I dunno--to me, there is still something that brings me back to my childhood when I go to a theatre, spend $300 on a popcorn and soda combination, and watch a movie.
"And, of course — because networks had to churn out 24 hours of programming a day — TV budgets were a far cry from movie budgets."
Not in the beginning. Into the 1980s, when I was a kid, the networks signed off between 12:30 and 1 am. (usually with the 'Star Spangled Banner' playing over stock footage and then a test pattern or just static). -NBC had programing that went to 2 am thanks to Tom Snyder's show.
It really wasn't until the early to mid-90s that networks started going 24/7. (I remember being up at 3 am in college and seeing ABC news running an overnight program that, in between covering the relevant stories of the day, had things such as weather segments that told you the current temperature in the White Press Room. The tag line for the overnight show was "More insomniacs get their news from ABC than any other network").
In my parents' childhood, the networks only scheduled about 4 hours of programming in the evening. (7pm-11pm Eastern Time). Games shows and soap operas seemed to come into existence as networks came to the realization that there were some people at home during the day and companies were willing to buy ads to sell products during those hours.
Be careful what you wish for! In many other countries, including Switzerland, where I live, it is normal to break a movie at some random point and start blasting loud advertising for the snack bar. Ten minutes later, the movie starts up again. Not knowing they did this, I saw 1917 in a Swiss theater--a movie whose whole point is that it continues in a single, unbroken take. The theater interrupted the film literally mid-sentence and started blasting loud disco music and showing a hot pink ad for a “Ladies Night” that would take place in the theater later that week. Not exactly the mood if the film! My husband and I asked the theater for our money back, and they looked at us like we were crazy. “But this is what we do!” they said.
Once upon a time, when movies were long they'd build in an intermission. It would be nice if that were brought back, but it seems to be a casualty of trying to maximize showings per day.
Great article Jeff. Somehow I missed this one in my email box.
Nowadays, you can count on one hand the number of movies per year that truly benefit from a giant screen and movie theater experience. Avatar: The Way of Water is definitely one of those, as was Top Gun: Maverick. Most other movies can be watched at home just as easily.
And the damn trailers. More than 20 minutes of them before each movie! Plus an annoying Nicole Kidman ad for AMC.
Like you, I ultimately welcome the freedom this will open up for storytellers.
Apocalypse Now (all versions) is still my favorite movie since I strayed into the wrong cinema as a kid, and then went back again and again once I’d robbed enough coins from my Mam’s purse and persuaded some adult to buy me an r-rated ticket. Whilst deconstructing the helicopter parts we risk forgetting the obvious wonder - that some things are just fucking amazing. That’s why we bother.
Classical Greek drama was around 1.5 to 2 hours, and that seems to be the format we settled on, even into the motion picture era. In antiquity the constraint wasn’t really attention span, because people would spend all day at the theater watching one play after another.
Though Shakespeare's plays often ran longer - uncut Hamlet is more like four hours. Operas can also be pretty long even when they're not the Ring cycle.
And the way movies are scheduled has also changed over the years. Decades ago instead of one feature repeating in a multiplex auditorium, there'd be a cycle of A-pictures, B-pictures, cartoons, newsreels, short subjects, etc. And at least as my parents tell it, no one looked at schedules, you just "went to the movies", came in in the middle of whatever, and left when you were ready. (Hence the old cliche "This is where I came in.")
So the conventional movie length has survived theaters dividing their time and resources in very different ways, for audiences with very different expectations of the experience.
I dunno--to me, there is still something that brings me back to my childhood when I go to a theatre, spend $300 on a popcorn and soda combination, and watch a movie.
This is why I think movies won't ever completely go away. Plus 20 years from now, young people will go to them ironically.
The questions is if pandemic-era children grow up to have similar nostalgia.
A very good/fair question.
"And, of course — because networks had to churn out 24 hours of programming a day — TV budgets were a far cry from movie budgets."
Not in the beginning. Into the 1980s, when I was a kid, the networks signed off between 12:30 and 1 am. (usually with the 'Star Spangled Banner' playing over stock footage and then a test pattern or just static). -NBC had programing that went to 2 am thanks to Tom Snyder's show.
It really wasn't until the early to mid-90s that networks started going 24/7. (I remember being up at 3 am in college and seeing ABC news running an overnight program that, in between covering the relevant stories of the day, had things such as weather segments that told you the current temperature in the White Press Room. The tag line for the overnight show was "More insomniacs get their news from ABC than any other network").
In my parents' childhood, the networks only scheduled about 4 hours of programming in the evening. (7pm-11pm Eastern Time). Games shows and soap operas seemed to come into existence as networks came to the realization that there were some people at home during the day and companies were willing to buy ads to sell products during those hours.
I just really wish they had bathroom breaks during movies. This would absolutely increase concession sales as well.
Be careful what you wish for! In many other countries, including Switzerland, where I live, it is normal to break a movie at some random point and start blasting loud advertising for the snack bar. Ten minutes later, the movie starts up again. Not knowing they did this, I saw 1917 in a Swiss theater--a movie whose whole point is that it continues in a single, unbroken take. The theater interrupted the film literally mid-sentence and started blasting loud disco music and showing a hot pink ad for a “Ladies Night” that would take place in the theater later that week. Not exactly the mood if the film! My husband and I asked the theater for our money back, and they looked at us like we were crazy. “But this is what we do!” they said.
WTF? I love 1917, and I would've lost my fucking mind if that happened.
We were so angry! And the theater people had no idea why!
Once upon a time, when movies were long they'd build in an intermission. It would be nice if that were brought back, but it seems to be a casualty of trying to maximize showings per day.
Great article Jeff. Somehow I missed this one in my email box.
Nowadays, you can count on one hand the number of movies per year that truly benefit from a giant screen and movie theater experience. Avatar: The Way of Water is definitely one of those, as was Top Gun: Maverick. Most other movies can be watched at home just as easily.
And the damn trailers. More than 20 minutes of them before each movie! Plus an annoying Nicole Kidman ad for AMC.
Like you, I ultimately welcome the freedom this will open up for storytellers.
Apocalypse Now (all versions) is still my favorite movie since I strayed into the wrong cinema as a kid, and then went back again and again once I’d robbed enough coins from my Mam’s purse and persuaded some adult to buy me an r-rated ticket. Whilst deconstructing the helicopter parts we risk forgetting the obvious wonder - that some things are just fucking amazing. That’s why we bother.
It could be worse ... at least you don't have to stick to the 3 dramatic unities of Aristotle.
Classical Greek drama was around 1.5 to 2 hours, and that seems to be the format we settled on, even into the motion picture era. In antiquity the constraint wasn’t really attention span, because people would spend all day at the theater watching one play after another.
Though Shakespeare's plays often ran longer - uncut Hamlet is more like four hours. Operas can also be pretty long even when they're not the Ring cycle.
And the way movies are scheduled has also changed over the years. Decades ago instead of one feature repeating in a multiplex auditorium, there'd be a cycle of A-pictures, B-pictures, cartoons, newsreels, short subjects, etc. And at least as my parents tell it, no one looked at schedules, you just "went to the movies", came in in the middle of whatever, and left when you were ready. (Hence the old cliche "This is where I came in.")
So the conventional movie length has survived theaters dividing their time and resources in very different ways, for audiences with very different expectations of the experience.