Will you see extremely long movies with no intermission in the movie theater?

[unicorn]

A second movie came out recently, Killers of the Flower Moon, which is well over 3 hours long, as is Oppenheimer. Neither my fiance nor I feel comfortable holding our bladders for that long, so we'll wait until they come out on a streaming service to which we subscribe, or perhaps will see them on a long plane flight (we'll be on a very long flight LAX to DOH on Qatar Airways in late January). If it's really necessary to have movies that long, I feel they should have intermissions. Anyone else here agree with me?

[Thomas_88]

Indeed, I don't understand why some cinemas don't offer that choice.

[kokopelli3]

My experience with some long, boring cinemas is you can take a break for 10 or 15 minutes and never miss anything. In some instances even an hour break would not make much of a difference. Of course that is not the case with all long cinemas.

[PeterRS]

On 11/21/2023 at 11:23 PM, Thomas_88 said:

Indeed, I don't understand why some cinemas don't offer that choice.

Regretably it is not the cinema's choice to make. It is the studios and the movie distributors. But I can remember at least one time when there was an intermission 'built in' to a movie. When Ben Hur came out, it had a running time of 3 hrs. 32 minutes. Not surprisingly it did have an intermission and no doubt the cinemas were pleased, for it gave them a chance to sell tons of ice creams and soft drinks, as well as the merchandise which accompanied the movie. 

Today, as long as i know how long a movie will last - and I can't think of any that is as long as Ben Hur - I'm happy to avoid drinking for a couple of hours and then have a pee in advance before sitting through it. If in desperate need, there is usually a toilet somewhere nearby.

[kokopelli3]

Another popular, long cinema was Gone With The Wind at 3 hrs. 40 minutes plus a 13+ minute break, overture. And another Civil War cinema, Gettysburg, at 4 hrs. 14 minutes.

[forky123]

To be honest if the editors fail to cut a film to 3 hours it's either so epic (Gettysburg) I'll wait to go to the toilet or so drawn out (Oppenheimer) you could go just about any time and not miss very much. If something is 3 hours long and not worth going to the cinema to see then it's probably not worth streaming or watching on a plane.

[JKane]

I saw both Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon in a theater without any issue.  And for both there was something to be said for the experience of seeing it in a theater exactly as intended.  Unfortunately there are fewer and fewer people who can go any length of time without checking their cell phone (or apparently having to potty though that wouldn't annoy me that much--sit towards the aisle if you have issues...) so I'm not sure it's going to last especially for auteur movies like these (Oppy's success was probably a fluke). 

[Thomas_88]

11 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Regretably it is not the cinema's choice to make...

According to the site of Kinepolis (world's largest cinema chain in revenue) it is their chose to make:

https://kinepolis.be/nl/faq-page/programmatie-en-filmaanbod/wanneer-kan-ik-pauze-verwachten-tijdens-een-voorstelling/

[Lucky]

An 83-year old friend loved Killers of the Flower Moon and sat through all 3 1/2 hours without a pee break. He loved the movie so much that he is willing to do it again.

I read (most) of the book and lost interest in seeing the movie.

BTW, @unicorn they do have adult diapers that I am told would get you through the movie.

[unicorn]

No thanks. I'll wait until it comes on streaming services. I'd rather not be streaming into a diaper or condom catheter... 😉

 

Kudos for those with large bladders.

[reader]

When Lawrence of Arabia first screened in 1962, the 227-minute epic was interrupted midstream with 20-minute intermission. Good for viewers and great for concession sales. I still stream it because I consider it among the five best films ever produced.

[unicorn]

All movies over 2.5 hours long used to have intermissions. Having 3+ hours-long movies without intermissions is a new (and unpleasant) phenomenon. Thankfully, most live theater, opera, etc., still provide for intermissions if the length exceeds 2.5 hours. I certainly believe it would benefit everyone to resume the practice in movies as well. Even for those who can last that long, I'm sure most would appreciate a break after some 2 to 2.5 hours. I don't see who benefits from having these super-long movies with no breaks. I've had kidney stones and don't want to go into these movies dehydrated. Won't do it. 

[kokopelli3]

I believe that the long cinemas originally had intermissions so the film reels could be switched. Since the 2000s  there was a switch to digital projectors which obviated the need for films.

[PeterRS]

11 hours ago, Thomas_88 said:

According to the site of Kinepolis (world's largest cinema chain in revenue) it is their chose to make:

https://kinepolis.be/nl/faq-page/programmatie-en-filmaanbod/wanneer-kan-ik-pauze-verwachten-tijdens-een-voorstelling/

Sorry I can not open that web page. I get a message "Access denied".

