> 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.

lack of reading comprehension or comprehension in general.

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).

Intermissions feel dated. But when I saw Ben-Hur at the fathom event, boy did I need it!

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.

When the LOTR came out originally the theatres I went to had no break.

When they did the marathon showing of the extended editions before the first hobbit movie they did an intermission on each movie. It was nice.

My video game clan takes hourly bathroom/stretch breaks, since we're all in our 30s and 40s. It's pretty great

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.

This explains why any movie I've seen coming from India has always felt _long_.