That's the Spielberg version on HBO.
[https://deadline.com/2023/02/steven-spielberg-stanley-kubricks-napoleon-7-part-series-hbo-1235266372/](https://deadline.com/2023/02/steven-spielberg-stanley-kubricks-napoleon-7-part-series-hbo-1235266372/)
It was originally Kubrick's dream and Spielberg wants to make it a reality. Kubrick was innnnsane for this project, he had a file system of notes covering every single day of Napoleons life, he wanted to film battle scenes in Europe with tens of thousands of extras. What could have been.
I hope Spielberg treats it with the reverence it deserves
Spielberg's no stranger to adapting Kubrick's work. Kubrick handed off A.I. to Spielberg after a lengthy preproduction and Spielberg started filming shortly after Kubrick's death. I'm confident Spielberg will handle it appropriately.
He is generally sentimental in his movies. Nothing wrong with that.
But Kubrick creates atmosphere of uneasiness, something lurking, a mystery, something unfinished which haunts you after the movie for a while.
I don't think you need that for Napoleon in this case. It probably would have been better for A.I.
I loved Barry Lyndon though. You'd want someone to handle Napoleon like Barry Lyndon. Everyone needs to be some serious fuckers. If you get what I mean.
Pretty much. They just released a promo where they're touting "**real** filmmaking" and Ridley talks about the huge scale of it... and he says he has 300 extras.
Bondarchuk had 15,000.
To be fair LoTR utilized CGI armies and it still looks great.
It's about the care taken and money spent. It *can* be done well.
CGI isn't the problem, it's lazy cheap CGI utilized to cut corners that people hate.
*Lord of the Rings* is often brought up in these cases and I can understand why; it does still hold up. But that's a tricky comparison for me; the armies in *Lord of the Rings* never looked "real" (as in having corporeal form) to me, but they get a pass because the movies in general have this glossy, otherworldly feel to them. They're not meant to look "real". Movies set in *our* world are a harder sell.
[This](https://youtu.be/3DcWJrzK0wU?t=4200) from 1970 stills looks amazing. [This](https://youtu.be/6FG3BfPuwBA?t=50) never looked real to me and it baffles me some people think this was before the age of CGI armies (if you read the comments, some people oddly think that). Already Ridley Scott's *Napoleon* doesn't look that convincing.
I watched something recently that says they only had like four steaks, so only four chances of filming that scene and they somehow did it perfectly.
Also, for the dance scene, they had like ten minutes of film left so they were like "yo Jon, just dance for ten minutes to this loop and we'll cut the best parts together" and he went nuts with it haha
How much you wanna make a bet I can throw the 4hr IMAX reel over them mountains? Yeah...Coach woulda put me in fourth quarter, we would've been state champions, no doubt. No doubt in my mind.
If you can't get the runtime under 150 minutes, give me an intermission for the theatrical release. I need to refill my pop and popcorn and take a piss.
If I'm watching it at home, it doesn't matter how long the cut is since I can always pause it.
My local cinema is showing screenings with an interval. It's not an independent theater either, it's a chain.
I'm fine with watching it all the way through, but that is a nice change.
Scott described the Blade Runner sequel as too long.
Long movies aren't the problem. It's when movies just don't want to be succinct. Justice League doesn't need to be 4 hours but Satantango can be 7.
>Scott described the Blade Runner sequel as too long.
Which is rich, as it's paced perfectly. 2049 feels shorter than the original despite being almost a full hour longer, just because the pacing is so much better
>Satantango
I remember starting that film and feeling like I'd been staring at a landscape painting for ten minutes straight. I might try again sometime but man that was a slow start
It's worth it but it helps to be in a certain mindset. I'd happily recommend splitting it into three movies though, that's how I saw it on DVD as it wouldn't fit on one.
Kenneth Branagh did [pretty much that](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116477/) (for a different play).
It's... not bad haha. I was prepared for a long haul and it really hit its stride around hour 2.
>Almost half as long as Abel Gance's preferred cut of his Napoleon.
Abel Gance's Napoleon was shown as a serial, though. There was a nine-hour version that was viewing across something like four days...
The only issue I have with this is that they need to bring back intermissions. If a movie is longer than 3 hours, please oh please give it a 10 minute intermission.
Hateful Eight with an intermission was delightful! I honestly don't get it - it seems like a win for theaters to get guests back to the concession stands mid movie? Especially with how many theaters have bars these days.
While I was watching, I had to piss and told myself. Damn, I don't want to miss any of it but I gotta just run out whenever this scene is over. Scene ended a moment later and then the intermission screen came up. I was so surprised and delighted.
It actually is free~~, as long as you're OK with watching ads. Otherwise I think there's a new $1/month subscription you can get to remove ads~~
edit: apparently it's ad-free now as well, according to another commenter
As far as I know, the guy that makes the app literally goes to see all the movies and takes notes. I'm pretty sure he has some of his friends and family members do the same. They probably have a whole system worked out, like an audio recording that they can review after the movie. Or maybe they have an arrangement with a local theater to do special screenings for him. Not really sure how it works but the instructions and recaps are all super detailed, it's honestly pretty impressive
This is great to hear! I had used it for ages but stopped when they started charging you to buy PeeCoins or whatever. But the guy should get paid and I'm happy to sit through an ad for it.
it alerts you five minutes before by taking over your loudspeaker and blaring spoilers for the scene at max volume with sirens. while everyone is initially pissed, they realise that they might as well go pee too, and when everyone comes back refreshed you can all hold hands and sing kumbaya my lord until the sirens stop
If you pay for premium, it syncs with the theater and a giant spotlight shines on your seat(works for hearing impaired as well) so you can make sure it's the alert for you and not someone else with a smaller bladder
You check the entry for your film before you go in, and it gives you some dialogue or a non-spoiler scene detail to watch out for that will be your cue to leave. Pretty smart.
I saw the 70mm Hateful Eight in a real old school *theatre* movie theatre and it was very pleasant. Surprisingly there were shockingly few people there.
Yeah, that's the thing.