3 hours ago, reader said:

When Lawrence of Arabia first screened in 1962, the 227-minute epic was interrupted midstream with 20-minute intermission. Good for viewers and great for concession sales. I still stream it because I consider it among the five best films ever produced.

A truly great film and I think David Lean's best. It seems, though, that the US version shown a month after the premiere in London was edited down by 20 minutes. David Lean at first suggested he had decided it was too long for audiences. Years later he changed his opinion and said that producer Sam Spiegel had insisted on the cuts so that there could be an extra showing per day!

43 minutes ago, kokopelli3 said:

I believe that the long cinemas originally had intermissions so the film reels could be switched. Since the 2000s  there was a switch to digital projectors which obviated the need for films.

With respect this was only correct for the much older black-and-white movies. Most movies thereafter required several reels of film. The average length of a 24 frames per second reel with sound is only 11 minutes. So each reel has a sound built-in to give the projectionist the cue to be ready to start the next reel. In older movies, even into the 1970s, you can often seen the flash of a white cross in a circle at the top right of the screen - another cue that the reel is about to change. 

It's perhaps strange that we do not mind intermissions during almost all theatre dramas, but object to them in cinemas. I believe the answer has to lie with the director. If he is happpy with intermissions, he can time them at an appropriate time in the drama of the movie. To allow cinemas to decide intermissions at arbitrary times could easliy destroy the dramatic impact of the movie. 

[Thomas_88]

11 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Sorry I can not open that web page. I get a message "Access denied"...

Here's the text:

"When can I expect an intermission during a performance?

With the exception of Kinepolis Hasselt, all Belgian Kinepolis cinemas only include a ten-minute break during long screenings (longer than 2 hours and 15 minutes) and children's and family screenings. Because the Kinepolis audience in Hasselt has always been a warm supporter of intermissions, there will be an intermission in all performances, with the exception of smaller releases for a more select audience.
Depending on the wishes of the audience and the nature of the film, sometimes an intermission can be cancelled or inserted."

[Thomas_88]

12 hours ago, kokopelli3 said:

I believe that the long cinemas originally had intermissions so the film reels could be switched. Since the 2000s  there was a switch to digital projectors which obviated the need for films.

No, I've seen long films on reels in cinema (Titanic & others) without intermissions. Although, the reels they used were enormous, the size of a Qeensized bed.

[PeterRS]

56 minutes ago, Thomas_88 said:

Here's the text:

Thanks. I note it refers merely to one country.

53 minutes ago, Thomas_88 said:

No, I've seen long films on reels in cinema (Titanic & others) without intermissions. Although, the reels they used were enormous, the size of a Qeensized bed.

Sorry the Titanic information is not correct. When it was released in 1997, the running time was 3 hours and 17 minutes. This required 17.7 standard reels of fiim running at 25 frames per second. Last year 5x35mm reels of the original film were sold at auction. Given the size of the projectors, it would frankly have been impossible for 17.7 reels to be loaded in one reel on to even a specially modified 1990s projector. This image is one for standard reels on a standard projector.

 

On the other hand, as @kokopelli3 points out above, the old projectors were gradually removed from many major cinemas early in the 2000s when they were replaced by digital projection. Movies now come on a special hard drive and all the equipment in the projection booth has been significantly downsized.

I have no idea where the information about queen-size bed reels of fiim could have come from. But I'd love to see a photo.

https://www.shortpedia.com/en-in/did-You-Know/did-you-know-facts/did-you-know-the-famous-titanic-movie-was-177-reels-long-when-released-1637703653

[Mavica]

Quote

Intermissions were a standard feature in very long movies, right up to the 1980s, as were overtures. Movies also had printed programmes for their early showings. Such features replicated the traditional experience of theatre, and gave the movie a sense of being an 'event'. Intermissions also had the financial advantage of driving business to the foyer.

Follow the link below to learn which of the movies had intermissions:

https://tinyurl.com/mrxbazj3

[PeterRS]

1 minute ago, Mavica said:

Follow the link below to learn which of the movies had intermissions:

https://tinyurl.com/mrxbazj3

A fascinating list. But not all the movies can have been shown with intermissions in all countries, for I vividly recall seeing Titanic in Hong Kong with no intermission. Interesting perhaps that with the exception of the Lord of the Rings movies and 2 or 3 others, all others on the list seem to have been made in the 1900s. 

