yet another reason why going to the movies sucks

A few years ago, we bought a spiffy home theater system, complete with the surround sound and the HDTV and the comfy chairs. I'm sure it's a coincidence that this matches up almost exactly with when we stopped going out to the movies except for extremely special events.

I know this is different for everyone, but for me, going to the movies has been only slightly less annoying than going to the DMV, thanks to outrageous ticket prices, mega-multiplexes that leave stains on their screens and never enforce the "Hey, shut the hell up" rule beyond an entirely ineffective announcement at the beginning of the film, parents who think it's entirely appropriate to bring small children into R-rated movies, and the latest joy: teenagers who leave their goddamn cellphones on and when they're not talking to each other light up the theater with hundreds of tiny screens while they send and read text messages.

Yeah, I'm really glad I have this home theater system, because going to the Arclight isn't always an option, and there's a good chance I'm going to snap one day and force feed some fucking idiot his goddamn cell phone.

Well, as if all this isn't bad enough, now you can enjoy being filmed by a studio thug while you attempt to view the film you paid out the ass to watch:

"[I]mmediately I notice an older gentleman who looked to be about 60 standing in the corner of the theater. Sporting a black suit and a black briefcase, he began to film the audience during the movie. Every 5-10 minutes he would sweep the audience with his video camera, then turn it off and just watch us, then turn the camera back on and sweep again."

Isn't that great? I know that I can't *wait* to have my privacy violated by some studio douchebag when I'm just trying to watch their fucking movie.

All furious indignation aside, can the theaters get away with this? I've never seen a notice that by entering a theater I'm giving my consent to be filmed (other than at special screenings, and certainly never at a regularly-scheduled screening.)

If theaters are going to be complicit in this sort of thing, they should:

• be forced to disclose to their customers that they will be filmed in the theater,
• post a privacy policy so audience members know what will happen with the video tapes,
• offer refunds to customers who don't wish to be filmed, or
• give audiences a choice of sitting in a surveillance theater or a non-surveillance theater.

It's annoying enough already to go out to the movies these days, and I while I understand why a studio would want to use this sort of intimidation tactic to stop people from making shitty camcorder videos of movies, I also understand why some potential customers would choose a shitty camcorder version of a film over sitting in a theater to watch it.

Comments

[Andrew]

I briefly wondered why I'd never seen studio narcs at the Alamo Drafthouse, and then it hit me -- when you have waiters bringing food and drinks throughout the movie, you don't need someone out in front taping the whole audience.

The solution is obvious, Wil -- you must move to Austin.

[RichL]

I haven't heard of taping to prevent piracy before - but I wouldn't be against it, to be honest. Just as long as it is disclosed up front.

And those people who take babies and really young kids into the theatres, especially for R films? There's a place in a very special hell waiting for them. And someone's waiting for them with a red hot poker.

[Sean W]

One of the many many reasons the Drafthouse rules. Going to other theaters now just seems unnatural.

[LoadStar]

I highly doubt they were actually being "filmed." It's a fairly common practice these days for studio representatives and/or security firms, equipped with night vision monoculars or goggles, to be stationed at special preview screenings.

I know that night vision monoculars were in use at every special advanced screening of "Serenity" that I attended. They also had some BUILT security guards -- more like bouncers -- stationed at the doors, closely scrutinizing every person that came and went, and closely inspecting anything that might contain a camera or other recording device.

Of course, the author of the article probably just missed the signs that were likely posted somewhere in the theater, informing them that they were attending a "special advance performance" and that by attending, they are granting permission for the studio to record them and use their likeness in marketing materials. Studios really don't do the cheesy audience response ads ("I loved it, I'm going to see it again!" types of ads) these days, so they really don't film as much as they once did, but they might film for internal marketing.

[Eric in PA]

If the theater doesn't disclose that it's allowing Warner to do this at all, isn't that a huge privacy violation? They're opening themselves (both the theater and Warner) up to a huge lawsuit here if they don't start telling folks about this nonsense...

And hey: Any WWdN folk passing through the Central PA area, check out The Rowland Theater in Philipsburg, PA. Tickets are still just $5 for adults $4 for kids and seniors, and it's one heck of a place in its own right. All kinds of lavish.

/disclosure: used to work there
//studio goons are teh ghey
///slashies

[Chris]

Treating your customers like criminals is never good business strategy.

