Theaters On Prescreenings: Bring Your Firearms, But No Mobile Phones
from the priorities,-people! dept
For many years, we've heard various stories of how anyone who attends an early movie screening (i.e., before the movie has actually been widely released), should expect to be treated like a total criminal. The usual stories involve being searched carefully and being required to hand over all mobile phones, which will be held until the end of the film. Reader minerat writes in to tell us of his story, which involved going to a 7:30pm showing of Moneyball last week -- just a few hours before the movie was actually being released. Even so... same process. "Security made everyone give up their cell phones and checked all bags." And, it appears that security had their priorities straight from the MPAA:The better part is after we gave up our phones, another security guard waves a metal detecting wand over us and we had to empty our pockets on any hits. My friend has a license to carry a firearm and was carrying - we thought this would be a problem (it's a center city Philadelphia theater), but no, he didn't care about his loaded handgun. Apparently a cameraphone is the bigger threat to a movie that will be publicly released 2 hours after we step out of the theater. Of course the DVD screener has been available on usenet for 3+ months.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: criminals, fans, guns, movies, phones, pre-screening
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yeah so?
Quote from the NDA you must sign:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yeah so?
"Also BSA paradox on the click-wrap agreements"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blast from the Past
This was way back in the late 90s so there was little in the way of modern security theater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blast from the Past
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The gun isn't relevant to the discussion, they were not being checked for "security" issues. They were being checked for anything that can leak the movie. The gun (or lack of a gun) wouldn't matter to them.
I guess Mike your logic is they should just give up, and give away their movies for free because they are out there anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Never heard of a gun video/camera? It's all the rage now there a hidden new feature in most guns just go to your local gun shop and pick one and point the barrel at yourself and pull the trigger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Of course the DVD screener has been available on usenet for 3+ months." - It had already been leaked.
"Apparently a cameraphone is the bigger threat to a movie that will be publicly released 2 hours after we step out of the theater" - The movie was going to be publicly released straight after the early screening, so it wouldn't have mattered if he had cammed it or not.
"The gun (or lack of a gun) wouldn't matter to them." So...what if the guy didn't have a license to carry? Or had somehow stuffed a bazooka up his ass? Are you actually saying that these "security" guards should ignore ALL weapons simply because its a movie theater?
In the future, if you disagree with Mike, please have something decent, coherent and logical to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Are you advocating cavity searches at movie theatres? Let's try to stay serious for a moment here.
"Are you actually saying that these "security" guards should ignore ALL weapons simply because its a movie theater?"
If they see something that looks illegal they can call the police. If they see something that looks like a violation of theatre policy, they can ask the patron to leave-- but they'd better be sure they're on solid legal ground. Otherwise, yes, they should ignore it. I usually carry knife into the movie theatre (and everywhere else I go), and that really isn't the business of the staff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I believe that this is covered by the 'and bear Arms' clause which makes in my opinion, all laws restricting carring guns illegal (conceled or otherwise).
Now, in practicality, it seems that a lot of vocal people are willing to trade Freedom for security. They deserve neither.
Freedom is not free. It is paid for in blood and if lost, will have to be paid for in blood again.
Guns have kept us more or less, Free for over 300 years.
They have their downsides as anyone who has lost someone to an idiot weilding a firearm knows but just remember this; the gun did not kill anyone, it was the person who pulled the trigger and that is not a constitutional issue, it's a criminal one.
By the by, I carry a Buck folding hunter everywhere I go and a Dan Wesson 357 mag sometimes (I have a gun totin permit). Not because I want to shoot someone or something but in today's society I don't want to regret not having it. Boy Scout motto: Be Prepared.
A few people like me would have come in handy on the flights on 911; I know I would have done something to stop them. Even if the plane did crash. I'm not going to stand by and watch some rag-top cut a stewardesses throat. I don't care what he's got, bomb, knife, gun... Do that in front of me and it's on. That goes for practically any situation and anyone.
If had more citizens that thought this way the bad guys would think twice about pulling something. And get what they deserve if they did...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, the attackers on 9/11 were far more competent, thoughtful, practiced and intelligent than you are. No doubt they would disarm you easily and quickly, as would anyone who is reasonably well-trained in basic martial arts.
