PDA

View Full Version : Women sues theater over pre-movie advertisments



Prince Xizor
02-21-2003, 12:55 PM
I read this today on Yahoo!:

High school teacher Miriam Fisch wants those four minutes of her life back -- and she thinks Loews Cineplex ought to pay for their alleged theft. In a class-action lawsuit filed in Illinois state court on behalf of all Loews patrons, the Chicago-area English teacher claims the theater circuit's policy of playing pre-film product commercials amounts to a deceptive business practice because the ads begin at the time advertised as the start of a feature movie.

The rest of the article can be found here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030220/film_nm/film_movieads_dc_1)

First people sue Mcdonald's cause it made them fat, now this. Jeez...this lawsuit is ludacris. Everybody knows that theaters play ads before the movie, as well as trailers. There was no way that this women just showed up and was horribly surprised their was ads. Give me a break. This is just another way for a dumb person to try and squeeze unearned money through the court system.

Your thoughts?

Dr Zoltar
02-21-2003, 01:10 PM
The 2 people suing are only asking for $75 a piece. I think the point is to have theaters run the actual starting time of the movie so that those people who want to skip the adverts and previews can. I have no problem with movie previews, but I dislike the ads myself. I guess the theater figures it has a captive audience so why not make some extra cash.

Pendo
02-21-2003, 01:19 PM
I enjoy watching the movie previews, so if the movie starts at the time stated, then what time should you show up for the previews?

People will sue over anything these days :rolleyes:. It's getting rediculous! There was this guy a while back who sued MGM because of Widescreen (or something like that) :crazed:.

PENDO!

wedgeA
02-21-2003, 02:10 PM
Yeah, this is so frivolous it's insane. However, if this gets those horribly annoying Coke ads off the screen, I'll be content.

Did anyone see that one that is a "film short" where the affable loser jumps in front of the girl to prevent her from getting hit by the ketchup? Everytime I see that, someone in the theatre always remarks "That guy went to Columbia film school for that?".

Beast
02-21-2003, 03:02 PM
Think commercials before the movie trailers start are bad? Well, the recent DVD release of "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" in Canada features a "Windex Wipes" commercial before the movie starts. Now that's going a bit to far. You go to the movies and buy DVD's to avoid commercial Television, not to have more commercials force fed to you. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

icatch9
02-21-2003, 03:35 PM
I don't like the commercials either. They do annoy me. Previews are one thing, but I got enough of that Britney Spears commercial at home, I don't need to spend $8 to see it again.

The only thing this is going to do is change what is printed on the tickets (assuming she wins). Tickets will read something like "Starting on or shorlty after 7:00 pm". Regarless if you want to get a good seat to a new movie, you'd better get your butt there 20 minutes early.

James Boba Fettfield
02-21-2003, 05:02 PM
Ha, that's so true. I love how the AMC I visit does it. First they have this movie soundtrack radio station thing play if you get there early. Then they have the pre previews, and you can always tell it'll either be an Army ad, Mountain Dew ad, or a Toyota ad. Well, lately I saw some ads for a bunch of new ABC shows, and then after all of that they start the movie trailers. You're right too, my ticket said noon for Daredevil and Daredevil started about 12:20. I love it, but the ads don't bother me at all. I really don't care, now if they put it on my dvd's, then I'll be p***** off.

JediTricks
02-21-2003, 09:27 PM
This is awesome IMO, theater chains that show product advertising before the film are stealing from us. These jerks already charge ludicrous amounts for admission, they jack up the costs of the snack bar, and now they get to show Pepsi and ABC commercials before the trailers as well?!? Look, I love trailers, I could sit through 10 minutes of them before a film no problem, but to sit through 10 minutes of product advertising before the 10 minutes of trailers and theater announcements in time that I myself had to pay to partake in??? That's totally unacceptable. I'm not talking about those stupid Coke pre-showtime slides, and hell, at least Coke tries to give even a hint of entertaining the audience during this pre-showtime stuff; I'm talking about those straight-up post-showtime cinematic ads, if I have to see that moron go back for his Mountain Dew one more time I'm gonna throw my Dew at the damn screen. 1/4th of commercial TV is advertising already, if I wanted to see ads with my movie, I wouldn't pay double-digit coin to do it.

QLD
02-21-2003, 10:06 PM
I gotta go with JT On this.

I hope they win.

I mean, when I go see a movie now I get this:

Pre-pre movie ad slides.
Pre-movie advertisements with lights on
Pre-movie advertisements with lights off
Theatre advertisements
No talking advertisements
Movie trailors


I mean, come on, I have to get a mortage to buy tickets, coke, and popcorn. I would THINK that I had paid this premium to avoid the constant barrage of advertisements. ANd I HATE that movie tickets.com ad with the stupid commando family. UGH!

Mike Troxell
02-21-2003, 11:58 PM
Hard to believe, but if we as a theater didn't get the revenue from the cheesy, stupid ads before the movies, the ticket prices would have to go up...

So yeah, they suck. I find most of them entertaining enough to hold my attention, but a necessary evil in my opinion.

Things suck, yes, but I find this type of litigation even more dispicable than ambulance chasing. This is just about as ridiculous and frivolous as the McDonalds-made-me-fat or Cigarettes-made-me-get-cancer suits.

Argh.

Exhaust Port
02-22-2003, 12:12 AM
This is the first stupid lawsuit that I've ever felt I can get behind. I hope that $75 will make Loews think twice about showing any more commericals.

scruffziller
02-22-2003, 08:49 AM
Yea sounds like a typical person from that area. When I was doing telemarketing, the Chicago area was one of the worst I had to deal with. People like to make money, but they get annoyed anytime somebody else is trying to.:rolleyes:
I sure hope that somebody else sues a company based on something similar that is going to affect her family's income.

Prince Xizor
02-22-2003, 11:22 PM
Ok, so I was thinking. If this women won and got her $75, wouldn't that entitle everyone who has every seen a movie with ads to $75? Even then, would I get 75 bucks for every movie?!? I have 81 ticket stubs in my room, so where is my $6075?

James Boba Fettfield
02-22-2003, 11:45 PM
The story said $75 per plaintiff, not per movie.

stillakid
02-22-2003, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by Prince Xizor
Ok, so I was thinking. If this women won and got her $75, wouldn't that entitle everyone who has every seen a movie with ads to $75? Even then, would I get 75 bucks for every movie?!? I have 81 ticket stubs in my room, so where is my $6075?

From what I've read, yes, that's the idea. Ultimately they don't really want to get the money. They want the theaters to stop playing commercials at the time they say the movie is going to start. Obviously theaters are running commercials to generate some more income. Nothing wrong with that. But they also know that they've got a captured audience so they are taking advantage of the situation. Whether it's fair or unfair is up to each person to decide, and in this case, a judge will have to deal with it too.

Personally, I don't think it's too much to ask. Although from a "purist" perspective, it's bad enough that the newer generations who have grown up on VHS and DVD's think it's okay to talk through movies. But adding commercials to the darkened theater experience only contributes to this notion that home viewing and theater viewing are interchangable.

Kidhuman
02-23-2003, 12:07 AM
People are out of control. I mean suing over something so minute. I remember an episode of the Simpsons(22 shorts of Springfield to be exact) when Apu closed the Kwik-E-Mart and went to party. Hans Moleman got locked in the store. When Apu reopened he said"You took four minutes of my life and I want them back. Oh, I would probably waste them anyway." What can this woman possibly do in four minutes before a movie starts? Come on, get a life already. I thought it was bad when a guy sued Hooters for discrimination because he couldn't be a waiter. Stop suing everyone.

Mr. JabbaJohnL
02-23-2003, 01:00 PM
A guy sued Hooters because he couldn't be a waiter? Oh my God.:rolleyes:

Beast
02-23-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Mr. JabbaJohnL
A guy sued Hooters because he couldn't be a waiter? Oh my God.:rolleyes:
I wonder if they would have hired him if he had man boobs. Or gotten implants. That's a good question, someone should ask Hooters about that. :crazed: :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

vulcantouch
02-23-2003, 05:05 PM
you radical-capitalism apologists crack me up with the contortions you'll twist yerselves into to justify even the most blatant degradation of our shared cultural standards :p
as Storytelling (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=223990#post223990) director todd solondz recounted last year on the conan show, when he attended a screening in his native jersey and pre-film coke comms came up, he started booing them. did the rest of the audience join his chorus? hell no, them brainwashed half-wits started booing Him and telling Him to shut up :rolleyes: "apparently the rest of the audience paid good money to come watch these tv commercials, and they sorely resented my interference with that", he quipped :crazed:
see what i'm getting at? people take being exploited like this for granted so much now they actually get hostile when someone points out It's Not Supposed To Be This Way :frus:

mt: "if we as a theater didn't get the revenue. . . the ticket prices would have to go up"
-or better yet, some of thy redundant bunkers might start goin belly-up as the law of supply & demand (remember That one, radicaps?) righteously kicks in :p theater chains do this now because their always-slim profit margins have been stretched even thinner by greedy, injudicious overbuilding of megachains in the last decade which, in a given metro area, show the same dozen new releases 300 times a day & whose listings take up 3 pages even in the tiniest newspaper print :rolleyes: which is yet another reason (besides general audience uncouthness) i now go out for flix maybe once a year, and opt for homevid the resta the time :cool:
like jt i don't mind trailers, whether it be homevid or out, cuz it gets me in the mood for the flik, and there's a reasonable expectation that a moviegoer might also be interested in upcoming flix. but when comms/previews as a whole begin to take 15-20 minutes it'd be a perfectly reasonable expectation that they roll those Before the stated start time. which might even push those nausteating satellite radio/slideshows back so far we wouldn't hafta endure a second of those even if we showed up 1/2 hour early :evil:
i've also noticed that blanket labelling of all these sorts of lawsuits as "frivolous" is a frequent pose of those who often end up filing same re some dispute of their own. of course, when it's Their issue it deServes its day in court :rolleyes:

scruffy-z: "When I was doing telemarketing"
-speak of the devil! boo hoo, maybe you should sue someone ;) luckily we've already punctured That bs whining thru with the holes it deserves (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=174191#post174191) :D
vt

LTBasker
02-23-2003, 05:36 PM
Movie Previews - Cool
Commercials - BAAAAD. Actually before the commercials the theater was charging the same amount for a ticket ($2 adult matinee, $4 regular time) and theres really no fluxuation. Actually I think it hurts it alot more than helps, the employees working the snack bar and ticket sales make their pay checks from the snack bar, not from the tickets, and those prices haven't gone down since the commercials either. I think this drives people away a bit more from the theater or just having lunch/dinner before getting to the movie so they're sure to miss the commercials and catch the last of the previews, therefore meaning less money for the employees.

Also, sometimes I think they really should moderate their commercials better. I mean during all-ages movie they'll have commercials with a guy in the shower or those stupid "I want your bodd" commercials. :rolleyes:

Beast
02-23-2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by LTBasker
Actually before the commercials the theater was charging the same amount for a ticket ($2 adult matinee, $4 regular time) and theres really no fluxuation.
Damn dude, I wouldn't complain for those prices. A matinee showing here, which is far from being a big city is $5.75. And an evening showing is around $7.00. :eek: :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

James Boba Fettfield
02-23-2003, 06:14 PM
$7 for an evening show? The Milford Showcase is charging $9 now! $9! How can they justify that?

Kidhuman
02-23-2003, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by Mr. JabbaJohnL
A guy sued Hooters because he couldn't be a waiter? Oh my God.:rolleyes:


Yeah he won 3,000,000 dollars and a job there for sexual discrimination.

darthvyn
02-23-2003, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Damn dude, I wouldn't complain for those prices. A matinee showing here, which is far from being a big city is $5.75. And an evening showing is around $7.00. :eek: :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

$6.75 - matinee (before 5 during the week, first showing sat/sun.), $9.00 - primetime.

if the price of tickets actually went down because of the added revenue created by advertisments, then i'd be all for it. but since the inception of pre-preview ads, prices of tickets HAVE GONE UP!!! i applaud this lawsuit, and that's saying a lot, as i hate the litigious nature of your average american...

JediTricks
02-23-2003, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
$7 for an evening show? The Milford Showcase is charging $9 now! $9! How can they justify that? Hell, the Arclight Cinema built into and around the Cinerama Dome here in Hollywood charges $11 for a matinee and $14 for an evening show!!! It's psychotic.


You know what else drives me nuts about theaters in my area? Matinees now cost more than a "twilight" show (4pm to 6pm) - what the hell is that?!? Why bother opening for matinees at all thus having to pay all those employees when you're guaranteeing that the few people who want to save a buck won't show till 4pm?


