'2001' intermission ; does this bother anyone but me?
 

Was the something that Kubrick insisted be retained on all home video releases? It just seems intrusive and unnecessary. It's just shoprt enough to interrupt the flow of the film and not long enough to go to the bathroom and/or get something to eat from the fridge (not that having the pause function on the remote doesn't make that pointless).

I've only ever owned the CAV Criterion 3-disc laser box and the WB remastered DVD. Was there ever a home video edition that excised it?

Doesn't bother me at all - gives the brain a chance to breathe for a few seconds before getting totally blown away.

Does presenting a film exactly as it was intended bother me? Um...no...

I'll pretty much echo the previous 2 posts :up:

Is it just the one for 2001 that bothers you? What about Gone With The Wind?

And let's take this another step further. What about the Overture? Is it really neccessary for a home video presentation? I vote "yes" :)

If it's part of the original film, it should be included on the DVD. The overture at the beginning is actually one of my favorite parts of 2001. Probably because of that creepy sounding music Kubrick used.

And it's especially not long enough for 300 people to go to the bathroom when there are only 2 toilets.

Nope, I love the overture - it makes perfect sense for the structure of the film. Vast amounts of empty black space before life began (or, technically, before the MGM logo).

Was the intermission something Kubrick wanted, or was it something the theatres demanded? It just doesn't seem to make sense as part of the film.

I'm just wondering if the issue was ever addressed anywhere (it isn't in the Criterion laser edition).

Was it just a British convention to have intermissions? I remember going to see 'All The President's Men' in the theatre during a British vacation and was shocked that they shut off the projecter half-way through so they could send people into the audience to sell popcorn, soft drinks and ice cream bars (no albatrosses, though). And they wouldn't start the film up again until enough had been sold. I'd never experienced anything like that in Canadian theatre.

The intermission doesn't bother me at all, it was part of the original release and it should be part of the dvd. What DOES bother me is the crappy font used for Overture and Entre'Act, it really looks like something done for home video, and it really shouldn't.

I agree with wergo.

IMHO, an intermission is not actually part of a film, and I wouldn't necessarily consider an overture to be such, either. Both are really just time fillers that, once upon a time, actually served a purpose during a theatrical presentation.

An intermission serves no storytelling point at all and there has ever been a movie made where it did. It was strictly about giving the audience a break during loooooong movies at a time when the typical movie was about 90 minutes long.

If I remember correctly (and at my age I may not), when I saw 2001 in a theater during a re-release in the 70's (I never saw it in it's original release), there was no overture, nor an intermission. Anyone one else recall seeing it this way during the 70's?

As someone who likes music, I can understand the appeal of an overture, but are they really necessary to appreciate the movie at home? Who sits in front of a blank TV screen for ten minutes or so listening to a rehash of a movie's basic theme?

FWIW, in a theatrical presentation an intermission would never be as short as described here for 2001. In a theater it would have been about 10 minutes. Maybe they expect people to use pause buttons. When watching a DVD, an intermission can be done at any appropriate transition convenient or the needs of a viewer.

We can see where YOUR priorities lie - a home theatre room seating 300, in a house with 1-1/2 baths ...

;-]

:wave:

My general thinking on features that I don't specifically care about:
1 - Will there be people who do want it? (obviously, yes)
2 - Is it easy to avoid? (Not as easy as a commentary I don't want to listen to; in this case, I have to reach *way* out and get the remote control, pick it all the way up, aim it towards the DVD player, find the "skip chapter" button, press the button -- but only ONCE! -- and then put the remote back down, so I don't know if that really qualifies as "easy"...)

For whatever it's worth, HBO didn't show the intermission when they used to show it. But I'll say this: Kubrick edited that film way before home video existed. When he edited the movie, he would've expected that for the rest of the life of the film, it would be shown with the intermission, and he chose specific shots deliberately. Cutting out the intermission actually does hurt the flow of the film a little bit; I definitely believe your mind is meant to dwell a little bit on Hal's "eye".

(I have the same problem with 'Abbey Road' on CD ... it just feels wrong, to me, for 'She's So Heavy' to go right into 'Here Comes the Sun' as it does, because the end of 'She's So Heavy' seems designed for LP.)

Think about if you took a book, and the author had chosen a very specific sentence to end "Part I", then you turn the page and see "Part II', then you turn another page and see Chapter I of Part II ... now imagine a publisher like "We don't need all this subdivision", and removed "Part II' and "Chapter I" and just put the last sentence of "Part I" and the first sentence of "Part II" back to back in one paragraph. Different flow, not as intended.

I didn't get the sense that Wergo was opposed to intermissions on a DVD, just that the length of the intermission seemed puzzling - thus raising the question, why that length? And was Kubrick specifically consulted or approved the length?

Anybody know?

Maybe I misunderstood, but he appears to be asking why the intermission was retained on the DVD, and if there's a version which excises it. The length is a secondary question, highlighting the supposed uselessness of the intermission.

And I'm *sure* that Kubrick was consulted on the length of the intermission, since he contributed his thoughts to every aspect of all of his movies all throughout their releases. He probably figured that the intermission on a home video release is significantly different than that in a theater, because a viewer is under no compulsion to leave it running; they can stop the tape/DVD as desired and, thus, there wouldn't be a need for a full fifteen minute intermission. I'm just guessing, though, I have no concrete information as to why it's as short as it is.

This is also, I believe, the only movie on home video to have an intermission yet still fit onto one disc. Most others slpit the films over two discs, right at the intermission - so we don't notice the length. (There are a few clumsy 2-disc releases that ignore this rule, but that's another story...)

On a single disc, however (and before it, the VHS that ran the same way), a ten-minute break would be overkill. Films usually only produce a minute or so of music - the rest of the break is provided by the theater just not running anything - so having nine minutes of a blank screen would be a waste of space. The pause button works.

And GuamGuy's right - Kubrick was most likely consulted. And if it's good enough for Kubrick...

Now I'm sitting here trying to figure if I'd rather have the forthcoming (Branagh) 'Hamlet' have the disc break at the intermission or not ... I mean, that definitely makes sense, but it would mean a really lopsided release; I forget exactly where it is time wise, but I know it was between Act 4 and Act 5, so it's pretty deep in there... it seems like the transfer might suffer some.

Paint Your Wagon is a single sided, one disc film, and has an intermission.

Add Heaven's Gate to the list.

Jeremiah Johnson has an overture...not sure about an intermission though.. I don't think it does.

That last DVD edition of West Side Story (The Limited Edition) had an intermission.

I remember the intermission in Branaugh's Hamlet occured roughly 160 or so minutes (give or take a few) into the film. This meant that the second part had only 80 or so minutes (give or take a few).

The intermission in '2001' has always felt very disruptive to the flow of the movie, to me. The movie really isn't long enough to require or support an intermission. Lawrence of Arabia or The Sound of Music, fine. But even with the intermission '2001' doesn't hit 2 1/2 hours. The purist in me is glad that it's been included, but the movie-watcher in me gets really annoyed when it occurs.

I saw the film theatricaly a few years ago when it was re-released in 70mm. The intermission really broke the spell of the movie for the entire audience. It would have played a lot better without it.

I would be happier with a longer fade to black. However, I had completely forgotten about it until it was brought back up here, so it must not affect me too much.

Bergman's The Magic Flute has an intermission and is on one disc...but it's acceptable, what with the theatrical presentation of it all.

I really like the Overture and Entr'Act in Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut. They're not very long, and just add a nice quality to the film... Sorry if this is a tangent, but it seems like we're talking more about Intermissions in general than just 2001.