|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Oct 29, 2023 19:52:40 GMT -5
I’m saying this as someone who was diagnosed with Autism at the age of 5 and sometimes struggles to stay somewhere if I’m not focused on something or not quite comfortable with stuff and the emotions that come from that…
Making this an accessibility issue feels as though people are using us as scapegoats or examples instead of actually being concerned about it because, man, lengths of movies don’t even make the list of things society should actually deal with in terms of that stuff. I just won’t go see the movie if I don’t think I’d be able to do it that day because that literally solves that issue.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo Is Broken on Oct 31, 2023 2:24:22 GMT -5
Just peen in the guy in front of you's drink cup when he leaves it sitting in the cup holder.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyoldman on Oct 31, 2023 3:01:18 GMT -5
Just peen in the guy in front of you's drink cup when he leaves it sitting in the cup holder. I worked in a cinema 20 years ago. This was surprisingly common in late night shows
|
|
salz4life
Grimlock
Prichard is a guy who gets that his job is to service his boss.
Posts: 14,352
|
Post by salz4life on Oct 31, 2023 7:51:44 GMT -5
I am usually fine with holding it in for films, but sometimes it feels impossible. I don't know how I made it through Dune lmfao I did NOT however make it through Avatar 2 and Oppenheimer and just found a down scene within them to take a piss break lol. When a film is pushing that two and a half hour mark it'd be nice if you gave people five minutes or so, not just for a bathroom break but taking advantage of the free refills they're supposed to have but some people don't want to miss any scenes lol. I had to take a break during Oppenheimer. I don't feel like i missed anything of note. You just have to pick your spots the best you can.
|
|
|
Post by Finish Uncle Muffin’s Story on Oct 31, 2023 8:01:17 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't know. If the person that created the art doesn't want there to be an intermission, there probably shouldn't be an intermission. Go pick your spot and go pee. It's not on a theater to make that call. If you don't think you can survive a movie of that length in a theater, it'll be on streaming soon.
|
|
lucas_lee
Hank Scorpio
Heel turn is finished, now stripping away my personality
Posts: 6,973
|
Post by lucas_lee on Oct 31, 2023 9:35:13 GMT -5
Just for reference: Thelma Schoonmaker is one of the most decorated editors in film history. She co-holds the records for Best Film Editing awards and Most Nominations. She's also Martin Scorsese's go-to editor since Raging Bull (so over 40 years), so it's essentially a partnership at this point. So, yeah, I get it. Like most people who are pretty good at their jobs, she hates to see people screwing with it no matter how many people are like "Why does it matter?" Best Film Editing 1970 Woodstock 1980 Raging Bull (Won) 1990 Goodfellas 2002 Gangs of New York 2004 The Aviator (Won) 2006 The Departed (Won) 2011 Hugo 2019 The Irishman I don't give a shit. She can f*** right off. EDIT: Okay, that was a bit knee-jerk. But the attitude stinks. I know people with disabilities who love going to the cinema but really struggle to sit there for two hours, a 10 minute intermission every hour could make things so more welcoming. 3 hour movies are just impossible. Just wait until these "auteurs" discover accessible screenings and obviously will come out against them, because their work is supposed to be "difficult". The issue I have with the art dictated by the auteur movement is a lot of that "making art" reasoning is used as a handwaive for actors and directors to treat the crew and cast members poorly in the name of art. So I dont see the issue with there being intermissions. To me it seems like a nothingburger and it makes a lot of directors seem more self-important than they are.
|
|
|
Post by EP 54 is banned from Collision on Oct 31, 2023 9:45:31 GMT -5
Well apparently Marty Sharty's 3hr epic film is bombing hard. Good.
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Oct 31, 2023 10:57:38 GMT -5
Well apparently Marty Sharty's 3hr epic film is bombing hard. Good. Why good? It's apparently a brilliant film, and shines a spotlight on the mistreatment of Native Anerican's. Is it the message, the accolades, or the fact that Scorcese doesn't like superhero movies that makes it a good thing this movie fails?
|
|
Renslayer
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
every time i come around your city...