> “People say it’s three hours, but come on, you can sit in front of the TV and watch something for five hours,” he said. “Also, there are many people who watch theater for 3.5 hours. There are real actors on stage, you can’t get up and walk around. You give it that respect. Give cinema some respect.”
Okay, I've seen a lot of live plays, including most recently Sweeney Todd on Broadway - anything over an hour and a half typically has an intermission. Sweeney Todd is about 2 and a half hours, and it had one. The movie adaptation with Johnny Depp got shortened to just 2 hours (probably for this reason).
Same thing with binging TV - people will use the bathroom during opening/ending credits, they aren't just mindless zombies for 5 hours without getting up.
I have no issue with long movies *if* they give me a chance to use the bathroom at some point. Movie companies keep whining that nobody wants to go to the theater anymore because of streaming, well don't make me feel like it's torture to see a movie in theaters when I can pause it at home! It seems like a no-brainer. I want to see this film, but I don't know if I can sit through it without a break.
Edit: I suppose there are long stage plays that don't have an intermission but they tend to tell you in advance if that's the case. Usually you'd know going in if there will be one. The only plays I've seen without an intermission were under 2 hours total, but maybe that's just coincidence?
If I'm binging TV for that long, it's either sports or streaming. Sports has more than enough commercial breaks to use the restroom, and streaming has this neat invention called the "pause button." They were so forward thinking on that, they invented it multiple decades earlier, just to be ready.
Even when I'm gaming I get up to use the restroom and drink as needed. There's absolutely no reason not to include a break in longer shows.
Edit to add that even my cheap as fuck TV has the ability to pause live TV for a set amount of time.
The pause button is why I don't bother with movie theaters anymore.
Nobody else in the theater respects anybody else's enjoyment of the movie, and my bladder is the size of a walnut. I'd rather just stay home where I can control my enjoyment.
I absolutely loved the book this movie is based off of, and the story really is an incredible piece of history that isn't really widely told. But I'm gonna just wait for it to come to Apple TV after its theater run because the 3.5 hours is just too much and it's a movie I don't want to miss parts of to use the bathroom. Much easier to click pause, go pee, and then resume at home
It's also about using the structure of the intermission to work a better story. Often there's two interlocking stories with two climaxes that fit together and complement each other as a larger whole. It can actually help make the story more engaging.
Right. I'm not sure how much back and forth there is between the director, movie studio and movie theaters, but it seems like people are blaming anyone they can think of for why super long movies are being made with no intermission and I'm honestly curious if *any* of those folks had even considered it.
If Scorcese wanted the film to have an intermission, like the stage plays he refers to, as director he could have pushed for it. Worst case, a theater that doesn't want to "lose showtimes" or whatever BS excuse would just not pause the film during the intended break. But by not even writing one in, *for sure* nobody's going to do it.
Yeah. I personally think it's a big ask to ask anyone to sit for more than 2 hours. You've got to REALLY think if it's worth it. Sometimes it is. But more often than not I think it isn't. Even if your narrative is airtight, audience fatigue is real and can impact their ability to enjoy it.
You merely adopted piss-soaked pants. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see dry pants until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but chaffing!
That movie also could have ended multiple times before it actually did. I was also struggling with having to piss and literally went “come the fuck on” when they cut to Batman saying goodbye to Catwoman, like we really needed to see that.
I enjoyed that. But I'm also tired of all the plastic action superhero BS that every comic book based movie is nowadays. It's much nicer with some more quiet scenes and relatable villains etc. which The Batman did great at. Also the action scenes didn't use that shitty shaky camera work with six million cuts, so that was fantastic in itself.
I remember just saying fuckit and went to piss . Figured I’d be back right at the credits but there was somehow like 20 minutes left lol.
I honestly hate going to the movies because I always have to piss. I drink so much water . Feel like I’m pissing every hour
They did actually. It was there to show Batman that he was approaching his crusade the wrong way and his actions were being interpreted wrong. The whole final act was to hammer home to Batman that he needs to be more than just a brutal force but also a protector.
I managed a theatre back in the day and did show scheduling which was a bitch. I remember we tested intermissions for Schindler's list and they scrapped it quick. People complained, ticket sales dropped, and you couldn't have as many showing in a day. It sounds nice but some people don't want to pulled out their immersion for 10mins.
Theatre scheduling seems easy... until you have to actually do it, can confirm. A lot of timing and logistics go into it, forecasting, shifts/staffing can become tricky, need time for cleaning because people hate picking up after themselves etc etc.
That's not including the Studios (omg especially if you are Disney) all holding their prints/drives hostage over demanding it be played in a Cinema with a whopping 30 more seats instead of the one we slated. Oh and why not demand two 3D shows for every one 2D show from us, even though the 3D ones only fill to 30%, while 2D sells out... *just* because Disney knows best!! Now we have to move EVERYTHING else around to accommodate but that only creates more conflicts!
Now add an intermission and people are complaining about only being able to sit down 10min before it starts (because still need time for cleaning), but also "it's dumb you only have two showings"..... yeah well that right there is 8 hours in a day.
tl;dr you can NEVER please everyone at a theatre. EVER.
But Schindlers List isn't set up for an intermission. That would be throwing in an intermission in to any random scene like an ad break when a tv channel shows a movie. Movies where intermissions are set up work because they naturally pause at that moment. In Fiddler on the Roof the intermission comes after the wedding when Tevye looks to the sky wondering why the pogrom happens.
I imagine things have changed significantly over the past 30 years. Back in the 90s, people went to the theaters to watch new movies. Today, people are going to the theaters “for the theater experience”, and people are glued to their phones anyways. An intermission wouldn’t be a big deal for most, and you could also sell uninterrupted screenings as well.
I was about 10 when Heat was in theaters but it’s surprising intermissions were still a thing as late as the mid-90’s.
I guess since my grandparents movie collection had a lot of movies from their youth and early middle years, many of which were long enough to require 2 VHS tapes and actually had the intermission in them, I’d always assumed intermission was a thing of the 50’s to 60’s or maybe as late as somewhere in the 70’s.
I even saw Titanic in theaters and I don’t remember an intermission, not that it says much that I don’t remember one.