VT's right about the law of supply & demand catching up with theaters, either the theaters have to stop building until there's demand (or they go out of business themselves) or the studios have to take a smaller cut (yeah right). The current prices drive audiences away in my city except for opening weekends - which if I remember correctly are the periods when the theaters have to give the most of their box office receipts to the studios. If evening films were $5 to $7, I'd go all the time for any dreck, but right now I can't even afford to go to films I desparately want to see.

derek
02-23-2003, 10:26 PM
$14 for an evening show!!! It's psychotic.

that's gotta kill repeat viewings. i doubt i'd even go see a film once for that. what does it cost to rent a film in Cal-e-for-ni-a?(as AH-nold would say):)

Beast
02-23-2003, 10:27 PM
Well, you do live in one of the most expensive cities in the country, JT. Sure it sucks, but that's one of the negative aspects of living in such a large expensive area. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

James Boba Fettfield
02-23-2003, 10:44 PM
Well, this is a more rural area of Ohio outside of Cincinnati. They just recently raised the price to $9. I cringed when I went to the evening shows there at night before this hike. The theater at Newport, which is more downtown Cincy, isn't that expensive. Die Showcase!

Mike Troxell
02-24-2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by vulcantouch
mt: "if we as a theater didn't get the revenue. . . the ticket prices would have to go up"
-or better yet, some of thy redundant bunkers might start goin belly-up as the law of supply & demand (remember That one, radicaps?) righteously kicks in :p theater chains do this now because their always-slim profit margins have been stretched even thinner by greedy, injudicious overbuilding of megachains in the last decade which, in a given metro area, show the same dozen new releases 300 times a day & whose listings take up 3 pages even in the tiniest newspaper print :rolleyes:

I guess I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who works at a smaller theater which has ticket prices that are half of what most of these people are saying on these pages...

I'm sure a lot of you already know this, but theaters don't get much of your ticket price. We can charge as much as we want, but a certain percentage of it (bigger percentages closer to release) goes directly to the film company. Pretty much all of the profits then go to pay for things like the lease and power and all of those wonderful things. My theater, at least, generally gets its money in two ways.

1) Ad revenue
2) Screwing the crap out of you at the concession stand. Seriously. Popcorn seed is incredibly cheap, as are nachos and fountain soda. In fact, employees are allowed to have as much of that as they want, assuming they don't use the cups, which is what we keep inventory on.

I don't know if I made any points above, let alone any valid ones. Sorry if I didn't and wasted precious boardspace. I'm too tired. I had to spin the platters manually for over two hours on Dark Blue because the brain malfunctioned tonight. It was quite the fun experience. Good evening.

Beast
02-24-2003, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by Mike Troxell
2) Screwing the crap out of you at the concession stand. Seriously. Popcorn seed is incredibly cheap, as are nachos and fountain soda. In fact, employees are allowed to have as much of that as they want, assuming they don't use the cups, which is what we keep inventory on.
Any wonder why I usually sneak stuff in, if I can get away with it. Hell, some theaters don't even care. I've carried drinks from McDonalds and even 2-liters with me into some theaters. Last time I got pop and a popcorn at the theater it cost me more then the damn movie ticket. :greedy: :p

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Kidhuman
02-24-2003, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Any wonder why I usually sneak stuff in, if I can get away with it. Hell, some theaters don't even care. I've carried drinks from McDonalds and even 2-liters with me into some theaters. Last time I got pop and a popcorn at the theater it cost me more then the damn movie ticket. :greedy: :p

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

I am with you JJB. I will never buy anything from the concession stands. A small soda is just about 4 bucks? That and popcorn is ridiculous. If we are paying that much for a ticket give us a soda on the house man. They also think they can get away with buying a popcorn and a soda for 5 bucks like it is a deal. @ bucks for a bag of pop-corn and a soda at the store next door. Hell, thats what pockets are for anyway.

James Boba Fettfield
02-24-2003, 12:31 AM
I never understood why someone can't go two hours without having to eat/drink anyway. When I saw Daredevil there were people with these paper trays with hot dogs and nachos on them. What the hell, if you're that hungry go out to eat before or after the movie. I love to eat, and I can hold it off during a movie.

Beast
02-24-2003, 12:37 AM
I usually do eat before or after. But I like having a drink with me, just incase I need one. Damn, now I miss the drive-in theater that used to be here in town. Used to be able to pack a picnic type meal, or grab some KFC and sit and your car and watch a movie. Sucks they tore it down. Last movie I saw there was Batman (1989). :(

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

2-1B
02-24-2003, 01:16 AM
I caught 2 matinees today, and the Ed Hillary / Mt. Everest / SUV ad is more than I can take. :dead:

It's funny though, because as much as I hate the ads they surely beat that annoying "Willard" trailer. :crazed:

Here we pay $5.25 for a matinee and $7.50 for an evening show.

I smuggle contraband all the time, almost without exception.
My PR is a 1 liter bottle and 2 20oz. bottles for myself and friends. :)

Beast
02-24-2003, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by Caesar
I smuggle contraband all the time, almost without exception.
My PR is a 1 liter bottle and 2 20oz. bottles for myself and friends. :)
What's usually the best way to do that. Cold weather doesn't bug me, so I don't usually wear a coat. I assume you smuggle it in, inside your coat. Or do you bring like a briefcase or backpack or somthing? :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

stillakid
02-24-2003, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
What's usually the best way to do that. Cold weather doesn't bug me, so I don't usually wear a coat. I assume you smuggle it in, inside your coat. Or do you bring like a briefcase or backpack or somthing? :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Why would you want to know that? It's against the rules. To take outside concessions into the show, you're in effect stealing from the theater, or at least denying them the income from your hunger.

If you agree with anti-piracy laws, then why allow this?

JediTricks
02-24-2003, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Well, you do live in one of the most expensive cities in the country, JT. Sure it sucks, but that's one of the negative aspects of living in such a large expensive area. That's not the reason, most other movie chains in this area charge around $9 or less. It's because they're "film purists" at the Arclight with a highly-paid staff and a brand-new, high-tech, expensive, film-fan-friendly building to pay for. Of course, the staff isn't very busy since there aren't many people there and the building is largely empty... which is why the people who DO go there end up basically having to pay for those that don't.

This place really honks me off in other ways too, no matter how empty the show is, you have to be assigned a specific seat when you buy your ticket. Also, they don't have hot dogs, it's hautey crap like Apple Pesto Chicken Sausages.


Derek, I don't know what rentals cost, I haven't rented a video since I quit my video store job in '94. The repeat viewings at this place are definitely limited though, I see more people drive by in 3 minutes than go in over the course of an hour. I would guess I see 10 times more people go into the used record megastore across the street at any one given time!


Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Any wonder why I usually sneak stuff in, if I can get away with it. Hell, some theaters don't even care. I've carried drinks from McDonalds and even 2-liters with me into some theaters. Many of the Mann theaters out here just allow it now, the ones in Glendale even encourage it when it's from their neighboring businesses. I don't bring in stuff unless they allow it, and rarely bother to when they do allow it.


So the studios need to lower their take and the theaters need to pass that onto consumers. Then more people go to the theaters, the studios see that and ask for a bigger take. Oh crap, there's a flaw here! :greedy:

Beast
02-24-2003, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by stillakid
Why would you want to know that? It's against the rules. To take outside concessions into the show, you're in effect stealing from the theater, or at least denying them the income from your hunger.

If you agree with anti-piracy laws, then why allow this?
Why do you want to know, why I want to know? Maybe I work for a theater, and want to know what to check or disallow brought into the theater. You didn't ask Caesar why he did it? Oh yeah, I forgot. You have some sort of grudge against me. Like those lovely PM's I got from you. Isn't following someone from thread to thread, starting trouble against the forum rules. ;)

But no, it's not the same as stealing from the theater. Because I'm not receiving goods that I didn't pay for. I'm not eating or drinking their material. I'm paying for to see a movie that they didn't make, yet get money from the showing of. I'm not paying them for the right to eat their jacked up snackbar prices. Nor am I obligated to purchase or consume anything from their snack bar.

I always deny them the income from my hunger. I don't need to bring anything in with me to do it. It's called going someplace to eat before or after the movie. I was asking about a soda, which I also paid for. If you want to compare this to anti-piracy laws, then I think your just looking for a case to start trouble. And it's a pretty shoddy lame arsed argument. That's regarding intellectual property, not a bucket of flippin' popcorn. :p :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Beast
02-24-2003, 02:36 AM
Damn JT, I can see why you're honked off. I figured that was basic theater pricing in that area. I'd just stick with the basic theaters, and let the Arclight maybe get it thru their heads that they would pay for it faster, with a cheaper ticket price. I mean serious, it can't be that hard to realize that you sell twice as many tickets just by knocking the price down to be competitive with the other local theaters. :p

And assigned seats, what the hell is this? Man, you're right about it being snooty. I want to sit where I'm comfortable and where I have a decent view of the screen. Not stuffed in some corner because my ticket states I have to sit there. Apple Pesto Chicken Sausages, what the hell on earth is that? Geez, what a bunch of pretentious film snobs. No wonder they charge so much, it's not to pay for the place, it's to keep the "lower-class" out.

That's cool about the Mann theaters allowing you to bring stuff in. More theaters should hop on the bandwagon. Actually I think most don't really care. I never got stopped or asked to not bring 2-liters in with me. But they arn't really gonna slap a sign out there that they allow it. Not when they can sell most of the people a $3.00 soda and a $5.00 popcorn. :greedy: :D

Agreed, if the ticket prices were cheaper we would be seeing box office returns like the old days. But now when you can wait 6 months and get a movie on DVD for a bit more then a movie ticket wil cost you, it's not going to happen. The days of the motion picture experience are slowly starting to die out. Especially when most directors film their movies with the DVD in mind. They know they need that all important DVD sale figures. Even more then the theatrical ones.

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Exhaust Port
02-24-2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
But no, it's not the same as stealing from the theater. Because I'm not receiving goods that I didn't pay for. I'm not eating or drinking their material. I'm paying for to see a movie that they didn't make, yet get money from the showing of. I'm not paying them for the right to eat their jacked up snackbar prices. Nor am I obligated to purchase or consume anything from their snack bar.

I totally agree with you JJB. Going to the movies is no different that going to any other public spectator event. Concerts, sport events, air shows to name a few allow one to bring in their own refreshments. Usually they have restrictions on how you transport it in (ie No Glass or Coolers) but that's understandable. The organizers provide the venue and the entertainment and we pay to see that performance and are allowed to bring our own supplies. Why is a movie theater any different?

stillakid
02-24-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Why do you want to know, why I want to know? Maybe I work for a theater, and want to know what to check or disallow brought into the theater.
If that were indeed true, the clientelle would have nothing to worry about judging by the amount of time you seem to spend parked in front of the internet. ;)

But, apparently it's not an issue anyhow:
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
I never got stopped or asked to not bring 2-liters in with me. so that "argument is moot. Don't know why you bothered to bring it up, except that you clearly don't want to answer the question directly.



Originally posted by JarJarBinks
You didn't ask Caesar why he did it? Oh yeah, I forgot. You have some sort of grudge against me. Like those lovely PM's I got from you. Isn't following someone from thread to thread, starting trouble against the forum rules. ;)
Grudge? No. When I see misinformation or obvious contradictions (and I happen to notice them), I'll call you or anyone else on them if I feel so inclined at that moment in time. Your own choice to ignore a theater's wishes to control food consumption in their establishment appears to fly in the face of your consistent support of anti-piracy laws. More about that later. A rule is a rule. Why do you feel that it's okay to ignore one but not another?

The PMs? You mean the time when you requested the recipe? Just wanted to make sure you got it. I never heard back so I can't be certain. Or you mean the other one when I took my personal feelings toward your attitude out of the public forum? That's not harassment. I was following the rules of SSG.

Starting trouble? No. I merely asked a question which you seem fit to evade. Were I a betting man I'd say that you see the corner you backed yourself into and need to prop up a guilty conscience. But I'm not, and that is all conjecture. Until you choose to answer the simple question of why you'd want to know how to better hide restricted items, we can all just rely on our theories about you and your motivations.


Originally posted by JarJarBinks
But no, it's not the same as stealing from the theater. Because I'm not receiving goods that I didn't pay for. I'm not eating or drinking their material. I'm paying for to see a movie that they didn't make, yet get money from the showing of.
I'm still trying to grasp your logic here, but if I'm reading it correctly, you'd prefer either a distribution system in which no one pays anything to watch the film, or you'd prefer that the production company that actually made the film be the one to show it to you. The first option is undeniably out of the question which leaves only number 2, which was deemed illegal by the federal government some time ago.


Originally posted by JarJarBinks

I'm not paying them for the right to eat their jacked up snackbar prices. Nor am I obligated to purchase or consume anything from their snack bar.
No, you're not obligated to buy anything from them, including the ticket. But if you don't buy the ticket, then you're not entitled to see the show. The ticket purchase does not obligate you to buy anything else from them either, but the rules (in general) also state that if you do choose to consume food or beverage, they prefer, and in most cases (as far as I know) require that you purchase it from them. If you're going to sneak your own food and drink in you might as well dash into the theater through a back door as well. Your entire evening of entertainment might as well be free.


Originally posted by JarJarBinks
I always deny them the income from my hunger. I don't need to bring anything in with me to do it. It's called going someplace to eat before or after the movie.
True. You're not obligated to satisfy your hunger with their food. The same goes for satisfying your thirst as well. You want it in the theater, you buy it from the theater. How much clearer can it be? Don't like the price? Don't buy it and go without for a couple hours. But sneaking it in just because you don't like the prices is definitely akin to anti-piracy laws, which you staunchly claim to be supportive of. It's EXACTLY the same argument that Napster users offered up. CD buyers aren't to keen on the "jacked up prices" on music so they get it elsewhere. You've just admitted to doing the same with theater concessions.



