Now that you’re ready to read this post, let me introduce Hanes Tagless Tees. See, they’re tagless. Which makes everything great. There’s no neck scratching. Because it’s tagless see?
Jacky Chan says, “Arghhhh!” and does a back flip.
Hanes Tagless Tees.
It’s a new way of life.
Let’s start the content.
The following web page has a compiled list of movie theater chains’ complaints department email addresses:
Interesting explanation by Cervaise about why movies and concessions are so expensive.
I think you are referring to one of my posts, Mr. Shoes. I was responding to jjimm saying that he thought ads might be a “necessary evil.” I phrased it more as a rhetorical question, but you got the gist of it:
And thanks ArchiveGuy for your post. I knew much of that, but your information was much more detailed and authoritative than my own.
As far as I’m concerned, I have fewer reasons than ever to actually go to a theater now. Movies come out on DVD so fast, why bother? Most of the multiplexes are all showing the same big-budget overdone crap, and I can’t see something like “Monster’s Ball” anywhere anyway. It’s too bad, because I LOVE the theater experience. But I won’t be taken for granted or used, especially at $9 a pop.
Most of the objections to this lawsuit seem to be of the form
You, the customer, deserve only a sharp poke in the eye for your patronage, not the courtesy to be presented with what you paid for at the promised time.
You lazy shits who complain about business practices are all sniveling morons who know nothing about how “the real world” operates.
If the status quo offends you, then you deserve only contempt.
Customers are to be tolerated, but just barely. If theaters decide to show “Mr. Holland’s Anus” when your ticket is for “Old School”, you are legally required to like it.
What a recipe for progress. You sour shits who crap on peoples’ legitimate complaints with the mantra “If you don’t like it, then don’t do business with them” can go fuck yourselves.
My most recent movie going experience:
Advertised showtime was 8:10PM.
Arrived aproximately 30 minutes early.
Time spent searching out men’s room with a servicable lock on the stall door and using same – 10 minutes
Time spent in line for concessions – 5 minutes
Time spent watching CineMedia Slide-Show advertising – 15 minutes
Time spent wondering why the slideshow had gone past 8:10 – 5 minutes
Time spent watching non movie-trailer advertising – 10 minutes
Time spent watching movie Trailers – 10 minutes
Net result? The 8:10 feature didn’t start until 8:35.
I may be young, but I remember when the advertised show time was the time that the opening credits of the movie would be rolling, and if you wanted to see trailers, you’d have to get in there 10 minutes early.
Now for me, trailers are part of the whole “theater” experience, so I didn’t mind so much when the industry switched to starting the trailers at the advertised show time. It’s this latest trend of not even starting the pre-trailer commercials until 5-15 minutes after advertised show time is highly annoying.
I know that there are benefits to it for the theater, that it lets the them reap ticket sales even from latecomers. It used to be that if you went out to the movies, and got a late start, or got hung up in traffic, you might change your mind, because you knew if it was an 8:10 show, and the earliest you’d be able to get in is 8:30, you’d have missed the first 20 minutes. Nowadays, you’d still get to catch the last 5-10 minutes of the previews.
I just happen to think there should be a better reward for being on time than having to wait on everyone else.
Here’s my suggestion:
Go back to the advertised show time being the time the opening credits start.
Have the Ticket-tearer just inside the enterance, and give him an aditional duty: anyone who arrives 15 minutes or more before showtime gets a stamp or unique holepunch on their ticket.
The ticketholder can then take that ticket to the concession stand, and get a free small popcorn.
Tally the number of times the “early-bird special” is redeemed at the concessions registers, and show those numbers to your advertisers as a bargaining point over how much they should pay for the pre-trailer advertising. (X number of patrons were in the building early enough to have seen your ads.)
Popcorn’s astonishingly cheap in the bulk quantities theaters buy from the wholesalers, so giving it away isn’t that much of cost, especially when you consider that the offer draws customers to the concession stand who might have otherwise gone straight to their seat. Once you have them up at the counter, they’re more likely to be tempted by the candy and the soda. Especially the soda; eating popcorn makes people thirsty, after all. Not to mention that in this age of digital cable and dvds, the popcorn becomes a strong reminder to the public about what the whole “Theater Experience” is about.
From bernse
Yes but everyone in this thread has both an asshole and an attitude.
