digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Why Commercials Before Movies Is Worse Than Piracy

themovieblog.com — I estimate the movie industry owes me $480 for uncompensated ad watching time out of the $456 million they made off pre-movie commercials. The principle for piracy and time theft is the same. Taking an asset (a movie, or your time) without providing the due compensation for taking that asset. So where do we start the class action lawsuit?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • theupside, on 10/21/2007, -137/+11Dugg!
    • squirrelza, on 10/19/2007, -61/+16What the hell is the point of your comment? You could've just dugg the article and that's it. Well, I suppose I could've just dugg you down and shut up. Heh.
      • RedRummy, on 10/19/2007, -23/+9 !
      • smacksaw, on 10/19/2007, -1/+5At least it's not as bad as the people who tell other Diggers they've Buried or worse, blocked them. "Ooh, I blocked you, blah blah" No one cares who blocked anyone.
    • kurttrail, on 10/19/2007, -8/+17Don't go into the theatre until the ads end. What I find more annoying is the CAP marks that flash on the screen during the actual movie. And how about the 500% markup on all concession goods and not being allowed to bring in one's own food.

      I get to see any movie I want for free before the movie is even in general release, and yet I sill rather download them and watch them after they are released, so I'm not sitting in a chair that hasn't been cleaned for years.
      • ashmael, on 10/18/2007, -0/+18Right, and lose your chance at a decent seat.
        • RobotBuddha, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3I suppose it depends where one lives. But in the past three years or so, living in two medium sized cities, I think we've wound up forced into bad seats only twice by getting in right as the actual movie starts. And that's going to the movies fairly frequently, something like two to four per month.
        • kurttrail, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2Um, don't go to the movies when it is crowded. Monday thru Wednesday is the best time to go to avoid the crowds.
      • DankLogic, on 10/22/2007, -0/+5The sad thing is if you look at the actual numbers the movie theaters themselves barely make any profit, they have to sell their concessions at such high prices just to break even. I'm not defending them but until there is a better distribution system it's not going to change.
    • razishaban, on 10/19/2007, -18/+1Buried!
    • razishaban, on 10/19/2007, -18/+2Buried!
    • iChainsaw, on 10/18/2007, -3/+6I like the ads, i can never get to movies on time...
      • DefaultGen, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Seriously, who would rather watch a black screen than figure out what "SYDILNE HOLAN" unscrambles to with a giant Coke logo above it?
  • rainfever, on 10/24/2007, -57/+3The hypocrites always gotta be breakin the party up. Bitches.
  • format, on 10/21/2007, -5/+272Kinda shocked that the time equates to 24 hours a year, and that's by his conservative estimates.
    I can recall many time I've gone the cinema and seen ads for more than 15 minutes.
    • Godlike, on 10/22/2007, -18/+111I do not go to theaters anymore for this very reason. I don't watch TV or things on the internet that have commercials, I won't shop at a store that has them, and I won't go to a theater. I also don't miss much, with bittorrent I watch the few shows that I like (or on tv links) and movies well, thats pretty simple too.

      I hate commercials and commercialism in general and more than any of that I hate the attitude that every god damn thing should have a commercial attached to it and that it's "ok" for it to be that way.

      Corporate America does not have the right to constantly interrupt my life or my thoughts just because I might want to buy something.
      • kingkilr, on 10/19/2007, -26/+14So you don't want to pay, you won't sit through ads, what exactly do you want, I know it isn't the consumer's job to create the business model, but when object to everything I'd love to hear you contribute more than: No, I don't like it.
        • NSMike, on 10/19/2007, -1/+37Yes it is the consumer's job to create the business model. We decide what to pay for, and that's exactly what he's doing. Show movie trailers in the time running up to the film. Not at the time the movie is supposed to start. That's dead screen time anyway.

          Advertising is taking over way too much, though. Hour long TV time slots used to have 51 minutes of content. That has been reduced to about 41 minutes. And they're looking for ways to make it LESS, believe me. I can remember watching the premier of "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?" just to see what it would be like, and two things made me never want to watch the show again: a commercial break every 5 minutes, and the fact that yes, I can answer those questions. It was a half-hour show with roughly 12 minutes of content. That's IT.

          It would be a little more reasonable if it weren't so obvious that greed pervades all of this as it is. It's not about meeting budgets for TV shows anymore. It's about squeezing as much profit out of an hour of television as possible. It was like a slap in the face going from the "limited commercial interruption" Heroes premier to the regular episode shown the next week. It's bad, and needs to stop.
          • Godlike, on 10/18/2007, -0/+10I couldn't have crafted a better reply. Well done! Though, perhaps you watch more TV than I do but I hear you on the falling 'actual content' percentages for shows - I watch a few things that are half-hour timeslots that are only fifteen minute shows when downloaded without commercials! And these are CABLE shows - content that you already paid for that is as much advertisement as it is entertainment.

            (and all of that aside, it would be very easy to go into how the quality of what we are getting has been so vastly reduced in the name of capitalism and the now average american idiot... reality TV anyone? How indoctrinated do you have to be to actually watch that stuff, let alone water-cooler it like half of these losers? *hurk* just threw up in my mouth a little - reality TV does that to me sometimes *blargh*)
          • 10001110101, on 10/18/2007, -2/+6I recently downloaded a cartoon series that I watched when I was younger (Gargoyles FTW!). It freaked me out when I noticed that what used to take 30 minutes "back in the day" was really only 17-20 minutes of content.
          • devo6273, on 10/18/2007, -1/+8I don't know about you... but the Heroes premier "limited commercial interruption" annoyed the HELL out of me. I don't know what they played where you lived, but for me they put the same Nissan Murano ad on for each commercial break and played it 3 times in a row. I got the feeling that there wasn't any less commercial time, it was just the same damn commercial. At least Nissan could have made 3 different ads or one really long one.
          • TheSabre, on 10/19/2007, -0/+25What's bad are the new commercials that TBS has been running. My wife and I watch TBS in the early evening (when they show Seinfeld, Friends, Everybody Loves Raymond, etc). The other night, there was a commercial DURING Seinfeld. A little overlay of Ray Romano walked onto the screen carrying a remote control and PAUSED Seinfeld, talked about "Be sure to watch Everybody Loves Raymond at 8" or whatever, and then unpaused Seinfeld. It was only maybe 30 seconds long, but it pissed me off so much that it was actually *during* the episode and not at a commercial break.
          • vypergts, on 10/18/2007, -0/+7They don't even have to have an actual "commercial break" anymore. Product placement is just as bad nowadays. What's worse is that it's so overt. I can tell you that Ford or Nissan is sponsoring a given episode of Heroes based on the counts I see their cars and the name dropping by characters in the show. *****, last night I was watching the Biggest Loser where the trainer was plugging Extra gum. Face it, TV shows and movies HAVE BECOME commercials and that's not even getting at the ads that are superimposed over half the screen during most of these things...
          • hiikeeba, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3I watched Futurama the other night on Cartoon Network. To squeeze in extra commercial time, they cut away 8 minutes in, not where the original break was (at the end of the first act), then resumed from the same spot. When it came time for the original break, they just went right on with the show for another two minutes before cutting away to a commercial. SciFi did the same thing for Star Trek, only they went to commercial at the end of the acts, too.
          • PA42, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3@hiikeeba
            Cartoon network gives two longer commercials in Futurama, rather than the 3 commercials originally in the series. just fyi.
          • Caffeinate, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4I'm right there with you hating commercialism and commercials. You can hardly take a breath anymore without somebody trying to push a product off on you. I hate viral marketing on blogs and forums even more because it is incredibly dishonest. I believe there ought to be laws against viral marketing and that PR firms should be forced to disclose the fact if they are using people to hawk politicians, products and services on the web. Advertising has gone way too far.
          • Theli, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Another thing about frequent commercial breaks is that they also add a lot of "after the break:" and "stay tuned:" filler material to many shows. So even when the commercials take up 30% of the airtime for a show, the announcements made to keep you glued to the TV while the commercial is running eats up yet another 5-10%.
          • Reeses2150, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2I remember episode 1 of the new Heroes season. the second commercial break went like this.
            "This episode of heroes is sponsored by the new Nissan whatever."
            "The commercial for the new Nissan Whatever"
            "The same commercial AGAIN for the new Nissan Whatever"
            "This episode of Heroes is sponsored by the new Nissan Whatever"
            And then right after the commercial break came the part of the show where Noah Bennet gives Claire a new Nissan Whatever.

