Why don't movies have intermissions anymore?
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well it's your own fault for buying a drink and drank it during the film or not going to the toliet beforehand.
In saying so I did had an intermission once when I watched The Last Samurai (it was a crappy cinema) and I can honestly say that it competely break the mood when watching it. It's like you're reading a good book in silent/ mild enviroment only to have someone jumped on you and you have to do something to stop enjoying your read.
Also watching a film is long anyway (if you include the ads and trailers) especially in my case when I have to go to the train station afterward including my mate who I go to the cinema with (we meet up and watched a film). I do not need the film time length to be any longer with intermission.
On the other hand however I don't mind it if it come to children films as we all know that childrens got small attention span.
In saying so I did had an intermission once when I watched The Last Samurai (it was a crappy cinema) and I can honestly say that it competely break the mood when watching it. It's like you're reading a good book in silent/ mild enviroment only to have someone jumped on you and you have to do something to stop enjoying your read.
Also watching a film is long anyway (if you include the ads and trailers) especially in my case when I have to go to the train station afterward including my mate who I go to the cinema with (we meet up and watched a film). I do not need the film time length to be any longer with intermission.
On the other hand however I don't mind it if it come to children films as we all know that childrens got small attention span.
No thanks, I'd rather continue to be drawn into the tale, not get snapped out of it halfway through.
They still have them. I can only speak for Greece but every movie I've seen here has had an intermission, no matter how short it may have been. I think Peter Jackson's King Kong actually had two. It was odd at first but I still smoked at the time so the intermissions weren't unwelcome.
My local theater still has an intermission, but i do believe the shortend it from 15 to 10 minutes.
There are two sides to this though, on one hand you can put in a few (maybe 2/3 at most i think) without intermission and get more profit that way.
On the other hand, that isn't a guaranteed sell, sometimes if you go to a movie, the room can be almost empty. That is why some theaters still got intermissions, they get more profit out of popcorn sales. Which is damn expensive here.
There are two sides to this though, on one hand you can put in a few (maybe 2/3 at most i think) without intermission and get more profit that way.
On the other hand, that isn't a guaranteed sell, sometimes if you go to a movie, the room can be almost empty. That is why some theaters still got intermissions, they get more profit out of popcorn sales. Which is damn expensive here.
I think this is a little due to the technical limitations that were present before. When they were using the old fashioned reels they needed time to swap reels on the long movies while nowadays it's all digital so it's fine. I remember we preferred to travel to the theatre 2 hours away because they had two projectors which meant there weren't any intermission in the middle.
On occasions I kinda wish they had an intermission, but it's hardly a big deal for me. I don't eat or drink while watching movies so I don't need to go to the toilet during. For kids movies they should really consider it though.
On occasions I kinda wish they had an intermission, but it's hardly a big deal for me. I don't eat or drink while watching movies so I don't need to go to the toilet during. For kids movies they should really consider it though.
I like the idea about moving some of the preview ads to the middle of the movie... as it is, I and my friends have got timing our arrival at the theatre just in time to buy tickets (the self-serve terminals are a huge boon for this), snacks and drinks, and find a seat just before Kevin Bacon appears exhorting us to turn our phones off. With less leeway, and a break in the middle, we'd be encouraged to turn up earlier (thus seeing more of the pre-roll ads), and maybe leave snackage until the middle if we had to skip it at the start (meaning greater revenue for the concession stand). Everybody wins.
Then again, it's been a very long time since I had to get up in the middle of a film anyway. The last one where I started really feeling an urge to walk around - because of posterior numbness rather than a full bladder - was The Hobbit, and its length is notable by its rarity. The last film I bothered with before that which nudged three hours was LOTR...
And there's a fair old problem of security, too (how are you supposed to double check people's tickets to let them back in, or be sure they're not sneaking out of one film into another? with the small trickle who may come out of a regular movie it's no problem, with a couple hundred coming out at an actual intermission it's far more challenging, you have to schedule them to not clash in the middle as well as at the start and end...) which encompasses fire safety and potential crushes as well as financial concerns - plus midpoint demands for refunds if they think the film sucks. If you're getting up anyway, then it's far less of a hassle to do that, when otherwise you might have just sat through it and lumped it.
I don't even think it's because of audience preference or advertising revenues, in fact. It might just be that the logistics of the whole affair would be unmanageable, particularly in a multiplex. A traditional theatre showing a stage play only has the one production to worry about, and a relatively long intermission in the middle of a long performance, with only two or maybe three "curtains" per day, so the start of act 2 can be briefly held up if not everyone has made their way back to their seats on schedule (...digitally fed cinemas can have almost completely automated projectors these days, no projectionist sat there changing reels who can keep an eye on things). An older, small fleapit cinema will only have between one and six screens, typically two to four, which is far easier to juggle. Multiplexes have no chance - but if enough places start doing it, regardless of size, they'll all be expected to.
