flixtime

I recently caught DJANGO UNCHAINED. I generally like to be seated at least fifteen minutes before a movie's start time. After the start time, I'd guess there was about twenty minutes of trailers, etc. And then the movie was 165-minutes. I love watching movies, but I don't especially care for going to the theater for a number of reasons...anyway, that is another story.

Back to my original question. For me, the experience of watching DJANGO was just too long to be sitting. Note, when I watch movies at home I generally take a break every so often...anyway that is another discussion.

So I was looking over the runtimes of some films currently in theaters:

DJANGO UNCHAINED - 165 minutes
THE HOBBIT - 166 minutes
JACK REACHER - 130 minutes
LES MISERABLES - 157 minutes
LIFE OF PI - 127 minutes
LINCOLN - 149 minutes
PROMISED LAND - 140 minutes
SKYFALL - 143 minutes
THIS IS 40 - 134 minutes
ZERO DARK THIRTY - 157 minutes

Good gosh when did Hollywood become Indian cinema, and my kingdom for a golden age producer/studio to put a leash on the excess (actually, that's just a wisecrack, maybe all the above films are perfectly fine as is (well, not DJANGO but that's another conversation)).

I see I'm doing my longwinded thing again.

So back to my original question, would you like to see American theaters offer an intermission during films with long runtimes? For the sake of discussion, we can define "long runtime" as over 125 minutes.

Every once in a while I go to an Indian film screening and I quite like that they offer an intermission during the show. I enjoy the opportunity to stretch, refresh, or just talk about what we think about the movie, etc. before proceeding with the second half.

Again, I don't generally care for the theater experience for a few reasons, but I'd be more receptive to seeing some of these films if there was an intermission somewhere in the middle.

I wonder, would theaters profit more by an increase in concession sales. Also, if not for all screenings of let's say DJANGO, perhaps some of the screenings can include an intermission while others omit it.

Groucho

Last movie I saw in the theater with an Intermission was Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet (1996).

Solid Snake

Fuck intermissions in today's films. I sit down, I don't get the fuck up till at some point within the end credits. I'm not waiting for 10 mins or whatever for people to take a piss/shit/whatever and then have these fuckers coming later than the intermission time and annoying me during the movie. Just no.

If it's a rare film that does it or whatever. FINE. But I'd hate it to be a standard today. Especially w/ the ads, trailers, etc going on before the film. It'd elongate it for no practical reason. Unneeded shit is already too long before the film. I don't want it in the middle of the film either.

flansered

No, unless the director puts one in the film themselves. The last thing I need is some theater jockey randomly picking a point to stop a movie, and possibly ruining the pacing/flow of the movie.

And a majority of the Bond movies are over 120 minutes, and I think padding an intermission into those would be a big mistake.

Dorsalphin

This. Granted, I'm 32 so sitting through a long movie (as long as it's entertaining) isn't a problem for me. Ask me again when I'm 65 and I may have a different opinion.

superdeluxe

No. The only kind of movie that deserves a intermission is something that approaches 4 hours. I saw Gettysburg, that thing was 4 hours long.

James Z

I would say no. I think that when I saw Gettysburg, it had an intermission now that I see it mentioned. Being 6'4", being able to stretch my legs was nice....perhaps that is why I don't go to them movies much anymore.....

Dan

While I would personally like an intermission so I can use the restroom, I would hate if they actually started doing it. People just don't get back to their seats in time and that will be very distracting. I'd rather sneak out for 1 or 2 minutes (yes, missing a scene...) than have everyone lining up to get out and back in again. I write this as currently, my bladder is about to explode because I need to go to the restroom right now.

islandclaws

Fuck. No.

If you're the type of person who can't sit still in a theater and give a film the respect it deserves, please - and I sincerely mean this - stay the fuck home.

Goat3001

Nope. If the movie is so long that I don't think I'd be able to sit through the whole thing in one sitting I'll wait to watch it at home.

DJariya

Simple solution, if you plan to see a really long movie, don't buy the extra large Coke or better yet, don't drink anything.

Drexl

Even if I was in favor of it, the film would have to be at least 3 hours before I'd consider it fit for one.

Although, it would be interesting if Les Mis had one at the point of the stage show's break.

majorjoe23

Movies should be like Tivo, where any audience member can pause the film to go to the bathroom, or back up the film for a few seconds rather than asking me "What did he just say?"

inri222

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermission

The last major mainstream film to contain an intermission was Gandhi 1982. The film was 3 h 11 m (191 min).

I would say that anything over 3 hours should have one.

IIG

Agreed. 4 hours or so, and I'm all for it.

fumanstan

Agreed, over 3 hours then I wouldn't be opposed to one. I don't think the current run times are too difficult to sit through without having to use the restroom.

Spiderbite

Exactly. And don't go sit down 15 minutes early either. What does that give you? 15 extra minutes to be bored and then another 20 minutes of commercials and trailers. By that point, you are 35 minutes in and you have yet to even start the freaking movie.

If I ever get to a movie that early I wait around the lobby or look at movie posters or take a quick preemptive pee break before going into the theater. That way I can look around and spot the best place to sit (i.e. away from children, teenagers, loud popcorn munchers, etc.). If I do get there too early and sit down, I find myself always moving again because someone that will irritate me will sit near me.

I can only see getting there 15 minutes early if it is a premiere of a huge movie and it is going to be a known sellout...but then again, I stay far, far away from showing like that generally.

SethDLH

This.

Supermallet

Only if it's intended to be part of the film.

superdeluxe

I believe Gettysburg had a intermission.

Mattflix

Anything over 2 hours, hell yes they should have an intermission.

I'm sick of having the dehydrate myself for half the day before going to the movies. Otherwise I end up having to pee about 2/3 through the movie, having the miss a random scene, and taking the embarassing walk of shame out of the theater.

And I agree it would have to be chosen officially as part of the movie for pacing sake.


Want a good reason they'd do it? It would boost concession sales.

And yeah I agree that too many people would come back too late. It would be horrible for sold out shows and the audience would play musical chairs with the seating.

Ash Ketchum

The last times I left to go to the bathroom during a movie were:
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (165 min.)
LORD OF THE RINGS: FELLOWSHIP OF THE RINGS (178 min.)
TITANIC (194 min.)

I would have liked intermissions for those. (Truth to tell, I had reached a point in both TITANIC and LOTR where I no longer cared enough about the movie to worry about whether I was missing anything. In TDKR, it looked to be a long dialogue scene between Wayne and Cotillard, so I ducked into the nearby bathroom for a quick pee only to come out and find Bane beating the crap out of Batman--I'd clearly missed something.)

But, normally, only for films 3 hours or more.

Intermissions were common when I was younger, but look at what we went to see:

GONE WITH THE WIND (238 min.)
BEN-HUR (212 min.)
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (220 min.)
EL CID (182 min.)
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (216 min.)
etc.

Shannon Nutt

GODS AND GENERALS certainly did, and it was one of those where the film didn't stop, but there was a countown clock on the screen - like movies in the "old days." So the Wikipedia info is incorrect.

fumanstan

I always go early, since I like getting good seats first. And I don't mind the previews and trailers before; I'm no less bored sitting inside watching those then I would be wandering around the lobby doing nothing.

Do people really have to pee that often? I'll sometimes get a drink during a movie and don't have to pee within that 2-3 hour window. I'm surprised it's that hard for people to last that long without needing a restroom break.

Supermallet

If it's under 3 hours, there's no reason for an intermission. IMO, an intermission should only occur if you've experienced enough footage to make up a full feature film and there's a feature film's worth of footage to go. And even then it should be built into the film, not done by the exhibitor.