A lot of times the break is inserted in a random moment, regardless if that falls in the middle of a scene. And also if you take too long you’ll definitely miss a bit of the movie.
Yeah, but then every movie would have a cliffhanger in the middle, or even just a clean cut into two halves that would limit a director’s artistic freedom.
Plus I bet cinemas have to break movies differently based on what else is playing so the bathrooms and concessions stands don’t get overwhelmed by more than one screening going there at once.
It was not cable, but I distinctly remember the worst part of watching movies on TV as a kid with my dad. All the channels would cram a commercial break right before the last 10/15 minutes of a movie, prompting my dad to declare it was too late for us to be up and turning the TV off for the night.
I don’t blame my dad, he was probably tired and just wanted to get some sleep, but I do blame the greedy TV channels for sure!
Actually, this is probably a reason they don’t do many intermissions. I remember lines in bathrooms being bad enough at the end of movies, when no one is in a rush to get back, because the bathrooms aren’t big enough to quickly handle the rush from even just a single screen. They’d probably have to deal with more fights and irate customers with intermissions vs just keeping the movie going and letting people just go and miss some when they need to.
I took a screenwriting class in college, which taught when writing for tv how to structure around commercials like acts in a play, build and resolve suspense, etc.
I’m sure movie directors would hate that, as it would stifle their creativity.
I think he has a point actually.
A lot of times the break is inserted in a random moment, regardless if that falls in the middle of a scene. And also if you take too long you’ll definitely miss a bit of the movie.
Film makers could fix this by finding break po8jts. Even using them for suspense.
Yeah, but then every movie would have a cliffhanger in the middle, or even just a clean cut into two halves that would limit a director’s artistic freedom.
Plus I bet cinemas have to break movies differently based on what else is playing so the bathrooms and concessions stands don’t get overwhelmed by more than one screening going there at once.
Uncreative people whine about “artistic freedom.” People that are actually creative would find a way to make the movie better.
This is one of the reasons I hate cable tv so much.
It was not cable, but I distinctly remember the worst part of watching movies on TV as a kid with my dad. All the channels would cram a commercial break right before the last 10/15 minutes of a movie, prompting my dad to declare it was too late for us to be up and turning the TV off for the night.
I don’t blame my dad, he was probably tired and just wanted to get some sleep, but I do blame the greedy TV channels for sure!
Actually, this is probably a reason they don’t do many intermissions. I remember lines in bathrooms being bad enough at the end of movies, when no one is in a rush to get back, because the bathrooms aren’t big enough to quickly handle the rush from even just a single screen. They’d probably have to deal with more fights and irate customers with intermissions vs just keeping the movie going and letting people just go and miss some when they need to.
It works in other countries.
Not everyone needs to pee during the intermission. Some people go pee, some get some more popcorn or whatever, some go for a smoke.
I took a screenwriting class in college, which taught when writing for tv how to structure around commercials like acts in a play, build and resolve suspense, etc.
I’m sure movie directors would hate that, as it would stifle their creativity.
Agreed, this seems like an easily solvable problem.
It was solved like a century ago. Idk wtf stopped.