The Mussolini of the Movies

Via reader Jim Murphy comes news that Michigan state Sen. Gilda Jacobs is fed up with pre-show ads shown at movie theaters. Reports the Detroit Free Press:

[Jacobs] introduced legislation Tuesday that would require theaters to post two start times: one for the beginning of advertising, previews and public service announcements; and one for the start of the movie.

Jacobs, an avid moviegoer, said her goal is to give people more choice so they arrive at the theater without having to watch what the motion picture industry refers to as "pre-show entertainment."

She singled out ads in particular as a nuisance.

"You basically get infomercials," Jacobs said, citing ads for automobiles, plastic surgeons and jewelers. "It's really increased the time you go in and have to sit through before the actual movie begins."

Ever the thoughtful soul, Jacobs insists "theaters should voluntarily post the actual start time so legislation isn't needed."

Whole account here.

Don't Michigan lawmakers have anything better to do with their time than go to movies and then bitch about it? If not, things must be looking up in Wolverine land.

Comments

[Number 6]

The suggestion about "voluntary" posting of actual showtimes is stupid for several reasons. The most obvious one is that theatre owners are paid for subjecting their audiences to 20 minutes of ads before the movie, and that revenue would dry up if people were given an out.
Regulation is, of course, equally silly. The simple answer for consumers is to wait for the DVD of whatever they want to see. Until, that is, DVD producers start making it impossible to skip past the ads on the disc.

[panurge]

I just arrive three to five minutes late at the movie theater.

[fyodor]

I've thought of getting to the theater several minutes past the start time, but I always break down and get there "on time" after considering the obnoxiousness of finding a seat in the dark. Maybe I'll try it next time, it probably really isn't so bad as long as the theater isn't packed. Of course, sitting through several minutes of previews and ads is hardly 5 to 10 years of hard labor either.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

People still go to movie theaters?

[Jennifer]

I've actually wondered if you couldn't sue for false advertising in some movie situations. Say, if I'm going to see the eight o'clock showing of a two-hour movie, so I expect to be out at ten and make dinner reservations accordingly, but it turns out the damn movie doesn't even start until eight-thirty-five. I have been robbed of over half an hour of my time. I'm not saying legislation is needed for this, but why shouldn't I have some sort of legal recourse?

Of course, I also think that unless there's an actual emergency I should be allowed to sue doctors who make me arrive at their office for a nine o'clock appointment but don't actually see me until ten.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

I'm with her in principle because I hate all that pre-movie entertainment.

There was a time when you didn't have to sit thru that crap (and ya got to see two movies, too). But things change and 6 is right. The market works and it's best to wait for the DVD, which is pretty much what we do these days.

I'd much rather watch a movie on the couch with the family than put up with a bunch of dopes chattering through the entire film because they accidentally wandered into the theater thinking it was a bar.

[Evan Williams]

"The most obvious one is that theatre owners are paid for subjecting their audiences to 20 minutes of ads before the movie, and that revenue would dry up if people were given an out."

Exactly. Imagine if a newspaper sold their paper in the street with a special optional advertisement attachment. Or if magazines, instead of peppering their content pages with ads every page or two, put all the ads at the back. The main purpose of advertising is to get people to see the ads. Companies won't pay for them if nobody sees them.

Advertisers have ways of getting around shit like this anyway. With the advent of DVR, people can now skip thru commercials. So what are they doing? More inventive product placement in programs...even going so far as to digitally implant product-placement into old shows that get syndicated.

I gotta say, I hate paying $8 for a movie ticket, then sitting through 20 minutes of Coke and Nokia ads, but...*DINGDINGDING*...that's why I don't go to the big theaters anymore. It's just. that. simple.

What's next? Are they going to make television networks put all the ads at the beginning of the show, and list 2 start times in TVGuide?

Inversely, if anything, this legislation might ultimately result in ads peppered throughout theater releases, TV-style. Ugh.

"Until, that is, DVD producers start making it impossible to skip past the ads on the disc."

