A friend of mine recently reviewed the flick, Austrailia and the issue of the length of the movies came up. Movies are getting longer, yet there are no scheduled potty breaks or chances to stretch our legs, even savor the moment of being out at the movies.
Return of the King may historically be remembered not for winning best picture, but for setting the standard as the ultimate test of bladder strength at 3 hours 20 minutes. So how come we've done away with intermission? The SFGate has some ideas:
"The last intermission in a mainstream movie bisected "Gandhi" in 1982. The breaks were discontinued so more screenings could be packed into the day. Also, multiplexes were emerging in the early 1980s. Intermissions make it hard to keep track of multiplex patrons -- who could take advantage of the extra traffic to sneak into several movies without paying.
For a long time the disappearance of intermissions wasn't much of a problem. But in the past half-decade, the amount of 180 minutes-plus movies seems to be increasing to a level not seen since the early 1970s.
The biggest blow for the peanut-bladdered masses came in 1997, when "Titanic" was released. Even at a bloated 194 minutes, the movie still became the top-grossing film of all time, taking in close to $2 billion worldwide -- and dispelling the notion that long films are money risks."
So once again, we have the great Satan, CORPORATE AMERICA to blame for no intermission and strained bladders. Needless to say, I doubt an evening at the movies with a refreshing intermission will ever return, though it should.
Here are two intermission treats for you (watch them sequentially for the right effect):
Return of the King may historically be remembered not for winning best picture, but for setting the standard as the ultimate test of bladder strength at 3 hours 20 minutes. So how come we've done away with intermission? The SFGate has some ideas:
"The last intermission in a mainstream movie bisected "Gandhi" in 1982. The breaks were discontinued so more screenings could be packed into the day. Also, multiplexes were emerging in the early 1980s. Intermissions make it hard to keep track of multiplex patrons -- who could take advantage of the extra traffic to sneak into several movies without paying.
For a long time the disappearance of intermissions wasn't much of a problem. But in the past half-decade, the amount of 180 minutes-plus movies seems to be increasing to a level not seen since the early 1970s.
The biggest blow for the peanut-bladdered masses came in 1997, when "Titanic" was released. Even at a bloated 194 minutes, the movie still became the top-grossing film of all time, taking in close to $2 billion worldwide -- and dispelling the notion that long films are money risks."
So once again, we have the great Satan, CORPORATE AMERICA to blame for no intermission and strained bladders. Needless to say, I doubt an evening at the movies with a refreshing intermission will ever return, though it should.
Here are two intermission treats for you (watch them sequentially for the right effect):
6 comments:
Hahahaha. Glad I watched them in the right order. :)
Amen to this comment.
What I'd also like to know is which behemoth of a movie spurred this stream of conscious (though I hand it to you, F-Word, it was very well written and read rather professionally).
Gotta love the 40's/50's.
I wonder what our kids will say about our days.
Austrailia. AN ENTIRE CONTINENT. IT FRIGGIN HUUUUUUGE!!!
???
Austrailia. The movie was Austrailia.
I know you don't believe in watching movies until 5 years after their release date so you can watch them for free at the library, so I'll let this one pass.
Cool.
Post a Comment