Posts: 17,282
|
Post by Renslayer on Oct 31, 2023 11:02:40 GMT -5
See, this why you gotta have some strategy lol. Empty the tank before you go in and don't drink any movie theater soda! I had soda during no way home and was fighting for my life in the third act 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Oct 31, 2023 12:35:43 GMT -5
A couple of things to add to all this because I find myself keeping coming back to these things and people misunderstanding the points.
A) Apple didn't get the rights to Killers of the Flower Moon and in turn, a part of Martin Scorsese to make a massive profit. Well, there was probably a hint of them putting it where it was in the hopes for an aftermath of Barbieheimer but that's a studio thing. A main reason they did was because, if that film wins awards during award season (and there's no reason right now to think it won't), Apple wins awards. If Lily Gladstone or Leonardo DiCaprio or even Scorsese himself win Oscars, Apple wins Oscars. They can put it in ads, put it on billboards, put it on the Apple TV homepage pretty much until the sun burns out and the solar system is destroyed. It's bragging rights, essentially. It literally worked with CODA this year, why not try it again?
B) Another thing people aren't considering about it is this; take away the auteur part of all of this. If you were on whatever job you're working on and got told certain guidelines you had to follow and make your job work and someone on the front end changes it because it's easier without letting you know anything about that, I'd be pissed too. My job involves file management, if instead of being told what I was doing wrong or was able to make the changes requested, they just went ahead and did them, I'd wonder what the point of my job even was. You told me to do this thing and I had no chance to improve it? Screw you! That's my work I put hours into.
If Thenma Schoonmaker was told to put an intermission into Killers, she would have edited the film to fit an intermission because that's literally her job.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Oct 31, 2023 15:58:38 GMT -5
A) Apple didn't get the rights to Killers of the Flower Moon and in turn, a part of Martin Scorsese to make a massive profit. Well, there was probably a hint of them putting it where it was in the hopes for an aftermath of Barbieheimer but that's a studio thing. A main reason they did was because, if that film wins awards during award season (and there's no reason right now to think it won't), Apple wins awards. If Lily Gladstone or Leonardo DiCaprio or even Scorsese himself win Oscars, Apple wins Oscars. They can put it in ads, put it on billboards, put it on the Apple TV homepage pretty much until the sun burns out and the solar system is destroyed. It's bragging rights, essentially. It literally worked with CODA this year, why not try it again? That's Apple's prerogative, but the big difference is the costs involved – CODA cost $10 million to make and another $10 million to market, while only making about $2 million at the box office. It was low-risk. As things stand Flower Moon is looking like it'll lose anywhere between $100-150 million. That's a huge bill just for some bragging rights that, let's be honest, means very little to the average Joe. Sure, Apple have got the money to lose, but given the profitability of streaming services is a massive sticking point in the SAG-AFTRA/AMPTP negotiations, throwing a massive loss on the books for bragging rights does no favours to anybody. It just all boils down to how movie budgets are out of control these days. Killers of the Flower Moon is a f***ing great movie, but there's no reason for it cost $200 million any more than Dial of Destiny needed to be $350 million or Mission: Impossible needed to be $300 million, even taking into consideration all of those movies having some Covid delay-related costs to absorb. Hell, even most Marvel and DC movies can't really justify the money spent on their movies. Marvel, at least, does make the money back and more pretty much every time, but the budgets are still padded to hell.