A poster earlier made reference to the long movie Oppenheimer. I saw it in the Paragon iMax Theatre. Personally I am glad it had no intermission as for me that would have killed much of the dramtaic tension. But I fully accept that others prefer intermissions.

[kokopelli3]

23 hours ago, PeterRS said:

With respect this was only correct for the much older black-and-white movies. Most movies thereafter required several reels of film. The average length of a 24 frames per second reel with sound is only 11 minutes. So each reel has a sound built-in to give the projectionist the cue to be ready to start the next reel. In older movies, even into the 1970s, you can often seen the flash of a white cross in a circle at the top right of the screen - another cue that the reel is about to change. 

Touche'!  I stand corrected. 🤔

 

 

 

[PeterRS]

I mentioned Ben Hur recently. Although I was then very young, I just did not like his acting much, and that increased over the years so that I avoided most of his movies. He seemed to me such a stilted actor without the fluency of movement and speech that all major actors have.

Decades later when he had all but given up movies (or they had given up him!) and before his dementia took hold, he appeared on the London stage in 1999 with his wife reading excerpts from something or other. The British critic Sheridan Morley who was related to several major British actors - his father was Robert Morley, Noel Coward was his godfather, his grandmother was Dame Gladys Cooper and one of his cousins is Dame Joanna Lumley whom many recall with much fondness from her appearances in the Absolutely Fabulous TV series - loathed the Hestons' performance. He wrote in his review that Heston's performance was "monumentally terrible" and that his wife was"suffereing from a talent by-pass." He then added that the management should recompense the patrons for having to sit through the performance during which, he added, the most moving thing about Heston on stage had been "his hairpiece."

Ironically this disastrous review came at a time when Heston was publicly excoriating his felllow American actors for their reluctance to appear in live theatre, blaming it on their arrogance, greed and fear of bad reviews. Clearly bad timing! 

[Thomas_88]

On 11/29/2023 at 6:37 PM, PeterRS said:

...I have no idea where the information about queen-size bed reels of fiim could have come from. But I'd love to see a photo...

 

Sorry, it's a translation error from me, it's not an idea, I saw it with my own eyes trough a window next to the stairs. Some cinemas put all the reels together, that's why only two technicians were needed in a multiplex with 28 theathres. Here's a pic:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_cinématographique#/media/Fichier:Nonrewind.jpg

[forky123]

On 12/1/2023 at 5:14 AM, PeterRS said:

I mentioned Ben Hur recently. Although I was then very young, I just did not like his acting much, and that increased over the years so that I avoided most of his movies. He seemed to me such a stilted actor without the fluency of movement and speech that all major actors have.

Decades later when he had all but given up movies (or they had given up him!) and before his dementia took hold, he appeared on the London stage in 1999 with his wife reading excerpts from something or other. The British critic Sheridan Morley who was related to several major British actors - his father was Robert Morley, Noel Coward was his godfather, his grandmother was Dame Gladys Cooper and one of his cousins is Dame Joanna Lumley whom many recall with much fondness from her appearances in the Absolutely Fabulous TV series - loathed the Hestons' performance. He wrote in his review that Heston's performance was "monumentally terrible" and that his wife was"suffereing from a talent by-pass." He then added that the management should recompense the patrons for having to sit through the performance during which, he added, the most moving thing about Heston on stage had been "his hairpiece."

Ironically this disastrous review came at a time when Heston was publicly excoriating his felllow American actors for their reluctance to appear in live theatre, blaming it on their arrogance, greed and fear of bad reviews. Clearly bad timing! 

I wonder if Sheridan ever critiqued his father's acting with such gusto. 

[PeterRS]

9 hours ago, forky123 said:

I wonder if Sheridan ever critiqued his father's acting with such gusto. 

Robert Morley always seemed to me to be a bit of a buffoon, but perhaps that's more a result of the parts he was given. The critic Leonard Maltin described him as "particularly effective when cast as a pompous windbag"! He was highly acnowleged for his London stage roles before he started being cast in movies. He was apparently offered a knighthood in 1975 but like several other personalities (David Bowie, John Cleese of Monty Python fame, scientist Stephen Hawking, actor Glenda Jackson) he declined the honour.

[unicorn]

On 12/2/2023 at 6:53 PM, PeterRS said:

.. He was apparently offered a knighthood in 1975...

Some people find it helps them sleep 😉