"advertising prior to movies is a ploy to get moviegoers into the cinema to serve as unwitting subjects for annoying commercials"

Everyone should join the fight - even though we make livings producing commercials. I'm NOT in favor of ads before movies or inside movies (product placement) for that matter!

http://www.nomovieads.com/

http://www.captiveaudience.org/

Also, sign the petition:

http://www.petitiononline.com/a101/petition.html

Murph

I also find this practice very annoying, and it's also arrived on DVD's and tapes. But I suppose it's understandable seeing the big shake up in the movie theatre business where there have been some recent big bankruptcies. I can think of several relatively new multi-screen cineplexes in this area that shut down a year or two ago and have never reopened.

The Regal Cinemas in my area have something they do called the Regal 20 (or 25 maybe). What's great about it is that they, for 20 minutes before the scheduled start of the movie, they broadcast on digital Christie projectors, various commercial programming. This includes a short film sponsored by the TNT channel, and music videos and other somewhat entertaining commercials.

What's good about this is that now, they barely do any advertising after the scheduled start of the film, if any. A lot of times it jumps right into trailers right after that.

I think this is a good compromise.

Yes, I think the longest stretch of actual ads I've witnessed at a single screening was 15 minutes long. Plus another 15-20 minutes for movie previews. It's a common gripe among moviegoers at my work.

I wish movie theatres would also list the actual start times for movies. If people still want to go in early for a good movie, fine - sit through the commercials, but I want my movie to start when it says at the box office!

Heck my local multiplex is showing commercials while you wait now as well. Gone is the fun trivia of movie info tidbits I used to see. Now it's all ads, all the time. The lights are deliberatly set so low you can't read a book.

I know people who no longer attend the theatres simply because they feel commercialism is being shoved down their throats.

I can't stand going to the movies any more because of these reasons.

Now we usually wait for the DVD, rent it, make our own popcorn and watch it on the home theatre system with no commercials. Not quite as dramatic as the big screen but good enough for us.

While I still use CRT based for viewing, my surround audio is superior to the experience I usually get in the theater. Once I get a projector, I'll go to the movies even less. Higher and higher prices, rude people, it's all getting to be too much.

I actually don't mind what regal is doing, since they are throwing in a short film with the ads. But 8 to 9 dollars a ticket, plus food? Not worth it.

I'm with you. I bought an HDTV, 5.1 surround sound and a kick-butt DVD player. I will only go to the movies for *must see* stuff like the new Star Wars coming out. Those just have to be seen with a crowd...the experience.

Otherwise, we're lining the pockets of Hollywood and being subjected to commercials on our own time. The bottom line? Hollywood is the #1 export in the US, so they can't tell me they need even MORE money.

The whole thing comes down to ENOUGH advertising for God's sake...leave us alone in the movie theatre.

Murph

I used to look forward to the part before the actual movie. The previews.

Now, it's car adds and BS.

I largely abandoned movie theaters over a decade ago, except for very rare exceptions. Even these exceptions, however, have only served to reinforce this decision. The last film I saw in a theater was Gangs of New York. The theater (which is relatively new) was filthy and smelled bad, the concession workers were undermanaged / undermotivated, and the film itself looked and sounded terrible.

I am certainly not alone in my abandonment of theaters within my age group. Ironically, however, I suspect that this abandonment by adults is having the effect of prompting Hollywood to produce even more films for adolescents.

I think you're right. It's a good thing home theatre is getting cheaper and cheaper. Also, I have Netflix which sends me 5 DVD's at a time throughout the month. I've got to tell you - it's awesome because they carry an amazing amount of DVD's. I've watched some films that I would never have seen, so it's a great service...just checkout their database on their site. You'll be amazed and probably never go to the movies again!

I'm excited to think that more people are being entertained in their living rooms...being an indie filmmaker it means I'll have more of a chance in the long run to get someone out there. The theatres are all scamming us with Hollywood schlock, so there isn't anyway for indie's to get in there. It's the home theatre that'll keep the indie voices alive. Hollywood is out of their minds now.

Murph

I don't go to theatres very often either, but that's just because I'm antisocial ;-) My daughter is 21, and as long as I can remember she and her friends have gone to the movies several times a week. I think you're right Ken, that demographic is what Hollywood aims for.

