> If you relieve immediately beforehand and can't hold it for 90 minutes, there is likely a medical issue (e.g. old man, or pregnant).
Avengers Endgame is 3 hours and 1 minute long.
Some of that is credits, and maybe you should be able to hold it for 3 hours anyway, but some people do have medical problems. They should still be allowed to enjoy movies.
> but some people do have medical problems. They should still be allowed to enjoy movies.
I never understand statements like this. You're replying to someone who already mentioned the former statement, and didn't say anything about the latter.
I wonder why the theaters won't incorporate a 5 minute intermission break for movies longer than 2h:20m (140 minutes, on the higher end for typical films).
When I watched Return of the King in a theater they had 10 or 15 min break in the middle, it was the first and last time I've seen such arrangement. It would be nice if Hollywood finally accepted such format and just went with 3-4 hour long movies with a break. Not for all movies of course, but at least for the more complex ones. I mean not making 2:30 long movie and then just pad it with irrelevant, often static scenes for some "Complete Movie Of the Year Directors Super Duper Cut Edition" clocking at 3:00, but having zero new content as compared to theater cut. That's just a dumb trend imho. But instead actually plan the story for 3 or 4 hours, with a proper increase of storytelling, characters and so on. Just for some top AAA movies.
Growing up in India, movies always had an intermission. They even used to cut Hollywood movies at 45 minutes. I always looked forward to the break because it was one of the rare occasions my parents would let me and my sister have soda and pop corn.
