This is topic Boston Globe article on pre-movie ads in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001364

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-21-2005, 07:20 AM:
 
This was in yesterday's Boston Globe

Coming distractions

Commercials have been creeping into theaters, invading the once quiet preshow darkness, and it's going to get worse

By Sam Allis, Globe Staff | February 20, 2005

Let history record that, along with the advent of the atomic bomb and the Donald Trump talking doll, civilization took a big hit with the arrival of commercials in movie theaters.

I'm not talking about the slides for mattress outlets we've endured for years. Or fetching entertainment trivia, like "ER" star Noah Wyle has been collecting arks since he was a child. Those are silent affairs we can make go away simply by closing our eyes, much as we did as youngsters when confronting scary things.

I'm talking about the big, loud, expensive product ads that play before the trailers begin. The ones for cars and drinks and perfume and credit cards and TV shows that make me think, just for a second, maybe I'm still in my house watching the TV in the dark surrounded by a few hundred strangers.

These on-screen nightmares keep multiplying like the pod people: Advertisers spent $356 million on theater ads in 2003, up a whopping 37 percent from the year before.

Take the obnoxious commercial for Coca-Cola in which ecstatic young men and women laugh as they toss salad greens into the air at a supermarket. Why after paying $10.25 on Friday night at Loews Boston Common to see "Million Dollar Baby" are people subjected to this? Or promos for the prematurely gray CNN ancherboy Anderson Cooper, sinewy Jennifer Garner and her TV show "Alias"? Or for the Marines, Twizzlers, Barq's Root Beer, or Mazda?

Matthew Kearney, president of the Cinema Advertising Council, the trade group created in 2003 representing 25,000 of the 34,000-plus screens in the country, maintains thatcommercials are a minimal intrusion to viewers. "Time passes more quickly if there's something on the screen," he says. "Advertising helps contribute to an improved environment in the theater."

As a rule, he says, they begin at the stated starting time of a movie and eat up no more than four minutes. At first glance, this assertion appears insane because the commercials seem endless. My guess was they ran about 15 minutes, which would explain why a 6:15 movie actually starts at 6:35.

Wrong. I sat through two sets of commercials at two different theaters, timing everything as best I could in the dark. Each started less than 10 minutes before the designated starting time and finished close to it. But then came an unholy mix of in-house ads and trailers for another 15 or 20 minutes. (God love trailers, but the aggregate of all this is tiresome.) Which means that Kearney, more often than not, is right.

But the future of theater commercials is scary. It lies in digital satellite technology, pioneered in theaters by the Regal Entertainment Group, the largest theater owner in the country with about 6,300 screens. Using this technology, its advertising arm, the Regal CineMedia Corp., produces a slick package of overt ads and "behind the scenes" promos for movies or TV shows called "The 2wenty" that starts, surprise, 20 minutes before showtime.

If you sit through this and the ensuing trailers and house ads, you'll be in your chair for about 35 minutes before the feature you paid to see begins, as I did at the Regal Cinemas Westborough 12 complex.

Clifford Marks, president of sales and marketing for CineMedia, distinguishes between the 5½ minutes of national ads embedded in his "2wenty" and what he refers to as "content" -- behind-the-scene promos for movies like "Ray," with footage of Ray Charles and star Jamie Foxx. This is a distinction without a difference: From the viewer's seat, it's all advertising. (So, for that matter, are trailers.)

Brace yourselves because it's only going to get worse. Plan on more huge promotional productions by name Hollywood directors and movie stars. Consider what's already out there: Scorsese and De Niro for American Express, Baz Luhrmann and Nicole Kidman for Chanel No. 5, Julianne Moore and Halle Berry for Revlon. Think, says Marks, of ads that cost $1 million a minute -- on par with the price of a minute of high-end Hollywood fare.

And so, as sure as the sun comes up, there will be more of them. (I have a bet with Marks that there will be more than the current 5½minutes of national ads in "The 2wenty" one year from now. Easy money.)