            Jack if you ask me.
        • greenm1981, on 10/19/2007, -7/+1Your comment doesn't make any sense
        • SPECOPS, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2What the hell are you talking about? I PAY to see a movie at the local cinema, and have to sit through 15+ mins of commercials, and the movie industry, piracy or not, is one of the #1 money making businesses in the US. Maybe the local cinima needs the ads, and those are shown BEFORE (usually as a slide show) the actual commercials (Think Coke, Nike, etc. you see as a before the trailers come on).
        • gcauthon, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2Where did he say he doesn't want to pay? You just pulled that strawman argument out of your ass.
      • MonkCanatella, on 10/18/2007, -15/+3*Insert witty remark that godlike must be wearing a che Guevara shirt and a beret here*
        • Godlike, on 10/17/2007, -2/+2How dare I?
        • MonkCanatella, on 10/18/2007, -2/+3I was making fun of the people that actually do that. I wasn't actually making fun of you.
      • theodenking, on 10/20/2007, -0/+21Same here. And yet, now there are ads and trailers on some of the dvds I buy!
      • solid12345, on 10/18/2007, -7/+12Godlike, if you were a true man of your word you wouldn't watch ANY movies or TV shows. It is outright hypocricy to spew venom on corporate America and advertising and yet engage in the entertainment they feed you. Why don't you read a book instead if you are so against it?
        • mrFREEZE, on 10/18/2007, -3/+9It's hard acting like Che Guevara while you're suckling on the teat of American-made entertainment while living inside America itself. The word "hypocrite" comes to mind, but whatever.

          "No seas cobarde, cabron. Viva la gente! Viva la libertad!"
        • Godlike, on 10/18/2007, -2/+12I do read books... right now I am reading Brave New World and The Prince... just finished some more Eddings stuff and I am trying to find more good dystopian stuff like Anthem or 1984.
          • nitramlliw, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Machiavelli. Wonderful. Its sad though, books have advertisements too. "check out author such and such book too." commercialism is painful. billboards are fine. they take up no of my time. but whenever i pay for digital cable and have to sit through commercials that are five minutes long apiece... that's not okay. there must be a line drawn somewhere. invading my personal privacy on luxuries that i pay for pisses me off to no end. i do not mind paying for these things, but whenever i'm slammed with advertising every time i go to watch a movie it pisses me off. so I agree with you Godlike.

            johnnysaucepn is living in some form of alternate reality. corrupt and selfish are hardly what i would call the publishing industry. and there are things called libraries. also, books teach you things instead of eating away at your mind.
        • johnnysaucepn, on 10/18/2007, -2/+2Did you buy it, thereby supporting the corrupt and selfish publishing industry? Or did you make a copy off a friend?
        • gcauthon, on 10/19/2007, -2/+5Movies and commercials are made by two completely different parties, idiot. You can enjoy a movie and hate the commercials at the same time. It's obviously not hypocrisy. Any fool can understand this.
      • demusdesign, on 10/19/2007, -4/+6Powerful sentiments, Godlike, but what's your counter-proposal? Everyone should spend millions of dollars to entertain us for free? Businesses need to make money. I don't like commercials or ads either, but I'm willing to deal with them if it means low prices for a quality product.

        I think the point of this article is that movies in theaters are one example of where advertising has not defrayed the cost of the product at all (in fact the prices have only inflated along with the amount of advertising).

        How much do we have to pay to watch "The Office" on TV or online? Nothing. So I can deal with the ads.
        • rupprupp29, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3I think what the author of that article is getting at is that IF movie theaters are going to show ads, they should compensate the audience accordingly. Either get rid of the ads or put the ad revenue towards lowering ticket prices. (Because as of now, the ads are only getting longer and ticket prices sure as hell aren't going down.)
      • svenathon, on 10/18/2007, -8/+3You're complaining that corporate America has no right to force-feed you advertisements, but then you say you pirate all of your shows to avoid the ads. What gives you the right to see their work for free?
        • gcauthon, on 10/18/2007, -0/+5Can I fast forward through the ads or are you going to bitch about that too? How much money do they lose if I just close my eyes while the commercial is running?
      • Jakerius, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1The only reason to go to a cinema is the social aspect nowadays.
    • jer2eydevil88, on 10/19/2007, -18/+5People need to make a living and many do so through advertising, please don't consider advertising the enemy of the consumer. It is big business imposing their will and not doing whats best for the consumer that is everyones enemy.
      • arbulus, on 10/22/2007, -2/+17What's the enemy is when people think they have a right to shove advertising down my throat. Ever part of our lives are invaded by commercials. Everywhere we go, there's something trying to sell to us. You go to the bathroom and there are ads above the urinal staring you in the face; you buy a coffee and there's ads on your cup; you go to watch a film at the cinema and there are more commericals before the movie than there are trailers; you play MMORPGS and there are billboards in the game selling you things. It's everywhere. Yes, I know people need to make money, but damnit, is there no where I can turn where there isn't something trying to be shoved down my throat?
        • RealmDown, on 10/22/2007, -0/+10And the newest insult: Constantly running commercials at gas pumps and overheads at Walmart.
      • greenm1981, on 10/19/2007, -1/+22Before DeBeers started their aggressive ad campaign in the mid 20th century, targeted toward woman, with "Diamonds Are Forever," there wasn't much of a demand for diamonds beyond their industrial use. Through Stroebelesque psychological manipulation, a completely new demand was created when men and woman were convinced that only a brand new shiny diamond could properly express commitment and love for one another.

        At 3 months of a man's salary, years worth of compounding interest, and the untold cost in human lives that is required to deliver those shiny rocks to the western world, tell me that advertising doesn't harm the consumer.
      • 4degrees, on 10/19/2007, -0/+9obligatory: "your failed business model is not my problem"
    • roodammy44, on 10/19/2007, -3/+37I always get there 15 minutes late, so I'm kinda glad for the commercials :-P
      • reggiT, on 10/18/2007, -1/+30The only problem with going in late is that you will get a crappy seat for a new release.
        • alibenx, on 10/27/2007, -7/+0Your statement, though accurate, is completely obvious.
      • mratomika, on 10/24/2007, -9/+3Crappy Seat? Online Reservations for Reserved Theater Seating . . . problem solved.
        • rupprupp29, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2Reserved seating in a movie theater? Call me old school but that's *****. Next thing you know, they'll start cleaning the floors.
    • IKORKYI, on 10/19/2007, -31/+4Umm we are getting paid for the commercials - without them our movie tickets would be $x.xx more expensive. I hate idiots
      • iregistered4ths, on 10/22/2007, -2/+25The movie theaters are making more profit off of each movie showing with commercials, they are not saving us any money. Take some time to look up theater profits and you'll see the cost of a ticket pays operating costs and does include a small profit, they just want more.

        I take it you hate yourself?
        • fkr3, on 10/22/2007, -14/+4And what? They should only be allowed to make a little bit of profit? Perhaps you should be paid less too - obviously you only need a little bit of money left over at the end of the month.
          • aliengoods, on 10/22/2007, -3/+9Your comment doesn't address the original claim that movie tickets would cost $x.xx more. In other words, you've made a point which is pointless in the current discussion.
          • fkr3, on 10/19/2007, -9/+4It addresses the comment it was made in reply to though, idiot.
          • nitramlliw, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1technically, if you dropped off all advertising, you wouldn't mind getting paid less. because everything you pay for assists in making big business money. big business have advertising departments. kill illegitimate forms of advertising (in movies, dvds, on cable, etc...) you cut the prices. your argument holds no water.
        • DangerMouse9, on 10/22/2007, -2/+12@fkr3

          There's a world of a difference between having less from a 7 figure income and having less from a 5 figure income. People are just greedy ***** and can't be happy with what they have.

          Once you get to the point where you can live comfortably off your income, having less isn't as big of a deal. Quit trying to defend those that would rather ***** you in the ass and leave you with nothing while they dance around and wipe their ass with the money they took from you.
        • fkr3, on 10/19/2007, -12/+3@ DangerMouse9
          I haven't even started trying to defend them. I just think it's obnoxious and ridiculous for someone to decide how much profit a company should have, or to arbitrarily determine when they make enough and should charge less, when it's not their company.

          As for defending them.... the ads have always been there, unless you've just come in from the heart of Africa you know the ads are there and you know you've got a 10 - 20 minute buffer between the listed time and the actual time. Go late or don't go at all is the solution.
          • Godlike, on 10/22/2007, -2/+11We decide this as the consumer part of the capitalist method by not participating when we deem it so. And, the ads have not always been there. RTFA, please... We are not talking about the classmates.com crap before the show starts, we are talking about 15 minutes of Coke commercials that begin at the designated showtime.
          • nitramlliw, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2i think that someone needs an econ 101 course. the consumer decides everything. period.
      • ChildeRoland420, on 10/22/2007, -1/+7That's funny. I remember paying less for tickets before these commercials started.
        • IKORKYI, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1That's funny, I do too but i don't remember being able to attribute the price increase directly to the commercials
      • IKORKYI, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1I actually took a look and it looks like AMC has been taking in lower than expected gross per quarter, and losing on many of big budget movies that bomb. All this was looking at 2003-2006 in which they are receving dwindling attendance and lower profits which were attributed to "higher costs of new technologies and increased prices for standard mm films." (www.wsj.com search AMC) So, they aren't making more profit - as you state with no support - so to answer you question no I don't hate myself.
    • OaklandNative, on 10/21/2007, -0/+55There's also those awesome unskippable ads at the beginning of some DVDs. I wonder how much time I've wasted watching those.
      • ConceptJunkie, on 10/19/2007, -0/+16I'll just turn off the TV, go do something and come back in a few minutes. Unskippable content in DVDs is completely inexcusable. If a DVD has a menu option with previews, I _will_ watch them, because I might find something I'm interested in, which is the whole point, but if they make me watch them, even if it lets fast forward (Disney, I'm talking to you, you whores), then all it does is make me angry.
      • RobotBuddha, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2One of the many reasons I always make backups of my dvds before watching them or transfer it to our media center. It may not happen much, but even once is too many times.
      • nitramlliw, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2yeah... like the FBI Anti-Piracy Warning
    • sotopheavy, on 10/21/2007, -2/+41Heres an idea. Only show ads for 30 minutes from 30 minutes before movie starts up until the time the movie is advertized to start. The earlier you get there and take your seat while advertising is playing the cheaper your ticket is. If you get there 30 minutes early you get the lowest rate of $2. If you get there right as the movie starts or later, you pay all $8 - $10.
      • idiotwithastick, on 10/18/2007, -2/+2eh, $2? I don't think that will work. People will just get there 30 minutes early, and take a 30 minute bathroom break, with a book or magazine to entertain them.
      • Darth_tater, on 10/18/2007, -2/+2hell, ill show up early then go run to the closest store and buy my candy there. ill get the cheap ticket and i will get a much more reasonable price on my snacks.
        • nitramlliw, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2there's a reason there's this thing called a ticket stub... for people like you.
    • hobbers, on 10/17/2007, -8/+1I don't understand how he got to the 24 hour number. I think I've gone to the movies 3 or 4 times this year. But I did a (very conservative) quick calculation for what I might consider the average.