One of the common myths that gun-owners like to tell themselves is that they'll be able to use them for defense should the need arise. This is unlikely. What is far more likely is that attackers will prevent them from ever getting their hands on their guns. This is especially true if the attackers have the element of surprise, which of course most competent attackers know. Gun-owners, having misplaced faith in their own abilities, judgment, and reflexes, almost always fail to anticipate this and really are, in many ways, easier victims to subdue because they're reliant on a single mode of defense. They'd be far better off putting down their guns, their cheetos, and their beers, and spending 2 hours 3X a week in a basic martial arts class.
But of course...that's hard work. It takes dedication. It takes committment. It takes an admission that one is weak. It takes a willingness to do something difficult. And these are not qualities we find in gun-owners; they want the easy way, the quick fix, and they want to grandstand about "defending their rights" when in fact they're far more defenseless than they fantasize being.
Now...I know (at least) one of the gun-owner types is going to object to this and claim that they're the exception, that they'd always react quickly enough, that they'd see the attacker, etc. There is no reaching such people: their self-delusion is beyond rational thought. They will continue believing this until the moment when it's too late...which is a pity, but there's nothing to be done for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You also mention the element of surprise, that is exaclty why people carry concealed. So please, don't bring a knife, er karate to a gun fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This right here is the "misplaced faith in their own abilities, judgement, and reflexes" that was referred to. Do those "many, many gun carriers" actually practice reacting to being attacked, or just practise shooting at paper targets? Do you really think that someone who would "drop you in your tracks the instant you took a move toward them" is a suitable person to be carrying a gun?
The huge, glaring fail in the gun self-defence argument is that very few people outside of law enforcement, military and professional security would have the training and experience to react safely and effectively to anything but the most ham-fisted of attacks. There's a very real chance that your average gun carrier will either get shot first, lose the gun to the attacker before even bringing it to bear, or will shoot an innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are these the same guys that shoot someone 19 times with no weapon? Or the ones that empty their gun at point blank range and hit nothing? I would far rather depend on a gun than my hands in a life or death situation. In the vast majority of times, no shot is ever fired. Your statements are not born out in the stats, but keep trying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, I just reread your post and just could not believe this part of it. Admitting you are weak is exactly why gun owners carry guns. It is also why they practice at the range with their guns. You come across as someone very arrogant and very sure that you will come out on top in a fight. You should definitley take your own advice here. It is the over confident that fall first and you are definitely in that category.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many attackers stand perfectly still while you assume a steady, comfortable stance and take careful aim at the circles painted on their chest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless they are like the guys/girls on the Youtube videos firing and hitting themselves with their own guns.
Funny gun accidents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaV629VZzzA
That is why you kill children warriors in combat zones and don't let them come close near you, because it doesn't matter how old they are or how experienced they are, they still present a credible and serious threat to your physical well being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And how many attackers are going to smack you in the back of the head or stab you without you even realizing they're hostile to you?
And how many "attackers" can you actually identify before they have a weapon in lethal range of you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless the attacker also has a gun, they aren't threatening me until they are within about 5 yards. Since I can easily hit small moving targets at 20 yards, I don't think a hitting a person is much of a challenge. Some of us do practice snap shots and hitting moving targets.
So, how many attackers will be able to move out of the way before the bullet hits them? Based on Mythbusters testing, the answer is none.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guns have kept us more or less, Free for over 300 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course, most other western countries manage to maintain functional democracies without having to arm their citizens to the teeth - that was more a hallmark of the communist countries. A good democracy doesn't need guns to keep its government honest and under control. So when in the last 300 years have guns 'saved' American democracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, asking whether or not guns have been used is missing the point. The founders of America, who had just recently used guns to overthrow their government, realized that someday the same thing might need to happen again. It's not a matter of has it happened (it has, btw, in the American Revolution), it's a matter of when will it happen again.
Arguments can be made that peaceful revolutions can occur (see Gandhi), or that overbearing governments can be fixed without the need for guns. I'm a believer in the four boxes of liberty. If you can defend your liberty without resorting to guns, more power to you. But I don't see any reason to remove the final option just because others are more preferable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Propaganda BS. Not only MAFIAA can do propaganda...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I guess your logic is that just claiming to be fighting piracy means we should have infinite patience for uselessness, incompetence and annoyance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
meanwhile, you are correct - they should give up the movies, because they aren't even worth *seeing*, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here's something to consider; Today, most schools prohibit anyone from carrying guns on school property, even if the person has a valid permit. Has that stopped school shootings? Or has it just insured that the victims will be unarmed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has that stopped school shootings? Or has it just insured that the victims will be unarmed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Has that stopped school shootings? Or has it just insured that the victims will be unarmed?
