Films and ads

February 8, 2003 6:36 AM

Some interestingQ & A with Roger Ebert in the National Post regarding commercials in movie theatres. We assume that the only sure fire way to get your message across would be to walk out and demand your money back, but a theatre manager is quoted as saying Everything else is secondary to making sure all commercials are running -- including customer complaints. Yes, but for how long? And why does it seem that so few people are annoyed by this?
posted by quietfish (96 comments total)

Commercials, shm-mercials...ignore 'em. Hey, I'm not real crazy about the "Let's all go the lobby and have ourselves a snack" cartoons, either, but, to quote Homer, "Yeah, but what are ya gonna do?"

In the grand scheme of life, commercials before movies hardly seem worth worrying about, protesting, or even noticing.
posted by davidmsc at 6:46 AM on February 8, 2003

I am very annoyed by the commercials, but I can (1) wait until the movie is released on video, or (2) visit the local art house theater instead. I recognize that (2) may not be acceptable to everyone, but (1), well, this isn't Hobson's choice people!

Aside from the argument that the cineplex experience typically is NOT improved by the quality of the actual movie, there is the fact that the cineplex perhaps can't float a profit without the commercials? Maybe this is urban legend, but I thought that the studios' percentage of ticket revenue starts high on opening weekend, and decreases through movies' runs. Nowadays, there are tons more screens, new theater complexes everywhere, movies rarely sell out. Everyone can go see the blockbuster on opening weekend without much trouble. The price to pay in this system seems to be commercials.
posted by adzuki at 7:05 AM on February 8, 2003

Here in the UK, what gets to me isn't the number of cinema ads, but how depressing they are these days.

Thanks to the advertising recession, the only adverts that seem to make it are grim public information films. Typically first there's the don't-run-over-motorcyclists ad. A voice repeats "Now you see him. Now you see him. Now you see him..." again and again in a dull monotone over a blood-soaked accident. Then there's the don't-destroy-the-rainforests one, where a family has their house ripped apart by chainsaws while the children scream piercingly for about five minutes. Then there's the don't-run-over-schoolchildren one, where the ghost kid moans about how his would-be-girlfriend is spending all her time with his best friend... since he died in agony last week.

It's a lot harder to ignore all this stuff on a big screen with surround sound. By the time the feature starts, you feel practically suicidal...
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:10 AM on February 8, 2003

Without all those commercials, I might actually feel quilty about watching pirated or extraregional DVDs.

Actually, no, I still wouldn't.
posted by Poagao at 7:12 AM on February 8, 2003

It's just wrong. Smaller theaters, shittier seats... sometimes I can hear the movie going on next door. When was the last time you saw an usher actually being an usher? Out-fuckin'-rageous food and beverage prices... prices in general are out of hand. A family of four that goes to the movies is having a less than pleasurable experience for a least 50-60 bucks (4 tickets and some concessions). They shouldn't have to watch friggin' commercials first. It's not "going to the movies" anymore... it's "going to watch a big-ass TV" with a bunch of loud mouths, etc. I hardly ever go anymore.
posted by Witty at 7:35 AM on February 8, 2003

Movie theatres that I have been to lately have been bigger, with comfy seats, great cupholders, stadium-style seating...although I rarely go to the movies, it's usually a pleasant experience compared to, say, the 80s. And regarding the snack prices: well, you don't *have* to purchase snacks. I usually just have my wife bring a couple of bottles of Coke in her purse, maybe some M&Ms, and then we buy a big popcorn.
posted by davidmsc at 7:44 AM on February 8, 2003

There's one and only one solution to commercials being played in theaters: boo them. Boo, and get everyone else booing. Boo so loudly that the commercial is drowned out.
posted by Zonker at 7:44 AM on February 8, 2003

Well, I always take a last potty break.

My main objection is just how loud the commercials and previews are. Going to the movies shouldn't hurt your ears.
posted by konolia at 7:48 AM on February 8, 2003

More Pearl and Dean, less gloss, that's the way forward. "Come to the Kashmir Balti, just over the road from the cinema." Complete with bad sync, dubious panning over photos and etc.

(Even McDonald's seized upon the iconic status of bad cinema commercials when flogging the McChicken Korma.)
posted by riviera at 7:54 AM on February 8, 2003

with all the ads and having to take out a small loan to buy a large popcorn i gave up on regular movie going years ago. up until recently i'd go for films that must be seen on a screen bigger than my tv (star wars, lotr) but now our new huge flat screen digital and hdtv ready tv may keep us from ever going to the movies again. also i've gotten used to waiting 6mo to a year for films i'm interested in to show up on tmn and that's completely cut down how often i rent dvds.
posted by t r a c y at 8:03 AM on February 8, 2003

I usually just have my wife bring a couple of bottles of Coke in her purse, maybe some M&Ms, and then we buy a big popcorn.

Just wait until they start searching purses and bags allegedly in response to the Orange Terror Alert.
posted by PrinceValium at 8:04 AM on February 8, 2003

Perhaps I was a bit over the top davidmsc. It's true, you don't HAVE to buy the snacks. But since it's "against the rules" to bring your own food and drink, it would be nice if the concessions were a bit more reasonable. Any kid I know, isn't going to want a apple that Mommy stuck in her carry-all. He/she wants a pack of Goobers and a Coke.

Booo BOOOOOOO!
posted by Witty at 8:06 AM on February 8, 2003

an
posted by Witty at 8:07 AM on February 8, 2003

Theatres make all their money from snacks they don't make any money from the ticket.
posted by stbalbach at 8:10 AM on February 8, 2003

The concession employees get a commission from all the snacks sold, in case you ever wondered why they press you to order the LARGE popcorn.

And what's a 'korma'?
posted by Oriole Adams at 8:13 AM on February 8, 2003

Don't forget, tho', that the movie theatres - big chains and art houses alike - typically don't profit from the films, they profit from the concessions. Even at US$8 and US$9 a seat, only a shockingly small fraction of the ticket price is going to the house; the majority is going to the distributing studio. The bulk of the profit for the house really does come from concessions, which is the reason for the "no outside food or beverage" thing. At a large urban cineplex in my city, I've frequently seen them searching backpacks and big shoulder bags and turning people away from the door who have brought soda or snacks. Once you understand that the theatres chains aren't profiting from the actual ticket sales in any major way, their insistence on running the commericals becomes if not more palatable at least a bit more understandable.
posted by JollyWanker at 8:16 AM on February 8, 2003

In my hometown, they've been running the 20 minutes of ads now for years. Then you have about 10-15 minutes of previews, plus national commercials (perfume and cologne, mostly. Think they're trying to tell us something?). All in all, if you arrive 15 minutes early so you can get a good seat, the movie won't start for another 40 minutes.

