Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Longer running times.....

This is topic Longer running times..... in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=003174

Posted by Michael Cornish (Member # 6529) on 04-07-2019, 10:27 PM:

With Disney testing the running time waters with Avengers Endgame being just over 3 Hrs. My feeling is since they now will be doing re-shoots for Star Wars IX with everything they will need to be raping up with this film my guess is 3.5 Hrs or close to it.
Also with now having fully taken over Fox films and fox's history of great long running musicals, Disney coming out with "Road Show" feature films. That is providing they dont loose their shirts with the Avengers.

Anyone's input?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-07-2019, 10:56 PM:

Everybody plus his brother is going to be itching to see Avengers: Endgame during its theatrical run. It's not a risk at all in the slightest for Disney to allow a 3 hour plus run time for this movie.

The real test over whether longer run times like 2.5 or 3 hours or more can work is with lesser profile movies. Unless the director or other parties involved have a serious amount of clout it will be tough to get a 3 hour movie made for theatrical distribution. Any movie needs to get in at least so many shows per day. A full time theater with day and night shows daily needs every movie playing 4 or even 5 times per day. A three hour movie cuts it down to just 3 shows per day for a full time theater. And for a lesser theater that just does evening shows it's tough for a 3 hour movie to be squeezed into 2 show times. I still remember the release of Gettysburg in the early 1990's. That was a 4 hour movie. The local theater that showed it could only do one evening show during the week and only 2 shows on the weekend days.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-07-2019, 11:36 PM:

quote: Michael Cornish
With Disney testing the running time waters with Avengers Endgame being just over 3 Hrs. My feeling is since they now will be doing re-shoots for Star Wars IX with everything they will need to be raping up with this film my guess is 3.5 Hrs or close to it.

No studio makes a 3-hour movie just because they want it to be 3 hours long... They made it that way because that's the way the filmmakers wanted it. If anything, studios clamor for shorter movies, because, as Bobby mentions, it makes more showtimes possible.

In the Avengers case, they have a LOT of storylines to tie up. So I'm not surprised at the running time. I just wish there was at least an optional intermission in the damn thing.

It's not like this is a first. Lots of epic movies have flirted with 3 hour running times over the years. If it's a good movie, people won't care.

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 04-08-2019, 10:12 AM:

C. B. DeMille in the prologue to "The Ten Commandments" assured the audience that there would be an intermission. I recall the sighs of relief from the audience at that statement.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 04-08-2019, 04:19 PM:

Audiences will go for a 3 hour movie if it's the right subject and the story is good. Titanic was 3.25 hours, and there have been many movies that have been longer than 2.5 hours. But it has to be engaging. A long movie that feels like a long movie with turn people off.

I also think studios are aware that run times over 150-160 minutes start to cut into the number of shows per day per screen. This can hinder the weekend box office numbers.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-08-2019, 05:48 PM:

I don't think that studios necessarily want to create movies with overlength. A long movie usually only costs more to produce and will not necessarily improve ticket sales. If possible, they rather split it in two... Episode X, Part 1 and Part 2...

Some theaters around here actually charge an upcharge for movies with extra length. I'm not sure what to think regarding that practice.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 04-08-2019, 06:31 PM:

Some theatres around here put in an unauthorized intermission into Titanic to give people a bathroom break and boost their concession sales.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-08-2019, 08:30 PM:

In the film days, there was one Montana exhibitor (now deceased) who had 3 locations, all of whose policy was to stop the film after the middle reel for intermission. No matter what was going on in the movie.

He said his crowds loved it, but it probably played hell with the movie itself in a lot of cases, knocking you off the rails when the story was just getting really good.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-08-2019, 09:04 PM:

IMHO, I think intermissions should only be used if they're actually built into the movie. That means a logical point where the break doesn't screw with the editorial pace of the show. And an "intermission" show card should be displayed on screen. Lawrence of Arabia is one of the best examples.

Not every many long movies made within the past 30 years have had built-in intermissions. The most recent example I can think of is the 70mm roadshow version of The Hateful Eight.

I think if a movie's run time goes past the 3 hour mark at least some consideration should be made to include an intermission. I can drink a large soft drink and make it through a 2 hour movie without any problem. 3 hours is pushing it. Not everyone has the same level of bladder stamina. A 3 hour long movie with no breaks is going to have a lot of people squirming in their seats struggling to hold it, or they're just going to avoid the soft drinks so they might be able to make it through the show.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-08-2019, 09:39 PM:

That's a cause NATO could take up, and make an initiative that any movie over, say, 150 minutes should have an optional intermission. (In a perfect world, it would be any movie over 130 minutes.)