I recall reading about an incident a few years ago. Unfortunately, I don't remember the details (can anyone help?) where a student brought a gun to school and started shooting people. Instead of the dozen of so victims that most school shootings have, this one only had 2-3 victims because one of the staff members happened to be armed and shot the student not long after hearing the shooting start. The twist was that since the school was a "gun free zone", the DA was pressing charges against the staff member for carrying his (legal) gun on school property, despite the fact that he saved lives. I never heard how the case eventually turned out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In gang wars all gang members carry guns it doesn't stop them from being killed by the bucket on the streets as current events in Mexico just showed to the world.
I don't like guns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gues you've never heard of "Locking the stable door after the horse has bolted."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That makes a lot of sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pen Is!`
I suppose in the modern age the camera/phone has replaced the pen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pen Is!`
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pen Is!`
Maybe security should screen people for hidden eyepatches instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're missing the point
What I meant was that from the article, we're told that this guy had to leave behind his phone and any/all other recording equipment, detected using equipment normally used to ferret out guns. but that quote "but no, he didn't care about his loaded handgun" implies that the guard took one quick glance at the gun and then ignored it.
Did the guard ask to see if he had a license to carry? (if only a police officer can legally ask this question, then feel free to correct me). It strikes me as being stupid and against common sense to be so dead set on making sure this guy doesn't bring in a camera, but a gun? No, that's irrelevant, let him bring it in, don't check if he's allowed...why, if he shoots up the place, just say you were told to check for cameras and cameras only.
Just to clarify: I'm not saying minerat is a maniac, but that this security should have treated a gun-carrier with a little bit of caution. Not just totally ignored the fact he was carrying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Didn't care" as in, "was fine with it since the guy showed him his license", or "didn't care" as in "flat-out ignored"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Standard stuff, really. It's FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One of the problems of the MAFIAA is that they have lost touch with their customer. Used to be that CEOs were connected to the business they ran. Either they had acting backgrounds or they had music/artist backgrounds.
It showed in their ticket sales too! They called it the Heyday.
Today it's the accountants and lawyers that run these organizations. The accountants understand 'make it cheaper and sell it at a higher price'. So high as in the previous article no one is buying. The lawyers understand 'take it to court'. They don't understand customer/artist relations beyond screwing everyone that does business with them.
Between the two groups running the entertainment industry, no one has a good opinion and damn few are buying. It's a prime example of how to run a business in the ground.
Don't piss on your customer and expect him to be grateful. Do it long enough and your business will hit the skids. Any of this sound familiar with what is going on today for the trolls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are blind they can't see anything, they also are deaf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Their blog sure helps them look like a bastion of sunshine doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ask Suzanna Hupp how well those laws work at protecting people;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I owned a business, I'd put up signs asking people with CCW permits to PLEASE come on in. Hell I'd give em discounts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what is the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what is the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what is the problem?
In other words, you have every right to the cell phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypothetical liability
Large dense mass of people in a dark room, distracted by movie, and they have all checked all means of communication at the door.
An unstable person with weapon(s) opens fire into the crowd in the dark room.
What kind of panic would ensue?
Would there be any liability for having taken away everyone's phones but allowing in a person with a gun?
(and yes, I do understand that some people with firearms are reasonable, stable, law abiding people who would never do or condone such a thing.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guns OK !! Video recorders not!!
on the other hand ... think of the market this opens up for making digital camcorders in the shape of a 1911A .45 ... those pirates will just smnap them up. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guns OK !! Video recorders not!!
(and yes, I do understand that most people with firearms are reasonable, stable, law abiding people who would never do or condone such a thing.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am glad to see that it's not a problem except for the scardy cats who think someone with a pistol permit is some kind of unhinged bad guy.
After all the bad guys don't bother to get the permit to carry.
I would rather be in a room with someone with a legal gun than someone who can only take my picture as I get robbed and beaten.
So what's the point of this story.
Remember where it says "The Right Of The People" in the Bill Of Rights, that means you and I.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now I need a hidden camera that looks like a gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In response to a couple other comments:
The guard didn't care about the gun - I don't think my friend showed his license (as others pointed out, only law enforcement can require you to do so) and I'm not even sure he showed it to the guard - when the wand beeped I think he just said it was his legally registered and licensed firearm and that was it.