Originally posted by JarJarBinks
I was asking about a soda, which I also paid for.

You mean this soda?:
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
I never got stopped or asked to not bring 2-liters in with me.



Originally posted by JarJarBinks
If you want to compare this to anti-piracy laws, then I think your just looking for a case to start trouble. And it's a pretty shoddy lame arsed argument. That's regarding intellectual property, not a bucket of flippin' popcorn.
Wow. And I seriously mean that. WOW! I suppose if you want something for free bad enough, you can convince yourself that it's okay. Most theaters work on pretty narrow profit margins and they in fact do need the extra income from concessions to continue operating. If everyone who saw a movie chose to not visit the popcorn stand, then they would be hurt and maybe the prices might drop a bit. Who knows. But "encouraging" those that prefer a snack or drink during the show to buy from the establishment by denying them the ability to bring in such consumables from outside is certainly within their right. If you don't like it, don't buy from them. But rationalizing the flaunting of the rules just because you don't think it's fair is ridiculous.

Exhaust Port
02-24-2003, 02:02 PM
I as I agree with JJB that the rules not allowing one to bring in their own beverages and snacks stink, I also agree with Stillakid that knowingly breaking the rule is wrong. They are running a business and have to shoulder the cost of running the theater as well as pay for the license to show each movie. Now it's up to them how they get that money from the public. They've chosen to offset a portion of that cost by creating a monopoly on the snacks. Does it suck? Yes, but just because it does doesn't give someone the right to break the rules.

Last time I checked I don't remember anyone operating a theater driving around in Bentley's. The money issue is tight for them and they've established a business model that will cover their expenses. If you want to get mad at anyone why not the Million Dollar Actors? They get paid $40 Million for a picture which raises the studios expenses, which raises the film cost, which raises the licensing fee for the theater operators, which increases their expenses and they're forced to cover that by increasing prices.

Now I guess where I wrote that I <B>totally</B> agreed with you JJB wasn't completely true. I agree that I don't like the rule and like other events where we're at liberty to bring our own snacks. But I can't agree that purposefully breaking that rule is right. I think that Stillakid is correct in pointing similarities between piracy and breaking this rule. It's not a crime if you don't see the people that it affects?

Now if they allowed me to pay a couple bucks more to bring in my own snacks I might go for that, especially if I had an army of kids with me. That would be more fair.

Now as much as I don't care for the snack monopoly, it's something that I can chose to avoid and go without a snack for 2 hours. On the other hand, having 20 minutes of commericals at the movie start time is a little more intrusive on our rights as a consumer.

Kidhuman
02-24-2003, 06:22 PM
Me and my friends have snuck beers into theatres before. When we saw the re-release of ESB we all bought 40's of COlt 45 and cracked them when Lando came on as a toast to him. It can be done. FOr example baggy pants, wife or girlfriends purse etc. There are many ways around it. If I do not like what they have for snacks then why should I have to suffer for there not having what I like readily available. If I were a vegetarian would they disallow carrot sticks?

QLD
02-24-2003, 07:30 PM
I have to agree with stillakid.

The comparison to the anti-piracy laws are correct.

However, I do hate snack bar prices, and will bring in food from ime to time, but not often.

However, I also download music as well. So I guess I am pretty straight on my thoughts on it.

The fact that I do it doesn't make it right at all, and I recognize their right to stop me.

stillakid
02-24-2003, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Exhaust Port
On the other hand, having 20 minutes of commericals at the movie start time is a little more intrusive on our rights as a consumer.

I haven't figured this one out yet for myself. Just as I don't like concession prices either, I'm not extremely happy to be sitting in a dark theater watching ads for Coke.

Obviously, if they ran the film at the advertised time, then some of that captured audience would purposefully avoid the commercials by showing up "late," which rather defeats the purpose of having the commercials. It's their theater, so I suppose they have the right to project just about anything they really want to whenever they want to, so long as they eventually get to the thing we paid for.

Which leads the argument back to the issue of "time." So if that's the case, then why not include previews into the lawsuit as well? I like watching previews as much as the next guy. I even consider it to be a part of my movie-going experience. But, having said that, I'm not that thrilled to sit for sometimes up to 10 or 15 minutes watching a package of commercials, previews, concession ads, and theater "hush" spots before the show begins. I guess I'd advocate dumping it all before the advertised start time if anything at all gets done. Just tell me when the damn movie is going to start so I can plan my day a little better. Not all of us are international men of leisure with nothing to do besides wander aimlessly through the days.

Mike Troxell
02-24-2003, 09:19 PM
My theater lets people bring their own food in, assuming it's not too messy or smelly. This is generally a very good thing, as I feel it's bad to corner a market and overcharge while you're at it. If a theater doesn't let you bring in outside food, you should feel free to do so anyway because that is, basically, a small monopoly on your choices for the next two hours of your life (four hours if you see the god-awful Gods and Generals). There are a few problems with outside food, though, from a theater employee's point of view.

1) If you're at the movies, and especially when you bring your own food, pick up your containers and trash. It boggles the mind how some people can make such a big mess of their food. As bad as picking up the buttery popcorn bags, the sticky cups, the cheese-smeared nacho trays is, it's ten times worse to pick up someone's greasy shrimp or fried chicken containers. You'd think if a food-selling business is nice enough to allow and encourage outside food, you'd have the common courtesy to pick up after yourself.

2) Alcohol. I know in some states it is legal to serve alcohol in the theaters. In my state it is not. I hate, hate, hate the fact that people sneak alcohol in the theater (My apologies to the Colt-drinking kidhuman, but I find it dispicable). If you can't enjoy a movie without being under the influence of a substance, you should probably rent a video and watch at home. Sneaking beer in is bad enough, but the number of times I've found empty rum/Jack Daniels/assorted hard alcohol bottles under the seats in theaters in the last two years since I started working is too large for me to count. These people are going out to their cars and driving away. I stand by my opinion that the majority is full of morons, half-wits, alcoholics, and low-lifes.

But where were we? Oh yes.

I really do feel bad for you, JT. It sounds like you've got the worst possible theater in your area. I can understand your complaints on this thread.

And I agree, twenty minutes of commercials is bad. Is that normal? None of the theaters in my area are like that. It's generally two or three comercials clocking in at one to two minutes apiece. We start our movies about five minutes early so that, if you get there when the movie is supposed to start, you generally won't get much of the commercial BS.

I saw a comment about the pre-movie slides by QLD earlier in the thread. Are those so terrible? If you don't have those, it's generally going to be a blank screen. While there are general advertising slides, the majority are movie trivia and the like. I find them pretty entertaining.

JediTricks
02-24-2003, 09:34 PM
Alright guys, let's lay off the personal stuff. We can have a civil argument on this issue without getting personal, can't we? It's unneccessary to make a personal attack on this issue.

---


Originally posted by JarJarBinks
That's cool about the Mann theaters allowing you to bring stuff in. More theaters should hop on the bandwagon.
Yeah but it gets excessive, people bringing smelly dinners into the theater can be distracting. One time, someone brought in garlic chicken from the Panda Express downstairs... YIKES! Plus, the employees have to pick up the mess, when I was a young lad, my summer day camp went to the movies and I brought my lunch in with me... it was a roast chicken leg and wing which stayed in the theater after I ate & split (ah the things you do when you want to seem cool to others ;)).


Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Agreed, if the ticket prices were cheaper we would be seeing box office returns like the old days. But now when you can wait 6 months and get a movie on DVD for a bit more then a movie ticket wil cost you, it's not going to happen. The days of the motion picture experience are slowly starting to die out. I think that's the wrong direction to think in for Hollywood, the theater experience should be the definitive way to enjoy a director's vision (no pausing, no table lamp off to the side, no rewinding). I don't really think the home market will take as big a hit either because the theater experience is supposed to be drastically different from the home experience, the theater is more of a public gathering and group enjoyment whereas the home market caters to more of a focused, closed-off setting. I have had some great discussions with folks I had never met before while hanging out in front of a theater or in the lobby after a film because conversing with your friends about something you just saw is infectious to others, but you're never gonna meet strangers in your house. Heck, my mom made a group of buddies waiting in the TPM ticket line (I was sick that day and couldn't make it, she volunteered to go in my place), 4 years later she's still friends with some of 'em.


Exhaust Port, a concert is different from a theater - the promoters make money off of ticket sales, merchandise sales, and then concessions - they don't own the venue and don't have to pay rent or land tax. I think of a movie theater more like a theme park, Disneyland and Magic Mountain don't allow you to bring in your own food either because they stay open by having that monopoly on being able to enjoy food in their park - you can leave and eat your own food elsewhere but not there.


What's funny is that most theater concession stands I visit carry stuff you wouldn't easily bring in anyway, you're not often going to find a theater-style hot dog or popcorn or nachos close enough to the theater that when you're watching the film they're still hot and fresh AND a major savings over the theater. If a large popcorn was $2.50 instead of nearly 5 bucks, I firmly believe nobody would complain about the issue and actually would continue to buy it from the theater rather than bring in their own.


Stilla, the trailers are ads for related items (other movies) in their respective venues, while the product ads are junk we get bombarded with constantly on TV, in magazines, on billboards. I'm not paying the theater to be bombarded by stuff I get hit with outside the theater already, I'm paying to get a very specific theater experience which those ads are not a part of. We're paying a huge premium to get that experience and every product ad we have to sit through after showtime takes away from that experience.

JediTricks
02-24-2003, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Mike Troxell
I saw a comment about the pre-movie slides by QLD earlier in the thread. Are those so terrible? If you don't have those, it's generally going to be a blank screen. While there are general advertising slides, the majority are movie trivia and the like. I find them pretty entertaining. I also made a comment about these. Pre-showtime slides are halfway acceptable because the dopey things try (albeit quite half-arsedly) to entertain you while advertising at you. Plus, they are pre-showtime stuff and not being crammed down your throat unlike the actual commercials we're talking about here.

stillakid
02-24-2003, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
Stilla, the trailers are ads for related items (other movies) in their respective venues, while the product ads are junk we get bombarded with constantly on TV, in magazines, on billboards. I'm not paying the theater to be bombarded by stuff I get hit with outside the theater already, I'm paying to get a very specific theater experience which those ads are not a part of. We're paying a huge premium to get that experience and every product ad we have to sit through after showtime takes away from that experience.

Yes, as I stated, I agree as well that for me personally, I enjoy seeing trailers. In fact, I get a little upset if I miss them.

But, if I'm reading her lawsuit correctly, she's taking issue with the fact that the movie itself does not start at the designated time. As much as I enjoy the trailers, that gets to me as well. Sometimes that 10 minutes does make a difference on either side of the show when you've got other things to do, kids to pick up from school, etc etc. Really, how hard would it be to actually start the movie at the time they say? Run everything else before hand. If you want to see that stuff and be assured of a great seat, you show up 15 or 20 minutes early. Your choice. No harm no foul. People show up early for the better seats anyway.


Oh, and I just went to a screening of a friend's indy film at the Arclight the other night. Nice screens...and we got free popcorn and Coke. Membership has it's privileges. ;)

Exhaust Port
02-24-2003, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
Exhaust Port, a concert is different from a theater - the promoters make money off of ticket sales, merchandise sales, and then concessions - they don't own the venue and don't have to pay rent or land tax. I think of a movie theater more like a theme park, Disneyland and Magic Mountain don't allow you to bring in your own food either because they stay open by having that monopoly on being able to enjoy food in their park - you can leave and eat your own food elsewhere but not there.

Promoters pay rent or a fee to use a facility. How do you think concert venues make money? Those tax rates for the particular venue are factored into the cost of using the facility. The concert venue gets a cut of the ticket revenue to run their facility (employees, utilities, etc.). That's exactly what happens in a theater.

A theater uses a percentage of the ticket sales to run the facility. A theme park does the same but a lot of the theme parks (at least here in OH) allow people to bring in food and in fact have grounds just for people to picnic at. There are restrictions such as no open flames but that would hold true for a theater as well. :)

The operating costs are also much higher at a theme park so it's somewhat understanding that they are more careful to control what they monopolize. Technically a theater would only have to pay for the facilities and equipment once and it should last for the life of the theater (barring any technology changes). The entertainment they provide is constantly changing as new movies are released monthly to bring in new patrons. A theme park would have to spend millions of $$ to provide a new entertainment (ie roller coaster) where theaters just pay the fee to show a different movie.

2-1B
02-25-2003, 02:26 AM
JT, awhile ago I was ranting about the horrendous smacking sounds of people chewing like cows on that god-awful popcorn sold at the concession stands. IIRC, you were surprised that I had such an issue with it, and I think you said something to the effect that you didn't mind the sounds of people enjoying their Raisenettes or popcorn as long as it was within reason. Well, then what's with this "distraction" of the smell of garlic chicken? :crazed:
Man, I'd LOVE to have the problem of smelly food over popcorn scarfers - if the smell offends me, I'll just breath through my mouth. But if the sound offends me, I can't exactly cover my ears because I'd like to hear the film. :crazed:
Yet now that I think some more about it, maybe I could bring earplugs for the quiet time leading up to the ads / previews.
:crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed: :crazed:


Comparing food and/or drink smuggling to music piracy? Oh PLEASE. :D

Let's consider the 20 ounce bottle of Coca-Cola which I enjoyed during the movies this weekend: :)
I bought the soda from an authorized dealer and they gave a cut to the Coke company. The rightful owner(s) of that beverage all received compensation for it. The theater chain also sells this product, but my purchase of it from ANOTHER authorized dealer is not stealing.

