Back when I were a lad, the cinema used to break films into two, with an intermission in the middle when a lady used to come round with ice-creams, and younger members visited the toilets. Plays, ballet etc still do this, so why don’t cinemas, especially when faced with a 3-hour film like The Two Towers? Perhaps now that LOTR is a known good brand, they’ll swallow the modest loss of income.
The last intermission I had was at Kenneth Branaugh’s Hamlet back in 1996 which was a little over 4 hours long.
I think they assume that people know which parts to slip out of the movie at and know someone who can fill them in on what they missed. And if not well then maybe they’ll catch it when they see it a second time.
Well, we just might with ROTK. Jackson has said it will “Be as long as it needs to be” and Elijah Woods has said he thinks it will easily hit 3-1/2 hours for the theatrical release.
This means fewer showings at your local theater, but mine was only showing it at 7 and 10 anyway the first couple of weeks and only added one matinee after that, so I figure even with a longer movie and intermissions I won’t get anymore showings than that anyway.
For the record my showing had an intermission, really handy since I had to go the the little boys room and could grab another drink on the way back.
Yeah, but studios don’t like to make a movie that long because it limits the number of showings per night, which means that theatre owners can only make so much money per night.
Consider: the Bijou can only show LOTR twice per night, as opposed to three or four times per night for the latest Adam Sandler blockbuster.
This means literally twice as much income, since you’re renting the theatre seats twice as many times per night, assuming all showings are packed.
This hasn’t been a problem for the LOTR films, since the first two have been wildly successful… but, in general, I understand it’s why studios don’t like to make movies longer than two hours.
Adding an intermission long enough to get anything accomplished would simply make the situation worse.
Given the incredible success of the first two LOTR movies, I imagine theatres will simply increase the number of screens to get more showtimes.
True, but it still means taking a screen or two away from another movie – so adding an intermission would have an impact on number of shows no matter what.
Personally, I’d like to have that intermission! I wonder how many others decide to not get a drink at the concession stand before a 3 hour movie, just so they won’t have to miss any of it for a desperate bathroom break? Maybe an intermission would increase the concession sales!
I wish they had done that with the FotR, so they could have included all the “extended” scenes that are in the DVD and just had an intermission.
Morbid curiosity is killing me. Which are the Adam Sandler “blockbusters”?
I like the idea of having an intermission for lengthy movies… it would give old guys like me the opportunity to get up and have a stretch, perhaps use the washroom, and reload the popcorn without missing one single glorious moment.
Yes, but it’s a question of money. Will they make more money showing a 4-week-old chick flick in that theatre or ROTK? If they think the latter will be more profitable, the former will go bye-bye.
TTT has an intermission, people. When you see Aragorn lying on the riverbank, you have a five minute period in which you will not miss anything.
I heard somewhere (nice cite, huh?) that there’s a constant struggle between theatre owners and movie studios. The amount on money the studio gets depends on the number of tickets sold, so they want as many shows per day as they can get. Theatre owners, on the other hand, get most of their money from concessions, so they want lots of time between showings for people to go buy food from them.
So theatre owners would probably love intermissions, but movie studios are already probably pretty antsy about having such a long movie, which limits the number of tickets that get sold, so they’d probably be strongly against them.
I’m a member of the moviegoing public who thinks intermissions in films are stupid; they’re nothing but an interruption. I also rather like three- and four-hour movies. The fact that intermissions used to be common has led me to believe that the older generation has very short attention spans. 
Heh. I really, really needed to use the bathroom during TTT, but I was afraid to leave because I didn’t want to miss anything. I was trying to come up with a good point at which to leave when I saw Aragorn on the riverbank. For some reason, I picked this as the ideal time to take my break. I returned just as the weird flashback or flashforward or whatever scenes were ending. After the movie I visited the TTT threads here at the SDMB, and was pleased to learn that I had in fact missed the single least important, most easily skippable part of the movie. There’s something to be said for good timing.
You sir, need a condom catheter and a leg bag! Slip the condom portion over Mr. Trouser Snake, strap the bag to your leg, put your pants on, and go! Then you can suck down as much fluid as you want, and cut loose when you need to.
**
Since theater owners make a lot more off of concessions then they do the films themselves I would think they’d love intermissions. I saw The Three Hours, I mean the Two Towers, at a small theater in Arkansas and they had an intermission. People got up and hit the bathrooms and concession stands before coming back to sit down.
I could see why film distributors would rather have shorter movies since they make no money off of concessions.
Marc
feynn, I note I neglected to mention the leg bag’s popcorn fetching abilities. Sorry.
I have an iron bladder. Screw the intermissions!
If everyone hung on until an intermission, the queue at the ladies toilets would be a sight to behold!