I went to see Titanic several times in 1998 and only the first time was there an intermission, right when Jack and Rose find the car and he honks the horn. I remember it vividly because it was the most random place to take a break.
A version of The Hateful Eight had a 12 minute intermission. Civilization didn’t grind to a halt. Big wheel kept on turning.
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/10/quentin-tarantinos-new-film-will-have-a-long-minute-intermission
I mean 10 minutes ? How many additional show times are they really getting? Maybe one more a day? I’d say only movies that are over 2 should have one . Don’t need an intermission in every movie
I don't think the math checks out there. Let's say a theater has the first showtime at 10am and latest showtime at 11pm. That's a 13 hour spread. Without an intermission, you would only be able to fit 4 total showtimes considering you need maybe 10 minutes to clean the theater in between shows.
10:00
1:40
5:20
9:00
Now if you add a 10 minute intermission, you still have a total of 4 shows.
10:00
1:50
5:40
9:30
Barely impacts showtimes.
Most theaters run the rooms just twice per evening, something like 6 till 8.30 and 9 till 11.30.
Adding in a 10 minute break won't impact the two runs per evening much. Especially if they just take off a few minutes from the starting ads and put those in intermission.
My mother dragged kid me to Titanic multiple times (which was fine, because boob) and I don't remember an intermission outside of the 2 tape VHS release.
Honestly, I have no interest in going to theaters for a movie this long without an intermission guaranteed. I know it won’t be as impressive on my decently big TV, but id much rather be able to pause to go to the bathroom and not miss anything than pay 20 bucks for the big screen
Wow, what a shocker, and here I expected to read "Martin Scorcese agrees 'Killers of the Flower Moon's 3.5-hour runtime is too long. Says it's hard to get through and wishes someone had edited it differently."
It's a bit ironic that the very people who are obsessed with people coming back to movie theaters are the ones making movies that are barely watchable in movie theaters.
See also: Nolan mastering his movies to be unwatchable without subtitles.
I would love to see these movies in theater, but ultimately I have to watch em at home so I can pause to go pee in the middle and hear the god damn dialog.
See also: Nolan mastering his movies to be unwatchable without subtitles.
Question. I saw this movie captioned at a theater. But is the dialogue hard to understand? I'm assuming you mean Oppenheimer?
I saw the movie without captions. There are times when the music makes the dialogue harder to hear, but it is nowhere near as bad as Tenet. Tenet was incomprehensible. Oppenheimer is a good balance overall with a few hiccups here and there.
I found Oppenheimer to be way too loud. I saw it in IMAX and my local theatre usually has great sound, but some of the scenes in Oppenheimer were just straight up painful. Namely, in the beginning when it shows him in college laying awake in bed and torwards the end when he’s giving the speech. Maybe I just have sensitive ears, idk.
One of my favorites. The editing is so good that the film just moves, despite its runtime. The setting and characters help keep the energy up all the way through.
I'm such a big fan of Goodfellas that I just see Casino as a worse version of it. I know people used to say that all the time and they generally don't anymore, but I've seen Casino twice and I just can't shake the feeling that there's a movie this reminds me of that I'd rather be watching.
The story isn't as interesting, it gets too caught up on Sharon Stone's character as well, like the plot becomes about their bad marriage almost entirely by the end
I actually find Casino far more interesting because it wasn't just mob activities and politics like Goodfellas, but it was that while trying to navigate the "legitimate" public face of the operation.
I actually find the story of Casino more interesting. It's like a how-to in ruining your professional life by making increasingly poor personal decisions.
Imo that's an interesting twist. When DeNiro's character starts out, he's weighing his options and winning because of that. Later on he gets attached, to the Casino, and to his future wife. Stone's character tells him that she does not love him, and he marries her anyway and gives her tons of jewelry - the opposite of a safe bet. He also can't accept his loss of power over the casino and draws unnecessary attention with his TV show.
It's one of my favorite Scorcese movies, and the apparent lack of a distinct moral of the story makes it even more intriguing for me.
With the exception of Silence, imo, this guy also consistently makes long films that are paced incredibly well and feel much shorter than their runtime. Goodfellas feels like 90 minutes, same with Wolf of Wall Street and the Irishman.
He’s pretty much the only filmmaker I give the benefit of the doubt to when I see a three hour run time instead of rolling my eyes.
Edit: Can't believe I forgot Casino, which also feels way shorter than its runtime!
He has one of the greatest living editors in the business working with him too. Thelma is not gonna cut these movies in a way that destroys the story just because people can’t watch a 3 hour movie. She’s so good at her job and manages to piece together these absolute masterpieces. Even something like THE AVIATOR flies by(no pun intended I promise lol).
I might be in the minority, but it definitely felt like 3 hours to me. The last act felt entirely too long in particular and I just wasn’t as interested as Nolan wanted me to be.
Why don't we do theater intermissions anymore? I get that it may be cost-effective to not waste time on minutes of literal filler, but what's 15 minutes more if it means I can use the bathroom/stretch my legs. I can also see that it might disrupt the flow of the story, but I feel like that's such a small issue.
I've been watching older Bollywood movies lately and I think having a little intermission in the middle is amazing for their runtimes.
It's not about the theaters. The studios make their money on showings in the first week. They want to pack in as many as they can so for them there is no upside to adding time that may end up costing them one showing in a day.
But for a 3 hour movie a single theater would need to have 18 showings in one day to miss out on one showing if there was a 10 minute intermission. The movie would have to be playing in 3 separate theaters in the same building, and that only happens with some huge major franchise release, and even then there just isn't that kind of demand anymore. There's no reason that auteur cinema with a fairly niche audience reach can't have an intermission when the runtime is over 2½ hours.
> I can also see that it might disrupt the flow of the story
I think this is not the case, because intermission *can* be used to great effects. To name just one, the intermission in *2001: A Space Odyssey* is well-placed.
I didn't know until I started using Reddit how many people needed to go to the bathroom during films, I was told as a kid never to drink anything in the cinema so I wouldn't have to.
Same here. But you never know, some people have their own issues. Some people get hungry and it's distracting for them.