It's already begun. Goddamned gaggle of previews for shitty movies, and when I press the menu button, the big "X" appears in the corner of the screen. Damn, I love DVR!

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Evan:

You beat me to it. I just bought a bunch of brand-new DVDs and am furious that I can't activate the menu during the opening salvo of commercials. I find that I am able to fast-forward, but expect the fuckers to eventually (sooner then later) to disable that option.

Seriously, I'm turning into a Homer Simpson in my own home. I'm screaming at the TV "STOP THE MADNESS! START THE FUCKING MOVIE!!"

[Alain]

If a movie is advertised to start at 7 pm, the 20 minute pre show entertainment starts at 6:40. You don't have to show up that early. And even if you do show up between 6:40 - 7, would you prefer sitting in the theater listening to just background muzak as opposed to watching "the 20"?

Of course the movie doesn't start at 7. There are about 15 minutes worth of previews & in theater advertisement reminding you to buy concessions. If you don't like those, then show up between 7 - 7:15.

Is this really that difficult to figure out?

[The Owner's Manual]

Grouping commercials has been known to work.

"I grew up in Italy, and they showed TV programs uninterrupted. Then, every 2 hours or so, they ran a half-hour of back-to-back commercials and called it "Carousel." The commercials in Europe were so entertaining that people often tuned in just for Carousel, then switched the set off afterwards!"
http://knoxville.wate.com/sound_off/index.php/topic,544.0.html

[XMan]

Some people actually get the newspaper for the ads.

[Jennifer]

Evan-
Your newspaper-ad analogy would only work if people were somehow forced to read the ads before getting to the articles.

[David]

Wasn't the motion picture industry lamenting the downturn in box office earlier this week? Not that I agree with Sen. Jacobs, as legislation isn't the answer, but it never occurs to these people that going to see movie has become more of a hassle than it's worth.

[Number 6]

This does highlight a growing annoyance in our society: aggresive advertisers. These folks seem to have no respect for their fellow man. The phenomenon encompasses everything from TV commercials in which the volume suddenly increases so that it's half again as loud as the program, pop-up ads, and the bastards responsible for trying to force us to watch ads on our own DVDs.
Regulation, of course, is not the answer. There may not be a good answer, but in the meantime, I simply decline to do business with companies that use those tactics.

[Mo]

There's a special spot in hell for the guy that came up with the Fandago ads. If I ever ran into him, well, I'll need a good lawyer.

[David]

Mo,

You hold him while I shove those damn lunchbags down his throat.

[SR]

"There's a special spot in hell for the guy that came up with the Fandago ads. If I ever ran into him, well, I'll need a good lawyer."

Mo, you *don't* find paper bag puppets to be the most sublime form of entertainment ever devised?

[thoreau]

I'm glad that life in Michigan is so care-free that the only remaining task for legislators is to regulate movie previews.

Seriously, though, here's some speculation on unintended consequences: Ad and preview revenues dry up. Movie theaters either raise ticket prices (causing the good Senator to complain that her poor constituents are being gouged) or they lay off people, and some high school kids lose after school jobs.

I'm not claiming that these unintended consequences will be massive, but they hardly seem desirable.

[dead_elvis]

I'm throwing my lot in with the notion that advertising a start time which is not really the start time is simply fraud and false advertising. Time is money, and they are outright stealing time.

I don't think of previews in the same way, they seem like more of a traditional part of the movie-going experience. Even if it's for a shitty movie, then at least I know which ones are shitty.

On the other hand, a lot of this reeks of Grandpa Simpson-style ranting about the good ol' days. I mean, if the goal is to return us to a better time before the pre-commercials, then why not go whole hog and pass a law saying that they have to have an organist and show a Bugs Bunny cartoon before each show as well?

[keith]

So how many of you "fraud/false advertising" kvetchers will put your mouth where your money is?

Buy your ticket for the 6 PM show, and when the ads finish at around 6:30, get up and go complain to the manager that, as you won't be able to make your 8:00 reservation at Chez Disposable Income, the movie experience is now worthless to you and please refund the ticket.