The movie could arrive in three DCPs; Part One, Part Two, and the whole movie in one package.

Outside of the whole "it cuts down on showtimes" thing, I don't understand the resistance to intermissions. I think the industry would only benefit from it -- and theaters would benefit more, because they'd get more concession sales. If you're only going to run a movie two or three times in a day anyway, adding a ten-minute break onto each showtime wouldn't make that much difference, so studios wouldn't lose any ticket sales. In fact, since people were enjoying the movie more, they might gain more sales over time.

Admittedly, the studios would have a little more expense in creating multiple DCPs. So what the hell, add on maybe a quarter of a percentage point and call it an intermission fee.

Of course, previous NATO initiatives haven't exactly been roaring successes... there's the failed trailer sound initiative, and the failed "don't release any posters or trailers more than six months before opening date" initiative, and probably a few more. So I don't know how you'd get an intermission campaign off the ground. Maybe a letter to Hollywood Reporter or Variety.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 04-08-2019, 11:07 PM:

They wouldn't even need to create multiple DCPs. Just have a reel that is 10 minutes of black which is part of the DCP, and include CPLs for w/intermission and without.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-10-2019, 12:32 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
In the film days, there was one Montana exhibitor (now deceased) who had 3 locations, all of whose policy was to stop the film after the middle reel for intermission. No matter what was going on in the movie.

He said his crowds loved it, but it probably played hell with the movie itself in a lot of cases, knocking you off the rails when the story was just getting really good.

Something I'd call "forced intermissions" (like, introducing an intermission in every movie) have been a very persistent, but local phenomenon.

Most cinemas in my current vicinity, for example, introduce such intermissions in each and every movie.

Back in the film days, it wasn't unusual to just put the intermission reel in the middle of the movie, e.g. after reel 5.

In the cinema I last worked during the 35mm days, we actually did a full QC screening of every movie, when possible. We determined what we thought was a good moment for an intermission and spliced it in there. In some rare cases, you would actually get an advice from the studio, regarding an intermission.

You could say that putting in an intermission at a somewhat arbitrary position is messing with the movies, but not putting one in was messing with the crowd, because they really expected there to be an intermission.

For example, we didn't put in an intermission into movies that where just 1.5 hours or shorter, but we received numerous complaints about the lack of an intermission, yet I don't remember ever getting a compliant about having an intermission.

In a not really representative but still interesting poll from 2014 among Dutch movie-going public, done by a popular Dutch movie review site, about 60% of those who were asked indicated that they preferred an intermission, no matter what the length of the feature was.

Still, I think intermissions are a bit of a controversial topic. If it's done right, I'm not against it. But, some of the theaters around here, for example, handle their intermissions in a very botched up way. Instead of looking for a good moment to pause the movie, they just put the show on pause halfway the show, no matter if it interrupts an engaging dialog or a high-octane action scene...

Posted by Karl Belter (Member # 10813) on 04-10-2019, 05:27 PM:

I don't know if this is a already answered question, but is a theater allowed by contracts nowadays to just add a intermission?

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 04-10-2019, 06:20 PM:

quote: Karl Belter
I don't know if this is a already answered question, but is a theater allowed by contracts nowadays to just add a intermission?

No, not in the U.S.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-10-2019, 08:05 PM:

If you look in any studio's contract it says the film must be exhibited "uninterrupted" and all the way to the end, including the credits.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-11-2019, 02:57 AM:

I'm pretty sure our master agreements back when I worked at said cinema, stated about the same. Back then, I had a discussion with the manager about it, but he told me that they could try to stop it, but as long as all cinemas around us would continue the practice, there was no way they could stop us, as it would be anti-competitive.

Since even all but one of the biggest chains around here continue the localized practice of staging "forced" intermissions, it looks to me as the studios don't really care about the procedure.

Also, the primary motive for studios not allowing intermission would be profit. While an intermission may sell more popcorn and soda, it doesn't add anything to their bottom-line.

But will a 10 minute intermission really affect your schedule in such way you will be able to screen less shows a day? In practice, the answer is mostly no. If I look at a schedule of one of those big chains and compare an outlet that does have intermissions in most shows with one that doesn't do any intermissions, they seem to put in the same amount of shows per screen at both locations. The primary effect will be on the "turnaround times" for those auditoriums, which will be a bit shorter at the location with intermissions.