If I download a song on the internet, I'm paying NOTHING for it and NOTHING to the artist or the record company. They received NOTHING from me for listening to their song, whereas Coke and their dealers received payment from me. It's not my fault that another seller (theater chain) decides to charge unreasonable prices. If I don't like the price of a $20 CD, I'll go elsewhere and pay $13. If I don't like the price of a $4 soda, I'll go elsewhere and pay $1. I buy movie tickets to SEE MOVIES.

If you want a real comparison involving music piracy and theater concessions, I offer the following:

If I don't like the prices of a soda at the food stand and decide to swipe a cup and fill it up for myself - THAT is piracy. If I sweet talk one of the employees into giving me a free drink, THAT is piracy.
If I rob a convenience store and bring stolen bottles of Coke into the theater, THAT is piracy.

Smuggling a bottle of Coke into a theater is not akin to piracy.
It may be in violation of a theater's policy and therefore "wrong", but it's NOT stealing.
If you ever find me with my mouth under the spout of a soda fountain because I don't like the price, then you can compare it to music piracy. :)

Beast
02-25-2003, 02:43 AM
Amen, Caesar. While I don't deny Stillakid's right to have an opinion, I do have to dispute this opinion. Comparing bringing in a bottle of pop or a snack to international copyright and intellectual property laws. Please. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in my entire life. That is like saying I'm stealing from an artist, because I bought a paint by number kit or a coloring book instead of a piece of art. :crazed: :stupid: :p

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Exhaust Port
02-25-2003, 10:09 AM
First off, concessions are a necessary method of covering expenses at the theater. You don't think they're charging $3 for popcorn just because it's good for business do you? Heck no, if they could get by charging $1 if they could afford it. They run a business model that statistically shows how many patrons per screening will purchase snacks. They adjust their price scale to account for that number of purchases.

Now a bunch of local kids decided that they are going to stop buying the products, not because they aren't thirsty or hungry but because they sneak them in. Now for some reason that 25% that bought snacks for the 3:00 showing is down to 20%. More and more kids start justifying that and the statistical percentage that are buying concessions is now 20% for all showings.

Where do you think that money will have to now be generated from? Thin air? Well I'm sure they could raise the concession prices to account for the change but not forever thanks to Diminishing Returns. So the next logical place is to show an increase is in the ticket prices. So now that 75% who never bought concessions is shouldering the financial burden because that 25% is sneaking in their snacks, which is against theater policy.

So it also isn't fair to say that "I'm the only one that does this so there is no way that it's hurting them." That is no different than the shoplifter who steals from the big department store because "they make some much money on other sales they won't miss this $3 product."

Look if you don't want to pay for the snack than don't and go without for the 2-3 hours you're at the theater. If you are thristy then by all means follow the stinking rules and buy a $3 coke.

It seems that you have a hang up for following rules versus laws. Yes, artists are protected by copyright laws and theaters are only permitted to create rules. Again, you've justified yourself enough that rules are only guidelines and nothing that must be adhered to just because the threat of being arrested isn't there.

Well, in the real world rules exist for a reason. You might not know the reason or understand it but that doesn't exempt you from following them. Whether it be not bringing your own beverages into a theater or keeping your hands inside the school bus, there is a reason for that rule. Don't say that the school bus rules are for safety and should be followed but the theater is different. Sure one is there to protect revenue and the other is there to insure safety. There are reasons for them being there. By not following the rules someone will pay the price. It might not be you but it'll catch up to someone.


What are you going to do when you have children of your own? How are you going to explain to them that "daddy breaks this rule because its stupid" and they must "obey all rules." This is the line of thinking that gets kids sticking their arms out the bus window. "I'm breaking this rule because I think it's stupid." Monkey see, monkey do.

stillakid
02-25-2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Amen, Caesar. While I don't deny Stillakid's right to have an opinion, I do have to dispute this opinion. Comparing bringing in a bottle of pop or a snack to international copyright and intellectual property laws. Please. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in my entire life. That is like saying I'm stealing from an artist, because I bought a paint by number kit or a coloring book instead of a piece of art. :crazed: :stupid: :p

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

It's called situational ethics. Look it up.


And Caesar, you are correct in saying that the Coca Cola company still receives their share from all sales, but you're not purchasing directly from them either. Your line of reasoning would only work if the manufacturing company itself set up a pop stand in the lobby. The same goes for every other concession as well. But the various candy, soda, and hotdog companies (not to mention the companies that make the buns, the ketchup, the relish, the mustard, the plates, the forks & knifes, the cups, the salt, the butter, the nacho chips, the gooey cheese, the salsa, the napkins, etc etc etc) have chosen to use resellers to distribute their products. Just like a restaurant. Last time I checked, those guys weren't too keen on people bringing their own food into those establishments either. And every reseller I've ever had the pleasure of giving money to has marked up the price in order to make some kind of profit if not only to just keep the store operational. Are the concession stand prices high? Yeah. Of course, relative to what you can buy that stuff for in the grocery store. But I don't know what the overhead is either for movie theaters. Certainly the owners are making money, otherwise why have a business. But, as mentioned, they wouldn't "jack up the price" that high if they didn't have to.

But can you imagine having to visit, what is it, like 6 different "stands" to get and pay for a simple hot dog and drink? First you have to visit the plate booth and pay there. Then the bun booth. Then you have to find the hot dog guy and pay him. Then the ketchup guy, the mustard guy, and the relish guy. The knife guy if you want to properly spread the condiments. Oh, yeah, and the napkin guy. Oops, forgot the drink, so now you have to find the cup booth and pay him before finally finding the Coca Cola booth where you can purchase the product directly from the manufacturer at a reasonable price.

But where does the theater get a cut of all this? Maybe they have to charge the concession manufacturers a rental fee for operating on their premises. Then obviously, to make up for that, the manufacturers in turn raise their prices to you.

Oh, and I haven't even mentioned stuff like air-conditioning and electricity. Can you imagine what the monthly bills for a multi-plex must be?

Think of it this way: should I be allowed to take my Big Mac Value Meal into The Palm in Vegas just because I want to enjoy my cheap meal in a really nice atmosphere? :confused: The company that slaughtered the cow still gets their money out of me even though I'm not buying the Filet Minon.

Exhaust Port
02-25-2003, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by stillakid
Oh, and I haven't even mentioned stuff like air-conditioning and electricity. Can you imagine what the monthly bills for a multi-plex must be?

According to my local multi-plex about 99% of their operating cost is air conditioning. I swear they could start hanging meat from hooks to make some extra money in there.

James Boba Fettfield
02-25-2003, 02:51 PM
If a theater has a rule of not allowing people to bring in outside food/drink into their place of business, then why would you do it against their policy? If we can pick what rules we want to follow, then by that logic people should be allowed to choose what rules they want to follow regarding intellectual property. I agree with that idea of I bought the ticket to see the movie, and that's what I am there to do. I'm not there to hide food and eat it without their permission. If the theater openly allows a person to do this, then so be it. Bring in all the food you want and have a party. Just like I believe artists should have a choice and people should respect it, so should the theaters. If that's their choice for you not to bring in outside food, then by all means, please follow it.

Prince Xizor
02-25-2003, 07:58 PM
I think movie theaters bring it upon themselves when people sneak food into a theater. Personaly I do it all the time, and I have no problem with it. If the damn theater didn't charge $2.50 for a single 20 oz bottle of soda then I wouldn't need to sneak one in, now would I? A theater can only expect people to be reasonable when it comes to their rules, when the theater itself is reasonable. Charging 2.5 times more for a bottle of soda is not being reasonable.

And I also don't see a problem with sneaking something in if I have no intention of buying it otherwise. I don't bring a coke in, I am still not going to buy one. The theater isn't losing money either way.

Exhaust Port
02-25-2003, 08:56 PM
So do you justify everything else in your life so you don't have to follow rules? It just seems that a lot of people are lacking ethics. Of course I'm sure you could justify that our society doesn't need that either.

Prince Xizor
02-25-2003, 09:28 PM
Well, yeah I do justify everything I do in my life. Everything I do doesn't break the rules, actually 99% of what I do doesn't, but in this case it happens to.

Speaking of ethics, there is also a thing called business ethics. And it involves not screwing over the consumer by forcing them to pay inflated costs by denying them the right to competition. And that is exactly what a movie theater does when they ban outside food. Don't preach to me about ethics, when what you are defending is unethical.

Exhaust Port
02-26-2003, 01:29 AM
Perhaps you didn't read the previous posts here. There is a reason that the cost of concessions is what it is, they use that to cover expenses. If they could make money selling popcorn at $2 then they would but, guess what, they can't. Unless you want to see a $2-3 dollar increase at the box office the concessions will continue to offset the revenue requirements.

Again, it seems that a lot of the complainers haven't talked to anyone in the business to see what the requirements are. Rather than spouting claims a unethical practices, why don't you look into why they are required to do this.


Average admission prices have increased, from $2.69 in 1980 to $5.39 in 2000. These higher prices, particularly in metropolitan areas, are deterring people from the cinema altogether. The problem is further compounded by old Hollywood practices that stipulate that the studio gets as much as 90% of the revenue of ticket sales the first week with the percentage decreasing in future weeks to about 50% (Grover 99). Of course the problem for cinema chains is that attendance in future weeks is minimal.

Doing just a brief search I came up with the above report on theater revenues.

How successful do you think your business would be when it would have to give away 90% of its revenue during the most productive week of business? Here are a few more quotes from the report.


What is interesting to consider, however, is that when the average admission price is adjusted for inflation, it is actually not as high now as it was in the 1970's, for instance.


Hollywood claims that revenues are up substantially in the last five years, but that is studio revenue and not theater revenue (Alexander 1). After all, the greatest share of revenue for the studio comes from home video sales and rentals, not the cinema.

There's more out there if you wanted to educate yourself about this but that involves looking and we all know sitting back and complaining is easier.

So what you see in the theater with its fancy projector and surround sound comes with a cost. That cost must be offset in ticket prices and concessions since those are the only 2 methods that they can generate revenue. I'll say it again, those are the ONLY TWO ways the can produce revenue. They aren't a concert venue or amusement park that sells food, novelties, gifts, charging for parking, etc.

You can plead ignorance of the requirements to have the theater experience and cry about unethical practices all you want but it doesn't change the fact that as a business it's a necessity to charge what they do.

It seems ignorance is bliss and justification = righteousness.

Exhaust Port
02-26-2003, 02:15 AM
I just realized that I didn't provide the link for the quoted report and I didn't make note of it when I read it. Looking again I found a report by MIT covering theater cost structures.

http://web.mit.edu/pjdavis/www/papers/movies.pdf

The key note in the report is that assuming a theater is paid for, leaving only operating costs, a theater will take about 23 to 25 cents of every dollar spent by a patron. This is assuming an average take by the studios (between 50%-90%).

So assuming your local theater with it's THX sound is paid in full they'll cashing in on $2 profit from your $8 ticket. You've got say 5 screens showing 4 movies a day each giving you 20 opportunities to earn money. With a generous 20 people per screening you'll make $800 profit. Now start subtracting your taxes (property, local, state and federal, remember you'll be in the 40%+ tax bracket for that), mortgage and incedental costs (those darn kids broke a couple seats and a window) and that profit will disappear quickly.

There is a reason for that $4 popcorn when only 1 out of 3 patrons is buying something (about 32% of your profit capability). Now without that 32% concession profit gone, instead of making a 25% profit your now making a 7% loss. Also your operating costs are fairly flat considering you show a movie whether there is 100 people or 2.

Now I've provided the report for you so you can read it all in its statistical glory and justify the right to bring in your own snacks.

LTBasker
02-26-2003, 02:54 AM
However that's a give/take estimate on a time table of one day, with only mere possibilities of something happening like the window getting broke. Don't forget that theaters usually have arcades as well, which usually bring in a pretty penny.

You're also forgetting the days when they don't have to pay for broken items, and they could get a good increase in ticket sales from a hit movie or just more people coming in and then profits build up so you CAN handle those bad days. You can't base a full statistic off of one day of only hypothetical situations.

Also you're forgetting that if something in the snack bar doesn't sell, then they could easily replace it with something more enticing to people, or you could order less of the item if business is slow therefore meaning a delice in profit spending. True they would have to watch shelf experation dates, and likely have to order a specific amount in shipments, but if the shipments aren't that far apart then they may be able to go without 1 or 2 so that non-selling items don't stack up.

There is also the possibility that the owner of a theater could be rich or near that, meaning that extra expenses such as broken items could be covered from that.
Plus, if an item is broken by a kid or an adult, and they are caught they could be made to pay for it, and so profits wouldn't have to be spent on that.

Heck, I've seen them save profits by not ordering new stock on somethings first hand, ever noticed how they tend to use promo cups, bags, etc. for food months after the movie went out of theater? It's because they play it smart and don't order more when they've got what they need right there already.