*
Nope sport shows and concerts pretty much plan on starting late. Besides the lawsuit stated that the TICKET TIME and the MOVIE TIME are different. Anything with a ticket with a time on it xould be affected by this lawsuit.
*
Yes 30 min if you want to find a seat to your liking. Maybe you only go see movies that aren’t very popular or you don’t mind sitting in the front row. It does seem to me that many people in this thread have very little expirence with dealing with large groups of the public at a time. Working in a theatre you and you staff may be outnumberd more than 100 to 1. Trying to please and control groups like that is difficult.
*
I confess I rambled. Someone flog me.
*
The opening sentence of my post may have confused you. I don’t work in theatres any more.
*
OK I call bullshit here. In 1980 I remember paying arond 5 dollars for a first run evening show. That was in OKC. Now a firt run evening show in NYC is Ten bucks. A much more expensive market and 20 years later only result in a doubling of the price. I also remember from 1980 buying my first used car for 500 dollars. How much would a used car cost today? When will it stop? When capitolism is no longer our economic system.
*
Because somepeople ENJOY the preshow. Yes they do. They read a start time of 7:15 and that is when they expect the PRESHOW to start and not the movie itself.
Sorry I’m out of dip at the moment.
(why is it when you quote a post with quotes the first quotes don’t show up?)
Well most chains have been building new theatres. Yes it is true that most circuits kind of over built but really a massive rebuilding of the ‘infrastructre of distribution’ was really kind of needed. So many theatres are in new buildings that need to be paid for and of course every fivrolous lawsuits run up the cost of doing business. (seriously, one customer sued because he thought we spilt coke on his 20 year old leather jacket. He didn’t see us spill coke on it but some other customer who the theatre never got to speak to told him some coke splurted from the machine on his jacket and disappeared. We offered to have the coat professionally cleaned and he wasn’t satified with that so he sued.)
From the time you remember, well… Probably back then there were two projectors per screen. In the old days the machines to move the film through the projectors only did about 20 min at a time. During a movie the projectionist started the film and then treaded up the next reel and would have to watch the movie for the reel marker. (a little black circle at the upper right of the picture) Then with perfect timing would start the second reel shut off the first one and then put reel three on the first projector. So you had a projectionist in the booth all day. So between shows why just have the guy sit there? Have him show newsreels and cartoons and serials. Those were the days. Of course most houses like that only had one screen. Now theatres get a through cleaning between shows so if you started showing a cartoon after the movie they would never leave and give the ushers a chance to clean.
I do feel for familes coming to the movies. By the time you add up two adult tickets and 3 children’s tickets and some sort of snack it can be pretty pricey.
Archive Guy
I tottally agree that some of the major circuits have been both greedy (which is their job) but short sighted in over building. But you should know that the variance in income on a week to week basis is pretty great.
Oh sure you could rely on box office, concession, and video games to pay the way in July but March is a completly different story. I also think theatres are trying very hard to expand concessions to open up more revenue there. 20 years ago a regular movie theatre had soda, popcorn and maybe ten types of candy. Today there is specialty coffee, pizza, chicken wings, and bulk candy sales so you can get how much you want of a variety of types of candy.
Other revenue streams that theatres have tried are things like renting the space on weekday afternoons to business to hold meetings. One theatre chain in the US has (had?) the ability to like theatres across the country and offer live meetings across the country.
So yes theatres have gone after other ways of making money but paid ads is the way that right now is paying off for them. Personally I’m amazed when I go into a sports arena at how much advertising is there. It seems that every surface is covered with it.
SC Wolf
Your show started 5 min late. Right? Ok the pre-show started 5 min late. Are you going to sue?
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.
Expensive
Then you have to make the movie going public understand how you are changing the way of going to a movie.
Very difficult to do.
Case in point. Recently there was a NY Times article about how nobody uses the ATM (That’s Automatic Ticket Machine). People stand in a long 100 plus person line when there are 10 ATMs that they could go up and use a credit card to buy your ticket. (If you have a debit card that works a credit card you can use that as well) People just don’t accept change like that easily. Most people today are used to the idea that the start time in the paper means when the “Show” (movie and trailers and now ads) starts.
So far nogginhead has the best idea and that is to complain to the comapanies that place the ads. Tell them that you don’t like cinema ads and having their product associated with something annoying is not a good thing.
Another thing everyone.