There was an alternative approach I came up with however - show the movies in full in their first week, maybe two (depending on age range, length, and popularity), then switch to intermission showings after that. Beyond the opening weekend and maybe the week after it, theatres are rarely fully packed out with no seats to spare (even seeing ST:ID in the UK this weekend, on the third day of showing, I was able to easily get a seat for the earlier of two evening slots even as practically the last person to ask for one, more than fifteen minutes after the posted "start" (of trailers) time). Towards the end of the run, they can struggle to fill more than 10% of the seats. Having fewer showings per day, then, could potentially SAVE (or if you prefer, "make more") money for the theatre, as it's not exactly cheap in terms of electricity or materials to run a professional grade cineprojector. If you can do it fewer times but still fill as much time and get the same number of customers paying the same amount, perhaps preferentially so for longer films because they know there'll be a break and they otherwise would have waited for the DVD, then that's additional pure profit in your pocket. We already have differential showings with 2D vs 3D, regular vs IMAX, subtitled or audio-described, seniors / juniors matinees and the like, so why not "intermission" and "non-stop" as well?
BTW, the longest "kids" film I know of is roughly 2 hours... was made in the 80s... and stood out due to its length even then. But some of the others in the "longest kids films" top 10 were made in this decade. I don't think it's children's movies "these days" that are short, they're just short in general. You probably want to have the offer of a break at about the one-hour point (or halfway if they're shorter), if only because that's the sort of rhythm they may be used to from BBC or PBS programmes... (and every 30, 15 or even 10 minutes for BBC/PBS kids or anything on a commercial channel)
Then again, it's been a very long time since I had to get up in the middle of a film anyway. The last one where I started really feeling an urge to walk around - because of posterior numbness rather than a full bladder - was The Hobbit, and its length is notable by its rarity. The last film I bothered with before that which nudged three hours was LOTR...
And there's a fair old problem of security, too (how are you supposed to double check people's tickets to let them back in, or be sure they're not sneaking out of one film into another? with the small trickle who may come out of a regular movie it's no problem, with a couple hundred coming out at an actual intermission it's far more challenging, you have to schedule them to not clash in the middle as well as at the start and end...) which encompasses fire safety and potential crushes as well as financial concerns - plus midpoint demands for refunds if they think the film sucks. If you're getting up anyway, then it's far less of a hassle to do that, when otherwise you might have just sat through it and lumped it.
I don't even think it's because of audience preference or advertising revenues, in fact. It might just be that the logistics of the whole affair would be unmanageable, particularly in a multiplex. A traditional theatre showing a stage play only has the one production to worry about, and a relatively long intermission in the middle of a long performance, with only two or maybe three "curtains" per day, so the start of act 2 can be briefly held up if not everyone has made their way back to their seats on schedule (...digitally fed cinemas can have almost completely automated projectors these days, no projectionist sat there changing reels who can keep an eye on things). An older, small fleapit cinema will only have between one and six screens, typically two to four, which is far easier to juggle. Multiplexes have no chance - but if enough places start doing it, regardless of size, they'll all be expected to.
There was an alternative approach I came up with however - show the movies in full in their first week, maybe two (depending on age range, length, and popularity), then switch to intermission showings after that. Beyond the opening weekend and maybe the week after it, theatres are rarely fully packed out with no seats to spare (even seeing ST:ID in the UK this weekend, on the third day of showing, I was able to easily get a seat for the earlier of two evening slots even as practically the last person to ask for one, more than fifteen minutes after the posted "start" (of trailers) time). Towards the end of the run, they can struggle to fill more than 10% of the seats. Having fewer showings per day, then, could potentially SAVE (or if you prefer, "make more") money for the theatre, as it's not exactly cheap in terms of electricity or materials to run a professional grade cineprojector. If you can do it fewer times but still fill as much time and get the same number of customers paying the same amount, perhaps preferentially so for longer films because they know there'll be a break and they otherwise would have waited for the DVD, then that's additional pure profit in your pocket. We already have differential showings with 2D vs 3D, regular vs IMAX, subtitled or audio-described, seniors / juniors matinees and the like, so why not "intermission" and "non-stop" as well?
BTW, the longest "kids" film I know of is roughly 2 hours... was made in the 80s... and stood out due to its length even then. But some of the others in the "longest kids films" top 10 were made in this decade. I don't think it's children's movies "these days" that are short, they're just short in general. You probably want to have the offer of a break at about the one-hour point (or halfway if they're shorter), if only because that's the sort of rhythm they may be used to from BBC or PBS programmes... (and every 30, 15 or even 10 minutes for BBC/PBS kids or anything on a commercial channel)
The only time I saw an intermission was for a movie marathon at the local drive-in between features but I'm not sure if that counts.
I miss the shorts they played prior to the movies. I kinda feel that its something in need of a comeback, especially with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Get together some talented filmmakers from the Internet, offer them a small but reasonable budget, and have them make shorts that focuses on a certain Marvel character that can't be put into a major feature. Hawkeye and Hulk could use something like this or even new characters yet to be introduced. It will help test the waters for these characters, offer more insight into said characters and their world (since Marvel Comics is not that reader friendly these days), and it gives actors like Mark Ruffalo and Jeremy Renner something to do other than sit on their hands while waiting for Avengers 2.