      1 movie every 3 weeks
      15 minutes of commercials

      52/3*.25 = 4.3 hours

      Even more conservative: 1 movie/week, 20 minute commercials
      52/1*.333 = 17.3 hours

      I don't understand how someone can go to the movies any more than that. There aren't even that many movies to watch (unless you want to see every last bit of trash hollywood releases). Unless he is counting 2x for buying his date's ticket or something.
      • thejokell, on 10/19/2007, -0/+11I know the math is difficult, but try and keep up here.

        Given: he goes to the movies 8 times per month, and commercials average 15 minutes per movie

        15 minutes/movie * 8 movies/month * 12 months/year = 1440 minutes/year
        1140 minutes / 60 minutes/hour = 24 hours

        He never said it was *everyone's* average, just his.
      • nitramlliw, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1his website is www.themovieblog.com i think that he's required to go to that many movies because its more than likely his job.
    • leffunov, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2Anyone else here thinking again why am I paying so much money for cable? IT SHOULD BE FREE!!!!!!!!!
  • gametavern, on 10/24/2007, -77/+7Commercials before movies is just fine. What else will you do before the movie starts?
    • nephari, on 10/29/2007, -1/+78I think the point he was trying to make is that they play the commercials after the advertised start time of the movie (effectively wasting your time and money).
      • VenTatsu, on 10/19/2007, -2/+6I think he needs to find a better theater. The one I go to show commercials prior to the show time, but only show 'trailers' between the listed showtime and the start of the movie it self. They even state that the move starts 10 to 15 minutes after the published showtime. There are a few theaters that do show commercials right up to the time the movie starts, but I don't give them my money for that and other reasons.
        • cfulp, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1I live in Northern Virginia, and every theater around that has stadium seating shows commercials at the start of the movie. Still...is it better then going to a ***** theater, I'd say yes.
      • thcobbs, on 10/19/2007, -10/+3But, the piracy that the MPAA is going after supposedly takes money from them by illegally distributing copyrighted work. But your time is not copyrighted, and so, this is an illogical comparison.
        • aliengoods, on 10/19/2007, -0/+10But the MPAA's argument is that they lose $X billion a year to piracy, and his argument is he loses $X hundred a year because of their practices, so the the comparison is logical. It's about losses due to another party, not about the legality of the action committed.
          • thcobbs, on 10/19/2007, -5/+1If you're not billing your hours 24x7, you can't say that you lost money.
      • greenm1981, on 10/24/2007, -0/+18Think of it this way: YOU ARE PAYING SOMEONE TO SELL YOU ***** YOU DON'T NEED!
        • Godlike, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1WHY ARE WE WORKING THESE ***** ASS JOBS TO PAY THEM???
      • mrFREEZE, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6@gametavern:

        You're looking at this all wrong. When I was a kid, I remember there used to be NO ***** commercials before movies. They used to play muzak or whatever until they gave enough time for people to take their seats and it was time for the movie to start.

        These days, they SAY the movie starts at 9:00pm, but they start playing commercials at 8:50 and they don't end until 9:10. They've essentially started holding you hostage and robbing you of 15 minutes that you would've spent at home or whatever.
    • bill679, on 10/19/2007, -0/+38RTFA
    • geddon, on 10/19/2007, -8/+16"What else will you do before the movie starts?" Paying less for the movie at the ticket counter -- thanks to the additional revenue from advertising.
      • AlmostEvil, on 10/19/2007, -6/+10That's a fallacy, if you honestly think they're lowering prices because of advertising you're in cloud cuckoo land. They're doing the advertising so they can pocket more money. That simple.
        If your argument was true then the tickets would actually be cheap and the food & drinks would cost the same as they do in the shops. (at the cinema)
      • VenTatsu, on 10/17/2007, -4/+4As much as 90% of the ticket cost goes directly to the movie's distributor. Theaters only really make money from over priced food and drinks, or from showing those ads. As the movie studios try to get more money from ticket sales the theaters have to pick between pushing up ticket prices or finding a new revenue stream. I'd bet that you are paying less, maybe not less than a 5 years ago, but less than you would have been paying if there were no ads.
    • pauleric, on 10/18/2007, -7/+6Just what extra time are you talking about? If you arrive at the starting time and the movie actually starts, then you haven't had your time wasted. Excessive commercials is one of the two reasons I rarely go see movies anymore.
      • clothmonkey, on 10/19/2007, -0/+8The problem is, the starting time on your ticket these days is NOT the starting time of the movie, that's pushed back 10-15 minutes by commercials. Incidentally, that means the movie ends that many minutes later than it should have, making it a little trickier to plan things if you don't have a car... also makes a late showing that much later...
        • Mononuclear, on 10/19/2007, -12/+3Just call your mom on your cell phone to come pick you up when the movie is over.
          • zigspective, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6Or you know the some of us who live in real city, where it's pointless to drive a car because for the cost of parking you could go out and see two movies.
    • bollander, on 10/18/2007, -2/+10maybe sit and talk to your friend or maybe sit there and relax or read or do anything but be barraged by advertising *****, that is just annoying and not entertaining at all.
    • Godlike, on 10/19/2007, -1/+21Uh, if they didn't have the commercials the movie would start sooner, jackass. They aren't 'filling blank time' in any way. They show the commercials after everyone is already there, when the 'show time' for the MOVIE is.

      How annoying is that? The times that they list are not show times, they are 'come and watch our ***** commercials' times.
    • Sharky35, on 10/18/2007, -3/+2Before the movie starts is when you make the hole in your popcorn bucket for your popo.
    • ryantrask, on 10/18/2007, -0/+6That's when most people I know would be getting their video cameras fired up.
  • exomni, on 10/24/2007, -93/+14This guy is an idiot.
    • MerryMortician, on 10/21/2007, -2/+49what a ***** compelling argument you have brought to the table.
      • monsterenergy, on 10/24/2007, -14/+1Did you really need '*****'?
        • iamafatguy, on 10/17/2007, -3/+1Erm.......
        • aliengoods, on 10/19/2007, -0/+11I think it added to his point.
        • MerryMortician, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1You think I would have gotten all those diggs with "Hey gosh golly?"
        • IllBeBack, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3I need "*****" pretty often. At least once a day is optimal, but every other day is necessary. Use hand as needed to relieve the pressure.
      • IllBeBack, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1He was busy watching commercials.
    • MalDON, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3At least he's not a dickwolf.
  • wageslaven, on 10/21/2007, -51/+240Two issues here, is it the MPAA adding the commercials or is it the theater owners? I believe it is the latter. But I may be wrong.