I never downloaded the movie, so I don't know for certain if the xvid screener posted to a.b.movies 3 months ago is legit, but it wasn't tagged as password protected like many other crap posts, so I assumed it was good. If not, it doesn't detract from the ridiculousness of all this effort for a movie that was publicly released 2 hours after the viewing and highly likely to be leaked via screener anyway (just like most other Oscar contenders).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OOH! MOMMY! IT'S A STRAW MAN! Can I keep it?
It is TOTALLY reasonable for a theater to ask that people check in phones and any other recording device...if you don't like it, thank all the dumb fucks that decided they were gonna bring their flip camera or whatever and record the entire movie, then upload it onto some file sharing site later. If you were the one that worked your ass off for a year to produce a movie, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want it leaked before the official release either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OOH! MOMMY! IT'S A STRAW MAN! Can I keep it?
As long as the studios and theaters don't complain if people stop going to theaters. But of course they will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OOH! MOMMY! IT'S A STRAW MAN! Can I keep it?
They have every right to complain if a bunch of people don't see their movie because some moron leaked it onto the internet before the official release date. It seems people these days want everything for nothing, but that's not how it works. Especially when huge teams of people and a good amount of money have to be spent producing a lot of the things we consume.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OOH! MOMMY! IT'S A STRAW MAN! Can I keep it?
Any theater owner who thinks customers are staying home to watch cam rips doesn't understand his business. People are staying home because of high prices for tickets, ridiculous prices for food, unpleasant atmosphere, unfriendly staff, being treated like a criminal, inconvenience, a generally uncompelling experience, and because they don't care all that much about whether they see Thor tonight in the theater or in six weeks at home.
Making people check their cell phones solves none of those problems, and makes one of them worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OOH! MOMMY! IT'S A STRAW MAN! Can I keep it?
Wow. Theaters in your area must really suck. I agree with the stupid ticket and food prices (although that's your own damn fault tbh...I sneak in candy or a snack and usually only get nachos or a slurpee.) but I've really never met rude workers at any of the ones I've been to. But some of those cam rips actually aren't terrible quality...so you have to admit that at least SOME people choose that over seeing it in the movies. But as for the stupid prices though, I'm pretty sure the owner of the theater doesn't have much say...the company sets prices.
"Making people check their cell phones solves none of those problems, and makes one of them worse."
At a regular screening of a movie, yes. At a pre-screening before the official release date, you shouldn't expect to NOT be asked to check in cameras or phones. Can you blame them? I wouldn't want my new work leaked either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OOH! MOMMY! IT'S A STRAW MAN! Can I keep it?
From what I've heard on the net they're above average. If you re-read my comment, you'll notice I didn't say that's why *I* don't go to movies.
I agree with the stupid ticket and food prices (although that's your own damn fault tbh...I sneak in candy or a snack and usually only get nachos or a slurpee.)
I shouldn't have to *sneak* food in. Unless I'm there with my kids, I just skip it.
so you have to admit that at least SOME people choose that over seeing it in the movies.
Of course, but even if you completely eliminate cam rips, the theaters' problems would not go away, and would probably diminish very little.
But as for the stupid prices though, I'm pretty sure the owner of the theater doesn't have much say...the company sets prices.
I don't care, and neither does any other potential customer. That's for them to work out, and for me to ignore.
At a pre-screening before the official release date, you shouldn't expect to NOT be asked to check in cameras or phones. Can you blame them?
It's probably already on the net by then, so yeah I can blame them. It's stupid. Would I ask someone to check a high quality camcorder and a tripod? Sure. A cell phone? No. And yes, I have seen the quality of video an iPhone can take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OOH! MOMMY! IT'S A STRAW MAN! Can I keep it?
Of course...I was just pointing that out so people didn't go all "omg greedy business owner!"
"It's probably already on the net by then, so yeah I can blame them. It's stupid. Would I ask someone to check a high quality camcorder and a tripod? Sure. A cell phone? No. And yes, I have seen the quality of video an iPhone can take."
If they aren't gonna check phones, then they should at least have someone posted inside to check for people filming. But then people would probably bitch about 1st amendment rights. Because filming a movie on your phone then uploading it is TOTALLY what the 1st amendment was intended for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OOH! MOMMY! IT'S A STRAW MAN! Can I keep it?
That would be reasonable, though I wouldn't pounce on someone as soon as they look like they're filming. If someone wants to take a few seconds of video as a "hey look I'm at the pre-screening" souvenier let them. If they sit there and keep filming it, then sure go ask them to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
advance screening
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holy Crap....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]