I miss the shorts they played prior to the movies. I kinda feel that its something in need of a comeback, especially with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Get together some talented filmmakers from the Internet, offer them a small but reasonable budget, and have them make shorts that focuses on a certain Marvel character that can't be put into a major feature. Hawkeye and Hulk could use something like this or even new characters yet to be introduced. It will help test the waters for these characters, offer more insight into said characters and their world (since Marvel Comics is not that reader friendly these days), and it gives actors like Mark Ruffalo and Jeremy Renner something to do other than sit on their hands while waiting for Avengers 2.
Only one truly logical reason why this is no longer the case.
If you get up for an intermission to go to the restroom, buy some snacks, talk outside, etc., someone will be in your seat when you get back.
I love to get a good view of the flick I'm watching and I'll be damned if I have to lose my seat and watch the film in the front row.
If you get up for an intermission to go to the restroom, buy some snacks, talk outside, etc., someone will be in your seat when you get back.
I love to get a good view of the flick I'm watching and I'll be damned if I have to lose my seat and watch the film in the front row.
In the cinemas in my country(the Netherlands) all seats are numbered and I have never encountered this before, People are too afraid to look like asses to go sit on someone else's seat.CrimsonBlaze said:
But yeah I absolutely hate the lack of intermissions, every single time I go to the cinema I have to take a piss halfway through the film, and I'll be damned if I miss anything of the film. Which leads to the awkward situation of wanting the movie to end because you need to go to the toilet but at the same time not wanting it to end because you want to see more of it.(Most of the time, I'm pretty good at picking good movies)
I wouldn't mind a mid-film smokebreak, myself. But I think it'd mess up the atmosphere a bit, now that I'm used to seeing the films in one uninterrupted go.
A well-made movie doesn't need an intermission. I should note that by "well-made," I don't mean "good."
I've seen mention of The Hobbit. That movie was well-made and had very good pacing. When it was over, I felt like I'd only been watching for a couple of hours, even though it had been almost three. To me, that's a perfect ratio. Most ninety-minute action films I've seen were well-made because they felt like they only lasted half an hour, whereas every Miyazaki film I've seen was poorly made because they felt twice as long as they actually were and I was impatient for the end.
Then again, I've got a patient bladder and I don't buy any concessions at the theater. If I have anything to eat, it's usually some chips or crackers I've brought in a snack bag. In any event, intermissions in movies just make me think of those over-rated classic films made by directors who didn't quite grasp that they didn't need to replicate stage theatre.
Off-topic: LaQuinta can kiss my ass.
I've seen mention of The Hobbit. That movie was well-made and had very good pacing. When it was over, I felt like I'd only been watching for a couple of hours, even though it had been almost three. To me, that's a perfect ratio. Most ninety-minute action films I've seen were well-made because they felt like they only lasted half an hour, whereas every Miyazaki film I've seen was poorly made because they felt twice as long as they actually were and I was impatient for the end.
Then again, I've got a patient bladder and I don't buy any concessions at the theater. If I have anything to eat, it's usually some chips or crackers I've brought in a snack bag. In any event, intermissions in movies just make me think of those over-rated classic films made by directors who didn't quite grasp that they didn't need to replicate stage theatre.
Off-topic: LaQuinta can kiss my ass.
But wouldn't they make some more money due to people buying more stuff from the concessions?Dirty Hipsters said:
Nothing I like more than a fag in the toilet to keep me company during a long romantic movie.total crazy talk said:
It's money I guess and it sucks sometimes. It's not that intermissions are only used for a break to buy snacks and use the washrooms, but they are sometimes necessary for the film. I remember Godfather II had an intermission that was used to separate the different movements of the film which would have been jarring otherwise. Before the intermission we see the revenge of Vito and the major turning point of Michael's downfall. After the intermission a few months have passed and the story takes on another tone. I really can't imagine the movie without that intermission so maybe certain films require an intermission.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Profits from concessions aren't constant or guaranteed. During one intermission they might sell popcorn like gangbusters, while during another one everyone might be running for the bathroom. On the other hand they usually have a pretty good estimate of how much money they'll be making from an extra showtime (or 2) of the newest movie release, so it's the safer bet.Professor James said:
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
That's a good example, but you have to remember that Godfather 2 was made with that intermission in mind. They knew they would have an intermission so they worked it in at the exact right moment. Movies these days wouldn't have the same problem of a transition being too jarring without an intermission because movies don't get intermissions, so there wouldn't be any transitions that would rely on one.Dylan Miller said:
I think there are no more intermissions (at least in America) for two reasons: 1; like everyone else is saying, they want to put more screenings in to make more money. 2; Some people are kind of stupid now adays. When "Grindhouse" was released in theaters there was an intermission in the middle of it and people would leave, not realizing that it was only half over.