    Secondly, being that Steve Jobs is the largest shareholder of MPAA / RIAA copyright zealot Disney Corporation, and sits on its board. And that he is clearly using Apple to extend their distribution monopoly into the digital age via itunes, ipod, iphone and itv; perhaps the digg cult might come to see itself in the mirror: The RIAA / MPAA *is* Apple (Steve Jobs) for practical purposes..
    • rollerz, on 10/19/2007, -12/+37WHAT?
      • hansonc, on 10/19/2007, -7/+24thems words is hard?
        • gwhardyiv, on 10/19/2007, -13/+9No...thems words is completely ***** illogical, just like the argument put forth by the submitted blog post. Remember, people - your desire for something to be true has absolutely no bearing on the validity of an argument.
        • mrFREEZE, on 10/18/2007, -7/+18How is it illogical? Steve Jobs owns Disney, Disney is 1/5 of the MPAA. I know the truth hurts, but do you really have an argument to show that LOGIC ITSELF is being distorted here?
        • gwhardyiv, on 10/19/2007, -7/+24I think Disney is 1/6 of the MPAA, not 1/5. At any rate, the conclusion of the argument hinges on reductionist premises that oversimplify the situation. Yes, Jobs is majority shareholder of Disney, and technically, he does have the juice. But he's not going to show up at a board meeting and threaten to dump his stock unless Bob Iger gives him a blow job in the broom closet. We aren't playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon, here. Making a mere connection is not enough to justify such a bold, conspiratorial conclusion. So saying that Apple *is* the MPAA/RIAA is a bunch of rhetorical *****, meant to do nothing but give Apple haters a hard-on. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend that the argument is well formed.
          • Godlike, on 10/18/2007, -3/+9It's intellectually dishonest to assume that the head of Apple has a say in the RIAA when he is in control of a company that has a massive stake in it?
          • johnnysaucepn, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1It's only dishonest if you know it's not true. This is different - it's assuming someone is guilty simply because he theoretically has the capability to commit the crime.
          • gwhardyiv, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1I said, and I quote, "it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that the argument is well formed." And I meant exactly what I said. The original argument is totally unsupported. Now, If you have some proof or can provide evidence of documented activity that supports the conclusion that Apple = RIAA, please enlighten us. But I suspect that you don't have any proof. All you have is some dorky preference for one kind of thinking-machine over another, which has somehow led to an irrational prejudice against the business dealings of Steve Jobs.
          • gwhardyiv, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Good point, Johnny. My beef is really with the conspiracy-theory logic rather than the content, but you're right.
          • dvsbastard, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1I think it's a case of "guilty by association" which in reality holds no real or solid weight.... However, it does act as a very good starting ground for the more inquisitive mind...
          • Godlike, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1It has nothing to do with that and I honestly don't give a crap about steve jobs, the point is that the argument is not "intellectually dishonest" which for the rest of you means supporting a position that you know to be untrue. Pulling that card is frankly quite offensive as you are basically calling someone a liar, especially since nobody has anything to gain here from that.

            You have no idea what goes on in the Apple or Disney boardrooms. As you say, it is indeed quite unproven, but it is not "intellectually dishonest".

            Was all of that really necessary?
          • gwhardyiv, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! "Quite frankly, I'm offended." Now you're being emotionally dishonest.
    • geddon, on 10/19/2007, -2/+31Doesn't matter whose adding it. Most of the social web understands free content supported by sponsors. If I'm going to be subjected to ads before the movie starts, I expect to be paid for my time in the reduction of the ticket price.
      • Godlike, on 10/19/2007, -2/+9Just stop going. What are you really missing? Story time?
      • frazw, on 10/19/2007, -4/+12How do you know the ticket price does not already reflect such a price drop? Ad's have been there so long you'd have to go back to the beginnings of the cinema to see if there was ever a drop in price.
        • Godlike, on 10/19/2007, -1/+10We are already being gouged like crazy in the theaters... if their business model is such that they cannot turn a profit without 7 dollar popcorn and ads at the start of the movie then it is time for them to go the way of the stage play.

          The only reason theaters still exist is because nothing has YET replaced the 'big screen' though, I have a 22" widescreen LCD that is plenty enough and many, many people will purchase large flatscreen displays this holiday season. It is only going to get worse for the theaters and as they continue to refuse to adapt, they will just raise prices and annoyances until they die out.
          • frazw, on 10/19/2007, -1/+2Yeah true, I definitely despise the price of food and drink. I have a home cinema setup but there is still something about going to the cinema that makes it a unique enjoyable experience. I know others may not agree but I'd be sad to see it go.
          • mrFREEZE, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2@frazw

            That may have been true a few years ago, but these days EVERYONE has cellphones and they seem to go off during movies all the time. On top of that, the ads have become unbearable (remember when there were NO ads?) to the point where I simply won't go anymore.
          • gernblansted, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2@ "The only reason theaters still exist is because nothing has YET replaced the 'big screen' ..."

            There's more to it than just that - the biggest part of the theater experience for many is watching the movie with a large crowed of people who share enough interest with you in the movie to pay to see it.

            That said, theaters are really shooting themselves in the foot by doing this - it's expanding, they've moved ad time into the movie time slots, and they tell you to take a hike if you complain about it. They are making more and more reasons to avoid the theater for short term profit gain.

            MARK MY WORDS: They will bring back the intermission, and will run adds. And you will pay for that too.
        • isellmacs, on 10/18/2007, -0/+8I have to agree, this business model of vast profits and massive amounts of money being made by hollywood studios and big name actors kinda detracts for the imagine of the poor, starving movie industry, forced to enslave themselves to marketing just to survive.. meh.

          I watch exactly *one* thing that has commericals right now, and that's heroes. It's an excellent show, and it's shown free online, with commericals. The commericals suck and are annoying, but it's free.

          I stopped watching TV and listening to Radio, as I got frustrated by the overwhelming amount of commericals. So I started doing the premium thing. DVD's, movie theatres, CD's etc.

          Now look at things. DVDs? Encrypted, DRM'd to 'fight piracy' and unskippable trailers and FBI anti-piracy warnings. CD's? Haven't bought one in years, i'm not willing to "rent" a "licensence" to listen to some music. Movie theatres are getting the same way; way too overpriced and not delivering in the quality i'm looking for. Piracy right now is a huge issue for the RIAA/MPAA. But it's not because of "copyright infringement" it's because the pirates are offering a BETTER product!

          Aslong as the pirates can offering a superior product -no commericals, no fbi warning (ok sometimes) and no DRM to ***** things up- the RIAA/MPAA can never win.
        • gernblansted, on 10/17/2007, -1/+0They've been losing and will never ever ever win using their current tactics. They create the very 'resistance' they fight. Unfortunately for the future of the entertainment industry, the players don't care and will carry out actions which will push for the beloved 'short term profit'. That's the only thing the players in this world of revolving door CEOs care about - Jump from ship to ship, sink them for profit on the way.

          We have to introduce a long term viability tax - CEOs who make excessive money should have a 'pending' tax lien applied to their profit. Every year that the company they made the profit from does well, more of the lean will melt away. If the company does poorly, the lien becomes a payable tax. CEOs would have GREAT incentive to insure the profitability of the company they run beyond the next quarter. Currently, they will wreck a company to make an extra ten grand in a short term profit bonus.
      • bingobongony, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1You don't get to set the ticket price. So, for all you know, the ticket price is $15. And you are getting a $5 discount for viewing ads.
    • Intangible360, on 10/17/2007, -0/+6The advertisements he is referring to are the ones that come with the movie, not the ones they play the 15 minutes before the scheduled start of the movie.
    • gajillion, on 10/17/2007, -2/+7No, it's not. It's the distributor of the film being presented that dictates the terms of the trailers being showed. It's part of the contract negotiated between the theater and the movie distributor regarding who pays for which percentage of the advertising vs. which percentage of the box office take they receive.
      • actorboy, on 10/17/2007, -0/+6Sounds like an informed comment. Do you have a source I can peruse?
        • Rhonwyn, on 10/17/2007, -0/+0I don't know his source, and I don't have one either, but I did used to work at a movie theatre. We had a competing theatre in town and we would each "bid" on a movie for exclusive rights. We'd bid both a flat fee, and a percentage of the box office.

          I don't remember them ever dictating the terms of trailers, but they would force a trailer on a movie, which you have seen. "Go see Batman Begins to see the new Superman trailer" or some such.
    • picsectionpleez, on 10/17/2007, -9/+3I own the domain name filesuit.com if anyone wants to turn it into a website for collecting class action participants.
    • TremorX, on 10/17/2007, -7/+2So, what brand of tin-foil do you use to make your hats?
      • ubergeek09, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Well I have tried quite a few brands, I like to mix it up a little just for kicks.
    • qwertyuio, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3Spoiler alert...
    • dallastarsfan16, on 10/18/2007, -1/+0*Apple TV
    • leffunov, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Both profit from it so it doesn't matter. They are both guilty of being within an illegal cartel ( a group of companpies acting as a monopoly for profit)
    • ubergeek09, on 10/21/2007, -0/+0That's because Steve Jobs is evil, haven't we gone over this already?
  • gotamd, on 10/24/2007, -30/+12The commercials before movies are put there by the theaters, not the the "movie industry". The fact that they make revenue from them is also accounted for in your ticket price. I don't see what the problem is. It's not like they're fooling anyone.
    • sinrtb, on 10/20/2007, -1/+18He is not talking about the commercials that play when the lights are on he is talking about the Geico coca-cola and other commercials that are playing right after the lights dim and right before the movie previews start. If you watch the time these commercials play after show time not before which is the main idea of the article.
    • geddon, on 10/18/2007, -0/+19"The fact that they make revenue from them is also accounted for in your ticket price." You and I are experiencing two different realities. In my world, the cost of the ticket prices keep escalating along with the number of ads.
      • AxeSwinger, on 10/18/2007, -4/+3Thats a load of BS. Theater owners found another revenue stream and capitalized on it. What would happen is theater owners would miss that revenue stream and adjust the price so as not to be sued by the theater chains stockholders.