Let me state that I love lawsuits. Really I do. I think it is great that we can settle our problems in court rather than being vigilanties. But if this makes it to court then a judge and a jury will sit listening to this nonsense instead of hearing about an unsafe product, or a dangerous doctor in a malpractice suit, or anything that is important.
I don’t know about you guys, but I sometimes count on the previews and ads to assure that I’ll get there on time. Not that I’m usually late to a movie, but sometimes things happen and it’s hard to get there exactly at the posted showtime, especially here in New York City. It’s nice to know that I have like a ten minute buffer and can still catch the entire movie.
This lady who’s suing probably just got home after arriving at the theatre thirty minutes early, only to have to sit there until showtime and wait another fifteen minutes for the previews to finish, and thought, “dammit I’m gonna sue the bastards…” Just wait until the next time she goes to a movie and is running a little late and she’ll realize what the previews are good for.
I’ve always been afraid of the ‘old, wrinkly lady laughing at the screen’ in the Star Theater in-house ads.
Can I sue?
psssssssssst It’s “ms shoes” lol:D
Okay, (and this is not said snidely but somewhat skeptically and slightly amused) Come ON Zebra!! The last sentence in that was sort of…silly, for lack of a more polite term.
“Trying to please and control groups like that is difficult”???
Now, I’ve never worked in a movie theatre, but I have worked in customer service. Unless one works in a strip club or bar (and I’ve bartended and STILL not had to “control groups”) the customers, for the most part, govern themselves insofar as behaviour.
First question:
You, the theatre employee/manager/whathaveyou, don’t have to “please” the movie-going public at all. That’s up to the feature presentation to do. People have been going to movies for decades, it’s not as if they expect something different from each movie-going experience and that that is up to the theatre to provide!! As usual, they come in, they buy their tickets and food, sit down and watch the movie. So ummmm, what would the theatre be required to add to the movie going experience that makes it so “difficult” to please the movie goers?
As for “controlling” them? Where did you work that you had such rowdy movie goers? I’ve been going to the movies for 30 some years now, except for RHPS I’ve never seen a movie going group that had to be “controlled”.
(if I were in front of you asking the questions above, I’d be and am, smiling sweetly WITH you, not against you, sorry it sounds a bit less nice in type).
Well, I must be a bit of an idiot because I agree with the lawsuit to a certain extent. The point is that the business owner is frustrating the reasonable expectations of consumers. That’s wrong IMHO.
As elfoldo pointed out, why not have an hour’s worth of commercials? Why not have a two hour pitch for time-shares in Mexico before the movie?
**
Well, I remember going to the movies in the 1970s, and things seemed pretty reasonable. The screen was nice and big; the seats were comfortable; the theater owner didn’t mind if you brought your own popcorn.
**
Maybe somebody should, particularly if the airline intentionally delays all flights to increase its profits.
**
Yes. I want things to be freaking perfect. Look, if you charge $6.00 for a ticket, you won’t take $5.50, will you? If you’re not happy with less than 100%, why should I be? (The reality is that I will tolerate a little disappointment. But beyond a certain extent, you can expect me to complain.)
Bullshit. In this case, the customer’s expectations are unreasonable. Unless you haven’t stepped foot in a theatre over the past decade, you should know that ads are being shown before the show.
And even if you are some kind of hermit, movies have always had things before the feature presentation – cartoon, previews, dancing popcorn, that little THX dealie, reminders to be quiet, etc, etc, etc. Anyone who expects the film to start at the precise minute listed is just an idiot (and let’s be clear on this point: the lawsuit is over movie start times, not the content of the material delaying that start time).
**
Indeed, why not? Any theatre that does that is going to have a hard time staying in business. The market will curb excesses quite nicely. A lawsuit is not necessary to prevent long time-share pitches.
De minimis non curat lex – the law does not bother with trifles – should govern here. Boo hoo, you lost two minutes of your life to a cola commercial. Cry me a river. If it bothers you that much, then don’t go to the movies. Get yourself a nice home theatre and wait for the DVD. Going to see the latest incarnation of Jar-Jar is hardly not something you have to do.
For what it’s worth, I’ve never seen such an ad.
**
Which is why they don’t frustrate the consumer’s reasonable expectations.
**
That may be so, but the motivation for the conduct that is being challenged is significant IMHO.
**
Well, let’s take your argument to its logical conclusion . . .
