# Person at theater sues since they have to sit through commercials **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 21, 2003, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468 "2003-02-21T03:17:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468/81 "2003-02-23T20:32:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*Not analogous. You take title to the PC when you pay for it. Preventing you from leaving the store with your PC at that point (other than briefly under the merchant’s right to prevent shoplifting) is a conversion of your property. \*\* And when I pay for a ticket that says “The Two Towers - 2:00 PM”, I have purchased the right to see a movie that will start at 2:00 PM. What’s the difference? Fine, let’s change the analogy a bit. You buy the computer and take it home. You plug it in and drool with anticipation, waiting to install Warcraft III. But, when you turn it on, you’re subjected to 10 minutes of Circuit City ads on your monitor, which you cannot turn off or skip. How’s that, then? (I admit this one isn’t perfect, either, since no one will take your seat if you leave the room during the ads, but it’s the best I can do on short notice.) ---
**Author:** ![nogginhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5e9695/32.png) [@nogginhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nogginhead)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468/82 "2003-02-23T20:46:01Z")
I actually suffer twice: Not only am I forced to sit through the ad if I want a good seat at the movie, but I pay $10/hour for babysitting while I’m watching it. IANA lawyer… would that change the validity or argument behind any complaint I could make? (BTW, who cares about the case in the OP? We’re talking about hypotheticals here, right?) ---
**Author:** ![SC\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eb9ed0/32.png) [@SC\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SC_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468/83 "2003-02-23T21:16:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zebra \* > \*\ ***SC Wolf** > > Your show started 5 min late. Right? Ok the pre-show started 5 min late. Are you going to sue?\*\* Am I going to sue? No. Am I going to be a vocal supporter of the woman who is suing? Hell yes. Am I going to make my displeasure known about something that I find to be an annoyance, but not a big enough annoyance yet that I would stop going to the movies entirely? Hell yes. > [@](#): > > **As for your other idea. Well now you have to post an usher at the door to each auditorium all day every day, 365 days a year.** You misunderstand my suggestion. I’m not saying that the ticket stub gets punched at the door to the auditorium, I’m saying it gets punched by the usher stationed inside the entrance to the lobby. The one that’s there _anyway_, tearing each patron’s ticket, and turning away people who haven’t paid to see a show that day. Since he’s already there all day, every day 365, no extra expense on that part. Of course, this means that someone could show up the 15 minutes early, get their early-bird special deal, and then wait outside the auditorium until right before the show starts to go in to find their seat, thus avoiding the pre-show advertising. However, if they do, they run the risk of not getting a good seat, and why go 15 minutes early if you’re not going to try to get a good seat? Plus, there’s nothing that says the theater can’t start making the lobby and advertising rich environment either. > [@](#): > > \*\*Then you have to make the movie going public understand how you are changing the way of going to a movie. > \*\* It didn’t take much adjustment for everyone to realize that advertised show time doesn’t mean start of opening credits anymore, that it means either start of preview trailers, or start of pre-trailer advertising. And the public’s already condidtioned to like getting things for free, like the free popcorn in my suggestion. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468/84 "2003-02-23T21:36:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Max Torque \* > **And when I pay for a ticket that says “The Two Towers - 2:00 PM”, I have purchased the right to see a movie that will start at 2:00 PM. What’s the difference?** The difference between the film and the Best Buy example is that you do not own the movie; a claim for conversion requires that you own the property converted. It is, in short, a claim over interference with an actual property right. Furthermore, even absent ads, when you buy a ticket that says “The Two Towers - 2:00 PM” the film does not start at precisely 2:00 pm. It is understood that there will be some delay between the posted time and the actual start of the feature. \*\* > [@](#): > > Fine, let’s change the analogy a bit. You buy the computer and take it home. You plug it in and drool with anticipation, waiting to install Warcraft III. But, when you turn it on, you’re subjected to 10 minutes of Circuit City ads on your monitor, which you cannot turn off or skip. How’s that, then?\*\* I have indeed bought games with interminable splash screen animations that cannot be skipped (not ads for Circuit City, but certainly ads for the developer, publisher, distributor, etc, etc, etc). Yes, they are irritating. The solution is to not buy games from that producer/distributor/etc anymore, not to sue them over the splash screens. This is true with DVDs, too. Some have un-skippable previews that play when you put them in your player. The answer isn’t to sue the DVD maker, but to refrain from future purchases (or at least read reviews to be sure they’ve removed the damned things in future releases) and to let the company know you’re displeased (petitions, boycotts, stern letters to managment, etc). The answer isn’t to file a lawsuit. Lawsuits represent a huge consumption of resources and should be used only as an absolute last resort for serious injuries. It’s a little like war. Sometimes you’ve got to do it, but you shouldn’t unless other remedies are wholly inadequate. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468/85 "2003-02-23T21:39:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by nogginhead \* > \*\*I actually suffer twice: Not only am I forced to sit through the ad if I want a good seat at the movie, but I pay $10/hour for babysitting while I’m watching it. > > IANA lawyer… would that change the validity or argument behind any complaint I could make? \*\* No, but it might increase the damages you would be entitled to recover if your case is valid. ---
**Author:** ![kabbes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e99b99/32.png) [@kabbes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kabbes)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468/86 "2003-02-23T21:53:42Z")
Long, _long_ ago, before **Zebra** had even appeared, a question was asked about funding of TV in Britain. Here is the answer: The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is funded entirely by a license fee, which is mandatory for everybody who owns a television. Only one license fee, of around £100 ($160), is required per household. For this we get two terrestrial television channels, two digital channels plus a news channel, 5 national radio stations and a whole heap of regional radio stations and possibly some specialist TV digital channels that I’ve never bothered finding out about. There are ABSOLUTELY no adverts of any kind on the BBC. All product placement is similarly forbidden. The BBC also has a charter meaning that they must fulfil the servicing of the needs of the whole license-paying community, leading to a great variety in our broadcasting. In my opinion the BBC rocks and keeps standards up, since the other channels must compete. Ah yes - the other channels. Well, there are plenty of private radio stations and TV channels, both terrestrial, cable and satellite. These are all funded by advertising. So we don’t have entirely advertising free viewing/listening. But we have many less adverts than you do because, again, they must compete with the advertising-free BBC. pan ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2003, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468/87 "2003-02-23T21:58:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > **First of all, read the OP – the plaintiff here is not basing her cause of action on fraud:** Actually, she’s basing her cause of action on violations of various consumer fraud statutes. Yeah, I pulled up the complaint. And many consumer fraud statutes do require intent. \*\* > [@](#): > > I’m not sure how you get fraud, since there’s no untrue representation, unless you argue that there is some kind of implicit statement that the film will start exactly at its posted time.\*\* I think you’re pretty clearly wrong here, but in any event I don’t see how it supports your argument - that delaying a movie to show advertisements is no different from delaying a movie to show previews. \*\* > [@](#): > > Anyway, the content of the material shown before the feature is irrelevant as to intent. \*\* Disagree. The question of whether an actor knowingly profits from his or her conduct is relevant to intent. Let’s take the Circuit City analogy for example. If Circuit City holds me up to make a sales pitch, then (according to you) I have a claim for conversion against them. Let’s suppose they hold me up to explain the safety features of my product. What then? Perhaps I technically have some sort of claim, but let’s face reality: Courts would (and should) treat those two situations differently. \*\* > [@](#): > > BTW, “unjust enrichment” is not a cause of action in and of itself; it is used to justify equitable remedies in connection with other causes of action. \*\* I’m skeptical. Cite? \*\* > [@](#): > > Common example: in contract law, when a contract fails for some reason but one party has done a substantial amount of work, his work will be rewarded at a reasonable rate to prevent the unjust enrichment of the other party.\*\* I believe that’s “quantum meruit.” And yes, there’s a difference. \*\* > [@](#): > > As noted in my last post, this would render the retailer liable for conversion of the buyer’s property. \*\* First, I doubt that’s true. I doubt that title to a computer passes when Gateway (or whoever) receives your money. Second, I’m getting a little tired of your dancing. First, you seemed to be espousing the principle that the free market can take care of consumer wrongs. Then, you limited your position to situations where the consumer eventually receives the goods or services in question. Now, you are limiting your position to services. Goods don’t count because they are subject to the law of conversion. So how about this: Why don’t spell out your position, rather than making people guess at it? \*\* > [@](#): > > Actually, that would be a breach of contract; the courts would impose a reasonable time for performance if the time is not specified in the contract. 2 years is clearly an unreasonable time. Thus, you would be in breach and I would have every right to sue for contract damages.\*\* Ok, and making people wait for 2 hours beyond the scheduled start time of a movie is clearly unreasonable. So why do you think it shouldn’t be actionable? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468/88 "2003-02-24T00:24:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > **Actually, she’s basing her cause of action on violations of various consumer fraud statutes. Yeah, I pulled up the complaint. And many consumer fraud statutes do require intent.** I misstated. I meant to say the consumer is not basing her cause of action on the content of the materials shown. Chalk that up to a sentence revision gone awry.\*\* > [@](#): > > I think you’re pretty clearly wrong here, but in any event I don’t see how it supports your argument - that delaying a movie to show advertisements is no different from delaying a movie to show previews.\*\* The point is, unless you believe that there is an implicit statement in posting a starting time that essentially says “the movie will start at this time, and no later” then you really can’t say there’s been a misrepresentation. And if there is such an implicit statement, then it must necessarily apply to other things that delay the start of the feature.\*\* > [@](#): > > Disagree. The question of whether an actor knowingly profits from his or her conduct is relevant to intent. \*\* No, it doesn’t. You are confusing motive with intent. If an actor intentionally does a proscribed activity, the intent requirement is met; _why_ he did so is irrelevant for purposes of the intent element.\*\* > [@](#): > > Let’s take the Circuit City analogy for example. If Circuit City holds me up to make a sales pitch, then (according to you) I have a claim for conversion against them. Let’s suppose they hold me up to explain the safety features of my product. What then? Perhaps I technically have some sort of claim, but let’s face reality: Courts would (and should) treat those two situations differently.\*\* Of course you still have a claim for conversion, because title passes when the transaction is complete, unless you’ve agreed otherwise. And you’re damned sure that your claim would be the same whether Circuit City is acting out of altruism or self-interest. It doesn’t matter _why_ they converted your goods; it only matters that conversion has occurred. > [@](#): > > ## \*\* Dewey Sez: "BTW, “unjust enrichment” is not a cause of action in and of itself; it is used to justify equitable remedies in connection with other causes of action. " > > I’m skeptical. Cite?\*\* Almost any introductory text on contracts? Seriously. That’s just a basic concept.\*\* > [@](#): > > I believe that’s “quantum meruit.” And yes, there’s a difference. \*\* “Quantum meruit” is just a way of saying “reasonable value for services rendered.” And it proves my point: you sue _in_ quantum meruit to _prevent_ unjust enrichment. Quantum meruit is an equitable contract remedy which can be justified (in part) on the presence of unjust enrichment. Quantum meruit is the cause of action, not unjust enrichment.\*\* > [@](#): > > Second, I’m getting a little tired of your dancing. First, you seemed to be espousing the principle that the free market can take care of consumer wrongs. Then, you limited your position to situations where the consumer eventually receives the goods or services in question. Now, you are limiting your position to services. Goods don’t count because they are subject to the law of conversion. > > So how about this: Why don’t spell out your position, rather than making people guess at it?\*\* I’m not dancing. Conversion is not an action for fraud; it is an action based on misappropriation of property. As an action for fraud, the instant case is seriously wanting: 1. There is no case for misrepresentation unless you want to treat trailers and Movietone newsreels in the same fashion. 2. You’re going to have a difficult time making out a case on reliance, as no one expects the film to start exactly at the posted time. 3. The lost time is de minimis. Yes, I know class actions are nifty and sometimes it’s good to keep lots of people from being intentionally screwed for small amounts, but in my view that’s just silly in this case. You’e willing to take three hours out of your life to waste on Hollywood crap, but are upset over a few minutes of commercials? Please. 4. What do you claim are damages? I’d expect to be able to offset the value of your lost time against the price the theatre would have to charge for tickets. Let’s say the theatre charges $9. Let’s further say you’re going to see a two-hour flick. Ignoring ads, trailers, etc., you obviously value your time at $9/120 min., or $0.075/minute. An extra ten minutes of commercials is costing you $0.75 according to your own time valuation. So if the price would rise to anything over $9.75, you’re not harmed.\*\* > [@](#): > > Ok, and making people wait for 2 hours beyond the scheduled start time of a movie is clearly unreasonable. So why do you think it shouldn’t be actionable? \*\* Most cases deal with contracts not being performed for weeks or months or years before the court will say the reasonable time for performance has run out. Arguably, a delay of several hours could fit under that theory given the different circumstances surrounding a movie showing and a construction contract (though I tend to doubt it). But note: 1. As a practical matter, this will never happen because it would drive away too many moviegoers, and 2. An action for failure to perform in a timely manner is one for breach of contract, not for consumer fraud. You get contract damages, which will be your nine bucks back. And since it’s a contract and not consumer fraud action, good luck certifying a class on that (not impossible, but I think it unlikely). PS probably my last postings for about a week. ---
