GoFlength--money talks?

[stella713]

> Why would a 4 hour movie necessarily cost more for the patron than 
> the normal film to see?  I don't understand that comment.  A lot of 
> the "epic" films of the 50s and 60s ... ie. Ben Hur, The Ten 
> Commandments, How the West Was Won, etc... were 3+ hour movies with 
> intermissions built in.  The price to see these movies was no more 
> than seeing any other at the time.  

Well I do work part time in a cinema and we charge extra for films 
that are over a certain length. In the 50s and 60s intermissions may 
have been popular - they are not so anymore. For us working at the 
time it is a nervewrecking hassle - selling refreshments, keeping the 
restroom clean with hundreds of people milling around who have only 
15 minutes to spare - and so it is for most of our customers who do 
prefer to see the movie in one go.
Antoher point - with a 4 hour movie you can only run two times a day 
(early afternoon and evening) ... as compared to 4 screenings 
for "normal length". 4 times is better business... sorry :-(

> again, that people will sit through a 3+ hour movie if it is 
> entertaining.  In fact, Lord of the Rings is taking it a step 
further 
> by show all three films in the series on one date, back to back.  
> Patrons of this event will be able to see the entire 10+ hour saga 
in 
> one sitting, with 30 minute intermissions between each film.  I, 
for 
> one, am planning on doing this... and I expect it to be sold out.

LOTR is an execption imho. Our cinema will be doing it only once for 
publicity. I doubt if Harry Potter would do as well for two or three 
films back to back. The key audience is too young for that.

regards
asta