intermissions, I simply do not trust today's audiences to:
A. Not steal my stuff (like jacket)
B. Not steal my seat.

So if they brought back numbered seating, and free coat checks at the theaters, then yes. I'm all for them. Especially after my Harry Potter: Chamber of Secrets incident, when I finished the large Sprite by the start of the third act. But I didn't know it was the third act. I thought it was the end... so I spent the last 20 minutes of denouement in excruciating pain. It felt like my kidneys were ready to explode.

 

[OcieB]

well i think that intermissions would be good for movies over 3 hours.

In all honesty, when was the last time you saw a movie in a theater that was over 3 hours? (excluding gods and generals). maybe one or two a year. The majority if cinema today is for entertainment, and people aren't entertained with movies that exceed 2 hours; let alone 3. I see no need for intermissions.

 

[Paul Linfesty]

Modern platters can supposedly hold around 4 and a half hours MAXIMUM of 35mm film. Also, reels come in all lengths, but the ones the studios ship prints out on are 2000 feet. One problem with 6000 foot reels (a format exhibitors have asked for) is that it is usually the first and last reels that get printed last (credits are argued over till the last minute, so all other reels are printed first).

 

[Malcolm R]

Not necessary. I actually have one theater nearby that does intermissions in long movies. I really hate it.

 

[Jason Whyte]

One problem with 6000 foot reels (a format exhibitors have asked for) is that it is usually the first and last reels that get printed last (credits are argued over till the last minute, so all other reels are printed first).

I'm not totally sure if that's the case, as there are editor reels which are half the length of a release print reel (ie. 1A and 1B would be a full release print reel). 6000ft (or "House Reels") DO exist, but mostly for projectionist breakdown and transfer, and for some changeover houses.

Jason

 

[MatthewA]

I'm all for intermissions in long movies. Especially since I drank a 48-ounce Coke during "Gone with the Wind."

 

[Greg_M]

Intermissions are welcome. In L.A. many of the better theaters have them if the film originally included one, but most films these days don't. Any film over 2 1/2 hours should have one. (You would think theaters would welcome this, it gives them the chance to sell more popcorn etc.) The only theaters which could have a problem are the multiplexes (But that's why they hire ushers)

"Pearl Harbor", "Titantic" and "Gangs of New York" all needed internmissions

 

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

Jason S: That's funny you mention the Greek friend...when I saw "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" in an outdoor theater in Athens in summer 1990, I was like WTF??! they stopped the movie half way to do exactly that! (and I'd already seen the movie the previous summer!) I'd been there many times before (and many times since) but that was my first movie theater experience in Greece...I guess the practice is more common in other parts of the world than it is here in the U.S.

That being said, I like the idea of intermissions at anything longer than 2:45 or so...I think FOTR and TTT would have benefited from a nice 15 minute intermission (with booze served in the lobby!)

Dennis

 

[Sean Campbell]

Yes indeed. 'Fellowship of the Ring' played with an intermission in my local cinema and I was all in favour of it ( as was my bladder ). As regards fears that your coat or bag might be taken in your absense - I usually bring them with me to the restroom.
I have to confess that I have an odd fondness for intermissions... to the extent where I didn't bother fast forwarding during the few minutes of blank screen during the 2001 DVD. They add to the 'epic' nature of a movie I think.
Incidently, I missed part of AOTC and Titanic due to lack of intermission.

 

[Malcolm R]

Intermissions totally ruin the flow of the film, bringing everything to a complete stop and throwing the entire audience out of the "film world" back into the "real world." The last time I was forced to endure an intermission (I think it was for "Titanic"), it was interminable. I didn't have to use the facilities, I didn't want to buy any more food, it was just 20 minutes of wasted time, sitting around waiting for the movie to re-start.

Anyone who can't sit still for at least three hours without having to use the bathroom should consult their doctor. And if you know it's going to be a problem, sit in an aisle seat.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

As long as it's a built-in (intended for the placement, as opposed to stuck in by the theatre) intermission, I have no problem with them. Titanic wasn't paced to have an intermission so it shouldn't have one. Lawrence of Arabia IS paced to have an intermission; the film works better with it.

 

[OcieB]

Anyone who can't sit still for at least three hours without having to use the bathroom should consult their doctor.

I don't know about that, but i agree with the fact that there shouldn't be intermissions.

 

[Bill J]

Intermissions totally ruin the flow of the film, bringing everything to a complete stop and throwing the entire audience out of the "film world" back into the "real world."

It seems like your experiences with intermissions have been completely different than mine, as neither myself nor the audience lost focus on the actual film.

During the intermission of the 90% full showing of Gods and Generals, the only discussion I heard was related to the film. I overheard people complaining that the film neglected certain events, while portrayed certain ones too much, etc. I even heard people calling others on cell phones and talking about the film.

I also recently attended a 70mm screening of Lawrence of Arabia complete with overture and intermission and I experienced the same thing. However, it could be argued that the majority of the people whom attended that screening were very interested in film to begin with.

 

[Bill J]

Anyone who can't sit still for at least three hours without having to use the bathroom should consult their doctor.

But that usually isn't the case. Especially if you also factor in driving to the theater, waiting in line to buy the ticket, waiting in line to buy food (if necessary), and sitting through 20 minutes of commercials and previews.