If you sit through the show without raising complaint after the point you realize the imposition on your schedule, I don't think you've really been defrauded. And, if the management isn't feeling the agita of having to rationalize the long delay to complainers, they're not feeling any incentive to change their policy.

[Typical Idiot Fuckhead Voter]

If you sit through the show without raising complaint after the point you realize the imposition on your schedule, I don't think you've really been defrauded.

No, I've been defrauded, but just not enough to motivate me to get a lawyer.

And, if the management isn't feeling the agita of having to rationalize the long delay to complainers, they're not feeling any incentive to change their policy.

Definitely. Look, I might think I'm a victim of fraud, but I also have to weigh the time and expense of pursuing a complaint. Plus, I'm a little lazy.

[dead_elvis]

OOOPS. LOL. Forgot to change my name back from another thread!

[Jennifer]

Keith-
If theaters didn't have a "no refund" policy that idea of yours might actually work.

Thoreau-
I agree with you about the possible unintended consequences, but even so there's a HUGE difference between theaters asking for more money up-front versus what they're doing now, which is essentially time theft. Maybe these days, with DVDs and cable movie channels, movie theaters simply are no longer economically viable. I dunno, but at least vaudeville had the grace to just die out rather than force its remaining viewers to sit through half an hour of advertising bullshit before each show.

[thoreau]

Jennifer-

In principle you have a point. In practice, is this something you really want to drag the courts into? Can't we save the courts for pressing matters like dimpled chads and feeding tubes? 😉

[Nathan]

Try printing your own RESERVED signs to avoid theater ads: http://www.captiveaudience.org/reserved/

To skip DVD ads and remove region encoding, rip your DVDs with DVDShrink: http://www.dvdshrink.org/what.html

[Jennifer]

Thoreau-
I don't like the idea of bringing the courts into it, but maybe (and yes, I'm reversing what I wrote earlier in this thread) it IS necessary in this case. Think about something like a store owner who overcharges customers one percent. Realistically, you're not going to go to court to sue someone who charged you $101 for $100 worth of stuff. So does this mean the guy should be allowed to get away with it? And if lawmakers decided to deal with this guy I'm sure there'd be a Hit and Run thread along the lines of "Having solved all other problems, lawmakers decide to get Thoreau's dollar back," but on the other hand I don't think petty theieves should be allowed to get away with it just because their crimes are so. . .well. . . petty.

[Alain]

This is NOT a case of false advertising. If a movie is slated to start at 7 and you show up EARLY at 6:40 and they've got the 20 minute pre show on, how is this deception? Now of course the movie doesn't actually start until about 7:10 - 7:15 because of movie previews, but you know that going in and should account for it. Is it really that hard to add 10 minutes to the actual advertised show time?? If you can't even do that, then you've got bigger problems than making your post cinema dinner reservation.

Think about this. Let's say theaters changed their ways and a movie advertised at 7 actually starts at 7. All that means is that pre show ads & previews will be shown prior to that time. People will always come in early to get a good seat and that means you'll be watching the ads & previews anyway.

[fyodor]

I think this is somewhat analagous to the but-the-tobacco-companies-claim-that-smoking-is-healthy position. Since 98.64% of us know damn well that movies don't start when the schedule says they do, isn't it more than a little disengenuous to say they're defrauding us or stealing our time? I think this is just a cover for wanting a legal remedy to having to choose between sitting through the ads and finding a seat in the dark -- or just skipping the movie altogether!

[Jennifer]

Alain-
If people watch ads because they CHOOSE to come early, that's their business. Right now the movie theaters are lying and stealing time, pure and simple. And it's not a matter of adding ten minutes to show time; you don't KNOW in advance just how long the ads will be.

It's also a matter of principle. When I was growing up, my parents had this friend who was constantly late, so that if they wanted him to arrive at seven they'd ask him to come at six-thirty. Me, I would have stopped hanging out with anyone so rudely inconsiderate of my time.

