Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Intermission in King Kong

This is topic Intermission in King Kong in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=007677

Posted by Ian Bailey (Member # 1752) on 12-12-2005, 03:22 AM:

Anyone considering putting an intermission in KK.If so any hints on where would be a good spot.I was going to put it in between Reel 5 and reel 6 but it doesn't look like a complete scene change to me and I'm sure I won't have time to preview it.
BTW we received our print complete in one delivery except for the DTS discs which haven't arrived as yet [Eek!]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-12-2005, 05:09 AM:

In the good ole USofA, the studio's master contracts specifically forbid that sort of "tampering." We have to run the film in its entirety without alteration of any kind and from beginning to end. Adding intermissions (which theatres would LOVE to do do to increase concessions sales) is specifically cited as breach of contract. With TITANIC, supposedely the word went out that Cameron would refuese to allow any intermission, although I heard that lots of theatres, especially Drive-ins, had strange mechanical failures rather consistantly during the course of the run and surprisingly, usually at the same point in the film almost every night. [Razz]

In some foreign markets this doesn't seem to be quite as verboten as it is here. In India, for example, American films are shipped with markings as to where to take the intermission; the American distributors know that intermissions will be taken no matter what they say. Seems in their cinema culture, every film, no matter how long or short, has an intermission.

What I can't understand, why does an intermission ruin the "artistic integrety" (Cameron's claim) of his film only in the US, but over-seas it doesn't. If it doesn't hurt the film on an entire continent, how come it hurts us?

I say, check your master contract and see if you are or are not legally bound not to take a break in the middle of the film. If it doesn't strictly forbit it, then do your audience a favor and TAKE the intermission wherever you want. I sure as hell wished the theartres I saw LOTR titles in would have been brave enough to give me and my bladder an intermission - as I recall, I actually could have used two.

Posted by Mike Baer (Member # 1519) on 12-12-2005, 06:37 AM:

In Switzerland we make also an intermission in every movie (except some arthouse films).I don't think it ruins the "artistic integrity".
Especially for King Kong we receive Reel 4 splitted in 4a and 4b.There will be an intermission sign at the end of reel 4a (after 113 Min.according to UIP).According to our Distributor this is the place P.Jackson wanted an intermission.

Posted by William Valdes (Member # 2690) on 12-12-2005, 04:57 PM:

I don't think adding intermissions would necessarily compromise the artistic integrity of a film but it can be annoying for those wanting to just watch the whole film start to finish without interruption. I personally think that if you add an intermission during the film, the audience should at least be aware of it when they buy their tickets.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-12-2005, 04:58 PM:

frank said "In the good ole USofA, the studio's master contracts specifically forbid that sort of "tampering." We have to run the film in its entirety without alteration of any kind and from beginning to end. Adding intermissions (which theatres would LOVE to do do to increase concessions sales) is specifically cited as breach of contract. With TITANIC, supposedely the word went out that Cameron would refuese to allow any intermission, although I heard that lots of theatres, especially Drive-ins, had strange mechanical failures rather consistantly during the course of the run and surprisingly, usually at the same point in the film almost every night"

Many theatres around the world use a Tower as there transport and they are limited to the number of reels that they will hold and as such intermissions are allowed

Posted by Ian Bailey (Member # 1752) on 12-12-2005, 05:06 PM:

I put an intermission in LOTR and had nothing but positive feedback from the customers and a positive effect on Candy Bar sales.
How am I going to work out where 113 minutes in is located?
With the size of the reels we received I doubt very much it is in the middle of reel 4(possibly somewhere in reel 6)

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 12-12-2005, 05:20 PM:

End of reel 5 is 99:56.
End of reel 6 is 121:25.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-12-2005, 05:38 PM:

quote:
What I can't understand, why does an intermission ruin the "artistic integrety" (Cameron's claim) of his film only in the US,

Movie directors and studio people don't care about artistic integrity. If they did, they would never release their movies on DVD, where they're often stopped and started multiple times during the "presentation."

Posted by Ian Bailey (Member # 1752) on 12-12-2005, 06:37 PM:

Thanks Daryl
I owe you a beer [beer]

But you will have to come down here to get it [Eek!]

Let me know before you leave and I'll put some on ice!!!!