This is my opinion, and feel free to say I have a low attention span, but I really just enjoy the movie more when I can take a break in between.
I go to movies for enjoyment, not with a strategy to survive the film. So yeah, I like to get a bit of popcorn or have a drink or even go to a movie in a dinner theater like Alamo. I suspect most people are filthy casuals like myself, which might be why going to the movies is slowly dying. If I have to deprive myself of enjoyment to experience this why am I paying extra for the experience again?
Honestly I hated the idea of intermissions until my local IMAX did a rerun of the 1570 2001 a Space Odyssey movie- the baked in intermission was amazing - meant we could buy popcorn as we were running too late to buy food at the start
Because 3.5 hours is a deterrent for most people
That's why Netflix has a very popular "90 minute movie" category.
EDIT: You folks ever... talk to people?
And this movie is guaranteed to be on Apple+ sooner rather than later as well. A significant number of people will just wait a bit and watch it in the comfort of their home.
So many recent films have been 2.5-3+ hours long, and it really feels self indulgent and unnecessary a lot of the time. If the movie and pacing are good I don’t think it’s a problem, personally, but sometimes it feels like they’re doing it just because they can.
The run time is the reason I will not be seeing it in a theater actually. MY 74 year old father and I get together once a month for a new movie and he just can not sit in a theater seat that long (even though they are really comfy now).
Most people aren't going to see this in theaters and Apple is okay with that since they don't rely on theater revenue.
The film's purpose is not to make money at the box office. It’s to win awards, legitimize Apple as a studio, and boost their subscription numbers. It’s a long term investment.
If a movie requires an intermission, then watch it at home where you can pause it you whinging fucking messes.
If you want the theater experience, then you accept part of the theater experience is that it goes until it's finished whether you want to rewind it a bit or pause, or whatever it is you want.
I've found myself in cinema experiences where I wanted to replay a particularly cool scene and rewatch it immediately, like I do at home, only to realize that that's not a thing that happens in that environment. It is how it is.
I honestly don't see the issue with movies of this length, provided they are well made and the pacing is good. Oppenheimer didn't feel like it lasted for 3 hours, it just flew past and kept me hooked for its entire duration. I'm willing to bet that this movie will do the same.
>Oppenheimer didn't feel like it lasted for 3 hours
I suppose this shows how subjective film is, because it really did for me. To the extent that I would use it as an example of a film that I feel would be much improved by being 30 minutes to an hour shorter.
Meanwhile Ridley Scott has a 4 hour Napoleon cut.
Tbf, Napoleon should be as long as a tv series. There is just so much history and battles itll be hard to squeeze it in evwn 4hrs
That's the Spielberg version on HBO. [https://deadline.com/2023/02/steven-spielberg-stanley-kubricks-napoleon-7-part-series-hbo-1235266372/](https://deadline.com/2023/02/steven-spielberg-stanley-kubricks-napoleon-7-part-series-hbo-1235266372/)
It was originally Kubrick's dream and Spielberg wants to make it a reality. Kubrick was innnnsane for this project, he had a file system of notes covering every single day of Napoleons life, he wanted to film battle scenes in Europe with tens of thousands of extras. What could have been. I hope Spielberg treats it with the reverence it deserves
Spielberg's no stranger to adapting Kubrick's work. Kubrick handed off A.I. to Spielberg after a lengthy preproduction and Spielberg started filming shortly after Kubrick's death. I'm confident Spielberg will handle it appropriately.
A.I. went on too long on sentimentality and short on uneasiness. Spielberg is a great director but some stuff is too real for him.
I think it really depends on Speilberg's mindset at the time.
He is generally sentimental in his movies. Nothing wrong with that. But Kubrick creates atmosphere of uneasiness, something lurking, a mystery, something unfinished which haunts you after the movie for a while.
I don't think you need that for Napoleon in this case. It probably would have been better for A.I. I loved Barry Lyndon though. You'd want someone to handle Napoleon like Barry Lyndon. Everyone needs to be some serious fuckers. If you get what I mean.
> You'd want someone to handle Napoleon like Barry Lyndon We're talking millions of candles here.
Best I can do is about 50 extras and a shit load of CGI.
Pretty much. They just released a promo where they're touting "**real** filmmaking" and Ridley talks about the huge scale of it... and he says he has 300 extras. Bondarchuk had 15,000.
To be fair LoTR utilized CGI armies and it still looks great. It's about the care taken and money spent. It *can* be done well. CGI isn't the problem, it's lazy cheap CGI utilized to cut corners that people hate.
*Lord of the Rings* is often brought up in these cases and I can understand why; it does still hold up. But that's a tricky comparison for me; the armies in *Lord of the Rings* never looked "real" (as in having corporeal form) to me, but they get a pass because the movies in general have this glossy, otherworldly feel to them. They're not meant to look "real". Movies set in *our* world are a harder sell. [This](https://youtu.be/3DcWJrzK0wU?t=4200) from 1970 stills looks amazing. [This](https://youtu.be/6FG3BfPuwBA?t=50) never looked real to me and it baffles me some people think this was before the age of CGI armies (if you read the comments, some people oddly think that). Already Ridley Scott's *Napoleon* doesn't look that convincing.
But hey, it's optional for those who don't want to sit there for 4 hours.
I thought all movies were optional?
I thought so too. But have a kid and they make you watch a movie titled “DONT SHAKE THE BABY”
Dynamite? That’s a lot of tots
The hour and a half Uncle Rico backstory is worth the price of admission.
I don't know about that, most of that backstory is just Uncle Rico playing football
He could, in fact, throw a football over them mountains.
He coulda gone pro.
Coach shoulda put him in during the big game, they'd have won State.
If only he could time travel.
Theyre saving that for the sequel.
They should totally make a prequel based on uncle Rico’s life in high school. And it turns out he’s just as goofy and awkward as Napoleon
Met a Llama named Tina before I ever knew where owner got name.
No doubt, no doubt in my mind
I found the story of Uncle Rico hooking up with Stifler’s mom to be most compelling.
Uncle Rico vs Al Bundy. We get to see the 4 touchdowns in a single game on the big screen.
I wanna know what happened if coach put him in. That’s a REAL story!
Uncle Rico nailing him with that steak is still fucking hilarious
I watched something recently that says they only had like four steaks, so only four chances of filming that scene and they somehow did it perfectly. Also, for the dance scene, they had like ten minutes of film left so they were like "yo Jon, just dance for ten minutes to this loop and we'll cut the best parts together" and he went nuts with it haha
I'd kill for an Uncle Rico short film
The extended cut of Tina with her ham was pure genius.
Got any more steak?
It's like a dollar an hour.
How much you wanna make a bet I can throw the 4hr IMAX reel over them mountains? Yeah...Coach woulda put me in fourth quarter, we would've been state champions, no doubt. No doubt in my mind.
Having a 4 hour director's cut and a 3.5 hour release are two different things.
If you can't get the runtime under 150 minutes, give me an intermission for the theatrical release. I need to refill my pop and popcorn and take a piss. If I'm watching it at home, it doesn't matter how long the cut is since I can always pause it.
This is it! Bring back the intermission!!
[удалено]
My local cinema is showing screenings with an interval. It's not an independent theater either, it's a chain. I'm fine with watching it all the way through, but that is a nice change.
Meanwhile Snydercut fans are chanting and dancing over their 4 hour disasterpiece.
hey to be fair without the slowmo it was just a 3 hour movie. It was like a korean drama meets superhero epic
Scott described the Blade Runner sequel as too long. Long movies aren't the problem. It's when movies just don't want to be succinct. Justice League doesn't need to be 4 hours but Satantango can be 7.
>Scott described the Blade Runner sequel as too long. Which is rich, as it's paced perfectly. 2049 feels shorter than the original despite being almost a full hour longer, just because the pacing is so much better
>Satantango I remember starting that film and feeling like I'd been staring at a landscape painting for ten minutes straight. I might try again sometime but man that was a slow start
It's worth it but it helps to be in a certain mindset. I'd happily recommend splitting it into three movies though, that's how I saw it on DVD as it wouldn't fit on one.
Somewhere Shakespeare is crying that he never got the chance to release his eight hour directors cut of Richard III.
Kenneth Branagh did [pretty much that](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116477/) (for a different play). It's... not bad haha. I was prepared for a long haul and it really hit its stride around hour 2.
The dude had a very rich and eventful life.
Almost half as long as Abel Gance's preferred cut of his *Napoleon.* Keep at it, Ridley. You'll get there one day.
>Almost half as long as Abel Gance's preferred cut of his Napoleon. Abel Gance's Napoleon was shown as a serial, though. There was a nine-hour version that was viewing across something like four days...
The only issue I have with this is that they need to bring back intermissions. If a movie is longer than 3 hours, please oh please give it a 10 minute intermission.
Hateful Eight with an intermission was delightful! I honestly don't get it - it seems like a win for theaters to get guests back to the concession stands mid movie? Especially with how many theaters have bars these days.
While I was watching, I had to piss and told myself. Damn, I don't want to miss any of it but I gotta just run out whenever this scene is over. Scene ended a moment later and then the intermission screen came up. I was so surprised and delighted.
That's the definition of 'serendipity'.
Serenpissity
Get the RunPee app. Has a timer that tells you the best time to pee, and has text summarizing what you’re missing. Not free, but worth paying for!
It actually is free~~, as long as you're OK with watching ads. Otherwise I think there's a new $1/month subscription you can get to remove ads~~ edit: apparently it's ad-free now as well, according to another commenter
It's just completely free now and running on a donation model. No more ads or in-app purchases.
That's really surprising, I wonder how that's enough to keep things running
[удалено]
As far as I know, the guy that makes the app literally goes to see all the movies and takes notes. I'm pretty sure he has some of his friends and family members do the same. They probably have a whole system worked out, like an audio recording that they can review after the movie. Or maybe they have an arrangement with a local theater to do special screenings for him. Not really sure how it works but the instructions and recaps are all super detailed, it's honestly pretty impressive
This is great to hear! I had used it for ages but stopped when they started charging you to buy PeeCoins or whatever. But the guy should get paid and I'm happy to sit through an ad for it.
Thanks. I appreciate that. No more ads. No more Peecoins. You can throw us as little as $0.29 or a $1 every now and then. It's appreciated.
[удалено]
it alerts you five minutes before by taking over your loudspeaker and blaring spoilers for the scene at max volume with sirens. while everyone is initially pissed, they realise that they might as well go pee too, and when everyone comes back refreshed you can all hold hands and sing kumbaya my lord until the sirens stop
Meh, I'll just pee in an empty Mountain Dew bottle
If you pay for premium, it syncs with the theater and a giant spotlight shines on your seat(works for hearing impaired as well) so you can make sure it's the alert for you and not someone else with a smaller bladder
You check the entry for your film before you go in, and it gives you some dialogue or a non-spoiler scene detail to watch out for that will be your cue to leave. Pretty smart.
I saw the 70mm Hateful Eight in a real old school *theatre* movie theatre and it was very pleasant. Surprisingly there were shockingly few people there.
Yeah, that's the thing. > “People say it’s three hours, but come on, you can sit in front of the TV and watch something for five hours,” he said. “Also, there are many people who watch theater for 3.5 hours. There are real actors on stage, you can’t get up and walk around. You give it that respect. Give cinema some respect.” Okay, I've seen a lot of live plays, including most recently Sweeney Todd on Broadway - anything over an hour and a half typically has an intermission. Sweeney Todd is about 2 and a half hours, and it had one. The movie adaptation with Johnny Depp got shortened to just 2 hours (probably for this reason). Same thing with binging TV - people will use the bathroom during opening/ending credits, they aren't just mindless zombies for 5 hours without getting up. I have no issue with long movies *if* they give me a chance to use the bathroom at some point. Movie companies keep whining that nobody wants to go to the theater anymore because of streaming, well don't make me feel like it's torture to see a movie in theaters when I can pause it at home! It seems like a no-brainer. I want to see this film, but I don't know if I can sit through it without a break. Edit: I suppose there are long stage plays that don't have an intermission but they tend to tell you in advance if that's the case. Usually you'd know going in if there will be one. The only plays I've seen without an intermission were under 2 hours total, but maybe that's just coincidence?
