Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  dorpus, 14 Jan 2005 @ 7:54pm

  
  

  But don't you want to see

  The really annoying Dolby Stereo/DHX ads with the screeching sound effects?
  
  But then, could be worse -- back in the 1980s, movies used to have the same fucking coca-cola ads run for year after year, about the butler with the silver tray.
  
  

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Seth, 14 Jan 2005 @ 10:03pm

  
  

  On the one hand...

  While, as a consumer, I'd be very happy to see this happen, I have to say that I'm fed up with the government on any level wasting time with pointless legislation. I think that eventually theaters will pull their collective head out of the sand and give the customers what they want.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2005 @ 10:43pm

    
    

    Re: On the one hand...

    I agree with Seth - the consumer in me goes "damn right", but the Adam Smith in me says "this is for the market to decide, not the government."
    
    But why deal with the commercials, people talking during the movie, and other problems when the DVD comes out in less than 12 months these days? Other than 1-2 movies a year that you HAVE to see on "big screen", there really isn't much reason to go to a theater any more.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2005 @ 10:56pm

      
      

      Re: On the one hand...

      Except I do think the government has a role to play in ensuring that there is transparency in commercial transactions, such as truth in advertising. I think that this is simply expanding that role.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    nonuser, 15 Jan 2005 @ 10:17am

    
    

    Re: On the one hand...

    Yeah, did this come out of lots of angry constituents demanding changes, or this one legislator deciding to act on one of his pet peeves?
    
    The trailer issue is a very minor nuisance. If it's that minor, it shouldn't be legislated because businesses already have to deal with too many regulations.
    

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  b0b, 15 Jan 2005 @ 1:20am

  
  

  No Subject Given

  Ads suck. It used to be 15 minutes of previews, but now we get that *and* 60 second full screen commercial advertisements and the pathetic 60 second "Don't download that movie!" schlop from the losers at the MPAA. Patronizing crap. When i saw "Lord of the Rings:Return of the King" I had to sit through no less than 4 advertisements, 2 MPAA spots, 15 minutes of previews, the typical pre-movie "THX" bit, and then the animation reminding you of the "no cell phone" rule.
  
  I was pretty irritated by the time the movie started.
  
  It's time to force theatres to cut out the crap like that. I don't pay $10/ticket to see fucking *advertisements* and the MPAA guilt trip shoved in my face.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2005 @ 5:40am

    
    

    You get what you pay for ...

    Why the hell do any of you go to the movies in the first place ?
    
    Overpriced uncomfortable seats ?
    Overpriced popcorn & soda ?
    Sticky floors ?
    Screaming children ?
    Cell phone abusers ?
    
    If you are so stupid to pay 8-10 dollars to watch commercials you get what you pay for ...
    

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Jared, 17 Jan 2005 @ 8:11am

      
      

      Re: You get what you pay for ...

      Well, while annoying people are anywhere you go, this one guy in my town figured out something right and opened up a theater pub. He takes recent movies (about 3 months old from their release date) and puts them up in his renovated older theater. The sound isn't near as good as the new theaters, but here's the cool part:
      
      Movie tickets are $3, popcorn is $1-$2, sodas are about the same, and you can order sandwich wraps or pizza slices for cheap. Oh, and you can get beer.
      
      The cool thing about this place is by the time you've ate a meal and watched a movie on a big screen, it's the same price as if you went to the newer theaters to watch a movie and bought a large popcorn and water. It is of course getting more and more popular as people realize it's a better alternative to the new/expensive theaters.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2005 @ 11:08am

        
        

        Re: You get what you pay for ...

        While they're at it, why not legislate the quality of movies. Perhaps showing "Garfield: the movie" should actually be illegal. I think having sticky floors should now be against the law, too, I hate when that happens. And what about that part of the theater where you walk in from the back and go around either the left or the right side of the seats, it usually smells very bad in there. Surely, a few more regulations will fix that problem. Why should I have to drive 2 more blocks to a theater that smells better when we can simply make that illegal?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • 

          Chris Taylor, 7 Sep 2005 @ 6:21pm

          
          

          Re: You get what you pay for ...

          ITS NOT THE THEATRES its the MPAA !!! the REASON its $9 to see a Movie and $4 for a hot dog is that the MPAA takes almost ALL of the ticket price so they HAVE to make money somehow.
          
          Stop complaining about the theaters and complain about how the movie industry RAPES the theatres of there profits
          
          GRRR I hate the mpaa almost as much as I hate the RIAA
          
          Chris Taylor
          http://www.nerys.com/

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • 

            Josh, 27 Jan 2016 @ 7:48am

            
            

            Re: Re: You get what you pay for ...

