Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Intermission

This is topic Intermission 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=010127

Posted by Burleigh Ibbott (Member # 3917) on 10-12-2009, 12:52 PM:

I have a Vic 5 with the 12000 ft spools fixed to the plinth so any film over 2 hrs I have to put a intermission in it. When I showed Harry Potter 6 on its release date I was sent from Warner Bros a intermission segment especially designed in the same wording as the Harry Potter font used in the film. This is quite rare i have been told. Has anyone else been sent intermission film from distribitors?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 10-12-2009, 01:45 PM:

Did they also tell you where to pause the film for the intermission?

-Claude

Posted by Burleigh Ibbott (Member # 3917) on 10-12-2009, 03:14 PM:

Yes they did in a letter with the film.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-12-2009, 06:01 PM:

We had one sent to us in Belgium for Harry 5.

Every film played there in a town called Genk, regardless of its length, breaks for an intermission.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 10-12-2009, 06:24 PM:

Some prints of Pirates 3 in the UK had an intermission card. I can't think of anything else recently. The reason someone (very low down) at Disney gave me when I asked was it was based on responses from test screenings that the film was too long. My then work didn't play the film, that was a relaxing week!

Do distributors tell you where to break the film even if they don't supply an intermission card?

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 10-12-2009, 07:21 PM:

Anyone want to enlighten us unlucky Americans where the intermissions are supposed to go on these films?

Posted by Burleigh Ibbott (Member # 3917) on 10-16-2009, 09:00 AM:

On Inglourious Basterds, Universal sent me a letter to put the intermission after reel 4. Mostly its only when i get a film on release date that i recieve info for where to put the intermission. On second run films i dont hear a dicky bird. So I stick it after reel 4 mostly or reel 5 for 9/10 reel films like Australia.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-16-2009, 08:28 PM:

I wonder why the film companies think that other countries' projectionists/managers can "handle" intermissions while we Americans can't? I wish they would at least give us the option.

I would like to see NATO start some kind of an initiative that any movie over 140 minutes long must have an intermission.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-16-2009, 08:58 PM:

Hell, I'd like to see just one initiative that NATO actually follows through on at all!

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-17-2009, 01:27 AM:

Mike, dump the platter and get a tower or a mutt. Then they'll have no say in it.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-17-2009, 07:42 PM:

It's the ego of the American filmmakers -- they think breaking up their incredibly artistic masterpiece with an intermission "dilutes" their "creative intent" and somehow harms the "integrity" of their great film....like their 2 and a half hours of many times questionable entertainment is akin to life or death brain surgery.

So basically they are saying, they only really care that Americans get to see their gift to mankind in it's pure, uncompromised form -- the rest of the world, well, their friends won't be catching the movie in Karzakistan, so who cares? as long as they look good here. You know, no one else on the planet is sophistocated enough to appreciate artistic integrity except the Hollywood elite.

Oh ya, and then there is that other issue that it certainly would help exhibition if there were more films with intermission since intermissions = increase concession sales. But distribution doesn't get a cut from concessions sales so the idea of them helping out their exhibitor "partners" is, well, [Big Grin]

Every single American release that plays in India is sent over there with a built in intermission. Any F-T members from India? Maybe we can tap them to relay back info as to where the intermission goes on those over 2 & 1/2 titles. Uploading a .jpg file of a single intermission frame would be nice too -- lots of us could use the preshow gack projector to put the intermission title on the screen. Or would the studios claim that's copyright infringment? I bet Disney would.

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 10-17-2009, 08:05 PM:

FRANK WROTE:

"It's the ego of the American filmmakers -- they think breaking up their incredibly artistic masterpiece........"

MIKE WRITES:

That's a good one. [Big Grin]

Most films that Hollywood makes are less than stellar. I havent'e seen a trully worthy one in over a decade.

Mike Croaro

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-17-2009, 08:05 PM:

Every Indian film I've played had an intermission including a film that was only 5 reels and 86 minutes long.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-17-2009, 10:23 PM:

Yup -- it's part of their culture. And I understand their intermissions are much longer than we would have here. That's been the case for Bollywood productions and they insist that American imports have that mid break as well or the audience would be REALLY upset.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-17-2009, 10:38 PM:

There was a small 3-cinema circuit in north-central Montana that had intermissions in every film. They would just stop after the 3rd reel, no matter what was going on. I like intermissions, but that's just wrong.

The owner of that circuit has died and his wife sold two of the three theatres to a slightly larger chain (Polson Theatres), which discontinued the intermissions.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 10-17-2009, 10:49 PM:

Intermissions are banned in Australia too. So we must be as cultured as Hollywood.
Breaking the film is far more disturbing than queues of patrons walking in and out to the toilets at their own intermission.
I believe that the real reason is that the cinema might be able to fit in another session, thus more film hire.

Posted by Paul J. Neuhaus (Member # 3205) on 10-18-2009, 04:11 PM:

I just don't see anything wrong with an intermission!

It sparks conversation that about things one person saw in a film that somebody else didn't. "hey did you see that", or "I thought that was great when this happened". Gets the viewers reved up to watch the 2nd half.

Also, what better time to go to the bathroom and get something fresh from the concession stand!!

Lets face it. for a 3 hour movie you just need a damn break! And I think I can speak for the majority here and say that after you suck down a large drink that your bladder would appreciate it too.

A buddy of mine had a theatre where they had short platters. When they got Titanic they had to run an intermission. Their Per Cap soared!!