James Boba Fettfield
02-26-2003, 03:07 AM
I always felt if that's what the theater wants, then so be it. McDonald's tells me to put on some shoes before I go into their establishment, so I do it. I recognize what the theater says to me when I use their establishment. If they say don't bring outside food here, then I won't. That's the point to understand. If someone came to my home and started drinking beer, it's my right as the owner to tell them to get rid of it or get out. People can complain all they want about a theater and how evil the prices are. The point is if you are a person who follows rules, why are you breaking them in the theater? Just go without the drink or food if you truely don't want to pay the prices, and eat/drink outside of the theater's jurisdiction.

2-1B
02-26-2003, 03:12 AM
Before I get into specific points, why are we supposed to "feel" for the theaters and "understand" why they have to attempt to scam people at the concession stands? :confused:

We keep hearing about the evil studios and their ridiculous cuts of the tickets - so why aren't the theaters standing up and taking their fair share? They roll over for the studios and then turn around and expect US to roll over for them? Excuse me for having better business sense than these clowns who build giant theaters that they can't even come CLOSE to filling.


Exhaust Port
Now a bunch of local kids decided that they are going to stop buying the products, not because they aren't thirsty or hungry but because they sneak them in. Now for some reason that 25% that bought snacks for the 3:00 showing is down to 20%. More and more kids start justifying that and the statistical percentage that are buying concessions is now 20% for all showings.


Whoever said anything about deciding to STOP buying the products? If people are "smart" enough to finally realize that they can sneak in items then I surely don't believe that they had been buying them over a long period of time. Either people WILL or WON'T submit to a shake down - if they won't, they aren't taking anything away from the theater chains.


Exhaust Port
Where do you think that money will have to now be generated from? Thin air? Well I'm sure they could raise the concession prices to account for the change but not forever thanks to Diminishing Returns. So the next logical place is to show an increase is in the ticket prices. So now that 75% who never bought concessions is shouldering the financial burden because that 25% is sneaking in their snacks, which is against theater policy.

But the 25% (or most of them) won't buy the snacks ANYWAY. :rolleyes:

As for your question of where the money will be generated from?
Can't be that tough . . . let me try. :)

How about offering QUALITY products to go with those prices?
How about offering beverages at a lower cost, a cost WITHIN REASON and selling wayyyyyy more in the long run thus equalling decent profits due to volume? Go ahead, TRY offering something with VALUE and people will flock to it.
How about not having the employees drag out the stale-looking pre-popped pocorn in giant bags and then dump those bags in a glass heater - and THEN expect someone to pay $5 or $6 for that?
How about demanding a fair share of ticket prices from the distributors?

You're so right about Diminishing Returns. They phased out most of their returns years ago with their continually asinine prices.
Also, see JT's post about the mega-plex boom and apply it to the unfortunate area of having to cover their costs.


Exhaust Port
What are you going to do when you have children of your own? How are you going to explain to them that "daddy breaks this rule because its stupid" and they must "obey all rules." This is the line of thinking that gets kids sticking their arms out the bus window. "I'm breaking this rule because I think it's stupid." Monkey see, monkey do.

Intellectually dishonest analogy. :p

If I have a kid and he loses a limb on a school bus because he doesn't like the rule, then he's a moron. :rolleyes:
If I have a kid and he smuggles in a beverage at a theater because he won't submit to being being ripped off, then he's smart. ;)




Stillakid
And Caesar, you are correct in saying that the Coca Cola company still receives their share from all sales, but you're not purchasing directly from them either. Your line of reasoning would only work if the manufacturing company itself set up a pop stand in the lobby. The same goes for every other concession as well. But the various candy, soda, and hotdog companies (not to mention the companies that make the buns, the ketchup, the relish, the mustard, the plates, the forks & knifes, the cups, the salt, the butter, the nacho chips, the gooey cheese, the salsa, the napkins, etc etc etc) have chosen to use resellers to distribute their products. Just like a restaurant. Last time I checked, those guys weren't too keen on people bringing their own food into those establishments either.

I never said I was buying directly from Coca-Cola. They sold it to someone who sold it to someone else who sold it to me. Everybody along the way got a cut AND a profit from that single sale. They got enough to cover the cost of selling that bottle of soda. Same with theaters, or is it? The cost of bringing in refreshments and the cost of paying their employees to serve these items is MORE THAB covered and then some by their outrageous prices.
Oh, but they have to cover the costs of exhibiting movies - and it's complete B.S. that they have to rely on concessions to do so. :rolleyes:

No, my line of reasoning works just fine. :)
What's foolish is the comparison to a restaurant.
That's the POINT of a restaurant - to sell food.
The POINT of a theater is to SHOW MOVIES. If they want to make some extra money on the side by offering refreshments, more power to them. And if they want to tell people they can't bring carry-ins, that's their right. But bringing in a beverage to the theater is not "Stealing" as suggested by the comparison to music piracy.

Stealing from a theater could only happen in cases such as:
-taking items from the concession stands without paying
-sneaking into another room and watching a "free" movie

Gas stations and theater chains are both resellers of beverages and their prices will vary. Yes, they have to cover the cost of paying their employees and make a profit off of it, but it seems like only theaters make such a huge markup. Price differences will exist from seller to seller, but when you can find examples such as these where one seller charges an incredible 300+% difference then it's quite obvious that it's NOT within reason.


Stillakid
Oh, and I haven't even mentioned stuff like air-conditioning and electricity. Can you imagine what the monthly bills for a multi-plex must be?

Yes I can imagine what the bills would be, and that's why I would never throw money away by opening one of these beasts just to give most of my take to the film studios. :p

Air conditioning and electricity all deal with the exhibition of the films - hence, that should be reflected in the ticket price. If theater owners wouldn't be so foolish as to give back 90% of my ticket price, they wouldn't have to try to justify their concession prices.


Jaymz Boba Fettfield
If a theater has a rule of not allowing people to bring in outside food/drink into their place of business, then why would you do it against their policy? If we can pick what rules we want to follow, then by that logic people should be allowed to choose what rules they want to follow regarding intellectual property. I agree with that idea of I bought the ticket to see the movie, and that's what I am there to do. I'm not there to hide food and eat it without their permission.

People ARE able to follow what rules they want when it comes to intellectual property - there are many ways to pirate music. These 2 situations do not compare since music piracy deals with stealing which is ultimately against the law and therefore a crime.
Stealing music on the web could ultimately lead to prosecution and penalties.

Sneaking food or drink into a theater may be in violation of a policy or rule, but it doesn't break any LAW. It's their right to kick you out of the place for violating policy, but no law is being broken.

You might argue that it's unethical, and I see how that argument can be made. My only reason for posting about all of this though was to argue that sneaking snacks into a theater is NOT the same as stealing.

A debate on the ethics of these acts is a whole different thing. :)
Of course, that debate will also have to address the ethics of studios and exhibitors as well. ;)

2-1B
02-26-2003, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by Exhaust Port
Now I've provided the report for you so you can read it all in its statistical glory and justify the right to bring in your own snacks.

I don't know of anyone who argues it's his or her "right" to bring in their own snacks - I personally recognize the right of a theater to prohibit carry-ins and to throw people out for violating that rule.




Originally posted by Exhaust Port
There is a reason for that $4 popcorn when only 1 out of 3 patrons is buying something (about 32% of your profit capability). Now without that 32% concession profit gone, instead of making a 25% profit your now making a 7% loss.

And . . . . . ??? :confused:

It's a joke of a comparison because I don't believe for a second that (the majority of) people who sneak stuff in are even remotely likely to buy snacks at the theater to begin with.

"Profit gone" ?
It's allegedly a fact that 1 in 3 people already do pay those prices, so what's the point here?
I mean, if it was true that smugglers WOULD instead pay for their overpriced goods then I can see their complaint about "lost profits." But the smugglers aren't going to pay those prices in the first place, so you can't say that their smuggling is hurting profits.

James Boba Fettfield
02-26-2003, 03:40 AM
Ok Caesar, I'll bite. I was wrong to compare theater rules with government laws.

Exhaust Port
02-26-2003, 03:44 AM
My intention was that those incedental expenditures aren't daily occurances but would impact an owners yearly profit margin.



Originally posted by LTBasker
Don't forget that theaters usually have arcades as well, which usually bring in a pretty penny.

...which cost a pretty penny. Owning an arcade machine will cost you $4000+ each. How long until you see a profit on that? Most rent which eliminates the initial cost but they don't own the machine. Paying $100 a month per machine still requires quite a bit of usage in order to start seeing a profit. Plus that $100 is non-recoupable as they can't sell the machine to cover that investment.


You're also forgetting the days when they don't have to pay for broken items, and they could get a good increase in ticket sales from a hit movie or just more people coming in and then profits build up so you CAN handle those bad days. You can't base a full statistic off of one day of only hypothetical situations.

Did you read the report? The statistics that they used are based on an average yearly financial year not one day of research. My inclusion of additional incedentals and taxes were done to show in addition to what was published that the reported profit was even less than shown. Taxes alone could cut down that profit by 55% which leaves the owner with 14 cents on the dollar. That 14 cents will be used to cover any incedentals.

Remember the times at which the theater is more busy due to a recent release is when the studios are taking the largest share of the profits, roughly 90% that first week. How many people are in the theater for a movie when the studios are taking only a 40% cut 4 weeks later? You can't believe the theater is making a killing when the lines are long.


Also you're forgetting that if something in the snack bar doesn't sell, then they could easily replace it with something more enticing to people, or you could order less of the item if business is slow therefore meaning a delice in profit spending.

...and take a loss on the products that didn't sell? Stagnent products don't generate income and replacing them only insures a loss on the initial investment.

I'm sure anyone who is a business owner understands the basics of supply and demand so they would order products accordingly, a theater would be no different. Remember, the stats are a yearly average so that illiminates the peaks and valleys of daily income.


There is also the possibility that the owner of a theater could be rich or near that, meaning that extra expenses such as broken items could be covered from that.

He could also be rich enough to pay me $10 just for visiting his fine establishment. Personal worth doesn't impact a business model so don't confuse a business with a charity.


Plus, if an item is broken by a kid or an adult, and they are caught they could be made to pay for it, and so profits wouldn't have to be spent on that.

True and I'm sure for big ticket items that would be the case, if they were caught. But thanks to our friend Entropy, incidentals are going to happen whether they're man-made or not.


Heck, I've seen them save profits by not ordering new stock on somethings first hand, ever noticed how they tend to use promo cups, bags, etc. for food months after the movie went out of theater? It's because they play it smart and don't order more when they've got what they need right there already.

Again, theaters don't stay in business by not following the basics of supply and demand.

The issue here is that theaters are running on a schedule of expected returns. People start bypassing the rules they have in place to meet those necessary returns and they take a hit. Where we'll see the impact is in the ticket price at the box office. Just like the value of the products taken by a thief are absorbed by higher prices for the consumers.

Like it was said before, if you don't want to pay the prices then don't and go without. If you fancy a drink then have water, it's free. Anything else will cost you as that is how the business is organized to run. Chances are that if you don't like the prices or don't eat during a movie then you never have paid extra at the theater. Problems will arise with that percentage who historically do eat in a theater and purchase a certain amount at the snack counter decide to bypass the rules in place.

Plus, I'm disappointed at the lack of ethics. Like JBF said, they have rules in place and some knowingly break them due to their own strange justification.

2-1B
02-26-2003, 03:59 AM
Originally posted by Exhaust Port
Problems will arise with that percentage who historically do eat in a theater and purchase a certain amount at the snack counter decide to bypass the rules in place.

Who are these people?
Why have they historically paid $4 for a soda?
Why are they first deciding to bypass the rules now?



Originally posted by Exhaust Port
Plus, I'm disappointed at the lack of ethics. Like JBF said, they have rules in place and some knowingly break them due to their own strange justification.

Have you ever driven up to and including 5 mph over the speed limit?
I'd place that along side the idea of 'people smuggling snacks even though they would never pay at the concession stand.'
Sure, it's unethical but how unethical? Not very . . .

:)

Exhaust Port
02-26-2003, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by Caesar
I mean, if it was true that smugglers WOULD instead pay for their overpriced goods then I can see their complaint about "lost profits." But the smugglers aren't going to pay those prices in the first place, so you can't say that their smuggling is hurting profits.

And you can't say that all smugglers wouldn't be paying for snacks if they didn't get away with sneaking in food. Again, this goes back to this strange ethical justification. How can you say that if every one of the smugglers was stopped from bring in outside food that they wouldn't be buying anything from the theater? You can't.


It's allegedly a fact that 1 in 3 people already do pay those prices, so what's the point here?

What you seem to be missing in the comparison is that concessions are built into their business model to meet revenue requirements not just so they can have the thrill of a $4 popcorn. There is an anticipation that 1 out of 3 people or $1 out of $3 in profit comes from concessions.

Again, you can't say that every smuggler wouldn't buy food if they were given no other option. In fact I'd be willing to bet that most would but they're willing to exploit what is basically an honor system. My thought would be that a smuggler is more interested in paying $4 for a pound of Skittles than for a half pound. They want the goods they just don't like their options.

