Buying a ticket for one movie, deliberately seeing another - how wrong?

Great Debates
1

In this thread discussing Ben Stein’s movie extolling the brilliance of “Intelligent Design,” at least two posters proudly announce that they’ve seen the movie, but that they paid for tickets to other shows at the theater, in order to avoid enriching the producers of the ID film.

Obviously, I see the dilemma: if you don’t see the movie, you can’t criticize it without being barraged by “you haven’t even seen it!” rebuttals. And if you do see the movie, then you’re letting the purveyors of what you believe to be intellectually dishonest garbage “laugh all the way to the bank” by pocketing your money, as though you actually agreed with them.

So in a sense, paying to see another movie is an elegant solution: it’s clear your motive is not to avoid paying, because you have paid. You just don’t buttress the numbers for a movie you disagree with. (Although I wonder what such a person might do if he saw the movie and said, “Wow- I GET it; they’re right!” Pay for another ticket?)

Anyway, the debate is: what are the ethical and moral issues associated with this “Pay for A and see B” approach?

2

I need to know more about how theaters pay the movie producers for the movies they show before making a decision.

3

Personally, I almost always buy a ticket for a smaller/“independent” film when going to see a big blockbuster just to give the smaller film the ticket sale, and it doesn’t bother my conscience in the least. I would be interested to see the economic breakdowns of such actions, though.

4

It seems somewhat unethical. Even the purveyors of intellectually dishonest garbage have the right to expect to be paid for your viewing of their film.

5

I’m hard-pressed to make a case against it on the basis of its effects on anyone other than myself. But I wouldn’t do it. It just seems dishonest and manipulative to me. It would chip away at my integrity, make me a little more ready to commit further dishonesty in the future or to expect and tolerate dishonesty from those around me.

6

[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
I need to know more about how theaters pay the movie producers for the movies they show before making a decision.
[/QUOTE]
This article more or less summarizes film distribution (albeit in a somewhat oversimplified fashion). One way or another, you are taking money out of the pocket of the cinema; however, since the theater’s main profit comes from the sale of concessions, not film revenues, the loss is slight.

From a strict ethical standpoint, it’s wrong. The producers, distributors, and venue operators are showing films to make a profit, not as a public service. By paying for one film and watching a different one, you’re getting a product without paying for it. Even if the film was being distributed on a straight lease rather than profit-sharing (so the cinema doesn’t care), you are mucking up the viewing numbers by which success or failure (and ultimate decisions on post-cinema distribution) are made. It’s not as wrong as stealing from old ladies or mugging pizza deliverymen, but you’re taking something you haven’t paid for. You can rationalize it as “sticking it to The Man” or “not supporting <blank> cause” or whatever, but it’s at the same ethical level as shoplifting a magazine.

I’m not quite sure why you’d do this anyway in this particular case. It isn’t as if Ben Stein’s Expelled is going to present some revolutionary new argument for Intelligent Design that hasn’t been better explained in any of a number of literate if wrong-headed or intellectually dishonest books on the topic. The film–produced for and marketed to the faithful–is hardly going to delve into the nuances and questions of the issue, instead preferring–as nearly all advocacy video essays do–to go for memorable sound bites. If you are going to watch the film in a cinema venue, even critically, you owe it just as much to the producers to pay for it just as you would a book purchased from the bookstore.

Stranger

7

Deadly Sin.

8

I managed several movie theaters (including a 20-plex) back in the day, so while doing this is unquestionably Wrong (in the “violating a specific implied business contract” sense of the term), I’d say there are mitigating variables that may not make it “Right”, but which people can use to more easily rationalize their decision.

The first and most important rule is that if you buy a ticket for one movie in order to get into another movie you’d otherwise be exluded from (usually because it’s Sold Out), you’re a grade-A jerk. This happened all the time when I ran the thearter, and having someone check the ticket at the door of the individual house to prevent theatre-hopping was an inconvenience for staff and paying patrons and a waste of resources (since that usher could probably be used behind the conecession stand, if the show about to start is Sold Out).

It’s not much better if you’re buying a PG-ticket so you can get into an R-rated film. I’ve found, anecdotally speaking, that the kind of kids who sneak into movies are also the kind who are also likely to be disruptive throughout the movie. Again, this usually ends up inconveniencing both the staff and the paying patrons.

Personally, I think the excuse that you want to see the movie but oppose lining the pockets of those who make it is risible. Within the industry, percentages and residuals and opening b.o. numbers are critically important to how money gets distributed–not only to the suits, but to the talent (actors, writers, directors, etc.). By consuming their product but paying someone else for the pleasure, you’re essentially depriving artists to moneys to which they’re entitled. That the same amount came out of your pocket (and subsequently misdirected) is immaterial.