But on the plus side, the concession prices aren't that bad, and you get free refills on pop and $.25 refills on popcorn. They never check the bags and they never go into the theaters unless there's a problem, so it's easy to sneak food in too.
posted by schlaager at 8:25 AM on February 8, 2003

A korma is a mild aromatic (sometimes almost sweet) curry served in Indian restaurants in the UK. Like many of the dishes served in British Indian restaurants, its actual relationship to authentic Indian cuisine is unclear. :-)
posted by chrismear at 8:30 AM on February 8, 2003

Nothing like a business model that requires you to piss off your customers just enough that they don't leave.
posted by mcwetboy at 8:37 AM on February 8, 2003

I suggest someone with more free time than I have set up http://boycottcompanieswithmovieadvertisements.com/ which can keep a blacklist.

In one theater, they turned up the volume so loud for the movies it was literally physically painful. Jet engine loud. A big dude went to complain and the guy in the booth said that there was nothing he could do about it, lying sack of shit he was.

Of course, here in Manhattan, they're advertising CARS. Hello? Anybody see the irony in this? Somebody call tremble to write these jerks a clue by four. Manhattan. The city where you can walk or bus or subway literally anywhere, where a parking spot for a month costs about the same as a studio apartment, and where driving is more dangerous than Mexico City, they're advertising cars. Where Madison Avenue is, they couldn't think of something better?

Morons, the lot of them.
posted by swerdloff at 8:38 AM on February 8, 2003

One point -- seeing a movie projected through film on a screen is a substantially different experience from seeing it on a big-screen HDTV. Video offers less of a contrast ratio (the difference between the lightest white and the darkest black) than film by a huge margin. Plus, with film, you're sitting in the dark most of the time, since you're shown a frame, then black, then the next frame, and so on. A video signal is always bright, and even if it's progressive-scan it's constantly seething. They produce different kinds of brain responses too. (dammit, can't find a suitable supporting link.) I go to the movies a lot, and I also have quite a few DVDs. I like both, but it's a different experience.
posted by Vidiot at 8:46 AM on February 8, 2003

I usually just have my wife bring a couple of bottles of Coke in her purse, maybe some M&Ms, and then we buy a big popcorn.

I'm wondering if you know that its because more and more people like you are bringing their own snacks into movie theatres that we're seeing such an increase in ads.

(As others here have said while I was typing this), your local cineplex keeps very little of that $8.00 or $9.00 you pay for your movie ticket, folks. Very, very little. Local Cinema expenses (such as employee salaries) are paid mostly out of the profits from the concession stand and (now) as a result of the revenue they can gain through showing advertisements in the theatres - both the 'slide-style' ads that you see before the movie starts (that no one seems to complain about) and the moving-image ads. This is a large part of the reason that concession stand prices are so high - the profit from the popcorn and candy is the major source of income for many houses. I know for a fact there are certainly many nights each year when our local house actually makes more keep-in-house profit off the concession stand than off the ticket sales - especially on nights when a new-release played to a full house.

Its possible that if you want to blame someone reality of all this you could blame the government. Operating a movie theatre is a very-low margin business, which is why so many theatres (both local houses and large chains) go bankrupt every year. Movie studios know this - and they also know that without a venue to show their product they won't make much money (hard to debut on a record number of screens when the number of available screens in the US is decreasing all the time). But they are powerless to do much about it.

There was a time in America when the movie studios actually owned the movie theatre chains, and the cost of operating the chains (including the price of your popcorn) was calculated into the cost of distributing your film. (This is also why you find so many art-deco theatres from the 20's and 30's with names like The Paramount or The Orpheum - these were the names of the studios who owned the theatre.) In 1948 this all changed with the so-called Paramount decrees, which was an anti-trust action that forced the studios to divest themselves of their theatrical chains and move to the structure we have today - film distributors acting as go-betweens for the studios and the individual movie houses, booking on a film-by-film and case-by-case basis, depending on what the management of your local movie house feels will sell best in your local market. This is good for the film-making industry, and is the reason why small, independent films have at least a fighting chance - it is possible that they could get picked up at a cineplex in a large market and get mainstream notice, and in a way its good for you, the consumer, because you have (in theory) a wider variety of films to choose from, but its very bad for the first-run houses themselves, because it has just increased their profit-margin problems (no deep pockets in the background to support a small cinema in a small town).

As much as I empathize with your desire to boycott movie houses that basically make you pay to watch ads, I'd point out that what your efforts may actually achieve is the closing of that movie theatre - without the extra revenue being generated by the ads its quite possible that they actually cannot afford to continue to operate.

So, silly as it sounds, if you really want to see fewer ads with your movie, the bottom line is - buy more popcorn.
posted by anastasiav at 8:51 AM on February 8, 2003

Most cinemas in Paris will have 20 minutes of commericals before a feature (although I saw The Magdalene Sisters last night with no commercials, no previews and it actually started on time! Indeed, though, what are previews but more commercials).

Showtimes will often say when the showing starts (e.g. 8:00) and then say when the film starts (e.g. 20 minutes after). This works well for people who do not care much about where they sit. I don't number among that type and I have become tolerant of the commercials. (It was quite a shock when I first moved to France.) I never see them on TV and sometimes they are downright funny.
posted by Dick Paris at 8:55 AM on February 8, 2003

Oriole Adams, I'm not sure which theatre chains you're referring to, but when I worked at Hoyts, we were told to upsell the concessions, but we (me and the other popcorn jockeys,) never saw a dime of it. Maybe management got a cut, but I didn't work there long enough to find out.
posted by Snyder at 8:56 AM on February 8, 2003

What vidiot said. I'm not ready to give up sitting in a theater yet, although between greedy companies and shameless talkers, it's getting harder & harder. With one recent, overlong blockbuster (which shall remain unnamed), the multiplex here in Queens (where shows are $10) scheduled screenings so close together that there was no time to clean the theater, people had to wait outside for half an hour while the previous crowd filed out and find their seats in the dark, and after the thing was over, they cut off the credits. Directed by [overpaid hack], and blackout, like on TV. A few of us raised a stink and got our money back, but fun it wasn't.
posted by muckster at 8:57 AM on February 8, 2003

Advertising is soulless.

We all know this...

If the movie theaters can't make a reasonable profit on ticket sales alone - then obviously their business plan is screwed.