It is a little unfortunate though. Since I'm involved in a form of live theatre, I'm keenly aware of the difference between viewing something at home by yourself or with a few other people as opposed to attending a theatre. Going to the theatre is a social event, and it's a very different feeling. People get dressed up, go out for dinner, put on their best behavior. You can't press the pause button so your attention is more focused. But the main thing is that you are part of a group experience and when someone else starts to laugh it will influence your perception as well.

But I guess I'm really thinking more of the "good old days" when I was younger and went to the old movie palaces while they still had some class. Sadly, I guess you guys are right in that those days are gone forever. Most of the newer theatres are filled with rude people, they smell bad, the projectors are not properly adjusted and, price is too high and you also have to watch commercials! Too bad, I think we may have lost something of value here. And by extension I think we're seeing it carried one step further. People are sitting back in their caves watching DVD's and attendance is also falling for live forms of theatre as well.

To paraphrase something I heard the other day: "where are we going?... and why are we in this handbasket?"

I'd rather have the ads before the movie rather than in the movie.
Then, on home video, you can just fast forward through the commericials. Lately, I've become annoyed by in-the-movie advertising, such as focus and linger on a particular brand of orange juice. What's even more annoying is spotting the advertising slots that weren't filled up. This stuff is driving me nuts.

Boyd,
I think that you and I are very close in age, so I share many of your memories and laments.

FWIW, I'll go see a good opera or live theater over a movie any day. I'm very much looking forward to seeing Madam Butterfly in Feb at our local little shop, the Lyric Opera of Chicago! At over $300 for two box seats, it's not something you'd want to do each week. But I've never seen M.B. and the Lyric's productions generally leave me breathless. The Lyric smells much better than a movie theater, too. <g>

That's great Ken, keep buying those tickets... but of course you can take a date to the opera for a lot less than $300 :-) If you've never seen Butterfly you should be in for a real treat.

But sadly the numbers are telling their own tale. Opera companies across the US are experiencing an alarming drop in attendance, I don't know anything specific about the Lyric, but even the Met is feeling the pinch. Our own company is on the brink of some major cutbacks, and just a few days ago I read that Pittsburgh Opera is cutting a show from next season and lowering salaries. Opera Festival of New Jersey just went out of business. This is a national phenomenon, but of course there are regional differences.

Not a good time for the performing arts in general. And I just heard one of those sound bytes on the news, that this Christmas DVD players were the number one consumer electronics item. It seems that ever since 9/11 people are just more inclined to huddle with their families at home instead of participating in group activities.

Hey, that's funny you mention live theatre. I just took my girlfriend to a play last night! It was great and made me start thinking about all forms of media. (By the way, the play is called "Not on this Night" - its about an American and a German soldier who run into each other on Xmas eve in France at a farmhouse owned by a young girl in 1944. Definately check it out if you live in New England next year! www.notonthisnight.com)

It's really sad that theatre, movies and everything have become more than what it started out to be - entertainment. Although, the entertainment was always best when it had a message. It's horrible that the message used to be something about our moral place in society - now, it's a message about orange juice and spiffy cars we can buy.

I think the DVinfo community could address this issue by keeping the topic alive. Also, I think we should all thank Chris Hurd for making this site commercial free. I've gone out of my way to buy from his sponsors because of the attention he's paid to how he presents them. I'd bed 80-90% of the people who buy stuff would ALWAYS choose to purchase from non-invasive advertisers than invasive ones. We're already violated enough in this world, so knowing a company is backing off on purpose makes a difference to me.

Murph

It's a shame the "youngsters" here haven't had the same movie-going experience as us old fogies.

Like Boyd said, I remember the old "experience" and miss it--people getting dressed up since going to the movies was more of an "event." The movie theaters themselves were built in a more impressive fashion...usually with low lights shooting up the sides of the building and lots of twinkling lights in the front. Often, there'd be the big search lights out front whenever a new movie premiered.

But the biggest thing was walking into the massive theater itself and seeing the lights shooting up on a huge...and I mean HUGE...curtain (screens were MASSIVE back then), the rest of the theater dark since there was enough glow from the curtain to find your seat. Then, seeing that huge curtain slowly open, and the "Previews" begin (not commercials) was part of the thrill of being there.

Also, it seemed to me that "people" weren't such a distraction then. I personally think it was because of the upholstery on the chairs (sound absorbing velveteen) and the high, high ceiling (maybe 60 feet or more) that caused sounds to dissipate in all directions, making the whole place seem more quiet. Plus, there was more elbow room back then. They weren't squeezing you in like an airliner.