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 12-12-2005, 06:51 PM:

They should wise up & see the entrance & entracte for what they really are nowadays... advertising space!

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-12-2005, 11:37 PM:

I worked in one theatre where the manager made us put intermissions in any feature to come in out theatre - to drive up concession sales. But home office found out about this and really raised the roof all over that manager since the film studios found out about this due to a blind checher and climbed all over the theatre company and threatened to immediately cut films rentals entirely if this practice does continue. Obviously the next day, the intermission practice was abolished.

Film companies: you play the ball game THEIR WAY and that's the only way. They can be a nasty breed to tangle with if you cross their paths.

-Monte

Posted by Alexander Smith (Member # 1769) on 12-13-2005, 01:22 AM:

To quote Mike Blakesley: Movie directors and studio people don't care about artistic integrity. If they did, they would never release their movies on DVD, where they're often stopped and started multiple times during the "presentation."

If the movie companies _wanted_ to do this, they could with (in DVD speak) User Operation Prohibit, so you would be locked out of your DVD players fast-forward and re-wind controls. The movie companies also know it would generate _alot_ of bad press.

Back on subject: I used to work at a cinema with film towers and, naturally, we had to put intermissions in some films. We all knew it was purely for technical reasons, and when we moved to the current site (platters) intermissions became a thing of the past.

Some of our customers _still_ ask, 6 years on, if there will be an intermission.

Alex.

Posted by Jean-Pierre Van Hoof (Member # 2063) on 12-13-2005, 08:02 AM:

quote:
What I can't understand, why does an intermission ruin the "artistic integrity" (Cameron's claim) of his film only in the US, but over-seas it doesn't.

Just my 0.02 eurocent. We are selling soda,s in 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 Liters and what ruins "artistic integrity" more I think is the fact that people tend to go to the toilets blocking someone else their view because holding up for about 2 1/2 hours without intermission is all most impossible ;-)

We make an intermission at all of our movies and it depends on how many reels it has. (6 reels split at 3-3, 7 at 3-4 etc)
We even get intermission trailers from the movie companies showing some sort of commercial by a large dutch brewery that sponsors a large Dutch cinema festival.(Rotterdam Cinema Festival i believe it is)

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-13-2005, 12:25 PM:

We just got the new "Sound of Music" DVD at home. That movie is 157 minutes long, and IT has an intermission!

3 hours is just too long to sit without a break. Why don't the powers-that-be realize that, in the name of "artistic integrity," people ARE going to miss part of their precious movie (or sit there in misery) because of bodily needs.

NATO should forget about the failed "trailer volume initiative" and come up with a resolution that any movie over 2'30" must have an intermission.

Posted by Jim Latendorf (Member # 3425) on 12-13-2005, 06:15 PM:

Back in the days where going to the movies was an event, all of the major features (Ben Hur, Oklahoma!, South Pacific, Mad Mad World, etc.) had intermissions. It allowed folks to stretch their legs, go to the bathroom and, even smoke in the lobby. I'm showing my age now, but there was a sign above the entrance to auditorium that flashed "CURTAIN" to let everybody know the movie was about to resume and to give them time to return to their seats. Ah, curtains. Those things that hung in front of the screen. Who wants to look at a blank white screen when the feature is not running. What's wrong with intermissions ??

Posted by Josh Mitoska (Member # 1086) on 12-13-2005, 07:17 PM:

I have just finished with reel 5, I plan on putting a intermission on, does anybody know the scene that it should be put on? I know it is at 113 minutes, but I am not sure where that is? Also I called & checked with my Universal booker today & they had no problems with a intermission

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 12-14-2005, 12:44 AM:

I disagree with intermissions on films that were not intended to have one. If a Theatre puts one in I'll be the first asking for
my money back and (and have done so before). Even when I see Ben-Hur sometimes here in Melbourne at the Astor Theatre as soon as the interval comes up, I cant wait for it to start again. The days of intervals are long gone but bollywood films for the most part still retain them but at least they are worked into the film as opposed to a projectionist stopping mid reel or end of a reel! As with more candy bar business, it's been years since a bought any thing to consume in a cinema, if needed I bring my own from home or more pocket friendly store [Wink]

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 12-14-2005, 01:26 AM:

You know what really grinds my gears? The idea that bringing your own things to consume in a cinema from a more "pocket friendly store" is something to smile about. Although I wouldn't care for an intermission added against the director's wishes, I understand that 1) It is sometimes necessary due to equipment limitations and 2) Many theatres are DYING OUT HERE! You know we're not making anything worth mentioning off the ticket price and few theatre operators are rolling in money. Please, everyone, if you patronize a theatre you enjoy - buy their food!!!