        Every business owner I've ever met is unhappy with the amount of profit they're making and every stockholder (my self included) is unable with the rate of return on most stocks. Don't believe the hype.
        • roodammy44, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3If they had to raise prices less people would go, and then the movie studios would have to lower prices.
          No business could survive by constant price raising
          • AxeSwinger, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1If a business model does not take care of the costs of the basic transaction than it's a failed model. Adding the other revenue streams onto that basic model is profit maximization that's not to say models don't develop with time but really is a movie any better if it costs 200 million to make it does not. If movies where better crafted and budgets where more realistic we would not be paying to subsidize flops like Rush Hour 3, Daddy Day Camp, Evan Almighty and those ad dollars would not be required for a theater to stay afloat.
      • IKORKYI, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1take a second to think how much they would be escalating without the ticket prices durrrrrrrr
      • solid12345, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1Why do ticket prices escalate? Because you, the consumers, keep demanding more out of the experience.

        Remember when there was little to no ads before the movies? Oh right, that was when seats were all lined up in a row, no comfy head rests, popcorn and soda stains all over the floor.

        Now we got the big multiplex centers that cost more to build and maintain. The theaters didn't jack up the prices, you the consumer did.
        • Kerath, on 10/18/2007, -0/+5I don't remember issuing any demands. Why didn't I put "turn down the sound" there?
        • ashmael, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2There are still popcorn and soda stains everywhere, and the chairs aren't that comfortable at all. Try again.
  • Eljefedeath, on 10/24/2007, -47/+7Hey, we should sue companies that advertise on billboards too! Every billboard costs you a few seconds that you could have been looking at blue sky.

    Wait, never mind that doesn't make any sense - no one forces you to read billboards. Hmmm, no one forces you to watch pre-movie ads either. This whole argument appears to be retarded.
    • gd1z, on 10/19/2007, -1/+28You're spending money to go see the movie, so it isn't the same at all. I think you missed the point.
    • andycr512, on 10/19/2007, -1/+25"Hmmm, no one forces you to watch pre-movie ads either."

      Funny, most DVD players won't let you skip them.
      • HHP2K, on 10/17/2007, -3/+4What DVD players are you buying? Most DVDs say before the previews start that you can press Menu to go right to the root menu of the DVD.
      • Eljefedeath, on 10/17/2007, -2/+6You have the worst DVD player in history. I skiop them all the time.
        • andycr512, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1My DVD player is VLC. I can skip them whenever I want, and won't use a DVD player that won't let me. However, I know most commercial players won't.
      • actorboy, on 10/17/2007, -5/+3So you only watch DVDs that are autoplay the feature? Every commercial DVD I've watched stops at the menu. Next time, try this: pop in the DVD, go make popcorn, take a final leak and turn down the lights on your way back with movie snacks. By the time you hit the couch, the feature menu will be ready and waiting. Sure beats the hell out of sitting on your ass and whining about things no one "forces" you to endure.
        • andycr512, on 10/17/2007, -3/+3First of all, I wasn't whining - I was pointing out that was he said was incorrect. Secondly, why should I have to plan my movie time around artificial restrictions placed by greedy companies? When I want to watch a movie, I don't think "Hey, I'll start the DVD up so it can get through the crap while I'm making popcorn." I think "Hey, I want a movie. I'll go get some popcorn, stick the DVD in and sit down."
          • actorboy, on 10/18/2007, -2/+3Yeah, whining.
          • andycr512, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1And that's whining how? If that's whining, then you are whining about my comment.
            At any rate, this is getting old quickly...
    • MerryMortician, on 10/19/2007, -0/+7you need to pay attention to the road my friend.
    • codered1322, on 10/18/2007, -3/+5Agreed, I don't know why you are dugg down. Paying for something does not grantee no advertisements. Buy a sports ticket, there are ads all over the stadium. Subscribe to a magazine, ads. Buy a videogame and there are inserts promoting more products under and even in the manual. Pay for premium ESPN HD there are ads on that. Pay for Xbox live, ads all over that. The MPAA sucks, and so do those commercials but they don't owe anyone money.
      • alisahammer, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Yes, but the difference is time. You can toss an ad from a magazine into the trash. This would be the equivalent of NOT ONLY not being able to open a magazine without reading/processing an ad first, but having the magazine decide how long it should take you to process/read the ad... and allotting that amount of time. Being able to throw something out, look away, or x out a pop-up ad do not require you to sit and wait for something to be over without a choice.
      • eatbeefjerky, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4The difference is that while you're at a sporting event, if the game is slated to start at say 7:00, the game starts at 7:00. Yes, there are still advertisements there, but they aren't actively delaying you from doing what you paid to do - watch the game. With the video game or magazine, you aren't being forced to look at the advertisements before you continue reading the magazine's content or playing the video game.
  • Joab, on 10/21/2007, -8/+295Agree. WTF should I spend $10s for a ticket $8 for a tub of popcorn and $7 for a liter of cola then have to sit through a Coke commercial.

    Seriously how is there any justification for these high costs and ***** movies
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/22/2007, -5/+52Do you want to see the movies in a theater or not? If not, then stop going. I don't recall the last movie I saw in a theater.
      • ir6c, on 10/18/2007, -0/+28If everyone were to stop then of course it would be due to piracy and not the ridiculous prices etc.
      • 4degrees, on 10/18/2007, -3/+40if everyone stopped going to the movies then the MPAA would start suing people for not going to the movies.
      • actorboy, on 10/17/2007, -1/+5Agreed. There are only a few things I "have" to see in the theater (read: prefer), James Bond movies being one of them. Outside of that, I can buy the DVD and watch it as much as I want for less than the price of a theater "experience" -- i.e., great sound and big screen countered by people talking, cellphones going off, expensive eats, and missing key plot points if I gotta whiz.
      • thanakar, on 10/18/2007, -0/+5The reason they charge you so much for at the concession is because the over 70% of the box office take is being sent back up the line. Theaters only make money on the food and drink, not on the movie itself.
    • hansonc, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4people keep paying to see ***** movies. I don't mind the popcorn though. Sometimes I only am willing to see a movie in the theater because I get to have good popcorn at the same time.
      • ledzep19752000, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1It's not hard to make popcorn in the pan. It tastes better and it's healthier too!
      • Thepirateking, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Tell you what. Here's the secret. Coconut oil. That's what gives the popcorn in the theater the yellowish colour, and it's taste. Make your own popcorn with that on your stovetop, add some butter salt (I get mine at a bulkstore, about 3 bucks will last me at least a year) and eat it in front of your tv. If you're one of those people who likes soggy popcorn you can add as much butter as you like. Costs like a buck for a tub bigger then the theater will provide.
    • Gauthic, on 07/09/2008, -2/+60Liter-O-Cola? Do we make liter-o-cola?

      ;)
      • freezerburn666, on 10/18/2007, -10/+6ahh super troopers :P
        • Nerfdude, on 10/18/2007, -3/+14good call! that WAS super troopers! bravo sir, bravo! you win the reference game.
      • tjordan83, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Every time I think it it's already been posted. You guys are just to good.
      • Checkerd, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2"I don't want a large farva! I want a god damn LITER-O-COLA!"
    • Eljefedeath, on 10/18/2007, -5/+23They don't have to justify it, you keep paying. You just bitch. Stop bitching and stop going to movies if it pisses you off so much.
      • xvertigox, on 10/17/2007, -1/+11Yeah. Don't express yourself or try to inform others. If something pisses you off just keep quiet and I'm sure it'll eventually go away.
        • Eljefedeath, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1You should work for Fox news with that ability to spin. Bitching without acting is completely useless. You don't like the services you receive for your money? Stop paying for them and go without the service.

          Denying a company your dollar is infinitely more effective then whining about how much they charge you to provide a service and the ways they try and defray the cost of providing the service.
      • Joab, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3Lol wow I never said I went to the movies. Nice bitching about bitching though.
        • Eljefedeath, on 10/17/2007, -3/+1I apoligize, i assumed you were posting because you had some experiance with the situation. I gave you the benifit of the doubt that you were not just posting to see your own words. Why would you comment about issues associated with going to the movies if you don't go to the movies?
      • solid12345, on 10/18/2007, -0/+10This is the pussy society we live in. Instead of people taking their wallets elsewhere they sit there, watch it, and bitch about it. This is how extravagant capitalism and monopolies have grown because consumers are too afraid to pick and choose competition.
      • dext3r, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3Exactly. Vote with your dollar, tards. Don't buy the overpriced popcorn and sodas. Do you NEED soda and popcorn to get through a moive? Why? Eat before. Eat after. Sneak in a water bottle. You dont HAVE to buy extra *****, they just want you to.
        • ashmael, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1I've done all those things (even only going for really great movies), and they keep raising the prices. The problem with the whole idea of "don't support what you don't like" is that they never hear that I don't like it or why. They just see that their revenue is falling so they take on more ads and raise more prices.
    • lasko, on 10/17/2007, -9/+3a liter of cola....do we have a liter of cola?
    • kahrytan, on 10/17/2007, -9/+1Why are you spending $10 on a ticket? Over spend on a ticket. I can get better deals
    • fllnngl, on 10/17/2007, -9/+2Did you ever stop to think what the ticket prices would be if there were no commercials/ads. The companies are getting money for showing those ads which allows them to charge lower prices on tickets to bring in more people, which lets them charge even more for the ads.

      Something tells me you would be complaining even more if the movies had no ads and cost $25 a ticket.

