That Feature-Length films, when in Theaters, ought to include a Commercial Break during the Movie

Note that the resolution says films ought to have "ONE commercial" --" A commercial". But of course, this can depend on the film length. For example, movies such as Lawrence of Arabia (4 hours+) might have two commercials or even three. Keep in mind that I already stated that the producer, director and theater must all agree to the amount of commercials and the length of commercials, keeping the amount of commercials in moderation. (Audience could also complain about overwhelming amount of commercials and cause lost of revenue if I had not stated this; therefore, it is not an abolutely fixed amount--I only have to suggest that having commercials for a movie is BETTER in general than NOT having commercials--I do not have to support every case!)I also stated that the commercials were all 5 minutes or less, making it very likely that most commercials would be less than 5 minutes, since 5 minutes is most likely reserved for very long movies.Commercials earn Revenue As seen in http://www.videouniversity.com...; movies earn a lot of money already from commercials. "In just the last five years cinema advertising revenues have jumped 48 percent from $212.3 million in 2002 to $315.1 million in 2003 in North America according to the Cinema Advertising Council. Such double-digit growth in cinema advertising is expected to continue" If this trend really does continue onwards, and with the support of further commercials, then certainly films will earn more revenue, boosting their studios, and encouraging them to make more movies. In addition, in order to prevent a very flimsy gain or a huge box office lost, commercials could be played to save the movie and perhaps allow the director and/or producer to come back for more. More enjoyability5 minutes is truly not that long. For movies that barely make the cut-off, it might be a little too much, but for 90 minute movies, it really won't be too long. The producers and/or director could even make it only 3 or 2 minutes. In these 3 or 2 minutes, not only does the audience have a chance to refill their soda, get some more pop-corn, go to the restroom, etc., they also enjoy the movie more especially due to added suspense and other reasons. A New York Time's article supports the phycological study about interruption making TV programs more enjoyable. http://www.nytimes.com.... Entertainment Weekly has a similar study explicitly stating, "People often adapt to the experience of watching television such thateach successive minute is slightly less enjoyable than the previousone. Advertisements, although independently aversive, disrupt this adaptation process and can therefore make theoverall experience more enjoyable.” http://www.ew.com...;Even a marketing review section of Harvard Business Review suggests the same thing, "Not only did people report greater enjoyment when shows were interrupted by commercials, but they did so regardless of the quality of the commercials. ...People enjoyed shows that had commercials more, whether those commercials were good or bad. And if they watched shows with commercials, people were willing to pay 30% more for a DVD compilation of programs by the same director." https://hbr.org.... Ultimately, not only does the audience gain more, this also can lead to greater revenue for the movies due to its better review, strengthening the point above.Commercials aren't an absolute necessity for perhaps movies below 60 minutes, a 20 minute range from my original cut-off, however, these movies are quite rare, and even then the commercials can be really short, allowing for a break. The audience will also be informed of how long they will have to wait for the movie to come back, allowing them to patiently wait or do other things, rather than possibly have to go to the bathroom and miss the movie, or hold it in for another painful hour. Onto you, my opponent.