With the new Christopher Nolan film The Odyssey clocking in at nearly three hours, and others like Avatar: Fire and Ice going well over that mark, the debate is back: should longer films have an intermission?

Even the recent Project Hail Mary was a stretch at around 156 minutes and could have benefited from a pause. There are obviously pros and cons to this, and filmmakers understandably want their visions presented without any disruption to the pacing.

The biggest issue for the audience is that without an intermission, needing a comfort break means accepting that you might miss a vital part of the story. How are you supposed to time a break during a lull if it is your first time viewing the film? I remember intermissions from years ago, with cinema staff selling ice cream and drinks in the auditorium during the break.

The Pros

Seat Sales: A guaranteed break might encourage people to see a long film in the cinema rather than waiting for its home streaming release.

Comfort: It simply provides a more comfortable, less physically demanding viewing experience.

Concession Sales: Cinemas could see a significant increase in food and drink sales during the break.

Narrative: It gives filmmakers the opportunity to structure their movies into distinct “Acts,” much like live theatre.

The Cons

Scheduling: Cinemas showing long films already struggle to juggle repeat daily screenings across multiple screens. A longer audience turnaround time means fewer screenings per day, which could hit profits.

Disrupted Pacing: Filmmakers will argue that an enforced break completely shatters the tension and momentum of the film.

Format Issues: Studios currently distribute films to cinemas often as a single, uninterrupted digital file.

Foyer Traffic: Modern cinema layouts place the ticket check-in before you enter the main theatre section. A mass exodus during a break would flood the foyers, requiring staff to re-check tickets as people head back to their screens.

Viewer Preference: Not every filmgoer wants their cinema trip extended by an extra 15 to 20 minutes.

Lost Footfall: Conversely, the lack of a break might deter people entirely, causing the cinema to lose business to home viewing.

The Solution?

A perfect answer probably doesn’t exist. There are technically more arguments against introducing breaks, despite the genuine logic behind why they make sense for the audience.

While it would be challenging to introduce widespread intermissions for all showings, there could be a middle ground. In the same way that cinemas offer different formats like 3D or IMAX, blockbusters with multiple daily showtimes could feature a few specifically scheduled “intermission screenings.”

As long as the studio provides a natural act-break in the edit, these specific showings could be handled by select cinemas equipped for the logistics. For instance, a screen that has its own self-contained bar and restrooms would keep the audience contained without flooding the main foyer. My local 9-screen cinema has one premium screen with exactly these kinds of features. It’s not a perfect fix, and it would require extra staff supervision, but it could work.

Ultimately, change is unlikely on this front. Instead, perhaps filmmakers should more evaluate their runtimes: does the story truly warrant the length, or would it benefit from being split into two separate parts? Of course, that brings a whole new set of challenges.

For the moment, if you think you’re going to need a break, the best strategy is still to limit your drinks before the trailers start!