I order a computer and get sent a box of rocks. No need to make that actionable, since the computer company will soon go out of business, right?
My ISP oversells its services, making it virtually impossible for me to connect. No need to give me a legal remedy entitling me to a refund, since the ISP will soon go out of business, right?
**
IMHO, the law should concern itself with trifles when one person or entity imposes lots of trifles of lots of people and reaps significant gain.
For example, I recently signed up a lady whose former employer monkeyed with the company time clock. If an employee worked over 8 hours in a day, they were paid only for 8 hours. In effect, the employer stole 50 cents to a dollar a day from every employee. The net gain to the employer may have been as much as $100,000.00 Why shouldn’t this sort of wrong be actionable? Why should it matter that the money was stolen in tiny increments from lots of different people?
No, it isn’t. The plaintiff is alleging she was decieved because she expected the movie to start at time X, and movie in fact did not start at time X. The crux of her complaint is the delay. Her complaint would necessarily be the same if, say, the theater decided to show extra trailers or had an extra-long THX demo.**
Not the same thing. The customer still gets to see the movie. If you order the computer and the computer manufacturer sends you the computer AND a box of rocks, then you’ve got a reasonable analogy. It also destroys your case because you did in fact get the computer.**
If the disruption is to the point that you are effectively denied the service for which you have paid, then yeah, you get a refund. Again, not the case here. The movie patrons did in fact get to see a movie. That being the case, the market ought to decide this issue.**
No one was stealing anything from anybody here. Movie patrons are generally aware that there will be stuff on screen before the movie starts, and that the feature will not start at the precise time listed. That the patron dislikes the stuff that is shown before the movie is irrelevant – the patron’s claim is for lost time. There isn’t “theft” here in any sense of the word.
It’s worth repeating: no one forces you to go to the movies. If you don’t like ads, don’t patronize theatres that show them. If you go to a theatre that shows ads, do not return to that theatre. Why litigation is necessary for this kind of thing is simply beyond me. The law does not provide redress for every damned little inconvenience you experience in life.
Fair enough. So, a different analogy: you go to Circuit City to buy a computer. You pay for the computer, and you wait for them to bring it out to you. Then you are told that, before they’ll bring your computer to you, you have to listen to an Amway presentation. You’ve already paid for the computer, so you can’t just leave. Is this fair?
If the plaintiff is alleging simple breach of contract, then yeah, the intent is irrelevant. However, if she’s alleging fraud or unjust enrichment, then intent can matter.
Do you think that intent to defraud should not be an element of fraud? Do you think that enrichment of the defendant should not be an element of unjust enrichment?
**
I disagree, but let’s fine-tune the analogy. The computer maker first sends you a box of rocks, then makes you wait two and a half months for your computer. By your logic, this should not be actionable.
**
The issue is not whether something should be considered “theft” so much as whether it should be actionable. If you pay me $1000 to paint your house and then I tell you I’ll start in 2 years, that may not be “theft” but it is still wrong.
**
I agree to a certain point - the second and third time I am subjected to ads at the same theater, I shouldn’t be entitled to any kind of refund. This doesn’t make the practice of showing ads OK though.
**
Again, it seems to me that of one person or entity wrongfully subjects lots of people to ‘inconvenience’ and reaps substantial gain, then generally speaking, the law should provide redress. Why not?
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.
First of all, read the OP – the plaintiff here is not basing her cause of action on fraud:
The elements of fraud are thus:
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.
Anyway, the content of the material shown before the feature is irrelevant as to intent. Assuming for the sake of argument that the case has merit, intent would be shown by the proprietor’s representation (express or implied) that the film would start exactly at the posted time, and his then proceeding to show something – anything – other than the feature presentation at the time the movie starts. You get the same intent for fraud purposes if trailers are shown as you do for ads because intent in this context means “intentionally not starting the movie at the posted time.”
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. 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.**
As noted in my last post, this would render the retailer liable for conversion of the buyer’s property.**
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. **
Sure it does, unless you think a theatre owner is obliged to disclose every minute aspect of the showing at the box office window: “Today’s feature will have 12 minutes of trailers instead of the 10 we’ve been using.” **
Showing ads before a movie is not “wrongful” in any legal sense of the word (and the extent to which it is wrongful in a moral sense is wholly subjective and thus clearly varies from individual to individual).