Exhaust Port
02-26-2003, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by Caesar
Have you ever driven up to and including 5 mph over the speed limit?
I'd place that along side the idea of 'people smuggling snacks even though they would never pay at the concession stand.'
Sure, it's unethical but how unethical? Not very . . .

:)

Well as much as I do try to follow the speed limit I will admit that at times I'm not as vigilant of my speedometer. This issue has less to do with ethics and more to do with safety. I don't go 50 miles an hour down the neighborhood streets for no other reason that it's not safe for myself or those that might be around me. Acting outside of the concern for others is unethical not the act of speeding, which is just unsafe.

Darth Nihilus
02-26-2003, 11:21 AM
Wow, this thread has strayed from the original topic somewhat. But my take on the lawsuit is that theaters are essentially practicing false advertising by not showing their features at the advertised time. If they want to circumvent this they need to print on their schedules and and receipts that running time uncludes advertisments, or start showing the ads earlier.

stillakid
02-26-2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Caesar
I never said I was buying directly from Coca-Cola. They sold it to someone who sold it to someone else who sold it to me. Everybody along the way got a cut AND a profit from that single sale. They got enough to cover the cost of selling that bottle of soda. Same with theaters, or is it? The cost of bringing in refreshments and the cost of paying their employees to serve these items is MORE THAB covered and then some by their outrageous prices.
Oh, but they have to cover the costs of exhibiting movies - and it's complete B.S. that they have to rely on concessions to do so. :rolleyes:

No, my line of reasoning works just fine. :)
What's foolish is the comparison to a restaurant.
That's the POINT of a restaurant - to sell food.
The POINT of a theater is to SHOW MOVIES. If they want to make some extra money on the side by offering refreshments, more power to them. And if they want to tell people they can't bring carry-ins, that's their right. But bringing in a beverage to the theater is not "Stealing" as suggested by the comparison to music piracy.


Hmm. Well, like I've said before, there's no convincing anybody of anything once they've made up their mind.

But anyway, I'll remove "ethics" from the table because it's apparently okay to break rules just so long as the Federal or State governments haven't turned them into official laws.

So I'll return to the music piracy thing one last time. You seem to be suggesting that the main complaint is the huge markup on the product. In short, you KNOW that it costs far less to manufacture and distribute the products in question than what we are asked to pay. Are we in agreement there?

So, following that line of logic through to "intellectual property," the primary complaint among Napster users was the exact same thing. They wanted to know why they had to pay upwards of $20 for a CD that costs far far less to produce, manufacture, and distribute. Not only did they finally have enough, but there was suddenly a way to get the same product at a 100% discount. Hmm? Sound familiar?

And before you jump on this one, no comparison is going to be an exact match to this theater/concessions issue. Just sitting here, I can't think of another business that can be compared on a 1 to 1 basis. There are other concerns which drive the necessities of concession prices which have all been mentioned.

The one you brought up that caught my interest was that the theater owners are stupid for accepting such a raw deal from the studios. Your response is that they deserve to get the shaft from the consumer as well as punishment for being idiotic. Right? Maybe they do, which takes us back to the idea of breaking rules because it's okay to do that just so long as nobody out there makes it a law.

But answer this for me? Say the theater chains opened up their monopoly on feeding the audience and allowed other vendors onto their property to offer fair competition. Wouldn't those vendors have to raise their own prices anyway to pay the rental cost of using the theater's property? I can hear your thought process from here: just let us bring our own food in and don't bother with other vendors. The competition would force theater concession prices down and quality up. So where else will they make up the operating revenue? Higher ticket prices? Oh yeah, the theater owners are morons for accepting such a raw deal in the first place so why should we have to pay a higher price to support that bad decision?



Look, I'm over here in the thick of it. Believe me, the money that gets tossed around on the "manufacturing" side of filmmaking would truly boggle your mind. Can these things be made for less money? In some cases, sure. In others, not necessarily. Truth be told, in order to produce a "slick" and clean looking film on par in technical quality with what we're accustomed to seeing, it costs on average no less than 4 to 5 million dollars. This includes all the necessary equipment, quality crew, as well as paying good actors. Now toss in the A or B list performers to better ensure a successful opening weekend, and the cost soars...and fast.

I only bring this up because this moment right here, when the cost rises, is the core of the "problem." If movies didn't cost so much to make, then studios wouldn't have to demand so much money up front (that 90% talked about above). Why do they need it back so fast? The 50 to 80 million dollars used aren't just sitting in a studio vault. That's all borrowed money from a variety of sources. And each day that the movie isn't in the theater, is another day that interest accrues. This is why a movie has to make at least 140% of it's real cost in order to just break even. So if the profits from distribution were suddenly "evened out" to make it more fair for the theater chains, a film would now have to make upwards of 150% to 180% or more to just break even.

IF the movie was good enough to ensure packed houses for every print shown at every time, then maybe a more equitable system could be worked out. But studios are hedging their bets and know full well that opening weekend is their best shot at recovering the manufacturing cost of a film.

This is only part of it. A large portion of financing comes from overseas presales. And the typical foreign buyer wants to know three things: Who's in it, is it an action film or comedy, and how well will it open in the USA? If the studio doesn't have good answers for those questions, that foreign money won't materialize and the movie might not get made.

There's so much more to this and I've already gone on waaay too long. Suffice it to say, it's a really complicated equation to just get one movie into the local theater. And the ability for us to see it comes down to a $3 bucket of popcorn and the folks honest enough to buy it. Crazy, huh?

Exhaust Port
02-26-2003, 12:07 PM
Back to the oringal topic, yes I think having commericals limited to before the start time would be great. If I get there early I don't mind sitting through those dumb slides, it helps pass the time. If that helps the bottom line of the theater then it should be illiminated, it just needs to be rescheduled.

It should be similar to other events where there is a published "doors open at" time and a "show begins at" time.

scruffziller
02-26-2003, 12:07 PM
Okay children *Clap, Clap*. Let's get back on topic here. We were talking about some idiot lady.:p

stillakid
02-26-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by scruffziller
Okay children *Clap, Clap*. Let's get back on topic here. We were talking about some idiot lady.:p

It all relates. Theaters are running commercials to help offset their overhead costs. Simple as that. I and others have attempted to explain why those overhead costs necessitate "drastic" measures like running commercials and "overcharging" for condiments.

While she might be annoyed at the prospect of "having to" watch commercials in the theater, she can solve that problem by just showing up a few minutes later. Not sure when the movie will actually start? Well, that's a different issue that she can take up with the theater. But after she gets done stuffing a 2-liter bottle into her coat, she'll be late anyway and won't have to watch the commercials. :rolleyes:



(Oh, can I just ask one last thing? What in tarnation does someone need 2-liters of soda in a movie theater for? :confused: )

The Overlord Returns
02-26-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by stillakid


(Oh, can I just ask one last thing? What in tarnation does someone need 2-liters of soda in a movie theater for? :confused: )

It's america...they supersize everything ;)

What I want to know is, why COULDN'T a man sue Hooters for not hiring them? I believe that would fall under sexual discrimination.

scruffziller
02-26-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by stillakid

(Oh, can I just ask one last thing? What in tarnation does someone need 2-liters of soda in a movie theater for? :confused: )

Don't forget the cathater bag if they plan on watching the entire movie.:rolleyes:

QLD
02-26-2003, 02:26 PM
I drank a two-liter without stopping once. It was very painful, but I was dared too!

The thing that ****es me off now, is that AMC stopped selling Reese's Pieces again!
God, the one food item there I don't mind buying.

scruffziller
02-26-2003, 02:41 PM
Really. Our theatre did that once. Then they started carrying them again. Before that I just smuggled them in.

stillakid
02-26-2003, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
It's america...they supersize everything ;)

What I want to know is, why COULDN'T a man sue Hooters for not hiring them? I believe that would fall under sexual discrimination.

What the men were asking for wasn't a fair interpretation of the discrimination laws. In fact, non-hiring based on gender occurs all the time, particularly in entertainment. Screenwriters develop characters on paper who facilitate the telling of a story. Not just anybody can play every character. Some have to be men, some have to be women. Of course, for many centuries in Asian cultures, men did in fact play both roles, and Monty Python managed to get away with dressing in drag quite a bit. Do I dare even bring up Barry Humphries?

But in the case of Hooters, the restaurant clearly set up an environment which traded specifically on the physical attributes of women, physical attributes that no man could possibly ever fulfill without drastic surgery. The job of being a waitress at Hooters has more requirements than merely serving food, which is what that lawsuit was disputing. There is leaway in the discrimination statues to allow certain jobs to be exempted. This entire lawsuit was doomed from the start and was just a huge waste of $.

Government ends Hooters lawsuit (http://www.kstatecollegian.com/issues/v100/sp/n144/aphooters-probe-14.html)

Government ends Hooters lawsuit

ASSOCIATED PRESS

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- The government has quietly ended its four-year sexual discrimination probe of Hooters, coming to the same conclusion as its sometimes snickering critics have -- we have better things to do.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had demanded a $22-million fine from the 170-restaurant chain after looking into complaints by four Chicago men who said they were denied the chance to serve suds alongside buxom young waitresses.

The EEOC also wanted Hooters to hire male waiters, compensate any men it had turned down for jobs and set up a scholarship fund to enhance employment opportunities for men.

Ridiculous, said Rep. Harris Fawell, R-Ill., who had questioned the investigation, given the agency's limited financial resources and heavy caseload.

The EEOC wouldn't say how much it cost to conduct the investigation.

Columnists had a field day as Hooters fought both the EEOC and a private lawsuit filed by the men, asserting a constitutional right to have only females squeeze into its skimpy orange shorts and tight white shirts.

The chain even put out a mocking ad campaign that featured a burly, mustachioed man -- Vince Gigliotti, who manages a Hooters in Tampa -- wearing a blonde wig, short shorts, stuffed shirt and bedroom eyes.

The caption: "Come on, Washington. Get a grip."

The issue was a serious one, according to a March 6 letter from EEOC Chairman Gilbert F. Casellas to Fawell, chairman of a House subcommittee on employment. But, Casellas acknowledged, the agency did have more important matters to concentrate on.

"Denying any American a job simply because of his or her sex is a serious issue which should be taken seriously," Casellas wrote. "The particular factual issues raised by Hooters do not transform this into a frivolous case or a subject for locker-room humor."

But, Casellas added, since a private class-action lawsuit is pending, "it is wiser for the EEOC to devote its scarce litigation resources to other cases."

The response at the Tampa Hooters was mixed on Wednesday.

Gigliotti said his restaurant just wouldn't have been the same with men wearing the trademark uniforms. "Women don't look at guys the same way men look at women," he said.

But don't tell that to Mary Pinion, a mortgage broker across the room, having lunch with five of her female mortgage processors.

"Well, exactly how does he look at women?" Pinion asked. "Does he mean we don't lust after men the same way men lust after women? We sure do, if they're lustable."

Dorothy Frook, having lunch with her husband and his friend, nodded toward her waitress' tight orange shorts and said, "I'd like to see a guy in those."

But Frook's lunch partner, Charles Combs, who works down the street and comes in three times a week, said he'd stop if men were hired.

"The girls know how to take your order just right, and they talk to you just right," he said. "No guy can be friendly to me and make me want to come back."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article was published on Thursday, May 2, 1996

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1996, Student Publications Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of Student Publications Inc., Kansas State University.

The Overlord Returns
02-26-2003, 04:45 PM
Ok...the innate humour of the case aside, clearly, there is a point here.

Hooters women are hired OFFICIALLY to serve food and beverages to clientele. A man can do this just as well....indeed, I'm sure most of us have male and female friends who are servers.

It's funny, because this is essentially an unspoken rule in the bar industry. Most bars higher women to take orders and serve...and they seem to hire men to do the beer pouring, or bartending. It's just interesting that someone would call a hooters on it... ;)

stillakid
02-26-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
Ok...the innate humour of the case aside, clearly, there is a point here.

Hooters women are hired OFFICIALLY to serve food and beverages to clientele. A man can do this just as well....indeed, I'm sure most of us have male and female friends who are servers.

It's funny, because this is essentially an unspoken rule in the bar industry. Most bars higher women to take orders and serve...and they seem to hire men to do the beer pouring, or bartending. It's just interesting that someone would call a hooters on it... ;)

Yes, I suppose it was unspoken, but the implications of what "HOOTERS" was referring to really (no, not an owl) was excrutiatingly obvious even the most dim-witted moron to walk the face of the planet. One can only assume that the purveyors of Hooters used the owl as part of the logo as a tongue-in-cheek way to suggest that it wasn't about T&A at all. To openly advertise the restaurant as a T&A establishment would have had Oprah fanatics beating down the doors more than they already do. It was this "loop-hole" which these frat-boys with nothing better to do chose to take advantage of. Thank goodness some sense of justice prevailed.

Yeah, anybody with arms and hands can take an order and deliver food, but Hooters wanted these people to also have great T & A of the female variety. Strip clubs do the exact same thing. These chicks are up there making hundreds to thousands of dollars a night (depending upon where you go). What's to stop a guy from "applying" for a job there to cash in too? Because nobody's going there to see male anatomy flashed around. Same thing with Hooters.