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-14-2005, 03:53 AM:

Nope! If you stick an intermission in "KK", you're asking for trouble. Too much continuity to where an intermission would destroy the effect of the whole movie.

-Monte

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 12-14-2005, 07:38 AM:

Matthew, It's very rarely that I consume food or drink while watching a film, I usually go out for a meal or coffee afterwards.

I don't agree with you at all. Cinemas here recently put a total ban on outside food but some removed the ban after too many complaints. I've got better things to spend my money on than pop corn and choc tops. If anything now i just bring in a bottle water which is filtered water from home. I refuse to buy the same water for $3.00 plus. I'm there to see a movie, not stuff myself silly. I don't work in a commercial Cinema so I don't know the ins and outs but I do know a lot of venues wouldn't make much at all if anything, nobody said it was easy.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-14-2005, 08:35 AM:

quote:
They should wise up & see the entrance & entracte for what they really are nowadays... advertising space!

Bite your tounge.

Posted by Josh Mitoska (Member # 1086) on 12-14-2005, 09:45 AM:

Again, my question was does anybody know the scene where the intermission should be??

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 12-14-2005, 10:49 AM:

Danish prints are born with intermission after reel 4A - leaving round 150 ft named 4B. It seems much to early to do any good - after about 1:15 nobody eyt needs to take a leak and nobody are ready for more popcorn... But it's there - and someone wise up there have decided where it should be - just after You've seen the monkey for the first time !

Per

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 12-14-2005, 11:50 AM:

Gee, if the film is too long for certain theatres, why don't you just leave out, say reel 3 and 6, or just play reel 1 and 8? That should solve all the problems. (Biting my tounge that's placed firmly in my cheek!)

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 12-14-2005, 05:30 PM:

We used to do a lot of makeshift intermissions back in the 80s, when we were a single screen. Examples: "The Right Stuff" and "Gandhi."

Now, with three projection rooms in two separate buildings, it is really out of the question.

Posted by Ross Oba (Member # 3433) on 12-14-2005, 10:16 PM:

quote: Josh Mitoska
Again, my question was does anybody know the scene where the intermission should be??

After watching it, my approximate guess would be right before they return to New York with 'Kong Eighth Wonder of the World' as the beginning frames.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-14-2005, 10:36 PM:

quote: Robert Harrison
We used to do a lot of makeshift intermissions back in the 80s, when we were a single screen. Examples: "The Right Stuff" and "Gandhi."

AFAIK, Ghandi had a built-in intermisssion. It even had an Entracte.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-15-2005, 12:46 AM:

My records say...Gandhi (screened 15th May 1983) Part one 90mins part two 94 mins.

The Intermission was indeed printed in.

Funny thing is...remember running Gandhi? It seemed so BLOODY long! (and it was) yet it was (only) 184 mins. Who'd have thought we'd be talking about 'KING KONG' again one day and it was going to be 3 mins longer than Gandhi!

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 12-15-2005, 06:32 AM:

John and Paul are indeed correct, Gandhi had a printed interval. So did The Right Stuff; I ran it in 70mm and it was a very long film for those days. A Passage To India and Scarface also had printed intervals. They are however the last I can recall. Did Dances With Wolves?? I can't remember with that one. It was around that time that they disappeared.

Was it because of multiple manning in projection rooms? To turn around sessions faster? I'm sure cinemas would not have given it up easily as the intervals made big $ in concessions.

Posted by Mike Baer (Member # 1519) on 12-15-2005, 06:42 AM:

Like Per Hauberg said,we have also a printed intermission in King Kong a few meters before reel 5.It is very nice, the intermission sign is in the same 20s varieté style like the credits are.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 12-15-2005, 09:22 AM:

quote: David Kilderry
I'm sure cinemas would not have given it up easily as the intervals made big $ in concessions.

