Could Adding Intermissions Save the Theatrical Business?

I don't know about you, but I love going to the movies. There's something special about being with a crowd and feeling emotions as a cohesive unit. But as you know, the theatrical experience is in a bit of trouble. There are lots of interesting ideas on how to save the theatrical experience, but the one I read this morning stopped me in my tracks. It was on Indiewire, and it basically was the conclusion that we should add intermissions to longer movies. I know this seems so simple, but I actually found the argument to be genius. Right now, in India, every movie is coming with an intermission. That means movies like Killers of The Flower Moon and Flow each get a break in the middle for you to pee, get snacks, and stretch. How would this save theaters? Well, it's also a time these Indian theaters see an absolute boom in concessions sales. And because theaters get to keep all the money from concession sales, they wind up raking in more money. This influx of cash may be just what's needed to boost revenue at theaters. And hear me out, it may be what the rise in long movies needs as well.Hollywood has a long history of movies with intermissions, but they went by the wayside when movies got shorter. But we are in another era of long movies. And with TV and YouTube, people's attention spans are much shorter. They need a break. And we need more money. A few years ago, we had a three-hour Batman movie, and I have to say I really loved the intermission in The Brutalist this year. Also, almost all our Best Picture nominees this year were over two hours and twenty minutes. We are asking a lot of audiences and theaters programming these movies. We need to find a way for theaters to capitalize on the money they can make showing these marathon movies. The more money they make, the better the business. This year, a three-hour and thirty-minute Avatar movie is coming out. That movie is not set to have an intermission. While I respect directors and their visions, I think we're really starting to test audiences. I am of the firm belief that Scorsese should have added an intermission to The Irishman and Killers because the audience needs a chance to refocus. Especially with the limited attention spans we see today. With those breaks in mind, it may be easier to convince people to go to the theater to see these longer blockbusters. Here's the thing you may not know (because I didn't know): when studios release movies in India, they arbitrarily add intermissions, because Indian audiences expect them. That means we've been doing this for years. It's time to bring the practice home. We've tried lots of other ways to spike theater attendance and increase profits. It's time to think outside the box and look for answers not just here but across the globe. Let me know what you think in the comments.

Mar 25, 2025 - 22:04

Could Adding Intermissions Save the Theatrical Business?

I don't know about you, but I love going to the movies. There's something special about being with a crowd and feeling emotions as a cohesive unit.

But as you know, the theatrical experience is in a bit of trouble.

There are lots of interesting ideas on how to save the theatrical experience, but the one I read this morning stopped me in my tracks.

It was on Indiewire, and it basically was the conclusion that we should add intermissions to longer movies.

I know this seems so simple, but I actually found the argument to be genius.

Right now, in India, every movie is coming with an intermission. That means movies like Killers of The Flower Moon and Flow each get a break in the middle for you to pee, get snacks, and stretch.

How would this save theaters?

Well, it's also a time these Indian theaters see an absolute boom in concessions sales. And because theaters get to keep all the money from concession sales, they wind up raking in more money.

This influx of cash may be just what's needed to boost revenue at theaters. And hear me out, it may be what the rise in long movies needs as well.

Hollywood has a long history of movies with intermissions, but they went by the wayside when movies got shorter. But we are in another era of long movies. And with TV and YouTube, people's attention spans are much shorter.

They need a break. And we need more money.

A few years ago, we had a three-hour Batman movie, and I have to say I really loved the intermission in The Brutalist this year. Also, almost all our Best Picture nominees this year were over two hours and twenty minutes.

We are asking a lot of audiences and theaters programming these movies.

We need to find a way for theaters to capitalize on the money they can make showing these marathon movies.

The more money they make, the better the business.

This year, a three-hour and thirty-minute Avatar movie is coming out. That movie is not set to have an intermission. While I respect directors and their visions, I think we're really starting to test audiences.

I am of the firm belief that Scorsese should have added an intermission to The Irishman and Killers because the audience needs a chance to refocus. Especially with the limited attention spans we see today.

With those breaks in mind, it may be easier to convince people to go to the theater to see these longer blockbusters.

Here's the thing you may not know (because I didn't know): when studios release movies in India, they arbitrarily add intermissions, because Indian audiences expect them. That means we've been doing this for years.

It's time to bring the practice home.

We've tried lots of other ways to spike theater attendance and increase profits. It's time to think outside the box and look for answers not just here but across the globe.

Let me know what you think in the comments.