I agree, but that's not what the person I was responding to was saying. And, too, I would venture to guess that most people, if asked, would say that they would like the ads to be done away with, rather than saying they'd like the movie showtimes listed as starting three minutes later to be more "accurate". Again, though, I would ask, will it make that much difference if the movie showtime is listed as 5:28 instead of 5:25? Are those three minutes that the person is going to be there anyway really all that important to list (especially when you probably get those three minutes back by not sitting through the end credits, which are included in the run-time of the movie). And I wonder if the actual trailer start time (remember, the lawsuit says they don't have an issue with the trailers, just the "commercials") being posted will lead either lead to 1. people coming even earlier to the theater, or 2. lawsuits from people who complain that they have trouble finding a seat in the dark since they're entering at the posted start time and the theater is already darkened and ads are playing.
Honestly I think a contributing factor here is the change in movie theaters from 2/3 old style theaters in one area to the big warehouse type places that bring in people from all over. One reason I always love to see movies early in the week (monday, tuesday) is that later in the week (friday, saturday, sunday afternoon) it is so damn crowded that yes the starting time is pretty important. The ticket lines are longer, the concession lines are longer, and it's harder to find a good seat so people try to show up as early as possible and then they're subjected to a bombardment of TV style commercials. That pisses people off to have fought their way through x number of lines only to sit there and watch commercials and five or six movie previews. When I went to see Minority Report on a friday night, the movie didn't start until 35 minutes after the list time. That's just insane.
Well, that is taking it a little too far. I've yet to go to a movie where the start time was that far from the posted start time. How much of that delay was caused by "commercials" (not trailers)? I personally just don't see the problem. I've never been to a movie where there was more than two or three minutes worth of TV-style advertisements and never thought they were bothersome. As a matter of fact, I've seen some ads that were better than the movies that followed. I've never understood why a lot of people are so passionately opposed to advertisements anyway (and not just in movie theaters).... And why, in this case, the advertisements that take up the most time before the feature are not even an issue. Why is advertising for one product acceptable while others are not? I just think of all the things I dislike about the movie-going experience, and the four ads in front of the picture wouldn't even enter my mind as a problem even the ads that get played before just about every movie and don't get changed out enough -- like the Fandango ads or the PSAs (and I certainly don't value my time at $1,125 per hour like the folks in the lawsuit apparently do. I didn't realize teachers in Illinois were paid that well). And I know that if the Cinemark Tinseltown in Plano started posting the starting times of the trailers and played the "commercials" before that time, it wouldn't be but two or three minutes in time at most (and the Cinemark doesn't even do the "shut up, pick up your trash and enjoy the show" thing anymore, which used to be a staple of the movie-going experience). Not even worth worrying about. I can't vouch for the practices at theaters I don't go to. I've mentioned it before, but I'll say it again. Regal Entertainment Group has plans to eventually outfit its theaters with the technology to show television-style advertisements easier (and more targeted). The plan is to begin broadcasting ads during those twenty minutes that the average moviegoer sits in the seat before the showtime. So you think you get bombarded with ads now, wait a couple of years. In the end, if they actually make it where theaters have to post the starting time of the movie, I hope they also will post the starting time for the ads because I want to see the trailers for the upcoming movies (and I don't know how you can distinguish the commercials that are for other movies from commercials that are for other products, etc) and would miss that part of the movie-going experience. By the way, I enjoy the quote from the article, "People are paying good money to watch commercials". Don't we do that at home, too. I pay for Internet service that ends up bombarding me with advertisements. I pay for cable television that bombards me with advertisements (and lies to me by promoting "90 minutes of The Simpsons" the other night when there were actually only about 66 minutes of The Simpsons broadcast. The rest were... gasp!... advertisements). The tub they put the popcorn we pay for at the theater often has an advertisement on it. I've had soda cups with advertisements inside the lid (I got a CD-ROM ad for eBay and Disney inside one cup lid at the theater once). I buy gasoline and the pumps play advertisements to me now. I'm constantly being bombarded with ads, many of which I'm paying good money to watch (at least in the same way that people are paying good money to watch commercials in movie theaters). I just thought it was interesting that the line gets drawn at the movie theater. I'm interested to see how far this ends up going. Will there be some point when someone sues because the opening credits of the movie were too long. When I go to the movie, I'm there to see the story, not to see who the Casting Director was. They really ought to post the time that the actual story gets started. Don't want to have to sit through some big, extravagant opening sequence like on Catch Me If You Can, for example, if I don't have to. I'm paying good money, why should I have to sit through the Dreamworks logo (which is, for all intents and purposes, just an ad for Dreamworks)? And those animated corporate logos keep getting longer and longer every week (I will never forget, by the way, people applauding the DLP logo when I saw Episode II at the Cinemark Legacy. It's just an, admittedly cool, kind of projector. It doesn't deserve applause). But hey, if people want to be all put out because they spend a couple of minutes watching commercials for things other than other movies, so be it. Personally, I've got bigger things to get upset about. Like the fact that Spike Lee movies have so many endings.