[Pete]

At the law firm I previously worked at I represented the regional division of a very large theater chain. The Attorney General's consumer department has a process where they forward all consumer complaints to the company without pre-screening them and ask for a response. As a result at least 5 times a year I had to respond to a demand from the Attorney General over a complaint about movie starting times. One woman even wrote her complaint to read as though she was held in the theater against her will because of the advertisements.

I also had to repeatedly respond to the Attorney General over complaints about movie prices. Oddly enough I never got complaints about popcorn prices even though I am convinced that if there is something criminal going on at the movies its in the popcorn. My client used to give me free tickets to the movies, but it was just a ploy to try to get me to buy the popcorn.

[Jennifer]

One woman even wrote her complaint to read as though she was held in the theater against her will because of the advertisements.

The theaters in my area have a no-refund policy. So while the woman was free to leave, she would have lost her money without watching the movie she came to see.

[thoreau]

Jennifer-

Bottom line is that we all know that the 7pm movie starts at 7:10.

How about this: I've never been to a play or musical that started on time. They always start a little late to allow for last minute arrivals. They don't show ads, they just start late. Should those theaters be sued as well?

As to the popcorn: I don't know what it is about movie theater popcorn, but the stuff always smells better than it tastes. I go buy it because I simply cannot resist the smell, even though I know it won't taste as good as it smells. Can I get John Banzhaf to sue on my behalf?

[thoreau]

Or how about this: Can I sue Fox for false advertising if 24 starts at 9:01 pm instead of the advertised time of 9:00 pm? Cuz at 9pm they were showing a Ford ad or something?

Really, I hardly see how late entertainment rises to the level of a court case if everybody knows the deal and can plan accordingly.

[Jennifer]

Thoreau-
Does Fox charge you money to watch 24? And as I've said already, we don't KNOW that the movie starts ten minutes later; it could be as much as half an hour.

[Jennifer]

By the way, this whole thing about "if the musical is one minute late, can I sue?" is kind of missing the point. If movies started a minute or two late nobody but the most anal would care. But half an hour is pretty excessive.

Kind of like telemarketers--when a person got one or two such calls in a day, people complained, but not enough to actually try to stop it. Then the telemarketers got greedy--I once got 17 such calls in an eight-hour period--and that pushed the envelope too far and thus legislation had to deal with the problem because basic sense or good manners couldn't.

[fyodor]

Jennifer,

As thoreau points out (and a fine point it was), most publicly attended (and directly paid for) events start late. Where would you draw the line and start calling it fraudelent time-stealing? Did that Blue Oyster Cult show you went to start on time? I'd like to see you try to get money back for a tardy rock concert!!!

[Jennifer]

Fyodor-
I'm assuming you posted before mine at 1:28. And the BOC concert was free; since I paid nothing to see it the band owed me nothing in return.

[fyodor]

Jennifer,

It all comes down to you can always CHOOSE not to go to the movies. Okay, maybe most movies start 15 minutes late and then maybe one time a movie you go to starts 30 minutes late. If this causes you to miss something afterwards because of how tightly you scheduled your life, and you can't get your money back, perhaps you have a legitimate complaint. You've been screwed out of 8 bucks. But go back again and have a scheduling conflict because of another half-hour delay, and who's fault is that? Bottom line, this is something that the free market of freely acting individuals can handle just fine, and people should take responsibility for their own actions.

[Alain]

Jennifer - I don't know where you live & what theater chain you frequent, but here in Los Angeles the previews & in house reminders (turn off cell phone, dispose of trash, silence is golden, visit concession stand, etc) which come AFTER the advertised show time is usually between 10 - 15 minutes. Longer for chain theaters & shorter for art house. The prime determining factor here is the number & length of movie previews shown, not advertisement for Coke. Now you can make the case that previews and in house reminders are advertisement. If so, what if theaters did move them all prior to advertised showtime?

Well, don't you show up early to get a good seat anyway, especially if it's opening weekend for a blockbuster? Or do you expect an empty theater when you show up at the advertised show time?