So what can we do? We want to send a clear message, but how?

I'd like to see a call to action by bright people who are feed up with the greed of the movie industry.

Culture jam the theaters:::

Here are a few off the cuff ideas:

- Bitch, moan, boo, hiss & make jokes during commercials. Yell out, "I LOVE PEPSI!!! WOOOHOOO!!! Commercials!!!" Make it known to the other people in the audience that you don't approve of being forced to sit through 10 commercials before the feature. If you do so with humor and wit you'll cause more than a few people to smarten up to the idea. (Don't make too much of an ass out of yourself though - you can be kicked out.)

- Take it a step further -- print up a few flyers with the name, address and phone numbers (work phone numbers) of the managers and owners of your local mega-plex movie theater. Print some catchy message on the flyers stating that "If you're tired of commercials in the theaters - let these people know." Then spike the bathroom stalls with your flyers... leave a few on the backs of the toilets. Do this each time you attend a movie and eventually you will generate a considerable amount of negative comments to the operators/owners.

The problem obviously is viewer apathy. People are simply too lazy and shallow to object to being marketed too. If you take a few steps to empower your fellow citizen with ideas and information then maybe they will use that to express themselves.

Any other ideas?
posted by wfrgms at 9:03 AM on February 8, 2003

As a sidebar, here in Canada they used to play the national anthem before a film started - audio accompanied by patriotic film footage of tall mountains, snowy glaciers, RCMP in their red uniforms etc etc. I remember some people standing at attention, others with their feet up mocking the whole thing... but I kind of miss it, more so that it's been replaced by ads.
posted by quietfish at 9:10 AM on February 8, 2003

The Paris idea is right on. There should be two admission prices offered. One for the film with advertisements, one for the film without.

The customers who want to see the commercials will get their choice of seating and can beat the sell-out crowd. The customers who don't want to see the commercials will get the chance to not see the commercials. Everyone's happy.
posted by Homeskillet Freshy Fresh at 9:14 AM on February 8, 2003

Yes, but for how long? And why does it seem that so few people are annoyed by this?

I've pretty much stopped going to the major movie chains because of the prices and commercials. Like adzuki, I'll only check out movies on video or at independant cinemas now.

That being said, I must be in the minority, since 2002 was one of the biggest years in box office history. They keep pumping in more commercials and public keeps going.

I'm not a capitalist, but really I think the public is at fault here. The cineplex's are going to keep adding commercials until people stop going in significant numbers. If the public would just stop going to movies because of the commercials, then the commercials would stop. Booing won't help if they have your money already. Buying popcorn won't help (like some CEO is going to say, "Hey, we're making too much money, let's cut back on the ads."). Neither will writing complaints. But... if movie attendance actually drops, then they'll have to reevaluate the amount of commericials being used.

Getting back to quietfish's question, [W]hy does it seem that so few people are annoyed by this? I think there seems to be an increasing tolerance for ads in society. Ads are tolerated in public schools now. People can't imagine paying for something that isn't subsidized by ads. It's sad really.

(Oh, Wes R. Benash, of Marlton, N.J., the heist film "Running Time" with Bruce Campbell was also shot in pseudo "one take" style like "Rope". Good film too.)
posted by bobo123 at 9:20 AM on February 8, 2003

i've resigned myself to the fact the megaplex makes it's money with overpriced snacks and commercials before the film.

there are theaters like the alamo drafthouse in austin that plays first run movies and serves food and drink at reasonable prices. and by drink i mean beer and wine. the downtown location focusses on art house and special features.

before the movies they usually play interesting short features or classic cartoons. the alamo must be doing ok, it is adding a third location.

oh, and they have wi-fi if you want to be a geek and be online while watching the movie.
posted by birdherder at 9:33 AM on February 8, 2003

My main objection is just how loud the commercials and previews are. Going to the movies shouldn't hurt your ears.

EXACTLY my problem as well. I mean, the commercials are annoying as it is, but it LITERALLY HURTS to listen to them. Maybe I just don't watch enough television (I don't own one), and maybe I value my hearing too much, but it's downright painful to listen to. I always have to plug my ears during the commercials.

And the thing that really angers me is the fact that they turn the ads up 25% louder than the actual film.

DONT IGNORE ME YOU NEED A COKE GO NOW AND BUY A COKE OR I SHALL MAKE YOUR EARS BLEED.
posted by Espoo2 at 9:38 AM on February 8, 2003

Do you know what the WORST pre-movie commercial is? Besides the one of the family driving along that sees a unicorn and Elvis (which was cute the first time, but by the 80th time induces great nausea and loathing), it's the Coke Young Filmmaker commercials. I HATE THEM. Specifically, I hate the one they constantly show OVER and OVER---with that ticket-taker guy who saves the girl from her boyfriend's squirting ketchup. Then they cut to the filmmaker standing in front of a Coke sign looking all smug. Like he's saying "Ha, you just had to watch my movie, you foolish idiot people." I hate it.
posted by adrober at 9:49 AM on February 8, 2003

Witty, I'd like to modify your earlier comment, if I may.

"When was the last time you saw an usher actually being an usher?"
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:51 AM on February 8, 2003

I think there seems to be an increasing tolerance for ads in society. Ads are tolerated in public schools now. People can't imagine paying for something that isn't subsidized by ads. It's sad really.

And I think its a generational thing. When I was a youngster I didn't mind ads at all, and was amazed at the way my father bitched and moaned about them. Now, I'm old and I positively loathe 99% of all advertising. (Jack-in-the-Box commercials are actually quite funny.) "Young" people make up the bulk of movie goers and I don't think the ads bother them much.
posted by mrhappy at 9:55 AM on February 8, 2003

We don't go to movies more than two or three times a year any more. We used to go every week. Then we had children, and had to wait until they were old enough to not fuss and ruin other peoples' movie experience. By that time movies had stopped being an important part of our lives. Now it's just as entertaining to us to stay home and watch DVD movies. We can eat a nice dinner, buy snacks and drinks, pile a bunch of pillows and blankets on the furniture and enjoy the movie in a lot more comfort.

The few times each year that we do go to the theater, we go before 6:00 to get the "early-bird" special ($4.50 per ticket), we don't buy anything from the concessions stands, and we almost invariably end up saying "We should have waited for the DVD."
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:58 AM on February 8, 2003

So, silly as it sounds, if you really want to see fewer ads with your movie, the bottom line is - buy more popcorn.

Sadly, it is too late for that. The business has found a new revenue stream, and will continue to use it until it proves to actually lose them money.