            What is your source for MPAA fees from theaters? Not arguing your point, but where do you get your information?

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  D, 15 Jan 2005 @ 7:26am

  
  

  Time shifter

  Count me as one of the ones who just shows up late for the few movies I go to see. The wife and I do like the movie theater though. Despite its many flaws. I wouldn't mind seeing MA follow CT's lead on this one, despite any libertarian leanings I have.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2005 @ 11:25am

  
  

  No Subject Given

  I don't go to the cinema anymore due to the $10+ pricetag and the fact that Hollywood doesn't make films worth paying $10 to watch in an uncomfortable cinema.
  
  Anyway, I'm also peeved about the unskippable trailers on the beginning of DVD's, some players can be hacked to allow you to skip them, but the only other alternative is to rip the movie from the DVD to a DVD-R.
  
  Why are so many things like this forced on us (mainly by the MPAA I notice) that Government doesn't do anything about?
  

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Anonymous Coward, 15 Jan 2005 @ 2:07pm

    
    

    Re: No Subject Given

    But the government *did* do something about unskippable trailers. Were it legal to make a DVD player without agreeing to the DVD-CCA policies, someone would have done.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  jeremiah, 15 Jan 2005 @ 4:19pm

  
  

  The 20

  The reel of advertisements that you see in most major chains is called "The 20." And it's not going away anytime soon...
  United Artists Theaters (aka Regal Cinemas) attributed nearly 50% of their operating revenues to "The 20." From their 10K filing:
  

  "Total other operating revenues increased $55.5 million, or 56.5%, to $153.7 million for the Fiscal 2003 Period, from $98.2 million for the Fiscal 2002 Period. Included in other operating revenues are on-screen advertising revenues, meetings and events, marketing revenues from our vendor marketing programs and game revenues. The increase in other operating revenues was primarily attributable to increases in advertising and meetings revenues generated by Regal CineMedia"

  
  I once called their corporate office to complain about "The 20", and had asked the gentleman on the phone how many customers had ever called to complain about it. He said: "You're the only one."
  Their 10K filing goes on to state that Regal has huge (and expensive) holdings in its real estate and lease obligations to a great enough degree that it threatens the stability of the company. Hence, they're going to be pushing more advertising in the faces of their customers.
  Perhaps we need to take our voices directly to those selling our eyeballs out from underneath us. In that spirit, here's the contact info for the Regal Advertising folks:
  Toll Free: 800.828.2828
  Phone: 303.792.8705
  Fax: 303.792.8606
  Give 'em a call.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    jeremiah, 15 Jan 2005 @ 4:27pm

    
    

    Re: The 20

    Minor addendum:
    
    Much to my chagrin, it's not called "The 20" - they call it The "2wenty". Get it??
    
    From this site:
    
    

    " The 2wenty is a larger-than-life pre-show adding unique and special entertainment to the REG movie-going experience
    
    The 2wenty is quality entertainment supplied by our four content partners:
    
    We are digitizing 4,801 screens in 437 theatres (top 69 markets), to be completed by February 2004. By creating the ONLY national Digital Content Network, Regal CineMedia is revolutionizing in-cinema advertising through:
    
    • Production Savings – No cost for transfer to film in top 69 digital markets
    • Flexibility – Can add tags, split creative by rating, schedule multiple spots in one flight
    • Enhanced Proof of Performance – Will be able to monitor advertising in flight and adjust accordingly."

    
    
    Can I just say: NetFlix.
    
    

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Griffon, 15 Jan 2005 @ 8:12pm

      
      

      Re: The 20

      Why I try very hard to not go to the AMC's in San Jose area, latterly like 20 minutes of TV grade commercials. Instead I go to the century and give them my hard earned dollar, they show trailers and I'm down with that. I owned a replay, and now a TV, I'm willing to do almost anything to avoid commercials. Including not going to the movies at all... I wonder if somebody is going to catch on that they are slowing going to kill the movie goose that laid gold with this crap.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2005 @ 10:22am

        
        

        Re: AMC

        Yeah AMC Santa Clara seems to show "homemade" adverts for local businesses, which is really annoying as it's usually for careers you don't want and crappy colleges you'd never go to.
        
        I wouldn't mind trailers, as I might actually want to find out about a film (SW:Ep2 for example), but I really don't want regular adverts.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Wilson, 16 Jan 2005 @ 6:47pm

  
  

  No Subject Given

  I've seen this in movie theatres in France. The signs show two times for the movie, one of them being the time the movie actually starts.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 16 Jan 2005 @ 7:36pm

  
  

  No Subject Given

  REG's 2wenty ends about one minute after the advertised showtime. The non-trailer ads are all shown before the movie.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]