[fyodor]

Jennifer,

Yes, we've played a bit of leapfrog here. You somewhat addressed my points, but my points still stand, in conjunction with my following post. Hopefully you still get my point on rock concerts, your luck in seeing BOC for free notwithstanding. Rock concerts often start a lot more than a half-hour "late." But people expect that. If a movie starts later than you expect, you should adjust your exepctations, and if you don't, then it's nobody's fault but your own.

[Jennifer]

Fyodor--
You're right; I can choose not to go to the movies, and generally speaking I don't. However, if I'm at a movie this one time, and am forced to sit through half an hour of advertisements, the fact that I don't have to get screwed AGAIN doesn't change the fact that I'm still getting screwed NOW.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Hey, everyone stop glomming on the Jennifer. This blog is 99% pasty nerd enough as it is.

Hey Jennifer - did the BOC cowbell come through? Did they explore enough space with it? 'cause, y'know, you can never have enough cowbell..

[Jennifer]

Mr. Nice Guy--

The casino where BOC played had free drinks, as casinos are wont to do. So I really barely noticed the concert at all, between the booze haze and the fact that in two days I was to interview for my near-dream job (which I got, by the way), so I spent most of the time thinking of brilliantly witty answers to questions I might be asked. So the concert itself was kind of a waste of time, I guess. And I was very disappointed that they didn't play "Take Me Away."

[dead_elvis]

Did they play "Godzilla?"

[fyodor]

Jennifer,

I've already conceded that you have been potentially screwed out of one movie ticket's cost if a movie starts significantly later than you had ANY reason to expect, and it helps your case greatly if you had a concrete need for that movie to not start so late. But that rare circumstance hardly seems worth passing new laws over. Most moviegoers aren't surprised by how late the movie starts and don't feel ripped off by it.

[Jennifer]

Of course they did.

[Jennifer]

That last post of mine was supposed to be right after Elvis'.

[Jennifer]

it helps your case greatly if you had a concrete need for that movie to not start so late

So I can only expect honest treatment if I can prove a NEED for it? I don't NEED the dollar I lost in my earlier example to Thoreau, but that doesn't mean anyone has the right to cheat me out of it.

[dead_elvis]

Yes, most public performances start late. I'm a musician, and I'm ticked off that my employer generally schedules the call time for a performance at 8:05, which essentially rips me off 5 minutes because I can't arrive 5 minutes later, because I still have to arrive early enough to compete with the audience for parking, and they *think* it's going to start at 8. But they've *always* started late. Movies weren't always like this, which is what makes us go all Grandpa Simpson on their ass.

[Jeff]

Jacobs calling herself as an "avid moviegoer" should be a red flag. Regularly subjecting oneself to the output of Hollywood (let alone paying an inflated price for it) is clearly a pathology, akin to wanted to be defectated on, or perhaps beaten.

[Jennifer]

I just had a thought: could this problem be dealt with not by new legislation, but by pre-existing "bait and switch" laws?

[Anon]

Loew's knows which way the wind is blowing.

[Brent]

I boo'ed the first ad I saw at a theatre (it was for American Express). I still boo at ads at theatres. If enough people did, the ads would stop. No regulation required.

[kevrob]

Here's a bit of an advance for civility:

Loews Cineplex Entertainment says that next month it will begin
publicizing true starting times, sort of.

John McCauley, the company's senior vice president for marketing, said
the times in the company's newspaper and Web listings would still be
the times when the trailers and commercials start. But the ads will
also carry a note advising that, as Mr. McCauley put it yesterday, "the
feature presentation starts 10 to 15 minutes after the posted show
time."

Loews said it had heard from moviegoers annoyed by commercials that run
before the trailers for soon-to-be-released films. Loews has heard from
people who resent feeling that they are a captive audience for
commercials that seem longer than ever.

Loews, which has 11 theaters with 84 screens in New York City, will
begin testing the notices next week in Connecticut, where it operates
two theaters. The 198 theaters in New York City and the rest of the
country will follow a few weeks later, once any kinks are smoothed out,
Mr. McCauley said.