The only answer is to walk out, or to not go at all and tell them why you are not going at all (say, via phone or email on opening night for some big movie).

It's too bad there is not a "click through" metric for movie ads (but that's a different thread).
posted by moonbiter at 10:04 AM on February 8, 2003

DVD is the road forward, baby.

If my wife and I both go to a new release show and buy a large popcorn and a soda, we're out about twenty bucks. For that price, we have to sit through frickin' commercials, listen to gabbling teenagers, deal with some a-hole kicking the seat behind you, and dealing with the smell of some hygiene-challenged troglodyte two seats to the left. The sound is almost always jacked up to ear-hammering decibels, and more often than not the picutre is either a) subtly out of focus, or b) framed incorrectly.

Shit on it. I can wait for the DVD, buy the movie for $20 bucks, and watch it on a great large-screen television.
posted by mrmanley at 10:15 AM on February 8, 2003

oh, and they have wi-fi if you want to be a geek and be online while watching the movie.

They actually promote the use of monitors in the theater? Do they encourage you to take cell phone calls as well; or make shadow puppets against the screen during movies?

That sounds worse than having to watch an hour of commercials before the movie.

Ads before movies don't really bother me. Around here, most of the theaters seem to start showing the filmed commercials a bit before the printed showtime so that the trailers start at the show time. But even if they don't do that, the ads don't really bother me. If I am with someone, we're talking. If I'm alone, I read through them.

The Fandango commercials need to die, though.
posted by obfusciatrist at 10:55 AM on February 8, 2003

good point vidiot; i am aware of and appreciate the technical differences but the real difference that counts is my cosy living room with excellent homemade snacks, no ads, no chatterboxes, no cell phones, no hyper asshole in the row behind me kicking my chair and none of those charmers who laugh in the wrong places (on purpose because they can't handle an emotional scene) or talk to the characters on screen, plus a nice clean loo. our new tv (and dvd player too) has totally blown us away... all the tech differences between a high end state of the art tv and the cineplex, well they've been totally obscured by the stay-at-home perks. maybe my eyes aren't as refined as they should be (altho' i have 10% better than perfect sight) but bottom line, i'm perfectly thrilled with my home theatre and there's no going back for me at this point.

(showing tonight at the t r a c y cinema: a coen brothers triple bill starting with the hudsucker proxy, followed by o brother where art thou, and blood simple)
posted by t r a c y at 11:13 AM on February 8, 2003

How does everyone feel about the commercials and previews tacked onto DVDs? It seems like in the past year, all the DVDs I buy (especially the ones from Fox and Disney) are front-loaded with previews and ads for their other properties. The worst ones even disable the fast forward control. I don't like the recent additions at the theater, but I really don't like them in movies I buy for twice (or more) the price.

How long before N'SYNC's/Brittney's/J Lo's/Eminem's new cd opens with a 5 minute track extolling the virtues of Pepsi before getting to the first song?
posted by mathowie at 11:16 AM on February 8, 2003

As I sat in an amphitheatre style movie house the other day to watch Two Towers with only one other person in it ... for a 3:30pm showing, I wondered if anyone at all had shown up for the first showing of the day at noon. There was grand total of 16 cars in the parking lot (some of which had to belong to the staff) for all the movies showing while I was there. I remember that when I was younger, movie houses usually had one bargain showing around 5pm, and then only had a few showings each night of each movie. I have to wonder how much money they lose every day by being open all day when there are only one or two people watching each screening of each movie.

Sure, not having 15 showings a day of Two Towers seven days a week might make it harder for people to get in to see it, but wouldn't it save them money to not play to empty houses?
posted by Orb at 11:24 AM on February 8, 2003

The ads are one of the reasons my husband and I quit going to the movies. We pay less for Netflix a month than one movie a month and I can go past any previews or ads on the dvds.

We've seen 1 movie in the past year at the theater, Star Wars II and we saw that one during before five and went in 10 minutes late, which was still 5 minutes before the movie started.

That's down from going to at least one movie a week, just a few years ago. There were many weeks we saw two or three movies.
posted by SuzySmith at 11:24 AM on February 8, 2003

How long before N'SYNC's/Brittney's/J Lo's/Eminem's new cd opens with a 5 minute track extolling the virtues of Pepsi before getting to the first song?

Aww, what the hell, why not? The Doors' hit single "Touch Me" ended with a big, jazzy instrumental flourish and the band uttering in cheerful unison, "Stronger than dirt!"
posted by alumshubby at 11:40 AM on February 8, 2003

Um, that was satire.
posted by Espoo2 at 12:03 PM on February 8, 2003

Mathowie: ...commercials and previews tacked onto DVDs

The most unforgivable of these usually comes right before the feature, advertising the Soundtrack CD, made up of clips of the best parts of the film I'm about to watch. It's like a built-in, sometimes unavoidable spoiler. I find that one of the bonuses of watching films at home is the lag time between theatrical and rental releases, giving me the chance to forget about most of the review headlines and TV ads and hype.

Now that almost all of the independent, one-screen theaters in my city have closed down over the past five years or so, the amount of irritation I feel over paying current ticket prices only to be shown blaring advertisements is simply no longer acceptable to me.
posted by obloquy at 12:06 PM on February 8, 2003

(off topic, re: the Alamo Drafthouse)

They actually promote the use of monitors in the theater? Do they encourage you to take cell phone calls as well; or make shadow puppets against the screen during movies?

Actually, the Drafthouse is very, very serious about booting disruptive audience members. They'll usually play a funny, but stern warning before most shows to that effect. It also helps that the Drafthouse audience tends to lean more towards the "people who love movies" crowd, rather than the "I've got nothing better to do with the kids/mom just gave me twenty bucks" people, which also cuts down on the talking, cell phones, etc. I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually using a lighted electronic device there during a regular feature.

Of course, they also have other shows there, where it can get pretty noisy. They also have a "baby day", where parents are encouraged to bring their screaming kids. And so on. But in general, the Drafthouse has provided me some of the most enjoyable theater experience that I've ever had.
posted by majcher at 12:21 PM on February 8, 2003

(previously discussed here.)

The problem obviously is viewer apathy. People are simply too lazy and shallow to object to being marketed too.

I'm sorry, being marketed to is offensive how? Can't people just ignore ads? I don't think I'll ever understand what the big deal is about this.
posted by dogwalker at 12:38 PM on February 8, 2003

I'm sorry, being marketed to is offensive how? Can't people just ignore ads? I don't think I'll ever understand what the big deal is about this.

Dogwalker, listen to me very carefully.

YOU PAY to SEE a MOVIE.

While sitting in the theater waiting for the movie to start you are FORCED to sit through commercials.

YOU did not PAY to see the commercials.

YOU PAID to see the movie.

Yet your are FORCED to watch commercials - which was not part of the DEAL.

Please let me know if you still don't understand the unfairness here...
posted by wfrgms at 12:55 PM on February 8, 2003

dogwalker, your post is funny because you prove wfrgms point completely. Most people don't get what the big deal is. So that's why we're stuck with all the commercials.

Thanks for finding the previous discussion.
posted by bobo123 at 1:13 PM on February 8, 2003

Then spike the bathroom stalls with your flyers... leave a few on the backs of the toilets. Do this each time you attend a movie and eventually you will generate a considerable amount of negative comments to the operators/owners.

At the very least, we can hope for cleaner bathrooms as the owners send the underpaid employees in to clean the stalls more often....
posted by Inkslinger at 1:33 PM on February 8, 2003

Now that I have 63 movie channels that come with my cable/internet package, I've changed my paradigm about going to the theater to see a movie. Instead of going to see Kangaroo Jack at the multiplex in the mall because I'm bored, I now make going to a movie theater an event, like going to a concert.

I pick a movie that I really want to see, and I go to a theater I really like- right now my favorite is the ArcLight, where the seating is assigned, ushers escort you to your seat, and the sound is actually GOOD instead of just being LOUD.

Of course I pay more- $14/seat, but since I do this maybe once a month instead of my previous standard of twice a week, I end up saving a lot of money and being happier. And I can see Kangaroo Jack when it ends up on Showtime. (Though, really, that movie seems so good I don't know if I can wait- "He stole the money...and he's not giving it back!")
posted by faustessa at 1:34 PM on February 8, 2003

I used to go to the movies with friends regularly.

Now I have an HDTV, a high quality sound system, DirecTV with all the movie and sports stations, and a fairly sizeable DVD collection. Friends come over the house, we aren't annoyed by anybody else, and if somebody MST3Ks the movie, they don't annoy anybody else. The furniture is comfortable, the floor is clean, and the beverages are free.

It's not a perfect situation, but it beats the pants off of the movie theater.
posted by mosch at 1:53 PM on February 8, 2003

What gets me is the meta-advertising; in NZ, the obligatory 15 minutes of advertising is filled largely with spots for the company that solicits the ads -- Val Morgan. Why advertise the fact that you can't sell 15 minutes of advertising?

It turns out that Val Morgan has been on the brink of receivership (despite operating in a monopoly market), and has been bought out by Hoyts and Village, the Australian companies that dominate the Australasian cinema market, to preserve revenue flow. Where's all the money going in this market? Studios? Distribution companies?
posted by Sonny Jim at 2:21 PM on February 8, 2003

I don't pay to see a movie. I pay for the movie theatre experience. Occasionally that includes ads. occasionally those ads are witty and/or interesting. Usually not. Occasionally the movies I see are witty and/or interesting. Usually not. And every once in a while I see commercials that are better than the movie that follows. These are the days I want to gouge my eyes out with rusty spatulas. Yes, "Reign of Fire", I'm talking about you. Still, that is the movie theatre experience. Boo yah.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:52 PM on February 8, 2003

FORCED to watch commercials - which was not part of the DEAL.

Here's the thing: is it really forcing? I've never felt like I had to watch the ads in order to see the film. Or that anyone was making me pay attention. As for a 'deal', how do ads negate this deal? Everyone still gets to see the movie.

I pay money to ride the bus and subway. I did not pay to look at the ads on the buses or trains or stations. If I don't want to read the ads, I don't. Is this situation different or the same? I say same.
posted by dogwalker at 3:06 PM on February 8, 2003

the century theaters not far from my house only play the fandango commercials between trailers and the feature. I was shocked to go endure what everyone else was talking about when I went to (I think) a regal cinema and sat through the 20 minutes of crap.

I'd go see more movies if they had something like the Alamo Drafthouse. That sounds wonderful, and a screaming kids day is icing on the cake. I've flat out refused to go with my best friend's kids cause they are unholy terrors in the theater.
posted by mutagen at 3:34 PM on February 8, 2003

dogwalker, here's a better point of comparison: cable television. There are certain television programs (say, The Daily Show) that you have to be a cable subscriber to see.

YOU PAY to SEE THE DAILY SHOW.

While sitting in your house waiting for the show to come back on you are FORCED to sit through commercials.

YOU did not PAY to see the commercials.

YOU PAID to see the show.

Yet you are FORCED to watch commercials - but somehow this is OKAY WITH YOU.

The trouble is that people's expectations about the filmgoing experience come from a time when the economics were very different. These days, running a movie theater is, more often than not, a losing proposition -- which is why virtually every major chain of exhibitors has filed for bankruptcy over the last few years.

anastasiav's analysis is spot-on: Movie theaters are not in the business of showing movies -- they are in the business of selling snacks. In order for ticket prices to realistically cover the theater's costs, they would have to at least double, and probably triple.

So which would you rather do: pay $30 to see a movie, or watch some ads? Because that's the choice you're facing.
posted by jjg at 3:49 PM on February 8, 2003

How does everyone feel about the commercials and previews tacked onto DVDs?

With previews, as long as I can skip them (or, better yet, access them from the menu rather than having them tacked onto the beginning of the film), I don't mind. I quite enjoy previews as their own art form, anyway (with the mandatory "In a world..." guy). I object to a commercial being on a DVD in principle, although I mind less if it's a good one (like those old Toyota ones with the self-important filmmaker: "NOT GOOD!!"). What I really object to is when the FBI warning is placed before the film, and coded so that I can't skip it. I don't mind commercials in theatres much, I know that theatres make almost nothing from the films, and I don't often buy from the concession stand, so I figure I may as well accept the commercials as a necessary evil. I completely disagree with the suggestion to shout and act like an idiot during the commercials, I hate it when people do things like that in a theatre, I'm not there to hear your clever comments, you're not in your living room, and it's not like it'll make a bit of difference anyway - movie theatres need the revenue from the commercials (as jjg points out, I don't want to pay $30 for a ticket), if you don't want to watch them, then don't enter the theatre until the previews start.
posted by biscotti at 3:56 PM on February 8, 2003

The way that I see it, wfrgms, I now pay to watch a movie AND see the ads and previews before it. Sure, before, my expectation was to see no ads before the movie. Neuronal plasticity is a real thing, though; my expectations have now acknowledged reality (all the above about ticket prices, concessions, and the reality of the business of being a movie theater), and now, I expect to see commercials, previews, and a movie for my ticket price. When this expectation begins to annoy me, I'll probably stop seeing movies in movie theaters, and if enough people do this, then they'll have to come up with a better business model to lure us all back.

For now, I'm content with paying my money, sitting through the commercials, and then seeing a good movie.
posted by delfuego at 3:58 PM on February 8, 2003

Does anyone else remember the flowy "lava-lamp" thing they used to show before the movie? I miss that.
posted by JoanArkham at 4:04 PM on February 8, 2003

The concession employees get a commission from all the snacks sold, in case you ever wondered why they press you to order the LARGE popcorn.

Gee, if that's the case, a certain movie chain owes me some back wages.

We never got a commission, the job was minimum wage, and we had to pay FULL menu price if we wanted something to drink.

Free movies are not such a great perk as to make up for that. Needless to say, I bailed from the movie concession job as soon as I could get something better.

(The ads don't bother me much as long as they are not the same ones I see all the time on TV. And I love trailers. I would pay to watch two hours of trailers.)
posted by litlnemo at 5:09 PM on February 8, 2003

I'll probably stop seeing movies in movie theaters, and if enough people do this, then they'll have to come up with a better business model to lure us all back.

How about, say, drop ticket prices, and serve beer and pizza?
See: Parkway Theater.
posted by eddydamascene at 6:10 PM on February 8, 2003

I actually make a point of showing up fifteen minutes late to any movie I see in the theater.

Think about it: there's never a line for tickets, concessions, or that crucial pre-film trip to the restroom. Sometimes the parking is better, because people from previous shows have left. And I miss most of the ads and previews.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 6:12 PM on February 8, 2003

I hate commercials, but I think we're stuck with them. I don't mind previews, though--in fact, I love previews--even though they're commercials, too. (Well, technically, but I admit I don't think of previews as being commercials.)

I guess I don't mind because I like movies, and they're showing me other movies I may also like. (Although I do get a sense of dread for the quality of the movie I'm about to see when the previews suck.)
posted by kirkaracha at 6:16 PM on February 8, 2003

I actually make a point of showing up fifteen minutes late to any movie I see in the theater.

Try that in New York, and you always get the front row. I saw "Traffic" like that, the huge screen at a wicked angle that made everybody look like in a fun house mirror. Add to that the jerky hand held camera, and you have a truly sickening movie experience. No wonder I hated that flick.
posted by muckster at 6:28 PM on February 8, 2003

Snyder, I'm in the Detroit area, and a few years ago a local newspaper columnist spent a day in the life of a concessionaire at the Loewe's Star Theatre (or however it's spelled). The popcorn pushers there all admitted they earned a commission on the snacks they sold. Maybe it's just a theatre-specific phenomenon, I don't know.
posted by Oriole Adams at 7:29 PM on February 8, 2003

I won't pay to see commercials, previews, OR movies. The latter because of the former.

A word on the cost: you'll want to figure how many hour's you work to pay for it post-taxes. If you're earning $15/hr and taxed at 30%, then a ten dollar ticket has cost you just shy of an hour's worth of work.

There aren't many movies I desire to see so much that I'm willing to bust my ass for an hour for it. Even fewer that I'll bust my ass and watch commercials for.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:34 PM on February 8, 2003

So the movie theatres spend all of our admission money on the distribution and need to make money off of snacks and ad revenues, but there seems to be no trickle-down to Hollywood, with $20 million salaries.

If people stopped going I think that something would be worked out with the distributors who now must have a heavy reliance on the large theatre chains for their revenue. If your customer base isn't buying into your current business model, you change it.

I have written the chains about ads, and the response has been "thanks, buzz off". I think if everyone who hated ads wrote in, it'd be a different story.
posted by Salmonberry at 8:18 PM on February 8, 2003

I'm not annoyed by the ads. I watch perhaps 4 films a year in the theater. Most movies are not worth the price of admission. The 4 times I do see ads each year, I'm mostly disgusted by the promos for crappy movies. The older you get, the more you realize most films are just being recycled with the latest crop of young actors.
posted by fleener at 11:05 PM on February 8, 2003

Fleener and F3, you don't sound like you're having much fun (not meant to sound like "much fun in general" but let me know if that applies). Sorry about that.

I saw 32 movies at the cinema last year. (I keep track and rate them for friends who can't go to the cinema and are faced with searching for videos in central Pennsylvania. They are isolated from the internet and don't even get a decent paper. Long story.) The movie I liked least: "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets". But you know what? I still had fun.

I think the debate going with Dogwalker is missing one key ingredient: the impression that being in the cinema -- lights out, all the seats facing a dominant light source and the hope for having a good seat -- makes for a captive audience.

Fleener: The similarity of what you see over and over again is understandable when looking at the structure of stories. If you go beyond that, you'll find a wealth of experience waiting for you. Depending on your location in the world though, that wealth can be stifled.
posted by Dick Paris at 11:51 PM on February 8, 2003

I guess it just boils down to a couple of things. Yes, no one is going to die from watching a few commercials before a movie. But damn it, it's just one more cultural tradition (for lack of a better description at 4:00am)... another pleasurable entertaining experience being slowly whittled away by greedy economic forces. I think many of us are just sick to death of the relentless pounding of advertising, any time and anywhere they can slip it in.

Maybe it IS because I'm getting older, sure. But I DO know that when I was a kid, a teen, there were times when the audience actually cheered and clapped after good movies... when the show was over. Going to the movies was a treat.

I dunno... maybe I'm just expecting to much these days (that or wallowing in pathetic nostalgia).
posted by Witty at 1:22 AM on February 9, 2003

One note: when I worked at the theater, we (in a sense) earned a commission on selling large sodas and popcorns. What happens is, you sell the person a large popcorn, but still ring up a small in the register, and then keep the difference. That is why, when I moved into the managerial area of that theater, we started counting the cups and popcorn bags at the end of each shift and matching them against the receipts. Of course we still had a lot of movies where the front guy inexplicably sold 200 child tickets and no adult ones, but these kids had only just become legally eligible to work and weren't very subtle.

And as for free movies being a perk, I submit that it is not, as my mind is now permanently scarred by the sheer volume of crappy movies I took in, usually while "working." The real perk was that, before a movie opened, someone had to watch the build to make sure you didn't screw it up, so you could invite all your friends up to the theater, order some pizzas, and watch prerelease movies by yourself at 1:00 in the morning.
posted by donkeymon at 3:02 AM on February 9, 2003

P America needs - and it sounds like that Alamo Drafthouse is a step in the right direction, as is the Parkway, in its own inimitable way - is an alt.theater. Someplace that sells Peets and Spaten and really goooood popcorn for one to take to one's comfortable seat, and eat while enjoying the hand-picked, quirky, not-necessarily-indie flicks in the company of other good-experience-craving adults who know better than to bring a cellphone into a theater. Bet they'd make a fortune, in the right place.

Oh, and jjg, here in Tokyo you *will* pay just about $30 to see a film, and you'll still be forced to sit through ads. Ack.
posted by adamgreenfield at 3:42 AM on February 9, 2003

Well said Witty, even if you are just wallowing.

^(..)^ )~
posted by Dick Paris at 3:49 AM on February 9, 2003

If you go to see a movie in Thailand, it only costs the equivalent of 3 US dollars. I don't remember there being any commercials, but there is a long and stirring photo montage of King Rama XII and his many accomplishments during his long reign, and everyone has to stand up during it. I was not nearly brave enough to find out what happens if you don't stand up.
posted by donkeymon at 6:44 AM on February 9, 2003

Any other ideas?
There is always seems to be a stupid kid with a laser pointer at the movies. When pointers first became a fad, one could buy adaptable lens that changed the red dot into cute little hearts, or words like I LUV YOU. How about getting some lens that say COKE SUCKS, GOT OIL?, or I ? METAFILTER, and flash those up during the commercials.

Now that I have 63 movie channels that come with my cable/internet package...Of course I pay more- $14/seat, but since I do this maybe once a month instead of my previous standard of twice a week, I end up saving a lot of money...

So now, instead of $27/month for movie tickets, we have $34-$49/month in cable costs (plus taxes).
posted by piskycritter at 7:13 AM on February 9, 2003

Er, I ♥ Metafilter.
posted by piskycritter at 7:13 AM on February 9, 2003

I don't see what all the fuss is about, to be honest. I don't really mind the adverts, but most of the time I don't watch them, yet still get a good seat. How? Buy your tickets the day before. Of course, with the local cinema being at the end of my road, this isn't too difficult for me. I can imagine others will find it difficult, but then theres always online booking, or over the phone.

As for being 'forced' to buy cinema food instead of bringing your own, again I've never had a problem. Me and my friends once took a roast chicken in. I kid you not...
posted by Orange Goblin at 8:29 AM on February 9, 2003

I must have a different standard for "fun" and "entertaining" than most of you.

But, then, I wouldn't watch an Adam Sandler flick if you paid me. TV stars-cum-movie star movies are inevitably stupid. Most action flicks have devolved into unoriginal themes that are no longer entertaining. And most of what Hollywood pumps out is raw sewage.

So in the past two years I've seen three movies in the regular theatre chains, and only two of them were worthwhile (LOTR). I've seen perhaps a half-dozen more in the local rep theatre, and a few of them were worth the C$6 admission price. And there've been videos; generally a better success ratio on them, 'cause there's such a selection.

To fill those long hours of boredom that the rest of you seem to fill with movies, I tend toward more active pursuits, like sex, motorcycles, visiting friends, skiing, and sex.

Frankly, I think I'm getting the better deal.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:36 AM on February 9, 2003

I must have a different standard for "fun" and "entertaining" than most of you.

Well of course you do. We all do. Personally, I would rather watch an Adam Sandler marathon for 20 days straight than go skiing. And motorcycles hold no particular cachet with me.

So, personally, I think you are getting the short end of the stick.

I see about 70 movies in theaters every year. Because I enjoy the movie going experience. I enjoy the fact that I can go watch the movie for two hours and I won't have to answer the phone because my mom calls. Or won't be asked to pause the movie so that I can help my wife with some task. I enjoy being in the dark, mostly alone (because I rarely go to movies in their opening days), watching the pictures move across the screen.

And if you don't like ads, they aren't that hard to avoid. I don't see ads (generally) in second run theaters or in most art house theaters (though you will see some truly terrible trailers).
posted by obfusciatrist at 10:07 AM on February 9, 2003

FFF, as much as I love LOTR, if you think those were the only two movies worth watching in the last two years, you're really missing out. I saw 400+ movies during that period, about half of them in theaters, and very few of them featured action stars or TV actors. Some were even better than sex! (2002 Top Ten, 2001 Top Ten. Self-links, obviously.)
posted by muckster at 10:15 AM on February 9, 2003

A few more comments.

Orange Goblin: Buy your tickets the day before.

Unfortunately that won't help in the U.S., because cinemas don't have designated seating. The good seats go to whoever gets there earliest. Anyone who shows up late has to sit in this row of seats that are placed so close to the front I suspect they were placed there just to punish people who showed up late.

Though I do recall Roger Ebert mentioning that most cinemas don't have rules against bringing in outside food, people just assume they do.

donkeymon: That is why, when I moved into the managerial area of that theater, we started counting the cups and popcorn bags at the end of each shift and matching them against the receipts.

I remember some employees somewhere got around that by collecting leftover bags and emptying them out and selling from those... ewww. They got busted though. And I would so much prefer a montage of King Rama XII if it would start the movie earlier.

Oh Witty, I did see spontaneous applause at a second run theatre (few commercials!) showing Punch-Drunk Love. Did strike me as odd.
posted by bobo123 at 10:40 AM on February 9, 2003

I can wait for the DVD, buy the movie for $20 bucks, and watch it on a great large-screen television.
some people just don't understand a thing.
[q snorts derisively and wishes he could be there when mrmanley purchases his first DVD coded so that the FF button is inoperative during the ads.]
posted by quonsar at 10:58 AM on February 9, 2003

[q snorts derisively and wishes he could be there when mrmanley purchases his first DVD coded so that the FF button is inoperative during the ads.]

i've watched loads of brand new dvds in the last couple of months and i've yet to come across this... maybe it's only being done to american dvds so far...? but when and if it ever happens to me, so what, i'll still be able to avoid the ads by getting a snack, making a phone call, surfing the net for a few min. at the theatre you're tethered to your seat unless you want to do the whole pardon-me-oops-sorry crawl over your aisle mates followed by the mad dash to the lobby. i love movies, they're the best invention ever and i watch hundreds of them a year, but no one's going to convince me that the grubby over priced theatre is where i should be watching them. there are only a very few films each year that need to be seen on a large theatre screen, usually for the special effects and sometimes for the cinematography.

