Who doesn't have 90 minutes for an occasional movie?

That seems pretty niche. Why not just wait until it comes out on a streaming service? Or just buy 3 tickets, and go on three different days? Seems like a big hassle to plan three outings just to see a movie.

I’m all for more options as long as it doesn’t impact my ability to watch it all in one night.

I do wish they would bring back intermissions for films exceeding 2 hours in length though. I’ve got an old man’s bladder and restless leg: I need a quick break before the film’s climax.

Travel time to and from a theater 3x seems like it would negate any convenience here.

Let alone 3x the cost in snacks.

Not the 90 minutes one but the 3 hrs+ movies. It can be a fun 2 day event. I would be for that.

Reformulating this slightly:

Yesterday, you saw the first 30-minute segment. Today, you arrive at the multiplex, and are informed that the three 30-minute segments (1, 2, 3) are starting shortly on screens A, B, and C. However, you are not told the mapping of segment to screen. You are asked to select a screen, and choose screen B. You are then informed about the status of either screen A or screen C: that status may be that it will play segment 1 (from your perspective: a duplicate) or that it will play segment 3 (from your perspective: out of order). Finally, you are asked whether you will be watching screen B, or the other, unrevealed screen. (If you don't actually watch your final choice, you're banned from the multiplex forever.)

Is this harder (e.g., not solvable at all) compared to the Monty Hall problem, because segment 1 is merely an annoyance, but segment 3 is a spoiler (permanently impacting your enjoyment of the movie)?