He said it was just a coincidence that Connecticut was the home of State Representative Andrew M. Fleischmann, a West Hartford Democrat who sponsored a bill requiring real times in listings. A similar bill was introduced in New York City Council by Councilwoman Gale A. Brewer of Manhattan.

- James Barron, New York Times, May 4, 2005.

Unfortunately, we don't have the Loews chain in my area, but one can hope that this idea will spread. Ditching commercials unrelated to films is probably expecting too much, so let's see how this works.

This Jacobs woman seems to be following a trend.

Kevin

[Jeff]

Booing at a theater is like clapping at a theater. The movie can't here you and the teenage projectionist doesn't care.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Jennifer:

Congrats! All that karma of your teaching years is paying off 🙂

[thoreau]

kevrob-

It looks to me like the market might be exploring ways to ease consumer dissatisfaction.

&ltsarcasam&gtWhich is why it's crucial that legislators step in immediately: If there's a change to be had, it should be an orderly change that our Betters have orchestrated.&ltsarcasm>

[Jeff]

Fyodor should be aware that BOC has played the Taste of Holyoke as well as the Norwalk Oyster Fest over the last few years. A glance at thier touring schedule
http://www.blueoystercult.com/Road/OnTour.html
shows several free shows at fairs and festivals

[kevrob]

Oh, and like Brent, I've been booing ads at the movies for years. Trailers and those "go on out to the lobby and buy popcorn" spots are immune, but if an ad is just more of the same crap that I see on my TV at home, start up the raspberries.

As for TV, what pisses me off are "60 minute" shows that end at 2 minutes after the hour, or start a bit early. Broadcasters are scheduling their shows to slightly overlap the competition in order to encourage live viewing, as opposed to taping or DVRing shows. This is an escalation from the "hot start", where a show begins immediately after the previous one ends. In times gone by a commercial would usually separate two programs. The nets want to get you interested in their next offering before you pick up the remote and click around.

When I'm recording a program I always check an online service - the local paper uses the Tribune Co.'s ZapToIT - to check the actual start time of the show and that of the follow-on program. But if Suburban Hoochies ends at 9:02, and Law & Order: Parking Enforcement Unit starts at 8:59, one needs two devices to capture both shows.

Kevin

[fyodor]

Jennifer,

Well y'know, I believe when suing someone over breach of contract, one must show damages incurred, it's not enough to simply say they weren't honest with you (which is probably why you brought up such concrete harm in your initial example). Now, it might seem silly to bring up civil suit protocol when all we're talking about is the price of one movie ticket, but then, that's a large part of my point. Again (although you never address this point), if it happens to you more than once, shame on you.

[Number 6]

While Jennifer's proposal may be a bit over the top, she's reacting to a very real lack of civility. We've gotten to a point where there is a very real conflict of interests between consumers and advertisers. Witness the scads of anti-ad and spyware programs out there, along with the constant attempts to defeat them. Or the habit of starting programs at odd times to interfere with recording. Or, of course, movie theatres.
What astounds me is that people still do business with these companies.

[Czar]

I hate the commercials in theaters, but I don't see a legal problem with it. I DO see something approaching a legal problem with DVDs that force you to watch commercials, though; I think we could make the argument that any DVD that disables functions of the player qualifies as defective.

[Jennifer]

How about a compromise: a law which says any ticket holder may for any reason demand a full refund within the first five minutes of the movie, or before? That way, people like the woman Pete cited in his example would have the ability to say "enough," leave the advertisements and get their money back. And if the theaters had to make enough refunds during ad-time, they'd get the hint and cut it out.

[Allen Phelps]

Off subject, for thoreau

Your comment mentioning 24 earlier reminded me, have you seen Dave Barry's comments on episodes? Even for someone who hasn't seen the show like me they were pretty good.