      Also, the movie companies may be putting in more ads to try to compensate for all the money they think they are losing because of piracy. So in this case I don't think "voting with your wallet" will be particularly helpful.
      • eatbeefjerky, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2I'd love to see them try charging $25 a ticket for movies. They'd get about 10 people in the theater over the course of a given movie's availability, which wouldn't even come close to helping them break even what with the cost of the movie's license and all. No, they don't charge insane prices and then make us watch ads to help us, they do it because they can.
      • LucianSolaris, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1FALLACIOUS COMMENT!

        In my world, the ticket prices just went up over $2 for EACH THEATRE! I'm talking big time and small theatres! And guess what didn't exist before the price raise? You guessed it, THESE STUPID ADS!

        So, they raise the price by $2, then advertise!

        From the sounds of it, the industry is killing the theatres. It is NATO (no, not the military treaty org, the other NATO) that decides the ticket prices, the theatre charges a little over and gets most revenue from concessions. When the price was raised, so was concessions and ads were added to make up for lost sales from the lower number of ticket buyers. I don't even think the theatre tacks more onto the mandated price or else they'd slash it to get business instead of annoying customers.

        The MPAA wants to kill theatres, that's fine. In response in this war, I'll just renew my Giganews USENET subscription and get the movie lickety-split! Number one I don't pay my enemy to screw me, and number two each step they take, I take a step.

        ***** YOU **AA!!!
    • IKORKYI, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3their justification is making profit. without commercials youd be paying more or they would be losing and you wouldn't have a theatre to go to. Murphys Law is if something can go wrong, it will. Again, I'm instituting the IKORKYI Law, which states "If people can bitch, they will" and a corallary "People are whiny bitches"
    • puddness, on 10/18/2007, -4/+2Your just fat
    • bingobongony, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2How is there any justification for an iPod being a few hundred bucks? How is there any justification for a Porsche being $80,000?

      Same ***** thing. The free market has set the price. Enough people are going to see the movies and buying popcorn and soda at hese prices, knowing that they are going to get advertising that it is profitable.
    • evanpugface, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1i bet you are quite fat
    • TheUngod, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1You also have to think about the product placement in movies. Aside from regular old commercials before a movie, many movies are full of mini commercials. A star is drinking a soda for instance with the can label clearly visible. Although it's part of the movie, it's still an ad and the companies pay big bucks for silly crap like that.
  • zensequential, on 10/19/2007, -1/+58the more popular/anticipated the movie is, the longer the previews and commercials are.... I remembered I went to the LOTR 3rd installment 30 minutes late into the theater and was able to sit down just in time for the movie to roll out
    • Syntaxis, on 10/17/2007, -1/+330 Minutes of commercials? Assuming the average screentime of a commercial is 1 minute, that's 30 commercials. On average you influence a 100 different people in a year. Each person you might've influenced to buy one of the products from the commercial. If we set a low price on the average product at $20 USD and assume you only remembered 50% of all commercials, conscious or not, you have the following sum:

      (15 commercials * $20) * 100 people = they owe you $30,000.00 USD for every movie you've seen.
      • plamoni, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Your math kinda sucks... You are saying we will all go out and buy $20 worth of product from every commercial we remember seeing? That means the poor guy would watch 30 minutes of commercials, then go out and drop $300 bucks on products/services. From that one movie.

        Contrary to what the RIAA/MPAA might claim when "calculating the cost of piracy": exposure != sale.
        • Syntaxis, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Potential. One car commercial might make you decide to buy a certain type/make of car. That's a possible $40,000.00 USD spent only because you saw a commercial. Then every day, as you drive around, you influence people that see you driving your new car.

          But really, I was just trying to make a point here: they (RIAA/MPAA) claim that pirates potentially uploaded to hundreds of people, and ask compensation accordingly.
    • profOblivion, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Bingo. I remember when I saw Transformers, the movie started about 20 minutes after the posted time. And then the actual movie turned out to just be a big ad for General Motors.
  • carbbomb, on 11/08/2007, -11/+203Better logic: Its okay to pirate movies cause they pirate your time.

    *Fires up bit-torrent*
    • JoshuaH, on 10/18/2007, -0/+14I don't think my torrent client is often closed.
    • sotopheavy, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2Why don't theaters make you pay less for tickets the more ads you watch. Say you get there earlier and watch 20 minutes of ads you pay $3 instead of $10. Then they can charge more for late people and those who don't watch ads. They can also start the movie on the time advertised.
      • neeyo, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3Because you would buy your ticket two hours early for $1.50 and then hang out in the bar next door and wouldn't actually enter the theater until 5 minutes before the movie started. Interesting concept though.
    • alevel27mage, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1Except that you have the option to go get your money back, and the MPAA doesn't. I really dislike the MPAA, but your logic isn't the best, either.
    • nazsco, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1let's also sue them for using OUR bandwidth with bittorrent to publicize THEIR movies!

      I'm serious.
      • ubergeek09, on 10/21/2007, -0/+0That would be awesome, and with the screwed up law system in the US today you could probably get away with it if you had enough money.
  • geoken, on 10/19/2007, -4/+90I'll just go download some movies and we'll call it even.
    • solid12345, on 10/17/2007, -5/+0And yet if 100% of consumers just downloaded movies there would be no more movies made.
      • Syntaxis, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3Hmpf. I pirate my ass off but I go to the movie. It's a perfect (yet cliche) part of any date, and the big screen just doesn't fit in my home. Yet.
      • Pikachelsea, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Haha, I love it when people bring out the "if everybody did it" argument. As if there's some dystopian pirate future where that would EVER happen.
        • andrew7667, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2It's trouble enough showing some people how to work their e-mail. I can only imagine what it'd take before everyone was torrenting.
  • ohanon, on 11/10/2007, -2/+459LEELA: Didn't you have ads in the twentieth century?
    FRY: Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio... and in magazines... and movies, and at ballgames, and on buses, and milk cartons, and T-shirts, and bananas, and written in the sky. But not in dreams, no sirree.
    • MerryMortician, on 10/18/2007, -1/+19yet.
    • heartcoldfusion, on 10/21/2007, -4/+138A++ Post. Would read again.
      • AxeSwinger, on 10/22/2007, -1/+46diggbay?
      • MagicCake, on 10/18/2007, -2/+26HORRIBLE COMMENTER! I ORDERED COMMENT 6 WEEKS AGO IT STILL HAS NOT ARRIVED!!! CONTACTED COMMENTER AND NO RESPONSE. AVOID THIS SCAMMER!
        • ARVash, on 10/18/2007, -0/+27INSTEAD OF COMMENT; RECEIVED BOBCAT. WOULD NOT READ AGAIN.
    • MonarchWastxD, on 10/18/2007, -0/+8Proffesor: The gamma rays are injected into your brain the same way this fluid is injected into this egg!
      SPLAT
    • N166, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1lets not forget video games
  • phlosys, on 10/18/2007, -2/+31Think about how much $$$ you pay for cable tv, PLUS all the ads that are thrown at you! If you think the few previews before movies are bad, think of the whole history of commercial culture that is reinforced in between every episode of your favorite show.

    They owe it all to Madison Avenue ad man #1 Edward Bernays. See BBC documentary ( 4 parts ) the Century of Self : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273 ...
    • leptons, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4I pay for HBO, and they do not show commercials during their shows. the channels that do show commercials are considered "free" channels included with the basic cable service, so i don't feel too bad about those channels showing commercials, but if HBO did, then there would be a problem since I'm paying extra for it. I see the point though about commercials on cable channels, but i'm really paying for the reception that the cable wires give (as opposed to using an antenna), i'm not paying to not watch commercials, although it would be great if i didnt have to see any at all, ever.

      I do find it disgusting to show commercials before watching a movie. They already have too much product placement in the movies themselves, so going to the movies is really like paying to watch one long commercial.
    • Projektorboy, on 10/17/2007, -1/+9When it comes to cable TV your hatred of TV advertisements your ire is completely misguided. When you pay a cable company you're paying the company for the infrastructure and the manpower required to acquire, deliver and support the service. If you didn't pay the cable companies anything then they couldn't exist. Advertisements still need to happen because the TV stations need to be able to pay for their shows somehow. Also, at no point is anyone ever obligated to buy into the commercial reinforcement despite its presence in TV.
      • dlsspy, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1I don't pay them, but they still seem to exist.