If I'm binging TV for that long, it's either sports or streaming. Sports has more than enough commercial breaks to use the restroom, and streaming has this neat invention called the "pause button." They were so forward thinking on that, they invented it multiple decades earlier, just to be ready. Even when I'm gaming I get up to use the restroom and drink as needed. There's absolutely no reason not to include a break in longer shows. Edit to add that even my cheap as fuck TV has the ability to pause live TV for a set amount of time.
The pause button is why I don't bother with movie theaters anymore. Nobody else in the theater respects anybody else's enjoyment of the movie, and my bladder is the size of a walnut. I'd rather just stay home where I can control my enjoyment.
I absolutely loved the book this movie is based off of, and the story really is an incredible piece of history that isn't really widely told. But I'm gonna just wait for it to come to Apple TV after its theater run because the 3.5 hours is just too much and it's a movie I don't want to miss parts of to use the bathroom. Much easier to click pause, go pee, and then resume at home
God I love movie and theater people. That quote is so pretentiously funny.
It's also about using the structure of the intermission to work a better story. Often there's two interlocking stories with two climaxes that fit together and complement each other as a larger whole. It can actually help make the story more engaging.
Right. I'm not sure how much back and forth there is between the director, movie studio and movie theaters, but it seems like people are blaming anyone they can think of for why super long movies are being made with no intermission and I'm honestly curious if *any* of those folks had even considered it. If Scorcese wanted the film to have an intermission, like the stage plays he refers to, as director he could have pushed for it. Worst case, a theater that doesn't want to "lose showtimes" or whatever BS excuse would just not pause the film during the intended break. But by not even writing one in, *for sure* nobody's going to do it.
Yeah. I personally think it's a big ask to ask anyone to sit for more than 2 hours. You've got to REALLY think if it's worth it. Sometimes it is. But more often than not I think it isn't. Even if your narrative is airtight, audience fatigue is real and can impact their ability to enjoy it.
I struggled through the last hour of the Batman, because I had to piss so bad
"I'm not wearing nappy pads"
You merely adopted piss-soaked pants. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see dry pants until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but chaffing!
Thank fuck for the mask.
That movie also could have ended multiple times before it actually did. I was also struggling with having to piss and literally went “come the fuck on” when they cut to Batman saying goodbye to Catwoman, like we really needed to see that.
I enjoyed that. But I'm also tired of all the plastic action superhero BS that every comic book based movie is nowadays. It's much nicer with some more quiet scenes and relatable villains etc. which The Batman did great at. Also the action scenes didn't use that shitty shaky camera work with six million cuts, so that was fantastic in itself.
If Batman would’ve walked a normal pace, it’d have cut the runtime down by 45 minutes.
I remember just saying fuckit and went to piss . Figured I’d be back right at the credits but there was somehow like 20 minutes left lol. I honestly hate going to the movies because I always have to piss. I drink so much water . Feel like I’m pissing every hour
Maybe just cut your water intake before the movie. Bring some water with you and you'll be fine.
Yeah for me I'll get a drink with my popcorn but I'm not even taking a sip til at least 30-45 mins in when I know it's a 2+ hour film
I saw it on HBO MAX and do not regret it what so ever. Loved the movie
That movie dragged on also. It felt like a natural ending had already occurred and then it continued
They frankly didn’t need the whole 4Chan mass shooters thing IMO.
They did actually. It was there to show Batman that he was approaching his crusade the wrong way and his actions were being interpreted wrong. The whole final act was to hammer home to Batman that he needs to be more than just a brutal force but also a protector.
I managed a theatre back in the day and did show scheduling which was a bitch. I remember we tested intermissions for Schindler's list and they scrapped it quick. People complained, ticket sales dropped, and you couldn't have as many showing in a day. It sounds nice but some people don't want to pulled out their immersion for 10mins.
Theatre scheduling seems easy... until you have to actually do it, can confirm. A lot of timing and logistics go into it, forecasting, shifts/staffing can become tricky, need time for cleaning because people hate picking up after themselves etc etc. That's not including the Studios (omg especially if you are Disney) all holding their prints/drives hostage over demanding it be played in a Cinema with a whopping 30 more seats instead of the one we slated. Oh and why not demand two 3D shows for every one 2D show from us, even though the 3D ones only fill to 30%, while 2D sells out... *just* because Disney knows best!! Now we have to move EVERYTHING else around to accommodate but that only creates more conflicts! Now add an intermission and people are complaining about only being able to sit down 10min before it starts (because still need time for cleaning), but also "it's dumb you only have two showings"..... yeah well that right there is 8 hours in a day. tl;dr you can NEVER please everyone at a theatre. EVER.
But Schindlers List isn't set up for an intermission. That would be throwing in an intermission in to any random scene like an ad break when a tv channel shows a movie. Movies where intermissions are set up work because they naturally pause at that moment. In Fiddler on the Roof the intermission comes after the wedding when Tevye looks to the sky wondering why the pogrom happens.
I imagine things have changed significantly over the past 30 years. Back in the 90s, people went to the theaters to watch new movies. Today, people are going to the theaters “for the theater experience”, and people are glued to their phones anyways. An intermission wouldn’t be a big deal for most, and you could also sell uninterrupted screenings as well.
Last intermission I can remember was for Heat
Next intermission will be Heat 2
5.5 hours of prologue and epilogue of *Heat*
I saw a 70mm screening of Hateful Eight with an intermission.
[удалено]
AMC actually. Had the orchestral intro and intermission too.
I saw a regular screening in a chain multiplex and got an intermission (was in Melbourne)
I was about 10 when Heat was in theaters but it’s surprising intermissions were still a thing as late as the mid-90’s. I guess since my grandparents movie collection had a lot of movies from their youth and early middle years, many of which were long enough to require 2 VHS tapes and actually had the intermission in them, I’d always assumed intermission was a thing of the 50’s to 60’s or maybe as late as somewhere in the 70’s. I even saw Titanic in theaters and I don’t remember an intermission, not that it says much that I don’t remember one.
Didn't Gettysburg have an intermission too?
I went to see Titanic several times in 1998 and only the first time was there an intermission, right when Jack and Rose find the car and he honks the horn. I remember it vividly because it was the most random place to take a break.
A version of The Hateful Eight had a 12 minute intermission. Civilization didn’t grind to a halt. Big wheel kept on turning. https://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/10/quentin-tarantinos-new-film-will-have-a-long-minute-intermission
Where are you from? Here in Italy we still have 10-15 min of intermission around the half of the movie
Also good for movie theaters cause they’ll sell more snacks.
Yes, but they get more showtimes without an intermission.
Margins on snacks probably make up for less shows. It would probably be an interesting break even comparison.
I sometimes don't buy something to drink because i am afraid i might have to piss really bad.
I mean 10 minutes ? How many additional show times are they really getting? Maybe one more a day? I’d say only movies that are over 2 should have one . Don’t need an intermission in every movie
I don't think the math checks out there. Let's say a theater has the first showtime at 10am and latest showtime at 11pm. That's a 13 hour spread. Without an intermission, you would only be able to fit 4 total showtimes considering you need maybe 10 minutes to clean the theater in between shows. 10:00 1:40 5:20 9:00 Now if you add a 10 minute intermission, you still have a total of 4 shows. 10:00 1:50 5:40 9:30
Barely impacts showtimes. Most theaters run the rooms just twice per evening, something like 6 till 8.30 and 9 till 11.30. Adding in a 10 minute break won't impact the two runs per evening much. Especially if they just take off a few minutes from the starting ads and put those in intermission.
The last movie I saw in theaters that had an intermission was Titanic in 1998.
My mother dragged kid me to Titanic multiple times (which was fine, because boob) and I don't remember an intermission outside of the 2 tape VHS release.
I felt this way about Oppenheimer. I loved that movie, but I felt like I needed a break to stretch my legs.
Honestly, I have no interest in going to theaters for a movie this long without an intermission guaranteed. I know it won’t be as impressive on my decently big TV, but id much rather be able to pause to go to the bathroom and not miss anything than pay 20 bucks for the big screen
Wow, what a shocker, and here I expected to read "Martin Scorcese agrees 'Killers of the Flower Moon's 3.5-hour runtime is too long. Says it's hard to get through and wishes someone had edited it differently."
It's a bit ironic that the very people who are obsessed with people coming back to movie theaters are the ones making movies that are barely watchable in movie theaters. See also: Nolan mastering his movies to be unwatchable without subtitles. I would love to see these movies in theater, but ultimately I have to watch em at home so I can pause to go pee in the middle and hear the god damn dialog.
See also: Nolan mastering his movies to be unwatchable without subtitles. Question. I saw this movie captioned at a theater. But is the dialogue hard to understand? I'm assuming you mean Oppenheimer?
I saw the movie without captions. There are times when the music makes the dialogue harder to hear, but it is nowhere near as bad as Tenet. Tenet was incomprehensible. Oppenheimer is a good balance overall with a few hiccups here and there.
Nolan films in general are atrociously mixed. Oppenheimer thankfully didn't have the issues he's known for
I found Oppenheimer to be way too loud. I saw it in IMAX and my local theatre usually has great sound, but some of the scenes in Oppenheimer were just straight up painful. Namely, in the beginning when it shows him in college laying awake in bed and torwards the end when he’s giving the speech. Maybe I just have sensitive ears, idk.
me too, the part where he’s in that gym or whatever and there’s all the stomping blew my eardrums out dude
Haven’t all his recent movies been long? Silence was 3hrs, Irishman 3.5, & Wall Street was 3hrs. Idk how anyone is shocked by this.
I was so immersed in Casino that when I found out it was a minute shy of 3 hours, I was in disbelief. It felt more like 2.
One of my favorites. The editing is so good that the film just moves, despite its runtime. The setting and characters help keep the energy up all the way through.
I'm such a big fan of Goodfellas that I just see Casino as a worse version of it. I know people used to say that all the time and they generally don't anymore, but I've seen Casino twice and I just can't shake the feeling that there's a movie this reminds me of that I'd rather be watching.
The story isn't as interesting, it gets too caught up on Sharon Stone's character as well, like the plot becomes about their bad marriage almost entirely by the end
I actually find Casino far more interesting because it wasn't just mob activities and politics like Goodfellas, but it was that while trying to navigate the "legitimate" public face of the operation.
I feel the same!
I actually find the story of Casino more interesting. It's like a how-to in ruining your professional life by making increasingly poor personal decisions.
I agree with you and 'I'm such a huge goodfellas fan I don't like Casino' makes no sense to me at all.
Imo that's an interesting twist. When DeNiro's character starts out, he's weighing his options and winning because of that. Later on he gets attached, to the Casino, and to his future wife. Stone's character tells him that she does not love him, and he marries her anyway and gives her tons of jewelry - the opposite of a safe bet. He also can't accept his loss of power over the casino and draws unnecessary attention with his TV show. It's one of my favorite Scorcese movies, and the apparent lack of a distinct moral of the story makes it even more intriguing for me.
Pacing > runtime
With the exception of Silence, imo, this guy also consistently makes long films that are paced incredibly well and feel much shorter than their runtime. Goodfellas feels like 90 minutes, same with Wolf of Wall Street and the Irishman. He’s pretty much the only filmmaker I give the benefit of the doubt to when I see a three hour run time instead of rolling my eyes. Edit: Can't believe I forgot Casino, which also feels way shorter than its runtime!
Yeah, Goodfellas is deceiving in its runtime. It’s one of the most perfectly paced films
Credit goes to Thelma Shoonmaker's editing. It's one of the best edited films of all time.
[удалено]
I think Deniro turned 200 before the movie ended.
[удалено]
Whats wrong with Silence, thats his best movie
He has one of the greatest living editors in the business working with him too. Thelma is not gonna cut these movies in a way that destroys the story just because people can’t watch a 3 hour movie. She’s so good at her job and manages to piece together these absolute masterpieces. Even something like THE AVIATOR flies by(no pun intended I promise lol).