**Author:** ![Ferris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ferris/32/11573_2.png) [@Ferris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferris)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468/89 "2003-02-24T02:12:38Z")
Any UK Dopers remember the ‘Pearl & Dean’ adverts? Some photo of a dimly-lit, sleazy restaurant, with a voice-over extoling the virtues of their 'traditional Indian cuisine. “…and only five minutes from this theatre!” Mind you, the adverts were so bad that they actually qualified as entertainment. ---
**Author:** ![nogginhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5e9695/32.png) [@nogginhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nogginhead)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468/90 "2003-02-24T02:19:29Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. What do you claim are damages? I’d expect to be able to offset the value of your lost time against the price the theatre would have to charge for tickets. Let’s say the theatre charges $9. Let’s further say you’re going to see a two-hour flick. Ignoring ads, trailers, etc., you obviously value your time at $9/120 min., or $0.075/minute. An extra ten minutes of commercials is costing you $0.75 according to your own time valuation. So if the price would rise to anything over $9.75, you’re not harmed. > quote: By this logic, the theater should pay me the $150/hour I get for consulting, just to watch their movie. IOW, the value I attatch to my time for things that I want to do is quite different from the value I attatch to chores, including being a consumer of an advertisement. I think the cost for which I should be reimbursed in your proposed class action suit is the opportunity cost to me of my time. I’ll split the difference over the cost of the tickets, and just charge them the babysitting cost of $1.66 for 10 minutes. I belive class action suits have been brought on less? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468/91 "2003-02-24T12:28:36Z")
Thought that would be my last posting for the week, but I’ve got a few minutes before I head off to the airport… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by nogginhead \* > **By this logic, the theater should pay me the $150/hour I get for consulting, just to watch their movie. IOW, the value I attatch to my time for things that I want to do is quite different from the value I attatch to chores, including being a consumer of an advertisement.** Actually, much to my embarassment, you’re right in that my analogy was flawed. My apologies. \*\* > [@](#): > > I think the cost for which I should be reimbursed in your proposed class action suit is the opportunity cost to me of my time. I’ll split the difference over the cost of the tickets, and just charge them the babysitting cost of $1.66 for 10 minutes. I belive class action suits have been brought on less? \*\* You won’t be able to certify a class on babysitting damages alone. One of the requirements for certifying a class is “typicality,” i.e., that the claims of the class participants are sufficiently similar that a class is appropriate. There’s a lot of fact variation when you consider babysitting costs (many patrons don’t have kids at all or bring their kids to the movies; rates vary based on region and how many kids are watched; some parents may utilize older siblings or grandparents for less than market cost). I suspect that sorting all that out would work against class certification if you’re just using babysitting fees alone as the basis of damages. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468/92 "2003-02-24T12:54:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > **I misstated. I meant to say the consumer is not basing her cause of action on the content of the materials shown. Chalk that up to a sentence revision gone awry.** How about reading the complaint, and see if you feel the same way. \*\* > [@](#): > > You are confusing motive with intent. If an actor intentionally does a proscribed activity, the intent requirement is met; _why_ he did so is irrelevant for purposes of the intent element.\*\* Perhaps, so maybe I’ll put things a different way: Motive can matter. (see below). \*\* > [@](#): > > Of course you still have a claim for conversion, because title passes when the transaction is complete, unless you’ve agreed otherwise. And you’re damned sure that your claim would be the same whether Circuit City is acting out of altruism or self-interest. It doesn’t matter _why_ they converted your goods; it only matters that conversion has occurred.\*\* Do you honestly believe that courts would (or should) treat the two situations the same? Be honest. \*\* > [@](#): > > Almost any introductory text on contracts? Seriously. That’s just a basic concept.\*\* Do a google search on “elements” “claim” and “unjust enrichment.” See if you still feel the same way. > [@](#): > > \*\*“Quantum meruit” is just a way of saying “reasonable value for services rendered.” And it proves my point: you sue _in_ quantum meruit to _prevent_ unjust enrichment. \*\* I believe that quantum meruit can be available even in situations where there will be no enrichment, unjust or otherwise. If that’s true, then your point here collapses. > [@](#): > > **I’m not dancing.** Of course you are dancing. Anyway, as I alluded to in my previous post, if you send money to a computer company, and they wait three months to send you the computer, there has been no conversion. Why won’t you concede this obvious point? > [@](#): > > \*\*Most cases deal with contracts not being performed for weeks or months or years before the court will say the reasonable time for performance has run out. Arguably, a delay of several hours could fit under that theory given the different circumstances surrounding a movie showing and a construction contract (though I tend to doubt it). \*\* So are you saying that delaying the start of a movie for two hours is not unreasonable? Please don’t dodge the question. ---