        I canceled my cable years ago when I noticed this very thing. I was paying them to both interrupt and overlay my shows with ads.
    • yunus, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2A good portion of the money that you pay for cable goes to the infrastructure required to support the TV you are watching.(Cables in the ground, satellites, maintenance, customer support). Ok so I made up the customer support one they really don't put any money into that, but still you get the idea.
      The movie industry keeps all the money from ticket sales, the Theaters pay rent for the buildings and their employees through food sales. So its a different revenue source.
      • ChildeRoland420, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3In my area a good portion of the money paid for cable goes into someone's pocket. The infrastructure has been there for decades, yet the cheapest plan is $50 and comes with two digital boxes (all the channels I want are analog anyways, and I've got one cable outlet in my apartment.) That is true rapeage.
        • ashmael, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Its the same in my area. I had basic analog from a long time ago, and Comcast has slowly been removing channels from the analog and offering them only on the digital box (which is $50 for only one). And its them or AT&T..
        • yunus, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1There not putting in Fiber in your area? Maybe not fiber to your house like Verizon but Fiber to the neighborhood? Do you have access to HD content and cable modem? If so they are not using the cable lines that were installed decades ago.
    • Ductapemaster, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2Thats exactly why I own a DVR. Record the show, start watching 20 minutes into it, and skip all the commercials!
    • sbgunn, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1I don't pay for cable because I don't think it's worth it. Netflix gives me a better value. When I do get cable again, I'll have a DVR for that exact reason. Once you get used to not watching commercials, it's even harder to put up with it again.
  • NaterGator, on 10/19/2007, -23/+4Has this guy considered that he may actually be getting better movies because of these ads? If the movie industry eliminated them and has less purse, eventually the quality of movies (which is already suspect) would suffer.
    • HHP2K, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5According to other Diggers, the Movie Industry doesn't force the movie theatres to put them up there. Movie theatre companies do that themselves.
      • NaterGator, on 10/17/2007, -2/+2I believe this guy is referring to the ads inserted on the film reels, not the digitized projector ads before the movie starts. I know there are both types; but I'm pretty confident that is what he is on about. If I'm wrong I'd love to see how theaters insert high quality ads because IMHO the ones I've seen are leagues above the quality of what the theaters normally display.
    • hansonc, on 10/17/2007, -1/+8Movies could get worse?
    • roodammy44, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2I've seen many, many independent movies that are 10 minutes long that are a thousand times better than the crap they screen in the cinemas.
      Sometimes over-commercialisation kills an artform. Just look at music and britney spears.
      • solid12345, on 10/17/2007, -0/+0And yet it is the MPAA and RIAA that gets blamed for crap movies and music when it is consumers who are the ones buying the ***** and telling them they want it. Even the pirates are downloading commercialized ***** like Transformers and Britney Spears instead of pirating independent releases.
    • MalDON, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1The Movie Industry would have more "purse" if they would focus on making good movies rather than any ***** idea that comes to them. Also might help if they stopped paying over-priced lawyers to sue people who buy movies.
    • MagicCake, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2Are you kidding me? They blow hundreds of millions of dollars on these stupid movies and you think removing those ads would force them to cut back? They'd be just fine without them. And even if they were a significant part of the budget, maybe without it they could learn to make a good movie instead of filling stuff with ***** CGI that looks like it's from 1992.
  • andres9888, on 10/19/2007, -27/+1First off the commercials before movies tend to be good.Also what esle would you be doing with your time anyway and without those commercials prices for tickets might increase.
    • AxeSwinger, on 10/19/2007, -0/+5The point is the movie should start at the posted time not twenty minutes later after the commercials have played.
      • yunus, on 10/18/2007, -0/+5I totally support that. Have all the commercials you want before a movie but keep the lights half on and tell me the real start time of the Movie, or at least the movie previews.
    • 4degrees, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1you are right a movie still costs a nickel to go see thanks to the ads.
  • sagat, on 10/18/2007, -19/+4Yawn... Has the movie begun yet? I'm so bloody bored staring at this blank screen because I came to the theatre so early, I would love something to do other than listen to this godawful elevator music I'd watch anything even ads.
    • HHP2K, on 10/18/2007, -1/+16If there were no ads, then the movie would start... dumbass.
    • knicknut, on 10/22/2007, -0/+6The problem is, the ads don't start until the scheduled movie start time. So if you're on time, you still have to watch all that crap.
      • chedabob, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Is it really that hard to buy tickets 20 minutes after the scheduled start time? I've been doing it for years, and I see maybe 1 or 2 adverts before the film starts. I've never missed the beginning of the film.

        Besides, when the ads are on, I talk with my friends. Or *gasp* watch the adverts.
    • sgvprelude, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2read the article before making a stupid comment.
  • bshock, on 10/21/2007, -1/+58Commercials before movies were one of the major factors informing my decision to stop seeing all Hollywood products last year.

    Well, that, and the fact that all Hollywood products were insultingly stupid.
    • vonfook, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5Along with the products. I shall NEVER drink Fanta, good god.
    • Jeeum, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1"all Hollywood products were insultingly stupid."
      This is the crucial moment.
    • companioncube, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Yes! Absolutely! I haven't been to more than one or two films in the last year, and it's been since 2000 or so since I saw more than that. Insultingly stupid is right. The crap they're putting out now is terrible, lowest-common-denominator *****. And then when nobody wants to go, they blame it on piracy. Typical.
  • glucoseboy, on 10/19/2007, -6/+11Well written.
  • henrikc, on 11/08/2007, -3/+159The worst thing is the stupid anti-piracy ads.
    If I buy a movie, I want to see it instantly, not sit there and watch a stupid ad for a couple of minutes, THEN start watching. Otherwise I would just download it, and see it instantly WITHOUT the ads.
    • clothmonkey, on 10/18/2007, -0/+14Is it absurdist to pirate antipiracy ads?
      • technoredneck, on 10/20/2007, -1/+4Perhaps. But everything that comes out of the MAFIAA's greedy, deseperate mouths is growing increasingly close to dadaism.
    • NATOuk, on 11/08/2007, -1/+63Don't you see the brilliance? You buy a legitimate DVD, pop it into your DVD player to be forced to watch an ad about how bad it is to 'steal' movies, just like the one you just purchased legitimately! Preaching to the Choir eh? In fact, the only effect this ad will have is to make people irritated enough to just pirate a movie next time in order to avoid the stupid ad.

      Whoever came up with the idea of putting anti-piracy ads on legitimate products ought to be fired for stupidity...
      • Sawta, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Nah, I would rather they keep making terrible decisions so they collapse in upon their own arrogance. Then new movie companies would have a fighting chance and have a willingness to try to work WITH the consumer...reward them, even, rather than punish them.
      • chrisOrbit, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4... out of a canon. in to the sun.
    • xvertigox, on 10/18/2007, -0/+22I find the "You wouldn't steal a car..." commercials hilarious tbh. I can't imagine somebody taking it seriously. If people don't see a difference in stealing a car and pirating a movie then we're *****.
      • thanakar, on 10/18/2007, -19/+1There isn't a difference really, theft is theft, that's the point of the commercial.
        • ultrafez, on 10/18/2007, -0/+13Wrong. If you steal a car, then that car is not able to be used by the original owner. With a pirated movie, you COPY the original not take it from the owner. Plus, the movie industry is not losing money if you were never going to buy it in the first place... (assuming you didn't have any other means of getting the movie)
        • JOjimBO, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3You're a moron.
        • lotu, on 10/18/2007, -0/+12No stealing a car is theft, but copying a movie is copyright infringement. They are different crimes with different punishments.
    • thedragon4453, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4Yeah, I crack up a bit at the logic there. At home, you are viewing the anti-piracy ad on a dvd you bought. At the theater, you are viewing the anti-piracy ad on a movie you paid $10 to see. As if the one guy in there making a cam is suddenly going to go "You know what? This is wrong. Its time I turn my life around."
      • fredrihl, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Not only that. The guy who actually pirates a movie (pirating here meaning downloading), will actually never see this commercial. How's that for logic?
  • ninetimes, on 10/18/2007, -17/+9You all are missing the point. Our country was founded on the idea that large businesses have certain inalienable rights, chiefly the right to profit off of the people. When you hear music without paying anyone or refuse to watch their advertising, you are depriving them of that god-given right, and therefore it's stealing.
    • andycr512, on 10/17/2007, -4/+2"Our country was founded on the idea that large businesses have certain inalienable rights, chiefly the right to profit off of the people."

      Care to back that up with a snippet from the Constitution?

      "When you hear music without paying anyone or refuse to watch their advertising, you are depriving them of that god-given right, and therefore it's stealing."

      Bull. They have no such right. If it's by government, then it is no more legitimate morally than a rule that I arbitrarily try to make - I choose to obey laws because the world is a better place if I do, not because a company lined a politicians pockets with money to make a given law. If you're religious and believe that God believes in artificial scarcity, then I would suggest you back it up with an appropriate passage from the Bible or whatever other sacred text you believe in.
      • KirbyMeister, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2It's sarcasm. He's being sarcastic.
        • andycr512, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2My apologies, I didn't catch that. You never know what trolls will say these days, so I thought he was just another.
      • rootofunity, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1WOW
    • blackmage439, on 10/17/2007, -1/+5No.... YOU are missing the point. The majority of us aren't griping about ads before or after a movie. Like the author of the article said, if a show starts at seven, the theaters can legally show anything they want before that. We're all just sitting there anyway. But, at seven, I better damn well see the movie I PAID FOR, or some trailers for movies that I would pay more money to see later.
      • KirbyMeister, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Actually, YOU are missing the point. He was being sarcastic and it flew right over your heads.
    • LacY, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5Pretty sure ninetimes was being facetious...
    • mooninite, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2Wow... andycr and blackmage are out of touch with the world.

      ninetimes was being sarcastic. (or at least I hope he was)
    • nunofgs, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Hah, was it only obvious to me that you were being sarcastic? Don't know why you're being dugg down.