Hmm, commercials. Don't like em, but eh, what are ya gonna do? By the way, what's this "Black people aren't so bad" PSA. I don't remember seeing PSA's in the theatre. I guess they just aren't that memorable for to me.
It might be a good thing if the movie theaters were to go bankrupt. It seems to me that, as it now stands, too much of the ticket sales pie goes back to the movie studios to pay the costs of producing the movies and then profits and not enough is left to their distributors. It is a weakness in their industry and not even good for them. It isn't good for the movie-goer either because good, no-nonsense theaters can't stay afloat and close in favor of the hyped-up, gigantic movie houses with the big seats, etc. that inevitably cost more to run. This causes a lot of consolidation in the market, raising the bar to entry and limiting choices available to consumers. A calamitous event in the movie-theater industry like mass bankruptcies could force studios to give them more money for the distribution of their films. After all, Hollywood cannot make any money if there aren't any theaters to show their stuff. Theaters would do better, prices would remain level for consumers and actors might get paid a little less.
OK, this nearly sucked. We went to see Old School yesterday, and it was suppose to start at 3:50. A friend called at 3:40 and said she was coming. Well, thinking she had plenty of time because of the previews and commercials (some of which have run 15 minutes in the past...pre-previews in this theatre), we told her to come on. Of course, we walk into the theatre not 30 seconds later, and they're already on the previews, 10 minutes before the movie was supposed to start. Now, I'm all for that, but there needs to be some sort of announcement that this is how it's going to be done from now on. Of course, it was probably just a mistake by some 16 year old kid.
Nearly all of the big chains did go bankrupt recently (due mostly to the capital expenditures involved with the huge building binge the theater chains went on in the '90s, rather than the cost to operate these new houses). As a matter of fact, when Regal Cinemas got around to filing for bankruptcy in late 2001, they were the 12th theater chain to file for bankruptcy protection that year. Didn't make that much difference in regards to getting a better cut from the studios. Plus, the ads aren't going away. Not even this lawsuit asks for the ads to be removed, and I can't imagine any court saying that theaters cannot advertise.
Well, there is going bankrupt and then there is going bankrupt. Many theaters filed for bankruptcy but they are still in business. I'm saying they should completely die. And yes the lawsuit isn't asking for the ads to be removed but that is the real aim of the suit. They just can't couch it that way because they don't have any legal thread to hold on to. I think the hope is to cause enough legal hassle to make the ads not worth running. They hope to kill them fiscally, not legally.
Screens were shuttered. The theater business, as a whole, is in fine shape now. AMC Theaters had record earnings in the 3rd Quarter of 2002 (the most recent available quarter). Regal Entertainment Group (the combined Edwards, Regal and UA chains) did even better, and so on. It was the building boom (along with some long-term leases on older theaters that the companies wanted to shut down but couldn't) that caused the bankruptcy. Now that the building debt has been made reasonable through the bankruptcy courts, the theater chains are doing well. They'll never be able to do that, though. It not only won't kill the ads, it likely won't be enough of a nuissance to even do what the lawsuit asks (put the actual starting time of the feature). As digital projection proliferates, we'll see more and more advertisements before movies. And more advertisements in the lobby, etc.
There is a certain irony in the fact that there are people here on this board who want a currently profitable business (theater chains) to get a more profitable deal from a business that is often not profitable (film production and distribution to theaters). Films often don't become profitable until home video and beyond, especially when prints and advertising costs are factored in. Some never become profitable. If Warners produces a $100 million flop, Warners is out the costs they sunk into production and advertising, etc. At Cinemark, though, they often don't lose anything at all (the people who don't go to the flop will often still go to the theater, just to a different movie). And sometimes, those flops can be more profitable for the theater. If instead of going to see the ultra-hyped movie that the studio was able to get a 90% split of the ticket cost, they go and see a movie that wasn't as hyped (or came from a smaller distributor) and which the studio only gets a 60% split, the theater wins.
After the channel 13 news special on teenagers giving "oral massage" during movies, I just want to get to the theater early enough to make sure my chair isnt wet. I can deal with the commercials.