Anybody that would buy or download a camcorder copy of a movie was never going to spend $10 on a ticket in the first place. The studios are wasting their time. Anyway, the really good pirate copies are almost all inside jobs. Who else has access to a high quality copy prior to the DVD release? The files have to be coming from studio or theater employees that have that access.

[CarolP]

If I walk into a theatre to find some studio hire filming me watching their movie that I paid for, I'm walking right back out again, demanding a refund and never returning.

WTF is wrong with people? Seriously.

[Samuel McConnell]

The only movies I've been seeing are at a neat little art-house cinema in Moscow, ID called the Kenworthy. It's small and not as comfortable as the big ultraplexes, but it makes up for it in showing movies worth seeing. (The last two I watched there were Waitress and Paprika.)

[davelog]

As if the dreck that passes for 95% of new releases out there isn't enough to keep me out of a theater.

Just as the newspaper is going the way of the buggywhip, so is the movie theater. This kinda nonsense is just hurrying it along.

[ttrentham]

I come to make a comment that Alamo Drafthouse is the only place that I'll go out to see a movie anymore and find that the first and third comment are spreading the Alamo love.

How many Austinites read this blog anyway?

[raphael]

I became an HDTV nerd back in 1999, when I still went to movies all the time, and when also virtually nothing was on HDTV, and when I called the local FOX station about a technical issue I spoke to the main guy, just because he couldn’t believe that anybody was even watching the HD feed (technically, it was a widescreen SDTV feed at the time, but who’s counting).

Now, I hardly ever go to the movies, but I’m still an HDTV nerd.

I would hazard the guess that many HD users out there have found themselves watching things they do not care about just because it is in HD. I know I have.

A big part of me feels very sad that theaters are becoming less and less welcoming for me. I never wanted to see that happen.

[Bitt Faulk]

I'm more liberal than the next guy, but, really, as soon as you leave your house, you're in public and have no (legal) right to expect that you aren't being filmed, especially by private actors. You can certainly exercise your right to not patronize such a place, or such films, or whatever, but it's far from illegal. Of course, it's also well within your rights to film that guy that's filming you (as long as you don't also record the movie you're watching).

[DrJubal]

A couple of weeks ago I took my boy to see the summer robot movie. We didn't make the 330pm showing, but the 400pm showing was only 15 minutes away so we bought our tickets and sat in a very small room with a moderately small screen.

The lights dimmed at 405pm, and we were then treated to 15 minutes of commercials (which I abhor) and 15 minutes of previews (which I didn't really mind).

When the studio logo appeared at the beginning of the FEATURE PRESENTATION, I looked at my watch to see what time it was - and it was 435pm!

I shoulda just gone into the earlier showing and skipped the commercials.

I think 35 minutes after 'announced' showtime is a wee bit much.

I'm not in a huge hurry to see most releases before they come out on DVD these days either. Wonder why?

Love ya man - - - DrJubal

[davelog]

>> You can certainly exercise your right to not patronize such a place, or such films, or whatever, but it's far from illegal.

Legality aside, it's insulting as hell. If I'm gonna get blanket-accused of being a thief, I may as well become one.

[fich]

The DMV in Las Vegas has movie theater-like snack bars.

[C_Doc]

On my DVD collection website, there's a very true cartoon image of a man and woman exiting the theater, saying "We should have waited for it to come out on video... Our screen is bigger"

This is pretty much my philosophy. I bet we haven't been to 5 movies in the past 5 years. 110" Screen, 800 watt THX sound, AND we don't have to pay $20 for a bag of stale popcorn and watered down Coke!! All this on a relatively modest budget.

It even makes movies like Python look good!! :D

[Eddie]

All I have to say is wow. Now I may be a little spoiled living in a really small town where I seriously only pay $3.50 to see a matinee on the weekend but I am completely disgusted with the fact that you have these big name movie companies justifying taping audiences for video piracy. I still don't see why movie theaters don't install cell phone signal blockers. That's probably the number one thing that pisses me off as well when I am trying to enjoy a movie that I just paid for. Just wait...before to long we may have to go through an airport security like terminal just to see a fucking movie. :)

[darko_devotchka]

as a future filmmaker, i think it's really sad that people who actually want to view movies end up having a totally awful experience when going sometimes. it makes me so ashamed to be a teenager. and as a film fan, the experience of viewing a movie in the theater with other people who care just as much about the movie as you do can be quite an amazing thing. which makes me even more sad.