Most multiplexes (or split singles) are not designed for intermissions. Many of the concession stands are on the unchecked side of the ticket barrier, some distance from the screens, and there is not space in the corridors to run extra stands. Screenhopping/unticketed entry would be easy if another screen is entering at the same time as the intermission.

Most modern cinemas are not equipped to run an intermission with proper showmanship and instead would go into a blank screen with badly aligned advert slides (or rolling stock adverts) appearing on the screen.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-15-2005, 06:09 PM:

Dances With Wolves (3 hr version) had no intermission. The four hour version did however. If you've never seen the four hour version...take a look. It craps on the 3 hr and answers many questions left unanswered by the editing down to 3 hrs.

Regarding 'why' they disappeared... I think it must be that they (the distributors) found they could fit in another session or two without the intermission in place.

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 12-15-2005, 06:19 PM:

Hey, fellas, maybe in Australia they had built-in intermissions on the films mentioned, but not in the U.S. At least not in the Chicago market. Back in those days, we were second-run. I saw "Gandhi" in 70mm at the Lincoln Village Theatre. I picked a good place for the intermission for when we would get it later. Interestingly, there was an intermission at that same spot on the DVD. But, that film, nor "Right Stuff" had an intermission around these parts, in 70 or 35.

The spot I picked for "Right Stuff" was five minutes into a reel (I don't remember which one). It was the scene where the music swells and the astronauts are walking in slow motion in their space suits.

Posted by Ian Bailey (Member # 1752) on 12-15-2005, 11:04 PM:

Well we have been running KK with the intermission at about half way through reel 6 and have received a lot of positive feedback from the customers who enjoy the break to have a wee/stretch the legs and grab something to eat from the candy bar.Isn't this what we are here for to put on a good show and make the customer happy(and hopefully make some money)?The people who are negative about intermissions (I feel) aren't considering their customers.
And to the comments John Koutoumis made about intermissions and allowing people to bring in their own food-MATE YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!!You obviously have never had the balls to put up your own money to buy yourself a Cinema and to make a living out of it.I suppose when you go to your local restraunt you bring your own dinner and ask them to warm it up for you!! [Eek!]

Posted by Stewart Anderson (Member # 1809) on 12-15-2005, 11:24 PM:

quote: Ian Bailey
The people who are negative about intermissions (I feel) aren't considering their customers

This may be true but like other people in this thread have said, you have to make the film companies happy too.

Out of curiosity, does anyone do intermissions with DLP?

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 12-16-2005, 12:13 AM:

Yes, I was a teenage projectionist when Gandhi was new in theatres. At the time, our manager insisted on an intermission because she didn't believe that the entire film would fit onto just one of our old, Christie platters. We had to add our own "Intermission" film tag which normally sat, unused, in a cabinet. We just put the break at the end of one of the reels in the middle.

One day I wrapped the leader of "part two" around the "part one" on the platter and made it stick long enough to start the second half. I was mostly confident that I wasn't going to cause a disaster but I held my breath during that particular screening. I was relieved to find that, indeed, the whole thing fit onto one platter. But I could never convince the manager to eliminate the intermission and make our jobs a little easier (since we wouldn't be threading as often).

As I recall, we never had a disaster where a careless staff member started the wrong half of the movie. But we did have an incident or two when nobody remembered to start the second half at all. (We had six screens to tend, after all, and nobody bothered to make a list of start times for "part two" of that particular feature so you just had to remember to pay attention.) After a long intermission some bewildered audience member came out, asking when the second half of the movie was going to start and/or trying to confirm exactly how long the intermission was supposed to last! (Not my fault, by the way. I was only a "helper" projectionist at the time, spending most of my time as an usher while assistant managers ran the booth... shortly following the falling out between our theatre chain and the union but... now I'm just a rambling, old man.)

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 12-16-2005, 06:35 AM:

quote:
I suppose when you go to your local restraunt you bring your own dinner and ask them to warm it up for you!!

Err no you go to a Restraunt because of the specific food they have on the menu. I go to a Cinema to see a film not for it's Candy bar [Roll Eyes]

It's not that I don't have the balls but I don't have the money to open my own Cinema at this point... I'm currently involved with a Theatre that's non-commercial and are trying to build a more solid use of it, anyway I'm not gonna drag this on.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-16-2005, 12:34 PM:

What the hell is a "restraunt," you non-spell-check-users?