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Oct 31, 2023 16:14:16 GMT -5
That's Apple's prerogative, but the big difference is the costs involved – CODA cost $10 million to make and another $10 million to market, while only making about $2 million at the box office. It was low-risk. As things stand Flower Moon is looking like it'll lose anywhere between $100-150 million. That's a huge bill just for some bragging rights that, let's be honest, means very little to the average Joe. Sure, Apple have got the money to lose, but given the profitability of streaming services is a massive sticking point in the SAG-AFTRA/AMPTP negotiations, throwing a massive loss on the books for bragging rights does no favours to anybody. It doesn’t, no. But if you’re still a new studio and you’re trying to show that you can actually let credible film makers do credible film maker things so you can have them do things for your streaming service, especially in a sector that has less and less of those going, the costs become worth it. Does it make sense? No, but if you become a place where some kind of credibility is formed, you’re not just accepting things from every Tom, Dick or Harry with a pitch and some kind of ability to direct. Heck, it was what the film industry was known for before the middle men stopped being that role. And that’s from someone that agrees budgets are too high.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Oct 31, 2023 16:43:23 GMT -5
It doesn’t, no. But if you’re still a new studio and you’re trying to show that you can actually let credible film makers do credible film maker things so you can have them do things for your streaming service, especially in a sector that has less and less of those going, the costs become worth it. Does it make sense? No, but if you become a place where some kind of credibility is formed, you’re not just accepting things from every Tom, Dick or Harry with a pitch and some kind of ability to direct. Heck, it was what the film industry was known for before the middle men stopped being that role. And that’s from someone that agrees budgets are too high. It does have a twisted logic to it, but at the same time it's a division of Apple, headed up by some of the most experienced and well-connected names in American and British film and TV, not some startup studio run by untested but enthusiastic young bucks. But you're right, that is the game.
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Oct 31, 2023 16:49:05 GMT -5
It doesn’t, no. But if you’re still a new studio and you’re trying to show that you can actually let credible film makers do credible film maker things so you can have them do things for your streaming service, especially in a sector that has less and less of those going, the costs become worth it. Does it make sense? No, but if you become a place where some kind of credibility is formed, you’re not just accepting things from every Tom, Dick or Harry with a pitch and some kind of ability to direct. Heck, it was what the film industry was known for before the middle men stopped being that role. And that’s from someone that agrees budgets are too high. It does have a twisted logic to it, but at the same time it's a division of Apple, headed up by some of the most experienced and well-connected names in American and British film and TV, not some startup studio run by untested but enthusiastic young bucks. But you're right, that is the game. I mean, Apple could have just WWE Studio'd it and got C-D tier people behind it to just make stuff that mostly got forgotten about except for YouTubers to cover but you're not bringing those heads in to front a studio that's going to just get in Hallmark and Asylum directors. That's how you get Jeffrey Katzenberg to think Quibi was a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Oct 31, 2023 17:19:26 GMT -5
B) Another thing people aren't considering about it is this; take away the auteur part of all of this. If you were on whatever job you're working on and got told certain guidelines you had to follow and make your job work and someone on the front end changes it because it's easier without letting you know anything about that, I'd be pissed too. My job involves file management, if instead of being told what I was doing wrong or was able to make the changes requested, they just went ahead and did them, I'd wonder what the point of my job even was. You told me to do this thing and I had no chance to improve it? Screw you! That's my work I put hours into. If Thenma Schoonmaker was told to put an intermission into Killers, she would have edited the film to fit an intermission because that's literally her job. I dunno if that's the best comparison. Every single person who has worked on a film since the dawn of television, and especially since the debut of VCR's, has known that they will NEVER have complete control of how their film is viewed by the public. It's not like this is being sprung on them after accepting the job, they know it's leaving their control essentially once it's wide released Saying it's unacceptable to add an intermission means they think how people watching at home view films is unacceptable. I assume somebody not liking the intermission would be insulted by parent friendly screenings as well. Feels very gatekeeperish to say "either you watch it how I intended, or you shouldn't be able to see it at all". At a time when theatres are struggling to get people in the door, shouldn't the whole f***ing industry be listening to suggestions on how to make the movie going experience more enjoyable? Besides, film makers being in complete control of how their films are exhibited would lead to way fewer people getting to see their movies anyways. Do you think a cat like Chris Nolan would offer 35mm prints of his films, or allow them to be released on (god forbid!) home video if he had his way? You'd see it in IMAX or not at all dammit! I respect the f*** outta Nolan and Scorcese as film makers but they get so up their own asses sometimes. Like, the "if you can watch 5 hours of TV you can sit through a 3.5 hour movie" comment. How detached from reality is that? If I'm at home I'm in 100% control of when the movie stops and starts pretty much immediately rendering it an apples and oranges comparison. Or "Plays are 3 hours long, lots of people go to them". I won't claim to be the most cultured person in the world, only been to a handful of plays or musicals in my life but I've never been to one without at least one f***ing intermission! Most public performances have intermissions of some sort, or built in breaks. Sports, concerts, live theatre etc Ugh, this seems like I'm bitching at you, but I'm really not. It's just frustrations with the theatre going experience, and frustrations with some out to lunch comments made by intelligent and talented people
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Oct 31, 2023 17:29:59 GMT -5
My wider point is even without the control, if your director fought for an intermission and didn't get it and in turn, you edit a film down to cater to that requirement, it'd be a bit screwy to decide to just have an intermission at a point nobody involved intended it to be in. It's not even about having 100% control, it's someone whose work is being screwed around with for the sake of something they have no control over, which are stuff that the studios could have just said for them to do in the first place.