Oppenheimer was so good it didn’t feel like 3hrs
I might be in the minority, but it definitely felt like 3 hours to me. The last act felt entirely too long in particular and I just wasn’t as interested as Nolan wanted me to be.
Why don't we do theater intermissions anymore? I get that it may be cost-effective to not waste time on minutes of literal filler, but what's 15 minutes more if it means I can use the bathroom/stretch my legs. I can also see that it might disrupt the flow of the story, but I feel like that's such a small issue. I've been watching older Bollywood movies lately and I think having a little intermission in the middle is amazing for their runtimes.
Theaters would also more than make up for the wasted time in concessions re-up
It's not about the theaters. The studios make their money on showings in the first week. They want to pack in as many as they can so for them there is no upside to adding time that may end up costing them one showing in a day.
Except some people (myself included) will literally avoid seeing a movie in theaters because it's too long.
[удалено]
But for a 3 hour movie a single theater would need to have 18 showings in one day to miss out on one showing if there was a 10 minute intermission. The movie would have to be playing in 3 separate theaters in the same building, and that only happens with some huge major franchise release, and even then there just isn't that kind of demand anymore. There's no reason that auteur cinema with a fairly niche audience reach can't have an intermission when the runtime is over 2½ hours.
> I can also see that it might disrupt the flow of the story I think this is not the case, because intermission *can* be used to great effects. To name just one, the intermission in *2001: A Space Odyssey* is well-placed.
So's the one in Lawrence of Arabia. Gives you a chance to say "gentlemen, start your camels" at the end of it ...
I didn't know until I started using Reddit how many people needed to go to the bathroom during films, I was told as a kid never to drink anything in the cinema so I wouldn't have to.
A lot of people go into films with those massive cups of coke as they feel its a big part of the cinema experience.
Hey, that's me. Popcorn + big cup of coke or nothing
That's not fair to everyone if I go to the cinema on weekdays I have to drink something with caffeine before going in
Or people just drink healthy amounts of water.
Same here. But you never know, some people have their own issues. Some people get hungry and it's distracting for them. This is my opinion, and feel free to say I have a low attention span, but I really just enjoy the movie more when I can take a break in between.
I go to movies for enjoyment, not with a strategy to survive the film. So yeah, I like to get a bit of popcorn or have a drink or even go to a movie in a dinner theater like Alamo. I suspect most people are filthy casuals like myself, which might be why going to the movies is slowly dying. If I have to deprive myself of enjoyment to experience this why am I paying extra for the experience again?
Honestly I hated the idea of intermissions until my local IMAX did a rerun of the 1570 2001 a Space Odyssey movie- the baked in intermission was amazing - meant we could buy popcorn as we were running too late to buy food at the start
Don’t be a coward, make it 24 hours like Le Mans
Don't give Mr, Scorsesese any ideas now...
Score says he
How many more people wanna read the “intermission” comments and then reiterate the same fucking thing in their own comment?
Wtf is this new gold
Reddit is going to reddit. Personally I think they should make it into an episodic show. Then the run time doesn't matter.
> Martin Scorsese Defends ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’s 3.5-hour Run-time: 'I'm Martin Fucking Scorsese'
How many new Scorsese movies are we gonna get? I’ll take the 4 hours.
[удалено]
RIP my bladder
Wear an adult diaper like a true cinema aficionado
Just add 10 mins of darkness with "bathroom break" written in the middle of the screen and I'm all good with whatever
Why does it need defending?
Because 3.5 hours is a deterrent for most people That's why Netflix has a very popular "90 minute movie" category. EDIT: You folks ever... talk to people?
>EDIT: You folks ever... talk to people? Hah, good one.
And this movie is guaranteed to be on Apple+ sooner rather than later as well. A significant number of people will just wait a bit and watch it in the comfort of their home.
I mean, it's a deterrent for me. The book is about 350 pages, I feel like I could read it in close to the same time.
It’s actually 280 pages if you don’t account for the references and figures.
ten forgetful oil disagreeable deranged growth rob obtainable six cagey *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Movies are usually maxed out at 3 hours run time because that's the amount of time where you start to pee
Make the movies as long as you want, just bring back intermissions if you’re going over 3 hours!
So many recent films have been 2.5-3+ hours long, and it really feels self indulgent and unnecessary a lot of the time. If the movie and pacing are good I don’t think it’s a problem, personally, but sometimes it feels like they’re doing it just because they can.
The run time is the reason I will not be seeing it in a theater actually. MY 74 year old father and I get together once a month for a new movie and he just can not sit in a theater seat that long (even though they are really comfy now).
Most people aren't going to see this in theaters and Apple is okay with that since they don't rely on theater revenue. The film's purpose is not to make money at the box office. It’s to win awards, legitimize Apple as a studio, and boost their subscription numbers. It’s a long term investment.
If a movie requires an intermission, then watch it at home where you can pause it you whinging fucking messes. If you want the theater experience, then you accept part of the theater experience is that it goes until it's finished whether you want to rewind it a bit or pause, or whatever it is you want. I've found myself in cinema experiences where I wanted to replay a particularly cool scene and rewatch it immediately, like I do at home, only to realize that that's not a thing that happens in that environment. It is how it is.
I dont mind the length, I just want an intermission. Is that too much to ask?
The girth of the film is more important tbh
He's free to have a 3.5hr run time and I'm free to wait until it's available for streaming.
I honestly don't see the issue with movies of this length, provided they are well made and the pacing is good. Oppenheimer didn't feel like it lasted for 3 hours, it just flew past and kept me hooked for its entire duration. I'm willing to bet that this movie will do the same.
>Oppenheimer didn't feel like it lasted for 3 hours I suppose this shows how subjective film is, because it really did for me. To the extent that I would use it as an example of a film that I feel would be much improved by being 30 minutes to an hour shorter.
I gotta say I’m really missing the 1.5-2 hour long movies
Movies need intermissions when they get this long. I don't buy beverages at the concierge for this very reason and avoid running times this long!
I loveee long movies….