This means more opportunities to make money. Distributors are aware that the shorter their film is, 90 minutes - 2 hours, allows for more showings of the film. It depends on both the distributors and the cinemas. Anyway, sorry about the long response, but both you and /u/alphamone are technically correct. But now with digital movies, the actual physical need for an intermission truly is gone (as far as the technology goes). I think I remember having to do this at some point when I was working as a projectionist, but I can't remember what movie it could have been, so maybe I'm making it up. That was before my time as a projectionist, but anyway the point I'm trying to get at is that if a movie was long enough that it wouldn't fit safely on a platter, it would have to be split onto two platters and an intermission would be needed to re-thread the projector. I remember Peter Jackson's King Kong having an intermission. So you can have two platters with film and one empty one for a movie to run on to. The platters were held on a "tree" that could hold three platters. For the diameter of the platter, you could get probably three hours (I'm estimating, it's been a while) worth of film to fit safely. But at the theater I worked at, and all the other theaters I have been to, we would build all the reels together onto one large platter so that no switching over was required and a movie could play continuously. On older projectors, changing reels could happen as you describe. I worked with films (literal film) as that format was dying out to give way to digital. So, from the start he worked on one part of the story at a time. Lucas knew that the story, as he envisioned it, was too long to tell in one film. However each episode was part of a larger, complete story. The reason that all those mini-series from the 70's and 80's like 'Roots' and Lonesome Dove' were so popular is that each section was written in an episodic fashion which had a beginning and an end. You need to plan for a film to be presented in two or more parts from the beginning and pace the plot and structure of the story accordingly. Besides, where do you cut it and still preserve the continuity of the story if it wasn't meant to be cut in half? The producer should have had an inkling of the film's length as soon as the script was written. It's simply unwise to simply split a story in two after production is completed just because it's too long. And, diminished box office returns on the second half might hurt the film's reputation overall and could lead to people skipping the first one as well. Those who aren't totally captivated by the story would simply skip the second one. Splitting the movie into two could be risky.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |