Article About the Most Annoying Trend in My Lifetime

I've got to start previewing my responses -- not sure which is worse -- my spelling or typing...

 

I'm not forced to sit in front of the vending machine. There isn't a guy telling me how great M&M's are as I discuss the sticker price. You're not grasping the concept here man.

 

Damn straight...The theater is about 12 years old, so there is no stadium seating and a few of the seats are broken, but you can't beat the price...

 

first of all, is your plan to whittle your grand point down each and every time i successfuly dispute it? because you didn't mention sales staff doing this or being forced to do that; you claimed you don't see ads for m&ms at car dealerships... and you were wrong.

and i don't know where you see movies, but, do the ushers pull a clockwork orange on your ass and hold your head in place with your eyelids peeled back so you have to watch the ads? because where i see movies, i'm free to come and go as i choose.

or, if so inclined, i can choose to carry on a conversation and ignore the ads altogether. talking's a problem in movie theaters, but i've yet to see anyone get upset because someone's yaking it up during the ads.

you're not forced to watch anything you don't want to in a movie theater.

 

yeah, gre-rate point! because i know i'm never exposed to advertising at a sporting event. nope, all the signage i see is related directly to the teams i'm watching. and the videos they play during time-outs, all the sponsors of various contests and what not, they're all directly related to the team i'm watching, too, at minute maid park[/i].

what do any of those pieces of advertising have to do with the astros? none. but they're everywhere, plastered all across the baseball going experience. and it's far more invasive and pervasive than 3-4 minutes of ads at the front of a movie.

 

I don't understand the defense of an annoying practice. Sure they have the right to bombard us with ads, but we have the right to say its incredibly annoying.

What I really want to know is this: would people rise up and say "enough," if the theaters started interrupting films to bring extra advertising? Do you think that's an impossible next step?

I would predict a future with various movie-going strata. You can see a movie on the cheap if you're willing to put up with a few extra ads in the middle. If you want to see a full feature without ads, it'll cost you the extra $$.

 

sure. you also have the right to not watch the ads, therefore avoiding the annoyance. show up later, hit the head, talk to your friend or spouse... the ads are there for those who want to watch them.

and i'm not really defending them, btw; i'm just at a loss why it's such a big deal. there's very little we do that isn't underscored in some way by advertising. it's EVERYWHERE. and that included theaters even before "ads" were an issues -- they advertised other films, their concession stand, summer movie camp for kids, movie coupon books, movie watcher plans....

dounbtful. again, we're talking about two separate forces: the studios and the theater chains. the theaters, i'm sure, are pocketing the ad revenue, studios likely never see a dime from pre-movie ads. so why would they agree to have their movies chopped up to accomodate theater owners?

further, doing such would blur the line between the filmgoing experience and television, which would eventually kill the process as everyone would choose to stay home.

then there's concern over content (what if mcdonals want fincher to redo his ending to fight club because it's bad for their image?), etc., etc. etc... it'll never happen.

 

I think they're eventually going to have content that integrates advertising into it that runs for about 20 minutes prior to the listed showtime. It will be live video (rather than the slide shows we see now) and may well actually be more entertaining than what we have now.

The ads will also cycle in and out more frequently (and be more targeted). These sorts of things will become more prevalent as theaters move away from film projectors to DLP projection.

That is the not-to-distant future, my friends.

(And the theater/studio split is not quite 100%/0% that I've ever heard, and actually is different for different movies. Sometimes the split is 50/50 from the get-go, sometimes, for a coveted movie, the split can be much more favorable to the studio. The length of time the split remains is also negotitated per movie).

 

I tune in to see the Rockets play at 7:30...the game never starts at 7:30. It's probably just as bad as a movie theatre with all of the commercials.

 

I'm not whittling and you haven't disputed anything with any success. You believe that because I buy a coke at the theater and it has the word "coke" on it that it's a comparable advertisement to paying to watch a film and having to waste 30 seconds of my life sitting through a coke commercial. That's stupid. How about when you turn the ignition of your car and you have to watch a 30 second coke commercial? Is that the same thing as your shirt having a frikken Polo logo on it? Of course not. Christ!

 

I heard about some Coca-Cola ad with UT football players? Anyone see it?

 

The split I described was told to me by a close friend who works in the accounting department at Paramount.

 

It's really horrible. Crowds here in San Francisco routinely boo and hiss at this "Football Nation" ad. I've even seen people throw food at it! The UT part is fine, but it's only about 4 seconds, and the overall ad is the most stupid thing you've ever seen. Making college football into some sort of pinacle of life enlightenment/nirvana thing. It's way too earnest and cheesy.

 

Interesting point. They are advertising during the movies by having James Bond drive a cetain kind of car or using a Mac in Mission Impossible. This doesn't bother me yet but it seems that this trend is getting more and more obvious.

 

Really?

I was relying on information from an accountant I know that works at United Artists cinemas (now part of the Regal Entertainment Group).

If we've gone from a system where each movie is negotiated separately and the splits range from 50/50 to 90/10 depending on the movie (with the scale changing at different times) to a set system where the studios get 100% of the gross for the first four weeks for every movie, things really have changed in a relatively short time.

I recall it being a big deal in 1997 when Lost In Space was able to negotiate an 80/20 split for four weeks.

And this article from CNN from March, 2002 talks about it, too:

http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/08/smbusiness/q_movies/

 

It depends on the film, but your bigger titles generally are set up to where the studio gets all (or close to all...say 95%) of the initial opening (first 4 weeks) revenues. Then the split starts to be a little more on par with what you would think.

A film like "My Big, Fat Greek Wedding" probably had closer to a 50/50 split.

The theater companies lost a lot of bargaining power when they built all these megaplexes in the late 1990s...they absolutely HAD to have the biggest name movies in for their economic survival.

 

let's take a closer look at your "coke" buying scenario, shall we? by drinking coca-cola from a cup with the coca-cola logo plastered all over it, you've actually just paid (twice, mind you; once to get into the theater, again to purchase the coke) for the privilege of being an unpaid spokesperson for coca-cola. if a fellow moviegoer -- just one -- buys a coke because your "coke" cup planted a seed with them (and that's the idea), then you've just made coca-cola money without earning a penny for yourself. so, you're right; they're not the same. one requires passive participation, if any at all, and no effort, time or money of yours be spent; the other requires active participation, and that you spend effort, time and money.

the above practice is called branding, and it, like the ads that run before the movie, all fit under the umbrella of advertising. "coke" doesn't show up on those cups randomly; coca-cola has made a deal to ensure their logo is on there and for a reason.

fact is, you're inundated with advertising the second you step foot in a cineplex. that some (like the trailer ads) are more overt doesn't make them any more intrusive; they just stand out more. but, as with advertising of any kind, you're free to disregard it. you're not required to even be in the theater when the ads are playing; or, you're free to get up and leave if they offend you so much, a point i continue to make, and you continue to ignore.

the car i drive doesn't require me to watch a 30-second commercial, does yours? if not, then why should i deal in such hyperbole? and isn't having to resort to such hyperbole underscoring my belief you've run out of solid ground to stand on? even if i indulge your silly scenario, the situation isn't comparable because, again, you are not required to partake in watching the ads at the movie theater.

 

That's essentially what I thought I said.

So, we agree. Let's quit arguing. Shall we.

 

I love the previews, and yell out the answers to the trivia questions, no matter how easy.

 

I yell out the wrong answers. Just to see if anyone will correct me.