If the proprietor of the local liquor store is a racist, are you in the right by shoplifting a soda and then leaving a dollar on the street corner? You’ve “paid” the same amount, but not to whom is entitled to the money.

Still, if you’re going to insist on doing this, then I would say the stand-up (if not actual “ethical”) thing to do is to buy a ticket for a movie that needs your financial support–movies that are smaller, independent, and represent movies that I, as a cinephile, would like to see more of at the local multiplex (and let’s be honest–this strategy only really works at a big multiplex). These movies usually have to jockey for screen space and often come and go to theaters in a flash if they don’t deliver immediately (it’s rarer and rarer for a movie to be given enough breathing room to find “legs”). So if you’re going to do this, then buy a ticket for Flight of the Red Balloon or Standard Operating Procedure when you go see Speed Racer or Made of Honor.

Just my $0.02.

9

I have friends who resisted seeing An Inconvenient Truth because they didn’t want to support Al Gore in any way. I suggested that they pay for a different movie, and then slip in to see AIT.

I don’t see a problem. It’s not like the producers would have gotten money from these folks otherwise. So the producers aren’t losing anything. And at least this way the theater owner gets some green and my friends get exposed to perspectives they wouldn’t otherwise see.

10

Suppose you “Pay for A and see B”, and then both movies completely sell out. They have to turn away someone who wanted to see A (even though there will be an empty seat for A), and then the last person who paid for B doesn’t have a seat (because you are sitting in it). Now you’ve annoyed/inconvenienced two real living people that night, not just raised some ethical discussion.

(And yes, I guess that when some theaters “sell out” they aren’t really selling tickets for each and every seat, but let’s expand my scenario to say that 50 people “Pay for A and see B” on a certain night).

11

I’d put it just barely on the side of wrong, something not to worry about unless you are trying for a Christ-like sinless life. I’m hard-pressed to think of anything else that I consider technically wrong yet less wrong than this.

12

[QUOTE=Bricker]
In this thread discussing Ben Stein’s movie extolling the brilliance of “Intelligent Design,” at least two posters proudly announce that they’ve seen the movie, but that they paid for tickets to other shows at the theater, in order to avoid enriching the producers of the ID film.

Obviously, I see the dilemma: if you don’t see the movie, you can’t criticize it without being barraged by “you haven’t even seen it!” rebuttals. And if you do see the movie, then you’re letting the purveyors of what you believe to be intellectually dishonest garbage “laugh all the way to the bank” by pocketing your money, as though you actually agreed with them.

So in a sense, paying to see another movie is an elegant solution: it’s clear your motive is not to avoid paying, because you have paid. You just don’t buttress the numbers for a movie you disagree with. (Although I wonder what such a person might do if he saw the movie and said, “Wow- I GET it; they’re right!” Pay for another ticket?)

Anyway, the debate is: what are the ethical and moral issues associated with this “Pay for A and see B” approach?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see the supposed “dilemma” at all. Why do they have to criticize the movie at all? If they don’t approve, they don’t have to see it. And if anyone asks why, they can say “I’m not interested in movies that support Intelligent Design as a valid scientific alternative to evolution” or something like that. It would be pretty hard to challenge that with “but you haven’t seen it!”, and if someone did, I would just say that I have read enough about the movie to be sure that I’m not interested.

And I have no sympathy either for those who wanted to see An Inconvenient Truth but didn’t want to support Al Gore in any way. They actually wanted to see the film, one which without Al Gore’s input probably would not exist, but they don’t want him to benefit? These are not people I would want as friends if they are as dishonest as that.

And then there are those who want to see the blockbuster but want to support the small indie movie. Why don’t they want to actually see the small indie movie? Does that say anything to anyone about the relative value of the indie film over the blockbuster?

The point to me is that life is full of decisions and choices. Many of these have little or no ethical content. But this kind of choice seems quite straightforward ethically - you can always not go to a movie you don’t want to support financially.

In short, I agree with Thudlow Boink; it may be a small ethical lapse, but it is the thin end of the rationalization wedge for more serious lapses.

OK, I’m done wagging my finger now.

Roddy

13

You didn’t see the pockmarks in the brick wall outside the theater?

Those are from the firing squads where they line people that do that kind of thing up.

They really take that seriously. :stuck_out_tongue:

Honestly, IMHO there’s nothing wrong with it. I’m pretty sure that for everyone that doesn’t want to line [insert protested group here]'s pockets there’s someone else that buys a ticket for them and goes to another movie for just the opposite justification.