**Author:** ![Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19adc/32.png) [@Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468/93 "2003-02-24T13:40:38Z")
I’m stunned by the sheer number of people who seem to enjoy paying money to watch commercials. What the fuck are you, shareholders? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2003, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468/94 "2003-02-24T13:50:44Z")
Just because they are playing a commercial doesn’t mean I’m watching. Usually, I’m taking my pre-movie bathroom break. ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468/95 "2003-02-25T07:51:30Z")
Can we just step back and look at the big picture here? So to speak. Jesica Santillan’s parents brought her all the fuck way from Mexico to Chapel Hill, thinking that her life would be saved. (The girl who got organs transplanted from a donor who had a different blood type. But you knew that.) Now she’s dead because someone, or several someones, fucked up. She’s never going to see a movie again, with or without ads, with or without trailers. Her parents could get a lifetime pass to a SOTA cinema that never shows ads or trailers, and caters to them in every way, and that would still not ease their grief. Having your child **FUCKING DIE** during a procedure that was supposed to save her is something to sue over. Having to sit through ten minutes of ads before a movie is not. **Now I know that people don’t always think of things in those terms. But god damn it, they should start.** And I also know that the woman who is suing Loews probably filed before the transplant fuckup even happened. I’m not saying that she should have weighed her grievance against that of the Santillans. What I **am** saying is that people need to set a higher fucking threshold of what’s worth getting upset about and what’s not. I also know that a lawsuit is not going to bring Jesica back. But it will help other people in similar positions. Who is the Loews lawsuit going to save, and from what? If having to watch ads before a movie is the worst problem someone has, I truly envy them. Truly. So you have to pay the babysitter a little bit more. And maybe money is tight for you. **But your kids are not going to die because of it**. ---
**Author:** ![nogginhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5e9695/32.png) [@nogginhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nogginhead)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468/96 "2003-02-25T19:26:04Z")
I guess Rilchiam will be telling the Santillans they shouldn’t sue either, once the bombing of Iraq commences. Look, all life and all the world’s connected one way or another, true enough. But that doesn’t mean that a tragedy, however tragic, should stop you from caring about other wrongs in the world. Sure, I care more about that poor girl and her parents than I do about movie ads. But that doesn’t mean I should stop caring that the theater is exploiting its captive audience to make another buck. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468/97 "2003-02-25T20:29:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Barbarian \* > I’m stunned by the sheer number of people who seem to enjoy paying money to watch commercials. What the fuck are you, shareholders? Yes. My various mutual funds hold the stocks of public-owned movie makers, theatre chains and major advertisers (but not the advert makers - to the best of my knowledge, most of those are privately-owned, i.e. they do not trade on any exchange. I could be wrong here). So in _my_ best situation, the theatre will earn scoodles of money in advertisements by showing just the right amount as not to alienate the audience (they will show as many advertisements as generate revenue until the drop in audience revenue exceeds the gain in advertising revenue), the advertisers will earn scoodles of money from their new-found marketing, and the equities in my mutual funds will stop sinking like the Titanic so I can retire by the time I’m 85. Now go look at the options in your 401(k) or other retirement plans, or if you don’t have any, ask your parents about theirs. You probably also have a vested interest in all parties maximizing profits. Lastly, I am not paying money to watch commercials. I am paying money to watch the movie which, to the best of my knowledge, is still being shown. Commercials and other advertising are a necessary evil that helps to grease the wheels of capitalism, whose altar at which I worship. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2003, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468/98 "2003-02-25T22:47:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by nogginhead \* > \*\*I guess Rilchiam will be telling the Santillans they shouldn’t sue either, once the bombing of Iraq commences. > > Look, all life and all the world’s connected one way or another, true enough. But that doesn’t mean that a tragedy, however tragic, should stop you from caring about other wrongs in the world. Sure, I care more about that poor girl and her parents than I do about movie ads. But that doesn’t mean I should stop caring that the theater is exploiting its captive audience to make another buck. \*\* Think what you like. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-at-theater-sues-since-they-have-to-sit-through-commercials/156468.md?page=4)