Intermissions may be a mixed bag regarding general audience acceptance, but I think that the longer the movies are, the more they will be required. You can't expect everybody in the crowd to sit through a 3 hour show, without going to the bathroom, especially if you sell them a magnum sized soda. For some people, that's almost like a sadistic experiment. In my experience, a well announced and well-placed intermission will keep the room quiet and will drastically reduce the amount of people getting up during the movie heading to either the toilet or concessions bar for another load of popcorn or a refill.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 04-11-2019, 04:15 AM:

The Swiss add intermissions to ANY movie.

- Carsten

Posted by Allan Riddelll (Member # 5090) on 04-11-2019, 09:06 AM:

This topic regarding intermissions has never ceased to amaze me.

Intermissions as older projies will know, were there for two reasons; 1. The film was so long that (similar to Broadway stage shows at the time) after a certain length a break was called for.

2. This phenomenon that doesn't exist anymore called showmanship.

Can you imagine a DCP complete with overture , intermission and entre'acte plus play out and have some booth monkey try to programme the settings.

OK we're talking about just an intermission but presentation would be completely redundant.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-11-2019, 04:38 PM:

I don't think the run-of-the-mill multiplexes would ever go for such an old-school "road show" format again. They need to maximize the extra money they can squeeze out of every "butt-in-the-seat", especially that part they don't need to share with the studios. Trailers, commercials, stingers, etc. will remain part of those shows.

But, I don't understand why those premium formats aren't adapting. Instead of just showing it on a bigger screen and turning up the volume on your uber-fancy-sound-system, why not bring the "roadshow feeling" back to the PLF concept?

No commercials, movable masking that works (tm), a real curtain, themed music, overture, intermission, the works...

People may actually love it and willingly pay the extra bucks for it, compared to the homeopathic doubleplusgood experience they're now getting for their PLF dollars...

Posted by William Kucharski (Member # 7246) on 04-12-2019, 09:48 AM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
They wouldn't even need to create multiple DCPs. Just have a reel that is 10 minutes of black which is part of the DCP, and include CPLs for w/intermission and without.

Embedded black is how Fathom does it with this weekend's run of Ben Hur:

Feature CPL: BenHur_FTR-Fathom_S_EN-XX_US-GB_51_4K_WR_20190331_DTB_IOP_OV
Feature File Size: 384 GB
Studio: Warner Bros.
Feature Part 1 Run Time: 02:25:43
Intermission Run Time: 00:10:00
Feature Part 2 Run Time: 01:31:41
Credit Start Time: 03:57:24
Crawl Start Time: 03:57:24

4K too, which is awesome.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 04-13-2019, 10:32 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
No commercials, movable masking that works (tm), a real curtain, themed music, overture, intermission, the works...

Overture and Intermission is not dictated by the desires of theaters. It (obviously) has to be part of the movie. Theaters are a business and not a very good one (at least not in the United States). In the last fiscal, AMC, the largest chain, averaged only 92 patrons per day per screen. The commercials aren't going away any more than overpriced popcorn and sodas are going away. And back in the days when there was an overture on roadshow films, there weren't even any trailers. That's not happening either in spite of the fact that an overture gave the impression of something special (it was designed to emulate a Broadway musical) and a feeling of anticipation. I loved that back in the day, even though there weren't actually that many films that had them. I think an overture or other thematic music or sounds before a Star Wars film, for example, would be fantastic.

The original West Side Story had an overture (with a geometric design projected on the inner curtain) and an intermission. I wonder if the new Spielberg remake will include that.

In spite of all the money invested on large screen theaters, although I'd love to see movable masking and curtains, those aren't coming back either. At the AMC Loews Lincoln Square in Manhattan, screen #1 (formerly called "The Loews") was a THX screen that had masking, a curtain, and they used to play a little laser light show on the curtain before each movie (maybe 20 seconds). But now it's a Dolby Cinema with a 2.4:1 screen with no masking, however I'm not sure that they've ever played a 1.85 film there aside from trailers and if they're not going to do so, the lack of masking is not really a factor. In any case, it appears to be (unlike most regular screens) a common height system, so it would only need masking at the sides for 1.85 movies.

And frankly, I don't think anyone younger than 55 cares about a curtain.

Having said all that, I do think an argument can be made that the large screen theatres that charge high ticket prices (it's over $25 to see an IMAX or Dolby Vision film in Manhattan if you're not a member of a subscription plan) shouldn't have ads or trailers. But do the ads and trailers ever stop anyone from seeing a movie? I doubt it and in fact, some people go to a film at least in part in order to see a brand new trailer for a favored film.