As much as we talk about people being up themselves, art isn't there to cater to those watching it as much as give you an experience from those who make it, whether good or bad, leeway or no leeway, pretentious or otherwise. If it's done to just satisfy an audience and make money, we're just back to the Director's Cut arguments again or even just ditching directors and having AI to be stretched beyond the barriers it has to help artists.
EDIT: Obviously, all of this has terms and conditions like "Don't f***ing abuse people on set for your art" or "Don't make f***ing snuff films or break the goddamn law" so don't think I'm saying that.
EDIT II: Also to add, if the studio was doing this, it wouldn't be fine but at least it'd be with people who know the film and know the people involved. This is a third party who has none of that context, which is literally like how films have bad TV edits from companies not involved in the process.
|
|
|
Post by Banjo Is Broken on Nov 1, 2023 2:08:10 GMT -5
Just sit at the back of the theater. The way all the seats are set up so the furthest back are highest up and then they slope down as they go forward. When you have to pee just point it on the floor and let it go. All of it will run down ward and collect at the front of the theater. Then when you leave you can be like "Oh my goodness! Some miscreant has urinated on the floor!"
|
|
|
Post by EP 54 is banned from Collision on Nov 1, 2023 19:36:53 GMT -5
B) Another thing people aren't considering about it is this; take away the auteur part of all of this. If you were on whatever job you're working on and got told certain guidelines you had to follow and make your job work and someone on the front end changes it because it's easier without letting you know anything about that, I'd be pissed too. My job involves file management, if instead of being told what I was doing wrong or was able to make the changes requested, they just went ahead and did them, I'd wonder what the point of my job even was. You told me to do this thing and I had no chance to improve it? Screw you! That's my work I put hours into. If Thenma Schoonmaker was told to put an intermission into Killers, she would have edited the film to fit an intermission because that's literally her job. I dunno if that's the best comparison. Every single person who has worked on a film since the dawn of television, and especially since the debut of VCR's, has known that they will NEVER have complete control of how their film is viewed by the public. It's not like this is being sprung on them after accepting the job, they know it's leaving their control essentially once it's wide released Saying it's unacceptable to add an intermission means they think how people watching at home view films is unacceptable. I assume somebody not liking the intermission would be insulted by parent friendly screenings as well. Feels very gatekeeperish to say "either you watch it how I intended, or you shouldn't be able to see it at all". At a time when theatres are struggling to get people in the door, shouldn't the whole f***ing industry be listening to suggestions on how to make the movie going experience more enjoyable? Besides, film makers being in complete control of how their films are exhibited would lead to way fewer people getting to see their movies anyways. Do you think a cat like Chris Nolan would offer 35mm prints of his films, or allow them to be released on (god forbid!) home video if he had his way? You'd see it in IMAX or not at all dammit! I respect the f*** outta Nolan and Scorcese as film makers but they get so up their own asses sometimes. Like, the "if you can watch 5 hours of TV you can sit through a 3.5 hour movie" comment. How detached from reality is that? If I'm at home I'm in 100% control of when the movie stops and starts pretty much immediately rendering it an apples and oranges comparison. Or "Plays are 3 hours long, lots of people go to them". I won't claim to be the most cultured person in the world, only been to a handful of plays or musicals in my life but I've never been to one without at least one f***ing intermission! Most public performances have intermissions of some sort, or built in breaks. Sports, concerts, live theatre etc Ugh, this seems like I'm bitching at you, but I'm really not. It's just frustrations with the theatre going experience, and frustrations with some out to lunch comments made by intelligent and talented people Artists don't get to dictate how their art form is consumed. It's been that way (almost) forever. Books get read at the pace of the reader, in varied places from quiet libraries, to busy public transport. Some of the world's most famous and popular artworks are mostly consumed via postcards and google images. Music can be played in various venues, the same song might be played in a home, pub, club, karaoke, mixed, remixed and remade. Even videogames can't demand certain screens and no one ever expected anyone to play Dark Souls via a Guitar Hero controller or dance mat or banana. If I had to go to a three-hour movie and had a chance to pick whether to watch the one with the intermission or not, I'd go for the intermission every time. "Artist's Vision" be damned,