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 12-16-2005, 02:10 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
What the hell is a "restraunt," you non-spell-check-users?

Must be one of those places where they sell you crap high-priced food and then have the gall to make you sit in in rows in the dark with a flickering wall at one end of the room whilst you eat.

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 12-16-2005, 02:18 PM:

I belive, pro's and contra's stand in line, when You talk about intermission or not. The thought of making extra money during the pause is nice, but not my main consideration. Take a seat in Your auditorium now and then, when running those long features (the avarage film today is at least 20 min's longer than it was 30 years ago) and keep an eye on Your custumers: after 2 hours 10-15 mins, the begin to run - not to buy extra popcorn, but to take a leak. How many of the individual, more or less noisy runners do You find ok, before You'd consider the intermission instead ? All You guys, being as old as I am: think back - and I'm sure, You'll remember: Kellys Heroes, Dirty Dozen, Where Eagles Dare, The Great Race, Ice Station Zebra, Can-Can, Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines - All of them about 2½ hour total running time - All of them 70mm, WITH printed "Intermission" and entre'actre music - several of those even with overture, -playing with curtains and "gong-gong". That was the days, when cinema was a nite in town - not just walking through the mall, buying and leaving as quick as possible to make room for the next in line. It's called style, I believe. Only greedy distributors, running for five shows a day instead of four, would press for long films without intermission and thereby inviting to constant disturbance the last hour or so of each showing !
Rumours are, that someone spotted James Cameron walking around Copenhagen on the opening day of "Titanic" - and someone all of a sudden got very busy, cutting that homemade intermission out of the 70mm print, lying ready on the platter of the Imperial, because they knew, Mr Cameron did not want the intermission. I guess though, that The Imperial found the Intermission tag again, -just like everyone else did for that film. You can't tell people to sit still that long ! (and all those many weeks of sold-out houses sure did a good job at consessions, too) [Roll Eyes]

And now, please excuse me - I'm going to start second part of Harry Potter - the intermission has been 15 mins now - with "intermission" tag delivered by Warner Brothers !! -and after that, the King Kongers are out for a break [beer]

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 12-16-2005, 06:55 PM:

"Restraunt". Haha, yeah I spelt it as I would say it. Probably not saying it right either [uhoh]

. Yes do I go to Restaurant occasionally.

I saw Titanic twice, first time (35mm) without an intermission then the second time with an intermission (70mm). The intermission wasn't really necessary. I think it's personal thing whether someone can sit for that long. I have no problems. It depends too if the seats and temperature in the Theatre are comfortable. The Theatre where I saw Titanic still has the original 1930's seats so even after a 90 min film you need a serious back massage [Eek!]

. But I survived.

The worst I experienced was when an intermission was placed in during a screening of Spielberg's "A.I". The film is maybe 140-145 mins and gee was I pissed at that [Mad]

. To top it off they placed the intermission right in the middle of a scene. And no it was technical no stuff up it was a planned intermission as confirmed by the staff. [Mad]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-17-2005, 12:39 AM:

Funny how Americans often get a bad rap for having short attention spans, yet it sounds like we're the only country in the world that can sit through a three and a half hour movie without an intermission. [Razz]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-17-2005, 02:33 AM:

Nah, it's got nothing to do with attention span. The Aussies chug down tons of beer and the Brits have all that tea. [Big Grin]

Posted by Nick Scott (Member # 2850) on 12-17-2005, 04:17 AM:

Ha Ha true brad but sometimes we need all the beer we can get just to sit through some of that hollywood crap we get. [sleep]

After 8-9 schooners of beer a 3-hour film is a treat. [Big Grin]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-17-2005, 04:40 AM:

Only 8-9? Are you getting the same Hollywood crap that we get? [Big Grin]

Posted by Nick Scott (Member # 2850) on 12-17-2005, 08:00 PM:

Yea we do get the same crap [Razz]

8-9 is just a starting point thats for an 90min feature but a 180min feature would have to be atleast 24 beers to keep me going [Big Grin]