[Andrew]

I still don't see why movie theaters don't install cell phone signal blockers.

Because some people legitimately need to receive cell calls during the movie -- a surgeon who is "on call," to pick just one example. That's what the vibrate setting is for. And, of course, if they take the call right in the theater, they deserve to be tossed out without a refund.

[Scott]

I don't know if anyone else has exerienced this, but it seems that theaters in my area are running their sound systems louder these days. I stopped going to one multi-plex several years ago after I came out with a headache due to the loudness of the sound. Now I've noticed the same reaction at two others. I've mentioned it to my friends and they agree that it's louder than they remember in the old days.

So, long story short, I don't really feel the need to go movies at the theater anymore. And I don't even have a decent home theater, just an old tube TV (SD), a DVD player, and stereo sound. Theaters suck THAT much.

[Rebort]

It's obnoxious and creepy, sure. But it's not an invasion of your privacy. You are, after all, on private property in a movie theater.

Just like you are in a mall, office skyscrape or department store -- where you are constantly on camera the second you step through the door.

In a few years this will be a moot point as I expect most theaters to be outfitted with cameras -- just like every mall, office skyscrape and department store in America.

Are you worried what they are all doing with your image too?

[Kristin]

Filming or not aside, I have to tell you how hard I laughed at this:

Yeah, I'm really glad I have this home theater system, because going to the Arclight isn't always an option, and there's a good chance I'm going to snap one day and force feed some fucking idiot his goddamn cell phone.

The degree to which you just captured our attitude about going to the movies lately is stunning. My partner and I just laughed our asses off.

And I've been to the Alamo Drafthouse--I do love it, but the Arclight ain't no slouch! I'd pay even more than we do for those blessed assigned seats.

[ChuckEye]

Arclight was always a bit TOO posh for me. And more of a headache than the convenience they tried to make it. (Might have gotten better in the last two years since I moved, but I don't have high hopes.)

I still consider Graumann's Chinese to be the best screen / sound / projector / experience I've found.

I was sorely disappointed to discover that Houston doesn't have any THX certified screens. Guess most houses have gone stadium seating, and with the studios commanding such a high percentage of the box office, the theater owners don't see a cost/benefit to paying for the extra engineering, just so they can show the loud trailer whose significance most people wouldn't understand.

(Houston does have two Alamo Drafthouse locations, but I haven't made it out to one yet... The Drafthouse's "rolling roadshow" presentation of Repo Man in a parking lot in LA a few years back was a blast, though...)

[Amalthia]

You mirrored my thoughts almost exactly about going to movies. I'm sure it's bad everywhere in America but my husband and I went to the 11:40PM showing of Transformers on a Monday night, kind of hoping parents would be at home sleeping for work the next day, but no...I swear to God. There were like 3 babies in that movie theater! Crying because instead of being home asleep they were in a movie theater with loud crashes and explosions going on. And then of course there were the people talking on their phones during the action sequences near the end, and the 2 year olds talking to themselves in the row in front of us. My husband and I have already pretty much started downloading all our movies to watch on our projector because I get so stressed out going to the movies. I can't even enjoy them anymore. In Beligum, I was in a sold out showing of Pirates of the Carribean, 95% of the audience was teenagers and I didn't hear a single cell phone and everyone was silent during the movie. I was frankly quite amazed. Maybe it's because they were all concentrating on reading the subtitles.

I really believe they shouldn't allow children under a certain age into any R rated movie even if accompanied by an adult. I'm sorry, 1408 is not a suitable movie for 3-4 year olds. Um okay, I got that off my chest and now I'll stop ranting in your blog.

[SantaFlash]

I still don't see why movie theaters don't install cell phone signal blockers.

Andrew,
I agree with your thoughts. Some individuals do have legitimate reasons for having their cell phones on (but on silent or vibrate).

I rarely get out anymore because of the new responsibility of my son. But when I DO get out, I have the phone on vibrate in case of emergency. There is NO WAY I'd take him to a movie.

1) PG - R is not appropriate for him (at 17 months)
2) The decible level is WAY to high for his ears (call me paranoid).
3) I seriously doubt he'd sit still and I'm not paying $10 to watch a part of the movie.

CarolP - I think I'd do the same and walk out (for a refund) if I saw someone filming us. I haven't seen that yet...but like I said, I don't get out much. :)