The Overlord Returns
02-26-2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by stillakid
Yeah, anybody with arms and hands can take an order and deliver food, but Hooters wanted these people to also have great T & A of the female variety. Strip clubs do the exact same thing. These chicks are up there making hundreds to thousands of dollars a night (depending upon where you go). What's to stop a guy from "applying" for a job there to cash in too? Because nobody's going there to see male anatomy flashed around. Same thing with Hooters.

Question is, were the roles to be reversed, would the case be considered a "joke" as this one clearly is...??

Exhaust Port
02-26-2003, 06:04 PM
Nope but it would be ironic to see women fight for a job they tried so long to get out of.

I don't see any problem with hiring people to fit a theme or something for a business. If the Big & Tall store looks for employees who fit that description to provide a better service to their customers then let them. It seems that the rash of these discrimination suits recently are found in an income bracket that no one should care about. Hey if I didn't get hired to be a waitress at Hooters for $5/hour because they wanted chesty women then I can walk next door to Applebees, TGIFridays or _______ to find a similar job for the same crappy pay.

2-1B
02-27-2003, 04:11 AM
stillakid -


But anyway, I'll remove "ethics" from the table because it's apparently okay to break rules just so long as the Federal or State governments haven't turned them into official laws.

No, it's okay to break it because it's an obscene rule. ;)


So I'll return to the music piracy thing one last time. You seem to be suggesting that the main complaint is the huge markup on the product. In short, you KNOW that it costs far less to manufacture and distribute the products in question than what we are asked to pay. Are we in agreement there?

So, following that line of logic through to "intellectual property," the primary complaint among Napster users was the exact same thing. They wanted to know why they had to pay upwards of $20 for a CD that costs far far less to produce, manufacture, and distribute. Not only did they finally have enough, but there was suddenly a way to get the same product at a 100% discount. Hmm? Sound familiar?

Oh, it sounds familiar but I don't just consider the cost of manufacturing a CD. You pay mostly for what's CONTAINED in the CD, not the CD itself. :)

If you pay money for a CD, you're not buying it for the actual manufactured disc but rather the contents. Consider a movie ticket - I pay x amount for a ticket which is physically just a piece of paper and worthless - but it allows me to see a film. Except that i'm expected to pay for the experience by ALSO buying highly overpriced goods. :rolleyes: I never said we should get refreshments at a 100% discount which is what music pirates have resorted to. Drinking a "banned" soda is not at a 100% discount as I've already said. ;)


But answer this for me?

Okay :D


Say the theater chains opened up their monopoly on feeding the audience and allowed other vendors onto their property to offer fair competition. Wouldn't those vendors have to raise their own prices anyway to pay the rental cost of using the theater's property?

Yes and no. :)

Yes, they would have to raise their prices.
No, it wouldn't jack the prices as you hint because the vendors I noted ALREADY are paying for overhead. If another store brought in their goods to sell at a theater, of course they would have to mark it up further. It's a poor comparison because we're not talking about a secondary market, rather a business which buys direct from the distributor.


I can hear your thought process from here: just let us bring our own food in and don't bother with other vendors. The competition would force theater concession prices down and quality up.

no, my thought process is that I would never suggest something as goofy as bringing in other vendors. I'm only suggesting that they charge reasonable prices, not the absolute lowest prices. I've been to several concerts and other events which charge more than average retail for beverages and I've paid them gladly because they were WITHIN REASON. And I've also been to sporting events which charge $6 for a 20oz bottle of soda and just laughed at how silly it was. :crazed:


So where else will they make up the operating revenue? Higher ticket prices?

If their operating costs are that high, then yes. :)


Oh yeah, the theater owners are morons for accepting such a raw deal in the first place so why should we have to pay a higher price to support that bad decision?

Yep, exactly !
And when the studios price them out too much, we'll see how many people go to the movies.
Look, I really do see what you're saying. The studios need to get their money back so the theaters have to look elsewhere to cover thier costs. If it means high concession prices, then so be it.

I've said before that they have every right to charge whatever they want. I take exception when being called a thief over this issue because I -for one- (since Exhaust Port insists many smugglers will otherwise pay high prices :crazed: ) anyway I for one WILL NOT pay those prices if I don't smuggle something in.
I am not keeping revenue from the theater by doing so . . . call me unethical as much as you like, but it's not stealing.

And since I'm sure the comparison could be made to music piracy and how "people wouldn't buy the CDs anyway so what's the difference" well I would make the following distinction -
People enjoying a burned CD "that they wouldn't buy anyway" are technically stealing since they are enjoying a piece of property they didn't pay for. I DID pay for that measley Coke, and the original owners DID receive compensation for thier product. :)

Just so I'm clear on the piracy comparison - I couldn't even care less! :crazed:
Personally, I don't pirate that much music but I do have a few burned CDs and downloads from some friends. I prefer to "collect" most of my musical interests . . . yet when the issue of music piracy comes up, yeah I can understand the argument against it. And yeah, I understand the argument against smuggling something into a movie theater. I just don't think it's a big deal. ;)

And here's a question I have (well, 2 questions :D )

first, for stillakid :) -- what do you think about these huge multiplexes being built which can hardly bring in customers thus multiplying their overhead ?

second, for Exhaust Port and Jaymz (and any other vehement anti-snack smugglers :crazed: ) -- why the huge concern over sneaking in a few snacks? Do you also rally against music piracy?
I'm just curious, because the issue of stealing music has come up before in other threads but I don't recall people defending the musicians/record companies with nearly as much gusto as I've seen against so-called theater "thieves" like myself. ;)

James Boba Fettfield
02-27-2003, 04:29 AM
I'll tell you why I argued. I did it because it's my nature to argue. I'm sorry, Caesar. In all honesty, I don't shed a tear for people who bring in food. My own mother does it, but I don't slap her around for it. I just like presenting opposition.

And yeah Caesar, I'm against piracy in all forms. Lars has shown me the light.

Can I have a hug?

2-1B
02-27-2003, 04:38 AM
Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
In all honesty, I don't shed a tear for people who bring in food.

Good, because I'd hate for you to shed a tear for yourself. ;)


Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
I'll tell you why I argued. I did it because it's my nature to argue.

I'm argumentative, too. :)


Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
And yeah Caesar, I'm against piracy in all forms. Lars has shown me the light.

Fair enough. :)


Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
Can I have a hug?

Or course! :)
As long as that bottle of soda I'm hiding in my pocket doesn't get in the way. :crazed:

but I'll try -

(((hug)))

that worked just fine. :)

James Boba Fettfield
02-27-2003, 04:45 AM
Woah, wait a minute there Caesar. I don't bring stuff into theaters. My dad instilled that into me. "Boy, if you can't go two hours without drinking or eating, then somethin' is f******* wrong with you." I can still hear his words to this day.

Beast
02-27-2003, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
Woah, wait a minute there Caesar. I don't bring stuff into theaters. My dad instilled that into me. "Boy, if you can't go two hours without drinking or eating, then somethin' is f******* wrong with you." I can still hear his words to this day.
"That's not what I heard." ;) :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

James Boba Fettfield
02-27-2003, 04:53 AM
If you're referring to my smuggling practices with Lord Malakite, then yeah it happened then. But since seeing Episode One I haven't done it.

2-1B
02-27-2003, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by James Boba Fettfield
If you're referring to my smuggling practices with Lord Malakite, then yeah it happened then. But since seeing Episode One I haven't done it.

Thief ! ! ! :crazed: :crazed: :crazed:

So . . . was it the sound of the podracer engines that prohibited you from hearing your dad's words? :crazed:

Beast
02-27-2003, 05:03 AM
What about the ball games, were those before or after E1? :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

James Boba Fettfield
02-27-2003, 05:06 AM
Would you like me to explain the situation? I will. Episode One I didn't bring anything in with me, I had Hot Pockets before going to see that movie. Before that movie, I think the last time I saw a movie in a theater was Beavis and Butt-Head Do America when I was in 7th grade. I don't remember if Lord Malakite and I brought anything with us or not then, but I'm guessing we did. Before that movie experience, the last time I went to see a movie was Independence Day, and I know I had the smuggled goods then. I'm only 18, and I think anyone who did it when they were 12 could be excused. My family didn't do the whole theater experience all the time, we rarely, and I mean rarely went to the theater.

So since Episode one on the Saturday night I saw it, I have been clean. Oh, and Caesar, my dad told me those words when I saw The Time Machine with him, so it would have been the roar of a Morlock that drowned out his words.

But since I've been going out more with friends to see movies and seeing movies alone at college, I can honestly say I haven't brought anything in with me.

James Boba Fettfield
02-27-2003, 05:08 AM
Ah ha! At those ball games the outside food was allowed. Riverfront only prohibited glass bottles, everything else was fair game. Only after 9/11 did they stop people from bringing stuff in.

And remember, refer to Post #56 of this thread to see what I believed about the whole issue about theaters allowing you to bring food in or whatever. Just want to make sure my lynch mob is clear as to where I stood on the issue.

Beast
02-27-2003, 05:28 AM
Lynch mob? Hardly. Don't be so defensive. Just making you realise that it doesn't feel very nice to be verbally brow beaten for somthing that isn't even against the law. To be compared to music/movie pirates, just because you refuse to fall victum to a monopoly on entertainment. There are legal options to expensive CD prices, that don't involve piracy or theft. Shop around, watch for sales, tape it off the radio. When you go to see a movie, your choices are taken away from you.

If you dislike Pepsi for some reason, and your theater only serves it. Should that theaters lack of having a diverse choice, force you into drinking a soda that you dislike. If your a vegetarian or on a diet, and you want a snack that doesn't consist of the theaters favorite food groups, sugar, starch, salt, and fat. Should you be forced to give up your good snacking choices, because the theater doesn't cater to what you like. There are limits of course, but that's not the point.

Being consumer conscious with their prices, would increase the ammount of people that do purchase their products. Until then, they are going to loose a small portion of it not only to people that sneak stuff in, but also to those that choose they will not have anything. They already charge only around a 25 cents for popcorn refills, and usually have free pop refills at most theaters. Why not raise the refill prices, and cut the prices to get the bucket and cup in the first place. They would get more people willing to slap down a few bucks for their stuff. It's not going to hurt profits if they make half as much on each sale, but sell twice as much. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

James Boba Fettfield
02-27-2003, 05:40 AM
I'll ask you to re-read my post in response to something Caesar said to me earlier about that music piracy thing.

As for your other things, just wait until you're out of the theater or get your sustenance before you go in. The theaters aren't forcing you to buy their product or drink it. If you don't want their drink, then don't buy it. Get it when you're gone. Same thing with the food choices. I'm not too keen on theater food, and I don't bring in my meatball sub from Subway in with me. If you can't abide by what the owners rules are, just get out and don't come back. Remember how our forum here has rules? So do some theaters regarding outside food. All I'm saying is to respect the wishes of whoever is running the place.

Beast
02-27-2003, 05:46 AM
It doesn't matter what you posted earlier. You were stating how wrong Caesar and I were about our opinion. And then when confronted that you had done the same thing, you originally got very defense and implied that you never brought snacks in with you. And then the truth is revealed, that you had done the same exact thing. More recent then I ever have, for your information. Since they only thing I have ever done, is walk in with 2-liter bottles of Cherry Pepsi. Fully visable, not stuffed somewhere. People in glass theaters, shouldn't throw 2 liter bottles. ;) :D

But hey, it's not worth fighting for man. You're cool, and I enjoy discussing Star Wars and movies with you. It's silly for any of us to get our nose out of joint over a opinion on snacks at the movie theater. Geez, do we really have so much time on our hands that we can rehash the same argument for the last 4-5 pages. It's not worth it. If theaters don't want people bringing stuff in, they need to open their eyes that being more competitive with prices would draw in the money. It's not that hard to understand. After all, I get it. ;) :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

James Boba Fettfield
02-27-2003, 06:02 AM
I was an impressionable kid then, and I did some things I regret. Some people would still call me a kid at 18, but my beliefs and actions have changed since those days. Just like I'm sure everyone's have. Maybe if I was 30 years old when I did it, and then at age 35 I shunned everyone who did do it, then I could see the glass house comparison.

It's a dumb thing to argue over, but it was fun while it lasted. So I'll let it go.

stillakid
02-27-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Caesar
first, for stillakid :) -- what do you think about these huge multiplexes being built which can hardly bring in customers thus multiplying their overhead ?


Honestly, I'm not sure what drove the decision in the 80s and 90s to build so many screens, so I don't know that I can answer that very well. If I had to guess, I'd say that after the film renaissance of the late '70s with Jaws, Saturday Night Fever, and Star Wars ushering in the new concept of the Blockbuster, investors saw the opportunity to capitalize on the bigger audiences. More screens = more seats. Plus it's a volume business anyway. An old time one screen theater has to pay it's bills based on the popularity of whatever one movie it happens to be playing that week or month. A multi-plex spreads out the risk by offering more choices, so if one film is tanking and ends up costing the theater money, then the big hit on the next screen will hopefully take up the slack. Just like buying a mutual fund. No difference really. Of course, the theaters hope that EVERY film is a big hit, but that never happens. If it did, the one screen theater system could survive just fine, but it's just too risky.