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Nov 1, 2023 19:54:36 GMT -5
"If I have to put in a catheter to watch your movie, I ain't watching it" -Kevin Nash
|
|
lucas_lee
Hank Scorpio
Heel turn is finished, now stripping away my personality
Posts: 6,973
|
Post by lucas_lee on Nov 2, 2023 13:17:29 GMT -5
I dunno if that's the best comparison. Every single person who has worked on a film since the dawn of television, and especially since the debut of VCR's, has known that they will NEVER have complete control of how their film is viewed by the public. It's not like this is being sprung on them after accepting the job, they know it's leaving their control essentially once it's wide released Saying it's unacceptable to add an intermission means they think how people watching at home view films is unacceptable. I assume somebody not liking the intermission would be insulted by parent friendly screenings as well. Feels very gatekeeperish to say "either you watch it how I intended, or you shouldn't be able to see it at all". At a time when theatres are struggling to get people in the door, shouldn't the whole f***ing industry be listening to suggestions on how to make the movie going experience more enjoyable? Besides, film makers being in complete control of how their films are exhibited would lead to way fewer people getting to see their movies anyways. Do you think a cat like Chris Nolan would offer 35mm prints of his films, or allow them to be released on (god forbid!) home video if he had his way? You'd see it in IMAX or not at all dammit! I respect the f*** outta Nolan and Scorcese as film makers but they get so up their own asses sometimes. Like, the "if you can watch 5 hours of TV you can sit through a 3.5 hour movie" comment. How detached from reality is that? If I'm at home I'm in 100% control of when the movie stops and starts pretty much immediately rendering it an apples and oranges comparison. Or "Plays are 3 hours long, lots of people go to them". I won't claim to be the most cultured person in the world, only been to a handful of plays or musicals in my life but I've never been to one without at least one f***ing intermission! Most public performances have intermissions of some sort, or built in breaks. Sports, concerts, live theatre etc Ugh, this seems like I'm bitching at you, but I'm really not. It's just frustrations with the theatre going experience, and frustrations with some out to lunch comments made by intelligent and talented people Artists don't get to dictate how their art form is consumed. It's been that way (almost) forever. Books get read at the pace of the reader, in varied places from quiet libraries, to busy public transport. Some of the world's most famous and popular artworks are mostly consumed via postcards and google images. Music can be played in various venues, the same song might be played in a home, pub, club, karaoke, mixed, remixed and remade. Even videogames can't demand certain screens and no one ever expected anyone to play Dark Souls via a Guitar Hero controller or dance mat or banana. If I had to go to a three-hour movie and had a chance to pick whether to watch the one with the intermission or not, I'd go for the intermission every time. "Artist's Vision" be damned, Yeah I have to agree with this. I've created podcasts and such and however it's consumed I don't mind. Our vision ultimately will be seen or heard either way. I would have an issue with how its done here, where the movie theaters went rogue and did an intermission on their own though. But I also dont see how a short 10 minute intermission will harm anything in the long run. Its like the arguements of having an easy mode in Dark Souls or Elden Ring, i dont see the issue with having that opition. Plus if you want cinemas to stay open them getting money from more snacks being purchased is a plus too.
|
|