14

Exactly. Am I worried that by buying a ticket for The Visitor and then going in to see Iron Man that Robert Downey, Jr, Gwyneth, John Favreau et. al. are going to be hurt financially? I’d be an idiot if I was. The utter predictability of the movie-going public in regards to blockbusters assures such films will very rarely, if ever, fail to turn a huge profit. Films like The Visitor, though, can and do routinely lose money, and my tiny contribution (and those of others like me) might conceivably make a difference in such an instance. Scold all you want, I have no ethical problem with it.

The slippery slope argument I find as ridiculous as I do in any other circumstance. Maybe when I start shoplifting from Border’s or fucking my girlfriend’s sister I’ll change my mind, but since that hasn’t happened in the decade or so since I’ve been paying for independent films while seeing others, I’m not too worried.

15

[QUOTE=woodstockbirdybird]
Exactly. Am I worried that by buying a ticket for The Visitor and then going in to see Iron Man that Robert Downey, Jr, Gwyneth, John Favreau et. al. are going to be hurt financially? I’d be an idiot if I was. The utter predictability of the movie-going public in regards to blockbusters assures such films will very rarely, if ever, fail to turn a huge profit. Films like The Visitor, though, can and do routinely lose money, and my tiny contribution (and those of others like me) might conceivably make a difference in such an instance. Scold all you want, I have no ethical problem with it.

The slippery slope argument I find as ridiculous as I do in any other circumstance. Maybe when I start shoplifting from Border’s or fucking my girlfriend’s sister I’ll change my mind, but since that hasn’t happened in the decade or so since I’ve been paying for independent films while seeing others, I’m not too worried.
[/QUOTE]

But why are you paying to see The Visitor and then not seeing it? Why are you supporting a film you have no desire to see?

16

It’s wrong to me because it’s a cop-out of the moral dilemma. You want to see the movie so you can legitimately criticize it, but you don’t want to give them your money. So make a decision-- what’s more important to you? Would you rather have legs for your criticisms, or would you rather give the producers your money?

It’s not that difficult a decision.

17

I commit bigger sins before breakfast every morning. No huhu.

18

[QUOTE=Bricker]
But why are you paying to see The Visitor and then not seeing it? Why are you supporting a film you have no desire to see?
[/QUOTE]

Oh, sorry - I should have made that clear. In the cases when I do this, I already have seen The Visitor (or whatever current film it is I’m buying the ticket for). I’m just doing it to give more money to a film I thoroughly enjoyed and wanted to do better at the box office than it has.

ETA: This is somewhat different than the hypothetical you posted in the OP (going to see a film by people you loathe so you can criticize it without giving the makers money), I realize, so I apologize if I hijacked.

19

Interesting question. Having never thought about it before, it wouldn’t have occurred to me that any ethical issues even existed.

Doesn’t this essentially reduce to a copyright question that hinges on equating intellectual “property” with physical property? To examine it more closely, I’ll refer to Stranger’s post:

But the movie-goer is paying for it. No matter which movie one sees, that person is still exchanging $8 for viewing a movie. And, addressing something a couple lines later, it’s not clear to me that “mucking up the viewing numbers” is either unethical or flat-out wrong. For instance, in some sense you might look at it as analogous to a caveat emptor situation – the theater/distributor is not taking the steps required to get accurate information.

No, it’s really not on the same ethical level. Shoplifting requires non-payment; purchasing a ticket is payment. It does seem to me that ArchiveGuy has a point concerning “violating a specific implied business contract”, but without making that contract explicit it’s not clear to me that there’s an ethical lapse. Also, for clarity, I think the following is an incorrect analogy:

It seems to me that to be correct, the consumer would purchase a Pepsi, but tell the proprietor it was a Coke (who then rings it up as such). The racism bit is simply poisoning the well.

20

I agree that circumstances and motive play into it. Buying a ticket to different movie as a ruse to get into something that’s sold out, or for dumbass kids to sneak into a Saw movie is an inconvenience to other people and to the theater. I wouldn’t do anything to either incovenience the theater, deprive it of its own profits (whatever they may be) or inconenience other movie goers.

I was perfectly comfortable with buying a ticket for Stop-Loss and going into Expelled, though. I didn’t inconvenience anybody or steal from the theater, a lesser hyped but more deserving movie got my ticket sale, and whatever ethical trangression I may have committed by my actions is not enough to keep me awake at night (nor is it the beginning of a slippery decline into debauched criminality and depravity).