R@gZ
The Place to BE
Jun
10
Intermissions
RAVI | Movies | 10 June 2004, 7:31pm
Today's post will focus on a point of contention that I've been batting around in my head ever since Vic and I started researching this venture - intermissions. Now, a lot of you might already be balking at the thought of having an intermission in today's fast-paced world of "bring 'em in, move 'em out" multiplexes, but hear me out. Intermissions can be good for all of us. In fact, Vic and I have been to several art-house theaters where intermissions were used, and no one in the audience seemed to mind.
A short 10 minute intermission allows movie-goers to get up and stretch, go to the bathroom (in the restrooms, not as they're stretching), and MOST IMPORTANTLY make another trip to the Refreshment Bar for another glass of coke / pepsi / grocery bag of popcorn / box of dots / etc.. The patrons who choose to remain in their seats could take a moment to discuss the film without being shushed, look at the exhibited art on the auditorium walls, play snake on their cell phone, or quietly twiddle his or her thumbs. Sounds lovely, doesn't it? You, the viewer, can do all of the aforementioned activities without missing any of the movie.
Of course, as with all business decisions, there are other issues beyond personal gain and audience convenience that will determine whether we can have intermissions or not. You see, whenever you contact a distributor and ask them to show one of their films, you have to sign a contract that specifies certain things, mainly the distribution fee, length of engagement, etc.., but hidden deep in the fine print is a little clause that strictly prohibits interruption or modification of any kind to the exhibited film. Not only that, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult to find a good stopping point for an intermission in modern day films.
So should we or shouldn't we run intermissions? Well, in the beginning we were going to have no choice but to run them, since we were planning on using reel-to-reel projectors in the theaters. Reel-to-reels (picture) are gigantic projectors that have a 6,000 foot reel on top that feeds film down through the head to a 6,000 foot take-up reel on the bottom. A 6,000 foot reel only holds about an hour and 15 minutes worth of film, so somewhere along the line we'd have to stop the film so we could thread up the second half of the movie. What better time for an intermission?
A lot of theaters in the old days had two reel-to-reel projectors, one was thread up with the first half and the other with the second half, and whenever the change over occurred (watch for the cigarette burn at the upper right-hand side of the screen... Fight Club describes it really well), the projectionist would simply hit a button and projector 1 would stop as projector 2 started. If done correctly, the audience would be oblivious to the change-over. Of course, this scenario would only work if you had 2 reel-to-reel projectors PER auditorium, which many don't have money for. If we were to use reel-to-reel, we could only afford 1 projector per screen, which would mean we would have to allow for an intermission while we threaded up the second half of the film.
As you can see from the picture of the reel-to-reel projector, they require a lot of ceiling space, which, unfortunately, is something many don't have. The ceilings are low... I'm talking 13 feet low. They have to get the projector as high to the ceiling as possible, and if they are stuck with reel-to-reels they'd be giving up at least 3 feet of usable space above the projector. So many decided to go with platters (picture).
Platters allow projectionists to build-up an entire film on one platter that would, in turn, feed the projector, thus eliminating change-overs, rethreading, and the need to rewind 6,000 foot reels. If done correctly, a platter can be started and left unattended until the end of the film. They're wonderful machines, but if we have one, we most likely can't have intermissions. So I guess the question is moot, since many are going to have a platter-fed system, it's obvious that we can't circumvent our contractual obligation to show our films in their entirety... or can we? What do you think, intermissions or no?
Current Mood: Vicious
Current Music: Yuva - Fanaa
A short 10 minute intermission allows movie-goers to get up and stretch, go to the bathroom (in the restrooms, not as they're stretching), and MOST IMPORTANTLY make another trip to the Refreshment Bar for another glass of coke / pepsi / grocery bag of popcorn / box of dots / etc.. The patrons who choose to remain in their seats could take a moment to discuss the film without being shushed, look at the exhibited art on the auditorium walls, play snake on their cell phone, or quietly twiddle his or her thumbs. Sounds lovely, doesn't it? You, the viewer, can do all of the aforementioned activities without missing any of the movie.
Of course, as with all business decisions, there are other issues beyond personal gain and audience convenience that will determine whether we can have intermissions or not. You see, whenever you contact a distributor and ask them to show one of their films, you have to sign a contract that specifies certain things, mainly the distribution fee, length of engagement, etc.., but hidden deep in the fine print is a little clause that strictly prohibits interruption or modification of any kind to the exhibited film. Not only that, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult to find a good stopping point for an intermission in modern day films.
So should we or shouldn't we run intermissions? Well, in the beginning we were going to have no choice but to run them, since we were planning on using reel-to-reel projectors in the theaters. Reel-to-reels (picture) are gigantic projectors that have a 6,000 foot reel on top that feeds film down through the head to a 6,000 foot take-up reel on the bottom. A 6,000 foot reel only holds about an hour and 15 minutes worth of film, so somewhere along the line we'd have to stop the film so we could thread up the second half of the movie. What better time for an intermission?
A lot of theaters in the old days had two reel-to-reel projectors, one was thread up with the first half and the other with the second half, and whenever the change over occurred (watch for the cigarette burn at the upper right-hand side of the screen... Fight Club describes it really well), the projectionist would simply hit a button and projector 1 would stop as projector 2 started. If done correctly, the audience would be oblivious to the change-over. Of course, this scenario would only work if you had 2 reel-to-reel projectors PER auditorium, which many don't have money for. If we were to use reel-to-reel, we could only afford 1 projector per screen, which would mean we would have to allow for an intermission while we threaded up the second half of the film.
As you can see from the picture of the reel-to-reel projector, they require a lot of ceiling space, which, unfortunately, is something many don't have. The ceilings are low... I'm talking 13 feet low. They have to get the projector as high to the ceiling as possible, and if they are stuck with reel-to-reels they'd be giving up at least 3 feet of usable space above the projector. So many decided to go with platters (picture).
Platters allow projectionists to build-up an entire film on one platter that would, in turn, feed the projector, thus eliminating change-overs, rethreading, and the need to rewind 6,000 foot reels. If done correctly, a platter can be started and left unattended until the end of the film. They're wonderful machines, but if we have one, we most likely can't have intermissions. So I guess the question is moot, since many are going to have a platter-fed system, it's obvious that we can't circumvent our contractual obligation to show our films in their entirety... or can we? What do you think, intermissions or no?
Current Mood: Vicious
Current Music: Yuva - Fanaa
Next | Previous | Comments (1) | Trackbacks (0)
Comments
11
To read the original content, please go to
http://www.urlblue.com/2004/06/intermissions.html
Arey maava, come up with something ORIGINAL raaa...:P