Because I like comparisons (then watching you shoot them down ;) ), I'll compare this to a grocery store that carries just one item. Say it carries Mug Root Beer in a can. That's all it carries. But the store down the street carries just one thing, Coke in a can. The Coke store will make more money. So the Mug store guy decides to expand his line and offer more choices. The Mug Root Beer will still sell the same amount, but the store owner can spread out the overhead cost over several items.

If we had to adjust this comparison to a movie theater environment, the MUG store could offer some other service to "entertain" the customers as they shopped for their Root Beer. Let's say they had an HDTV set up in the back so as you waited in the long line to pay for your Root Beer, you could be entertained. But the catch is, to watch it, you have pay $5 bucks. "That's outrageous!" you cry out. So, because you think this is unfair, you sneak in your handy Panasonic portable DVD player the next time you go to stand in line to buy soda. You get to watch the same DVD movie that they are playing on their HDTV screen. Problem solved, right? You're happy. You don't have to pay an outrageous price to watch the same movie you rented for $2.99 at Blockbuster and you get your soda. Let's say everybody did that. Now the MUG store isn't making any additional income from that idea, so it'll have to think of something else.

Now he moves in some huge posters advertising everything from toothpaste to home equity loans. He's got a captured audience and the advertisers pay him for the service. But guess what happens. Some whiner standing in line with her portable DVD player picks up her cel phone and decides to hire a lawyer to sue the MUG shop owner because, dammit, she came in to buy Root Beer, not to be assaulted with advertising. All she wants is Root Beer. Not to see movies or advertising or anything else. Just Root Beer.

But the MUG Corporation is raising the price of the product. His problem is that to stay competitive with the Coke guy down the street, he has to keep the prices steady. But his overhead is going up, what with the product, utilities, advertising he does to get you there in the first place. All this whining and cheating his system by people who don't think it's fair leave him with just one choice. Close the store. I hope you like Coke, because the Root Beer store just closed.




Personally, just from my own observations, I think it's been an unfortunate move which has immediate ramifications across the board. I think that most movie-goers prefer a larger screen, so this tendency to cram relatively tiny screens into a little room irks me to no end, so much so that I've returned for a refund if I walk into one. Because the theater owners have no choice but to accept the studio deals (or they don't get to show the movie), they have to make money some other way to stay in business. And as you say, they are there primarily to show movies, so without product they can't do that so they HAVE TO accept the studio deals. I'm not sure what you'd have them do otherwise. But I know that circumventing the system just because you don't like the price isn't the answer. How about this as a solution then if you want a fair system? Next time you go to see a movie, tell the manager that you'd like to bring in your own food, but you understand that they have overhead to meet so you're going to pay an extra couple dollars for the ticket. Would that work for you? Or perhaps you'd prefer that the theater just files Chapter 11 so you can't see movies there at all? What about those people in one-horse towns with just one theater? What if they did that? Now they have to drive 30 minutes or more to get to the next town to get to the next theater. Would that make you happier?

See, you say you understand the problem, but I don't understand what you'd suggest as a better solution that isn't so selfish. Of course it'd be nice if they charged less for the goods. Same with music. But they don't and sneaking around isn't a very fair answer for anybody but yourself. Everyone sneaking in concessions won't drop the prices. It'll just force them to raise ticket prices or use pre-movie advertising or something else we haven't seen yet...or they'll just shut down altogether.

stillakid
02-27-2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Lynch mob? Hardly. Don't be so defensive. Just making you realise that it doesn't feel very nice to be verbally brow beaten for somthing that isn't even against the law. To be compared to music/movie pirates, just because you refuse to fall victum to a monopoly on entertainment. There are legal options to expensive CD prices, that don't involve piracy or theft. Shop around, watch for sales, tape it off the radio. When you go to see a movie, your choices are taken away from you.
Not against the law? That's the reasoning here? That's what allows you to be high and mighty when it comes to "international copyright" but can openly flaunt other obstacles toward your personal happiness because these are just mere insignificant "rules?" You know, I think that the 65mph speed limit is stupid on some freeways around here, but I suppose that because it's a law, my personal feelings aren't allowed to be taken into account.

Let's look at each of your "points":


Originally posted by JarJarBinks
To be compared to music/movie pirates, just because you refuse to fall victum to a monopoly on entertainment. "Fall victim to"? Nobody is making you go to the movie theater to see a movie. Nobody. But if you choose to do so, that company has every single right in the world to run a monopoly if they want and they have the absolute right to refuse you service or worse if they find you ignoring the rules. There's plenty of entertainment choices out there. NOBODY is making you go see a movie at a theater. There's no monopoly on that. If you don't like it, don't go. Hole up at home with your DVD collection and you can stuff your face all you want. Nobody will bat an eye.



Originally posted by JarJarBinks
There are legal options to expensive CD prices, that don't involve piracy or theft. Shop around,
Shop around? That's your legal option? Why not do that with your entertainment choices? Don't like concession prices at a theater, go find an entertainment "choice" that sells snacks at reasonable rates. Who told you that movies were the only "choices" out there anyway?


Originally posted by JarJarBinks
watch for sales,
Just how good of a sale do you expect to see on "new" music? I did see the new Avril Lavigne on sale at Target for $10 when it first came out, but it has since gone up to about $15 or so.


Originally posted by JarJarBinks
tape it off the radio. When you go to see a movie, your choices are taken away from you.
Tape it off the radio. Ahhh, of course, why didn't I think of that. :rolleyes: So tell me, what the difference is between that option and downloading it from the internet? Albeit, there is a slight quality issue, but just who do you think was buying all those blank cassette tapes before CD's and the Internet came into being? What about friends and family? All that has been happening for years too.

"When you go to the movies, your choices are taken away from you"? You must be joking. You know what, though, you're right! Dammit, I want a f'n buffet set up from now on! What! No deviled eggs?! Screw you guys, I'm bringing in my own next time.

Tell me genius, where does the line get drawn on "choices" exactly? "Oh, good, carrot sticks...what?! They're not organic. What kind of crappy theater is this anyway!?"

So, first this is about prices, now it's about choices. Tell you what, take some time, decide why it is exactly that you see fit to break the rules and sneak in enough soda for a family of 6 then get back to us. In the meantime, I'll just assume it's based on a selfish need to have something at a price that you prefer to have it, as close to free as you can get it...just like those people that download music and movies from the internet. Same thing. Same exact thing.


Originally posted by JarJarBinks
If you dislike Pepsi for some reason, and your theater only serves it. Should that theaters lack of having a diverse choice, force you into drinking a soda that you dislike. If your a vegetarian or on a diet, and you want a snack that doesn't consist of the theaters favorite food groups, sugar, starch, salt, and fat. Should you be forced to give up your good snacking choices, because the theater doesn't cater to what you like. There are limits of course, but that's not the point.
Unless you're hypoglycemic or have some other malady, there is no requirement that you have "good snacking choices." Heck, they could come right out tomorrow and say, "Fine, the little money we do make from the concessions is outstripped by the time and money we spend cleaning up after you slobs, so we'll allow NO food or drink of any kind."

The bottom line is that this is their property, their establishment, and their right to have a monopoly on food, drink, video games, or whatever else sits inside those doors. You don't like their rules, don't go. It's that easy. Just don't go. Register your dissatisfaction with their policies by not giving them ANY of your money. But this attitude that a Rule is optional if you don't like it is one of the most ridiculous, obscene, and selfish things I've heard in a long time. If we get enough people to start thinking this way, it'll be the end of civilization as we know it.


Originally posted by JarJarBinks
Being consumer conscious with their prices, would increase the ammount of people that do purchase their products. Until then, they are going to loose a small portion of it not only to people that sneak stuff in, but also to those that choose they will not have anything.
Maybe more people would buy the product, but look below for the actual reality of what you propose.


Originally posted by JarJarBinks
They already charge only around a 25 cents for popcorn refills, and usually have free pop refills at most theaters. Why not raise the refill prices, and cut the prices to get the bucket and cup in the first place. They would get more people willing to slap down a few bucks for their stuff. It's not going to hurt profits if they make half as much on each sale, but sell twice as much. :)


Check your math. For the sake of simplicity, because I know you'll need it, let's say that a bucket of popcorn costs $5 bucks and refills cost $1.00. Let's also take a group of nine people and say that only three buy a bucket of popcorn. Three of the others are like you and sneak in a barbeque dinner and a two liter bottle each (and a catheter). The other three either don't care for snacks during a movie or don't like the prices and have the self-control to abstain for 90 minutes.

Okay, so the theater will make $15 for 3 buckets of popcorn in this instance. If all of those customers wanted a refill, the theater would then make an additional $3 but they would also be out three full buckets of popcorn, so essentially they've just "lost" $12. But, the actual stats on refills are pretty low so it's probably pretty safe to say that nobody will get a refill. So at best, the theater won't lose $12.

Let's take your theory and switch the prices. Now, those original three people will still buy the popcorn and let's toss in those other three who didn't want to spend $5 bucks a bucket. That's 6 buckets of popcorn. That's $6 the theater is making. Again, the numbers on refills are pretty low, but let's go out on a limb and say 2 of those 6 get a refill at $5 bucks a bucket. That's an additional $10 to add to the original $6. That's $16 dollars they've made on 8 buckets of popcorn.

Let's see the comparison: $16/8 buckets vs. $15/3 buckets. Boy, that doesn't seem to add up, does it? Not only that, but I was being generous. You said refills were a quarter!


But forget all that. You go ahead and "get yours." Somebody else will pick up the tab. Just so long as you're happy. That's the important thing.

Oh, but isn't that what the Napster users said too? :confused:

Porcelina
02-27-2003, 04:17 PM
theatre's shouldn't be charging 5 bucks for a freakin bag of popcorn in the first place, when it takes (considering it's bulk) probably around 2 cents to make.... that's quite a mark up, wouldn't you say?

and if they need to charge that much to cover their expenses for tearing down intimate, historical theatres and building a megaplex of plastic and concrete that takes up two city blocks, well.... then that's their problem, and their perogative... but i pay a crapload just to get a ticket, and i'll be damned if i get ripped off at the concession stand

i know the "rules", and i understand the reasons they were put in place, but i have little to no sympathy for multi-billion dollar companies, and i imagine they take into account that some people are gonna bring outside food into the theatre

besides, i am a veggie health freak, so there aren't really any options for me (i know people still think popcorn is fairly healthy, but come on, have you READ the ingredients on commercial popcorn recently? it's disgusting!)

so do i feel bad smuggling some fruits or veggies into the theatre? no

do i face the consequences if i get caught? of course

but i'm certainly not hurting anyone with my behaviour.... i wouldn't buy the junk from the concession stands either way, it's just this way i get to have a little nosh during my flick, too :)

anyhow, i sincerely doubt any theatre usher would want to confiscate a green pepper and some carrots ;)

derek
02-27-2003, 04:26 PM
The bottom line is that this is their property, their establishment, and their right to have a monopoly

Wow, a liberal in favor of monopolies. i'm not trying to argue with 'ya stilla, but that's the first time i've heard that from a voice on the left side of the asile.:)

were you as passionate about defending microsoft's "monopoly".:) ;) or the rich's monopoly on "opportunity"?;)


.............now back to your regulary scheduled cat fight.:crazed:

...........so, if i want a "double decker chocolate chip cookie", but they don't sell them at the movie theatre, but do at the cookie store next door, is it OK to smuggle one in if i do buy a 44 ounce soda and large popcorn from the theatre? :D

Beast
02-27-2003, 04:41 PM
I like the fact that he only really replies to me, either disregarding or glossing over most of everyone elses posts. Makes me feel so special to have him dedicate so much of his important time, trying to make me look or feel bad. To bad for him, that I don't really care at all about his opinions, and have given up reading or bothering to debate his arguementative ramblings a long time ago. It's not worth trying to discuss things with someone who's only form of excitement on the forums is to try to cause trouble with me. Stillakid, please don't ever change, I might not be able to get my daily chuckle from your delightful cute little antics. :kiss: :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Mike Troxell
02-27-2003, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Porcelina
besides, i am a veggie health freak, so there aren't really any options for me (i know people still think popcorn is fairly healthy, but come on, have you READ the ingredients on commercial popcorn recently? it's disgusting!)

You have good points, and I like the cut of your jib. However, freshly popped popcorn is different than store-bought. Kernels, a scoop of butter salt per batch, and coconut oil to help it pop. Not too bad for you, when it comes down to it. Now the self-serve "butter flavoring"? That's a killer, especially if you make a lake of it in your bag or tub. It's filthy.

derek
02-27-2003, 05:51 PM
Now the self-serve "butter flavoring"? That's a killer, especially if you make a lake of it in your bag or tub. It's filthy.

.......but it's OK to add butter to milk duds, right.....:confused:

:happy:

Mike Troxell
02-27-2003, 07:23 PM
In moderation, butter is a healthy snack treat. For example, I'll often hunker down to a half-stick of butter for a midnight snack, but I'd definitely never eat an entire stick of butter unless I'm on a desert island or coming down from a particularly bad breakup.

Milk Duds and butter cancel each other out, and therefore it is an acceptable combination.

SirSteve
02-27-2003, 10:50 PM
Ok, I think we all have had enough of this thread... I am closing it.