Now you have warehouses sliced up into lots of tiny theaters that, although "slick" inside...still are warehouses, and tiny, and not really what you'd call an "experience."

I'm 31 and I remember the "old" days of movie theaters...ok, maybe the tail end of it all. I remember Star Wars being this experience...kids at school talked about it all year. Does anyone remember the buzz when Empire Strikes Back came out? The year prior everyone said, "Darth Vader is Luke's father" - it was such a huge thing. There's something to be said for so many people talking about one little part of a movie...now, no one knows anything worth talking about. I know its a small thing, but it was fun talking about stuff back them. Things just don't buzz like that nowadays....or maybe they do?

I think we need some togetherness out there people! To much options...it's crazy.

Murph

Along those lines...the thing I remember before the first "Batman" movie was released was the "bat signal" suddenly showing up on billboards everywhere. No title, no dates, no other text at all...just the bat signal. I remember things buzzing then.

"Star Wars" was definitely THE defining movie experience for me back then. The only movie theaters I had access to were in the nearest "big city"...and I couldn't find anyone that wanted to drive that distance to go see it. Everyone said they didn't like SF movies...and for good reason back then. Special effects hadn't come of age yet. The only space movie I remember being impressed by prior to "Star Wars" was "2001: A Space Odyssey"...but not many people in my neck of the woods liked that sort of film. So, I went to see it alone...in an almost empty HUGE theater...and was blown away. Two weeks later word had gotten around, so when I tried to go back to see it, I couldn't get in.

<<<-- Originally posted by John Locke : Special effects hadn't come of age yet. The only space movie I remember being impressed by prior to "Star Wars" was "2001: A Space Odyssey"-->>>

Well John, I think you could actually argue that special effects for sci-fi films did "come of age" in 1968 with the release of Kubrick's "2001". I just watched the widescreen DVD of this movie last week, having not seen it for a number of years, and have to say that it completely blew me away. What a fantastic movie that was certainly way ahead of its time. I think it still has a futuristic look, and it certainly defined what we still expect in space epics. Now this doesn't detract from Star Wars in any way, another brilliant film, and Lucas defined another look for the genre where things were more beaten up, like a war movie.

I remember seeing 2001 when it came out (to date myself, I was a freshman in college). It was actually released as a Cinerama movie (although that was only a marketing ploy, it was filmed in regular 70mm Super Panavision) and I saw it at Martin Cinerama in St. Louis. Now Cinerama is another whole topic in itself, and it's really from the era where going to the movies was a big event. Of course, not unlike today, Hollywood was desperate to gain some market share back from TV. I saw all the Cinerama movies in the 50's and 60's and remember waiting in long lines to get into the theatres.

There's a terrific website that chronicles the history of widescreen movies, The American Widescreen Museum (http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/index.htm) - it's worth spending some time browsing there. I find the Cinerama (http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcr1.htm) section especially interesting myself.

But just to bring this around ever so slightly to the topic of commericals at movies, I think that Star Wars was a turning point in the marketing of junk related to a movie, where revenue from toys and other stuff approached or even exceeded what the film itself made. And maybe I'm alone in this opinion, but I think it's really unfortunate that George Lucas felt the need to "improve" the original movie and re-release it with digital effects. His original was a great work of art and an inspiration. But now he seems to just churn out typical Hollywood commercialism. I really have little respect for him anymore, although his saving grace might be the trailblazing he's doing with digital shooting and presentation.

I wholeheartly agree with you regarding games and toys. Guess what? I've put my money where my mouth is - I stopped playing video games over 10 years ago! Hear that Hollywood? I'm watching the movies you make, but not playing the stupid games.

Let's start a "no associated games" campaign for films!

Murph

You guys are really showing your ages now...having graduated from "old" to "old curmudgeon." ;)

No argument that 2001 Space Odyssey is a wonderful film. I love everything Kubrick made...especially Barry Lyndon. But I think we all would recognize that Star Wars was much more of an "event" than 2001...and the "event" aspect was every bit as fetching as the actual film.

As for commercials at the theater...I have to admit something. Every year I buy the Clio awards compilation because I love well-made commercials. There. I've said it. It's out in the open. No flaming please.

I agree. While 2001 was most definitley ahead of it's time not only in the sfx department but in the political overtones Star Wars blew it away in terms of being a cinematic event.

I found 2001 to be just plain boring and have never been a big fan of Kubrick. Maybe it's my age? I'm 33.

Although I enjoy a few of his films, most of them I find unwatchable. They just don't get my attention. :(