      You make a good point.
    • KirbyMeister, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1I lol'd.
    • grumpyz, on 10/17/2007, -0/+0This is being dugg down 'cause people can't ***** read any more with any comprehension. Thumbs up 19
    • LoveableNerd, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Had to dig this one back up. Clearly satire is lost on some people.
  • bollander, on 10/17/2007, -20/+15Vote with your wallets and go see less movies or stop whining.

    I download most movies for free...only way to strke back is by not giving the bastards your money. If you pay to be abused, then you deserve it.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/17/2007, -4/+8While I agree with the "stop going to movies", stealing others' work to get back at the bastards is so childish.
    • dark2025, on 10/17/2007, -2/+4If you stop going, wouldn't they put even more crap before the movies to try making up for the loss?
      • KirbyMeister, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Which would cause even more people to stop going... eventually turning movies into giant 3 hour advert blocks followed by 15 minutes of what you actually wanted.
      • actorboy, on 10/17/2007, -0/+6But you would never see it because stopped going. See how that works?
        • Jeeum, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Yeah, what a knothead.
        • notthemama, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Sure, YOU wouldn't see it, but the remaining people would have to put up with it.
          The industry will either increase the amount of ads or start blaming piracy for the lack of ticket sales, or both.
          • actorboy, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Couldn't blame piracy if people didn't pirate. See how that works?
          • dgp1, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Yes they could! You don't think those ***** would let the TRUTH stop them from playing the martyr, do you?
    • muncle, on 10/17/2007, -4/+3Forget downloading the movies, download a spellchecker there.
    • Defuser, on 10/17/2007, -3/+3Dear bollander: shut the ***** up. There is nothing in the world more annoying than idiots like you, who can't think of anything intelligent to add to a conversation, so they toss out the word "whine". You sir, are a moron.
    • geddon, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Why do people equate making copies to stealing?
  • fanboydcs, on 10/19/2007, -20/+7Like Fry from futurama once said,

    LEELA: Didn't you have ads in the twentieth century?
    FRY: Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio... and in magazines... and movies, and at ballgames, and on buses, and milk cartons, and T-shirts, and bananas, and written in the sky. But not in dreams, no sirree.

    See movies are fine, its when they take over our dreams that we should have a problem!
    • nathanwalker, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5too slow my man
    • fanboydcs, on 10/17/2007, -2/+3Damn that was the most creative thing I ever said on digg and just because I was to slow doing a google search for the correct quote (which it seems the guy above also did) I get dugg down.. ugg... my life sucks:
    • carterbaldwin, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2Wow, if a digg comment is the highlight of your day, you may want to rethink your life.
  • iamnothere, on 10/17/2007, -10/+3You pay for cable but there are commercials...you buy a magazine and they're full of ads. How is this any different? The ads defray the cost to the theater--tickets are expensive enough as it is. If you don't like it, wait in the lobby or something.
    • terath, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4Actually I don't have cable, don't buy magazines, and don't go to movies. I read books, sometimes buy TV shows on DVD and sometimes buy/rent movies on dvd. Yes, I use an illegal tool to skip dvd content that is labelled unskippable. Some of us don't want corporate brainwashing propaganda in our lives thanks.
    • toekneebullard, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4Deferring cost is one thing. But when you make half a billion dollars from it, it's not deferring cost.
    • KirbyMeister, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1A lot of the time the ads don't defray the cost, it grows profits because the margin on tickets is so low. This is why we pay US$6 for a soda.
      • MalDON, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Ticket prices are not low when a movie brings in half a billion dollars opening night. Just a bunch of greedy *****.
    • banq59, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2Not to mention, I can change the channel on the TV and skip the ads in a magazine. In a movie theater you get there, a couple minutes early grab your seat and expect the movie to start on time. Nearly half and hour later you get to the previews, after all the stupid ads and there is nothing you can do about it.
    • roodammy44, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1The cinema is about as expensive as it can be without turning away people in droves.
  • terrplane, on 11/10/2007, -2/+126What I can't stand are commercials in my DVDs.

    I paid to watch THIS movie, not your ***** drivel you're trying to tack onto it.
    • andres9888, on 10/23/2007, -1/+8O man, I totaly agree I returned movies back because of this and just downloaded them for free.
      • neeyo, on 10/18/2007, -2/+3Pics or that didn't happen.
      • notthemama, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2How? Everywhere I can buy movies, I can't return an opened dvd.
    • heartcoldfusion, on 10/23/2007, -1/+18I agree. It doesn't make sense to put commercials on a DVD because they're going to be freaking outdated in 2 months anyway.
    • SoupsMan, on 10/23/2007, -0/+13Thats why when ever I Buy a DVD, if it pisses me off enough, I rip it, Then re-burn it. Thankfully, commercials don't cout as chapters.
      • OnoTadaki, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1Though your idea may seem great, it is no justification for having ads there to begin with. Ripping a DVD in most cases will yield a slightly lower quality copy (unless you are using expensive dual layer media), then you have the time involved with ripping it and the cost involved. In most cases, if you want to keep the movie at original quality, it will costs you more for the dual layer media than you payed for the DVD in the first place.
        • cubeeggs, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1Actually, many movies are burned onto a single-layer disc to begin with.
    • 4degrees, on 10/23/2007, -0/+12and the worst part is, that sometimes you cant fast forward through the damn ads at the beginning of a DVD!
      • notthemama, on 10/23/2007, -0/+6That drives me nuts. That alone makes it important to rip the dvd to a file.
    • theinept, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4It's like putting advertising in a novel. Totally obscene. It's the difference between advertising in a periodical and advertising in/on artwork. If you're slapping ads in front of (and even in) your movies, what does it say to the audience about your own perception of the movie? Are you producing the movie as art or as an advertising medium? What is the motivation for this movie and why should I be motivated to watch it if you think so little of it?

      It's tolerable in theatres, although annoying, because at least you feel like you're on someone else's property and maybe you have to put up with their little quirks for a while. In my own house, though, never!

      I don't go to movies, I only rent and buy very occasional, select DVDs (mostly quality movies out of the bargain bin) and I don't download movies. I have almost totally detached myself as a consumer from the movie industry. It seems to me that most modern movies have very little to offer in the way of quality content and content is king. I don't want ***** at any price, including free. The fact that there's advertising included just reinforces my feelings.
      • joebaloney, on 10/17/2007, -0/+0I guess you never looked at the end of a novel where they advertise for other books by the same author/publisher.
    • lotu, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3I use mp layer to watch my DVDs. It allows you to skip any commercial even the ones you are "forced" to watch. Really this not a problem with the DVDs but the DVD players.
    • AriaStar, on 10/23/2007, -0/+11Drivel that's outdated within a couple months that you're forced to watch for years.
      • thedragon4453, on 10/18/2007, -0/+9Indeed, I'll enjoy previews for the next several years for "House of Wax" and "Full house season 2".
        • notthemama, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3Sometimes I wonder why there isn't someone in the industry slapping certain people upside the head. *slap* why would you put ads at the beginning of a dvd *slap* *slap* and set it to FORCE the paying customer to watch them? *slap* *slap* *slap* Do you really think these people buy a dvd to only watch once? *slap* *slap* *SLAP* Or do you just not care that you're pissing off the PAYING customers? *BOOM* (That last was a shotgun full of salt into the ass of the idiot in charge of making the dvd)
        • cubeeggs, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3I remember that being one of the features of DVD. You got to choose not to watch the previews. As in, you had to search for them. Now, they use DVD to force you to watch them. At least on VHS, the VCR can't restrict you from fast-forwarding.
  • Memnochxx, on 10/19/2007, -23/+2This is stupid, buried.
  • CheeseburgerBro, on 10/18/2007, -0/+38I have an idea: why don't we recoup our money's worth by using the time for OUR OWN advertising? I mean, if it's "free time" than I say we should be standing up in front of the audience and advertising our websites while the commercials or playing -- projecting gobos on screen, playing catchy jingles, passing our flyers.
  • dark2025, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3I was just talking to a friend about this earlier. It's really not fair for us to be paying money, then sitting through a couple of minutes of commercials before the previews start. I can watch the same commercials pretty much for free at home. Just play the damn movie!
    • Sawta, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2"I can watch the same commercials pretty much for free at home." If you don't have cable...and the tv came with the house...and you don't pay an electric bill. I wish theaters just treated their movies like televison (in some respect). Just pay a certain ammount of money per month and you can watch whatever the hell you want to watch. Chances are people are going to see everything relativley quickly thats playing at the time, so people would actually have the chance to see some classic movies IN movie theaters. I'm sure there's a few flaws in this plan, but "a man can deam..a man can dream.."
  • varun1s, on 10/18/2007, -1/+37Yeah he makes a good point which is this: if a customer pays for the movie that starts at 7:00pm, then he deserves to be able to see the movie at 7:00 and not 7:15. What the movie theaters do is falsely advertise a movie's start time at, say, 7:00. Since nowhere is it advertised exactly when the film will start, it burdens the customer to sit through the commercials whether they wanted to or not.
    • frazw, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Most Cinemas I've seen advertise a programme start time, programme does not mean movie. If it does say movie then sure that's not right.
      Anyway I just aim to get to the cinema after the ads, unless it's a sellout.
    • monsterenergy, on 10/18/2007, -