Seems like now that theaters are desperate for anything, bringing back intermissions would help. There’s been so many times I’d go get a refill of soda or popcorn but I can’t because the movie is still in an important scene.
Intermissions add to the runtimes and reduce the number of showings per day. (Of course, balance that with 20+ minutes of commercials, previews, and Nicole Kidman huskily telling me about the magic of AMC from a totally empty theater like she’s Don Draper making a pitch. So, WTF?) While theaters make their money on concessions, I don’t think there are a lot of people heading to the concession counter mid-film.
As for missing an important scene, let me introduce you to RunPee.com. Just check your times before the film starts rather than holding up your glowing phone in the middle of the movie, distracting your seatmates and everyone in the six rows behind you.
Stranger
An intermission breaks the flow of the movie. Viewers are trying to suspend themselves in the narrative and an intermission just hammers home that “this is just a movie, nothing more.” Many stories are best told continuously from start to end.
^^^^ This mostly. Growing up the only films I can remember with intermissions were Gone with the Wind, which was incredibly long, and musicals like The Sound of Music. In the case of GWTW, you had to give the audience a chance to get up and stretch/pee at some point so an intermission made sense. As far as musicals go, it’s as much about the songs/music as it is about the plot, so a break in the middle didn’t matter and increased concession sales over no intermission. Nowadays, I think it’s more about squeezing more showings during the prime attendance times than anything else. Unless another 3 hour 58 minute movie is made I’m guessing that intermissions are a relic of the past.
Right. Which still leaves the question of why movies used to have intermissions but don’t anymore. I suspect that movies nowadays are meant to be more immersive, while in the old days audiences were more conditioned to think of going to a movie as similar to going to a live theater performance.
That’s all I can remember also, long movies. Until recently typical movie length was decreasing towards the 90 minute mark. They’re getting a little longer now, but significantly longer than 2 hours is still rare.
I think a movie somewhere past the 120 minute mark, should have a built in intermission. Even at 120 minutes they should consider an intermission about half way through if it doesn’t ruin the film.
If I want another margarita or some more ribs, I just pressed the “Summon” button on my tray table and the Food Ninja will come take my order, then deliver it when it’s ready. That way I don’t have to get out of the recliner.
I like the dine-in theater trend!
It’s the same zeitgeist shift that killed off the once-common practice of showing up partway through a movie and staying through the next showing (“this is where I came in”).
And if you want to pee?
Was there a functional reason for the intermission in terms of showing the movie? For instance, if the movie was really long, did the projectionist need to shut things down in order to remove the spool that had the first half of the movie and mount the spool with the second half? Or was it purely for the convenience audience to go to the bathroom and for the theater to make more on concessions?
If I take care of that just before I walk in, it’s not a problem. Unless, of course, I order a beer with my snackage. Then all bets are off.
From Wikipedia:
But people don’t generally read novels in one sitting or watch entire television series in one sitting, and they seem to do just fine with those stories. It seems people should be able to hold a plot in their heads during a 15 minute break, but maybe that is asking too much these days.
If the movie is longer than three hours, maybe some short break might be welcomed by some. Given the nonsense of the ads and trailers, it might be (very, very slightly) fun to show a little cartoon or old school “follow the bouncing ball” sing along.
But I am usually willing to chance missing something if needed. Lines might be too long given a formal pause, like they often are at concerts or theatre intermissions. But if that’s where theatres really make their money they are foolish not to maximize opportunity as well as their (so reasonable!) prices and volumes and assumptions that non-adolescents want to eat 2000 calorie snacks.
Please dont tell me someone will show up with a pot or a catheter. 
Are many films today over two hours? I mean Lawrence of Arabia was nearly three and three-quarter hours!
Theater seats with toilet built in.
It’s hardly unheard of. You’ve seen Killers of the Flower Moon, Oppenheimer, The Irishman, The Hateful Eight, whatever.
From the Mad Magazine spoof (“Flawrence of Arabia”):
FLAWRENCE: It’s almost time for the intermission…and a fade-out over a hot, broiling sun is a windfall for theater owners everywhere!
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Water! Soda! A two cents plain! Anything!
Remember, in the early days of movie theaters, it was quite common to show several different films in one screen (i.e. room) of a movie theater over the period of a day. People would simply pay one ticket price for as long as they wanted to watch all the films shown on that screen on that day. They could watch all the different films and several showings of one film if they wanted to. It was like watching one channel of television for all day now.
I’m a bit miffed how that article is citing movies from a hundred years ago as when they had to change reels. In my town they were doing it right up to the 1990s.