There is just nothing wrong with a good old intermission and if the film companies can supply a clip that explains what is about to happen instead of just stopping the projector then it looks professional. This should be the exhibitor's option. [thumbsup]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-18-2009, 04:51 PM:

quote:
Lets face it. for a 3 hour movie you just need a damn break!

A lot of these Bollywood movies that are ~4 hours long simply wouldn't need the intermission if someone actually edited them. Some of them are good at that length but most simply could do with quite a bit of trimming.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-18-2009, 04:59 PM:

quote: Ron Curran
I believe that the real reason is that the cinema might be able to fit in another session, thus more film hire.

I'd believe that if they kept them to a decent running time in the first place.

2012 has just clocked in at 158 minutes. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 10-18-2009, 05:16 PM:

I think even the short movies need intermissions these days to help offset the impact of a 42 fl. oz. beverage!

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-18-2009, 05:18 PM:

As opposed to the short movies a few years ago dealing with a 42-ouncer better? [Wink]

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 10-18-2009, 10:31 PM:

Agree up to a point but who could justify shortening, say, Pulp Fiction or Ben Hur in order to fit in more sessions? I guess some stories need more screen time to develop.

Posted by Allan Riddelll (Member # 5090) on 10-19-2009, 11:11 AM:

Intermissions have always been a fact of life out here in Malta. Up to 6 or 7 reels we always splice an intermission title after reel 3, anything above and its reel 4. Personally its a practice I abhor but there you are. As our older f/t guys know intermissions were fairly standard years ago on long films. Generally the music before an intermission would build up to some crescendo and the intermission title would fade in followed by the entr'acte in part 2. Try that nowadays with some of the booth monkeys in the multiplexes and the next exhibitor down the line would end up minus intermission title, overture and all the other refinements that made projecting 'roadshow' movies so enjoyable.
Nowadays I completely agree that all movies over say 140 mins have the option of an intermission whether the platter or tower equipment can accept them or not. I for one would have liked to have had the Harry Potter font intermission title but we were never offered it {and we mostly get our prints from the UK). As an afterthought the last movie I remember with an intermission was HEAT and it came right after the famous DeNiro/Pacino scene in the diner. It was at just the appropriate moment and was a fitting and convenient end to the first half.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 10-23-2009, 02:45 PM:

As it turns out, there is still an American cinema that stops the show in the middle for an intermission: the Reel Pizza Twin Cinerama , a theatre/pizza parlor in Bar Harbor, Maine. I saw a movie there the other night, and right at the middle up pops a really filthy Pike Productions intermission dater that I remember running myself back in the seventies. I guess the point is to go out and order another slice, but part of the reason is that they have only one projector per side and no platters, just 6000s, so someone has to haul ass upstairs and put up the next reel. I guess if its a long picture, there must be more than one intermission.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 10-23-2009, 08:01 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
A lot of these Bollywood movies that are ~4 hours long simply wouldn't need the intermission if someone actually edited them. Some of them are good at that length but most simply could do with quite a bit of trimming.

From the films I have watched the length seems to come from trying to cater to everyone with drama, musical and comedy sections coming out of nowhere. Most could go on no longer than two hours and be better films for it.

Might have mentioned it here before but what really hacked me off was when some Bollywood distributors started putting trailers on the front of the second part of the film, has anyone else seen this?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-23-2009, 10:59 PM:

Yeah I've had that happen. Worse was the time when it wasn't a trailer but an ad for some casino or video game place that I presume was in India.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-24-2009, 03:48 AM:

quote: Ian Parfrey
...but who could justify shortening, say, Pulp Fiction or Ben Hur in order to fit in more sessions?

Hmmm, would you believe greedy studio/distribs and greedy exhibitors? They did it all the time to just those kinds of pictures, usually when they were re-released. You don't see it much nowadays because 1) the concept of re-releasing titles a year or so after the initial release is dead since video and 2) the directors have much more power today. Cameron would have people beheaded if they were to suggest cutting 20 or 30 minutes from TITANIC, being king of the world and all.

Many times we would run re-releases of the big titles and large chunks would be magically missing. The Roadshow epics faired the worst along with most any film that had a long running time. Not only did they edit them, but in lots of cases they would just junk the excised footage and all that would remain in the inventories would be the cut versions with no hope of restoring them without actually striking new prints, which would hardly ever happen. Just ask any retrospective art house operator how difficult it is to get a full length version of A LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT or FIDDLER ON THE ROOF or CAMELOT or BEN HUR for that matter.

And in the wake of all that footage distruction, comes the realization that unless you are getting sold-out houses for all shows for the older classics (which almost never happens for any decent size house), being able to squeeze an extra show in is rarely effective in uping the BO. Most people who go to see retrospective titles are not as convenience-oriented as the general population moviegoer. They are going to see a particular film and they will go to whatever show times you run. Classic films are like special event concerts -- the audience for them is made up of diehard "fans;" they are rarely concerned about convenience times -- they are just happy the thing is playing and they will pretty much go to any show that's available.

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 10-26-2009, 07:49 PM:

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
Might have mentioned it here before but what really hacked me off was when some Bollywood distributors started putting trailers on the front of the second part of the film, has anyone else seen this?

That's pretty common on big Bollywood releases. I actually like those better than the ones at the start of the movie, because the beginning of a Hindi trailer is often indistinguishable from the beginning of the movie (I usually try to read the IBFC certificate). At least with the post-intermission trailers, I KNOW they're there when I see an IBFC certificate (which I promptly remove).