I DO know that when I was a kid, a teen, there were times when the audience actually cheered and clapped after good movies... when the show was over. Going to the movies was a treat.

when we went to see o brother where art thou the entire theatre burst into applause at the end. i was completely startled because the last time i remember that happening was after the opening night showing of star wars back in '77...!
posted by t r a c y at 12:40 PM on February 9, 2003

I certainly have sympathy for theatres that take it up the rear from studios and distributors and are forced to meet overhead by snack prices and advertising. To be fair, the only times I see ads before a feature are during matinees and showings before 6pm, when ticket prices are cheaper.

But I just can't stop going to theaters because of a few ads. Any movie is better when viewed in a dark hall, on screen, with rich THX sound. And not all of us can afford a HDTV home theater, or purchasing films that we may/may not like without having seen previously. Netflix is really a bargain, but again, it doesn't match the "going out" experience.

I choose the path of heckling the ads and junk before the movie starts. There's nothing quite like yelling "Kill the hippies!" during Army/Navy/AirForce/Marines recruiter ads, and yelling "future hack!" at Coca-Cola's bogus attempt at entertaining "Upcoming Filmmaker" ads. ...I have to admit, audiences here in San Francisco are a lot more spirited and laid back, and will often join me in talking back to advertisments and cheering for great movies. It makes going out worth the ticket price.
posted by Down10 at 2:00 PM on February 9, 2003

And the tacked-on ads/trailers on DVDs are typically on the RENTAL versions, not on the versions you purchase. If you bought a full edition DVD brand new at retail price, and it has trailers on the disc that you can't skip over, you should take it back to the store. That's just a rip-off.
posted by Down10 at 2:05 PM on February 9, 2003

Netflix is really a bargain, but again, it doesn't match the "going out" experience.

I agree with you, but for the opposite reason: Netflix is so much nicer than trying to watch movies in the theater that I'll probably never again darken the door of a multiplex. (I'd make an exception if a group of friends were all going out to see something, but the sort of movie my friends would go out to see usually doesn't play in a multiplex to begin with.) And I don't even have a mediaphile setup - my "home theater" consists of a wide-screen laptop computer plugged into a stereo. But I have a comfortable couch, yummy snacks that don't cost as much as the ticket itself, and NO ADS. I don't have to crawl over other people to get in and out, I don't have to listen to people gossiping or smacking their children or coughing, nobody kicks my chair, and if a cell phone rings, it's always for me anyway. It's great.

I'll still go to the Cinerama for the really good stuff, of course, but that's actually a nice, comfortable, clean theatre with good sound. And they don't insult you with ads before the show.
posted by Mars Saxman at 2:29 PM on February 9, 2003

I must admit I culture jam the ads. Reading some of these comments makes me realize how many of you feel the same way.
posted by skinsuit at 3:59 PM on February 9, 2003

I think the theaters have gotten much better over the last decade with stadium seats, better sound systems, etc. -- but the theater experience has gotten worse. People have been so weaned on home video that they think nothing of openly discussing the movie while it's playing, or taking a phone call. There are hardly any trained projectionists anymore, so the picture tends to be too soft and sometimes improperly framed. Many of the ads are literally painful for the eyes and ears.

Since I had kids and stopped having the free time to see all the movies I wanted, I built a very good home theater system over the years -- large HDTV widescreen TV, killer DD/DTS sound system, all that. I agree that its not as 'special' as going to the movies, but it's easier to attend regularly, the audience is small and attentive, and MY theater serves alcohol.

I think the time is right for high-quality theaters that could market themselves on the same level as going to a concert or a play. I would pay a premium price for extra plush seating, better-quality food, beer and wine available, plus projectors and sound systems that are kept well-calibrated by at least one technician on staff.
posted by Dirjy at 7:41 PM on February 9, 2003

That was a startling and frank revelation as regards your truly dismal sex life, muckster. I suggest you see fewer movies and get more practice in, because there's nothing quite so disturbing than the idea that anything can be better than sex.

the only thing better than sex is more sex.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:52 PM on February 9, 2003

The article has already spilled over to fark.

Someone linked to this article. Ironically, people are spending more than ever at movie theatres but they're struggling to survive (but if they're struggling why do new multiplexes keep opening up everywhere?).
posted by bobo123 at 9:14 PM on February 9, 2003

fff, it's true, it just hasn't been the same ever since the wife signed with Diet Pepsi. At least she still lets me sneak snacks into the bedroom. Anyway, did you read the part where I wrote about the movies?
posted by muckster at 10:02 PM on February 9, 2003

Muckster: er, yes. It's just that the sex comment was so darn provocative. I mean, a movie better than sex? Just can't imagine it.

400+ movies, half at the theatre, = approximately $3000, and that's only if you didn't buy popcorn.

My god. For that kinda cash, you can do some pretty awesome vacationing. Or take a half-dozen night classes in an interesting hobby. A few years of music lessons. Dinner out with friends lots and lots and lots of times. Or lots and lots of hookers, if your wife isn't giving it up (though if you're treating friends to endless suppers, maybe you can swing a deal with them.)

Little wonder that movies that are really not good still manage to do well at the box office. How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days has been panned by the critics, yet it still scooped up $24 million over the weekend.

What a business. I gotta get myself into Hollywood. It's a license to print money.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:11 AM on February 10, 2003

Thanks, but I do enjoy a good amount of dinners, vacations, and lovin', and I've taken more classes than anybody should. I watch very few Hollywood movies, and you won't find me anywhere near How to Lose a Guy. But in all fairness, I do see most movies in a screening room, for free, without any ads, on very comfortable seats (Sony's got leather couches), and surrounded by film critics who turn absolutely vicious if anybody talks, ever. The only things missing from press screenings are popcorn and trailers.

But the point is, I love the experience of sitting in a theater, and I believe a good theater is always better than even the best home setup, and all movies ought to be seen on the big screen. Maybe it's akin to vinyl vs. CDs -- vinyl's superior, but people still switched because of ease-of-use, better performance of mediocre systems, scratches, etc. It'd be tragic if movie theaters commited suicide because of greed, incompetence, and unruly crowds.

Finally, your brain is a much more sophisticated apparatus than your schlong. If it's tickled just right, the pleasure can indeed be superior to satisfying your animal instincts. And, praise the lord, one doesn't preclude the other.
posted by muckster at 10:55 AM on February 10, 2003

I'm pleased you think my brain is more sophisticated than my dink, and I must admit that conversing with you has tickled my brain. I think we'd best leave it all at that, though.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:52 PM on February 10, 2003

same here, fff.
posted by muckster at 3:05 PM on February 11, 2003