Movies

1 readers

1 users here now

**For news and discussion about movies!**

founded 1 year ago

Three-and-a-half hour Scorsese blockbuster prompts pitch for movie intermissions (9now.nine.com.au)

submitted 11 months ago by livus@kbin.social to c/movies@kbin.social

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Critics say it's not a trend but a fad. Whatever the case, one thing's for sure: if you go to the movies this summer, chances are you're going to be there for a while.

Are films getting longer? And how long is too long?

The topic's been dominating cinema circles after Martin Scorsese's epic Killings of the Flower Moon left people glued to their seat for more than one reason. It runs three hours and 26 minutes.

But cinemas who added an intermission off their own bat copped a whack from Scorsese's people.

"And for good reason," said CJ Johnson, president of the Film Critic Circle of Australia. "You have to show it as the artist intends."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] livus@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Intermissions were still pretty normal at cinemas in my part of the world right up until the early 80s.

I'm sympathetic to directors objecting to it but I'd love it if they started structuring it in.

[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

When a movie is three hours with no intermission I would rather wait six months and watch it at home. Then I can paused for my own intermission.

I am sure there is a significant percentage of people with the same attitude.

[–] livus@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Definitely. I think there are some films you need a big screen for though.

[–] sheawoodrow@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

There's some pretty big TVs on the market these days, and even projectors are a LOT cheaper than they used to be. It's really not that expensive to put together a decent home setup, and it's only getting cheaper every year.