His comments on the final episode

http://weblog.herald.com/column/davebarry/archives/015682.html#015682

Link to all of his comments on 24 (including the last episode).

http://weblog.herald.com/column/davebarry/archives/cat_24.html

Sorry about the digression.

[thoreau]

Allen-

Haven't seen them. I'll check them out.

[fyodor]

Number 6,

Since spyware secretly messes with your own property, that might be stepping over the line. But if you call starting TV shows at irregular times uncivil, then I propose that to the advertisers and broadcasters, recording technology that circumvents advertising might seem every bit as uncivil!

Jennifer,

Your compromise proposal seems to contradict your previous claim that late start times only become a problem when they're excessive. Sorry, as long as the no refund policy is made clear ahead of time (and unstated policies are inevitably a gray area), then you have no claim to a refund, especially after only five minutes.

I will make this concession, though, after having reflected on what I've said a bit. You're right that having a concrete problem with a late starting movie is not necessary to claiming being defrauded. If I were on a jury hearing this case, the failure of the theater to provide the service promised in what a reasonable person would find a reasonable amount of time would indeed justify a refund. But I would also consider in judging what that reasonable amount of time would be what information a typical moviegoer should have, and that would include the fact that everyone knows movies never start when advertised. And if all this fuss seems excessive itself over the cost of one movie ticket, as I said before....

[Jennifer]

Fyodor-
I said five minutes INTO THE MOVIE. That means if you're bored silly after 25 minutes of ads, you can leave and get your money back.

Since I've been peppered with questions about extremes (should I sue if the movie starts one minute late, etc.), I'll respond in kind: do you think there should be ANY limit to how long a theater with a no-refund policy makes customers wait to see the movie? If the eight o'clock movie doesn't actually start until midnight, should my only choices STILL be either leave with no refund or sit through the ads?

[fyodor]

Jennifer,

Apologies for the mis-read. But you seemed to have also mis-read me. To copy and paste: "If I were on a jury hearing this case, the failure of the theater to provide the service promised in what a reasonable person would find a reasonable amount of time would indeed justify a refund." Etc.

But here's another thought. Central to my argument is that the cost of one movie ticket is not a big deal. That's important for two reasons. One is that such small amounts of money do not make a material enough issue to legislate over. If someone was being defrauded of hundreds of dollars, obviously that would be a different matter. One would not feel as justified in saying, well just don't go back. But maybe even more importantly, and this all ties together, the low price of one event in this case demonstrates that theaters only make money when lots of people go, and usually only when the same people go back time and again. This forces theaters to accomodate people's interests. Sure, most people have movies start a little closer to their advertised time if they could have this done without any cost (and people may not always care about the costs of lost liberty and lost profits for others, but I do; and people may not recognize that marginal theaters might close down, and one of those might be the one they like to attend!), but as always happens with free markets, the theaters can only go so far in pissing off their clientele. Again, when somebody who hasn't gone to the theater in a long time is surprised by the changes, or when a theater that extends advertising way beyond what is customary, you have a legitimate problem, if a small one. But such situations are rare and exceptional. If a large number of people felt they were not getting what they paid for, they'd stop paying. It's the necessity to attract a large number of people that allows the market to take precedent over the concerns of the proportionally small number of people who might have a legitimate beef.

Back to your question about forcing theaters to refund money five minutes into the movie, sigh. I don't know. I suspect it would have unexpected consequences that would only piss everyone off more. I wouldn't support it, but I wouldn't go to the mat to oppose it.

[Jennifer]

Number 6 is right about the lack of civility. The thought occurred to me: say I go into the (deserted) little kitchen over where I work, see a nickel on a table, and put it in my pocket and take it home. Nobody will notice or care, nor should they. But if I did the same thing with a hundred-dollar bill I'd be fired, and I'd deserve it. I don't know where exactly to draw the line between the nickel and the hundred bucks, and I'd hope we never reach a point where we'd have a practical need to sort it out.

(Yes, I know there are huge differences between paying for a ticket versus seeing unattended money. But I think you all know what I'm getting at.)