We flock to a movie theater as an oasis from the stuff we're stuck watching on TV at home. What makes theater commercials particularly loathsome is our inability to elude them unless we bring ear plugs and airplane sleeping masks. There exists as yet no TiVo in the cineplex. Which is why advertisers crave them.

"There is no MIGA [Make It Go Away]," admits Marks, adding, "The recall in cinemas is great."

The difference of opinion over what audiences think of these ads is breathtaking. Everyone I have talked to abhors the things, while the industry claims that a solid majority of viewers think they're just dandy. But then pollsters can produce the numbers they want by sculpting the questions they ask.

To wit: Kearney says that, according to an Arbitron survey taken last year, 70 percent of movie viewers either like or tolerate the commercials. (Actually, 71 percent of those between the ages of 12 and 24 answered yes to the question: "I don't mind the advertisements they put on before the movie begins." The number drops to 62 percent for the 25 to 54 age bracket and 59 percent for 55 and above.)

Marks comes up with similar data, but then his top research guy, Douglas Pulick, concedes no one was asked directly if he or she would favor no ads at all. Would the numbers drop with such a question? "Absolutely," he says.

In a survey done last year by InsightExpress, a Connecticut-based online market-research firm, 53 percent of respondents wanted the commercials to stop, 27 percent said they attend movies less because of them, and 71 percent said theaters should charge less for tickets if they run ads. According to the survey, as reported in Variety, a mere 13 percent said they liked the ads. (Full disclosure: the Globe has used InsightExpress's services in the past.)

Marks hotly contests these findings on the grounds that, among other things, no one under 18 was surveyed. Maybe, but they mirror opinions common in this neck of the woods.

"They should make the movies free if we have to watch the commercials up front," says Dylan Callahan, a 20-something from Somerville who holds forth in the lobby of AMC's Fenway Theatre. And this from Adam Mell of Boston: "The price of a ticket is getting higher and higher, and we have to sit through these ads. There's nothing we can do unless we decide we're not going to go to the movies anymore."

Unless we decide we're not going to go to the movies anymore.

The mere thought must terrify theater owners. They dismiss the 1.7 percent drop in attendance in 2004 from the previous year -- the first in ages -- as a meaningless blip. They cling to this thinking because they have to. The alternative is too horrible. Most are clawing their way back to financial health after flirting with bankruptcy in the late '90s. Chalk that crisis up to their own dumb business decisions to overbuild their dreaded cineplexes. And, guess what, they're praying that the happy road to the black is paved with commercials at our expense.

The subject of theater commercials is so sensitive that Loews wouldn't talk about it. (Loews Cineplex outside PR lady Diane Blackman e-mailed me as follows: "I'm sorry sir, but as my associate explained to you, Loews will not comment on this.") Neither would AMC except to say through a voice-mail message from a spokeswoman that the ads "enhance the guest experience" and that "we see very little negative reaction."

Bring on the plasma TV.

It's too bad, because there was a time when the screen was blank before the trailers started and you could have a decent conversation with a spouse, child, or friend before the lights went down. We assumed, naively, that this weird little hole in our daily sound and light show would remain sacrosanct. Silly us.

Sam Allis can be reached at allis@globe.com.

© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
 

---

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 02-21-2005, 12:12 PM:
 
Sort of on the same subject of people being pissed off about ads, here's lawmakers trying to stop theatres from lying about start times: http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_021805_movietimes.html

So What Time Does the Movie Really Start?

(New York, -WABC February 18, 2005) — Some local lawmakers are giving two thumbs down to movie theatres who don't list the exact time when a film starts.

A new city council bill aims to get movie listings when they actually begin, rather than when previews and commericals start.

At one recent showing, a movie began 16 minutes after its listed time.

If passed, the bill would require theatres to advertise the actual start time of a movie.

If not, theatres could face up to one thousand dollars in fines. Connecticut Lawmakers are trying to implement a similar bill.
 

---

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 02-21-2005, 01:38 PM:
 
You know, the ads do provide for cheaper tickets.. If they weren't there, the lost revenue would have to be made up somehow..

So New York woudl fine a theatre if they had technical issues and the show started a minute late?
 

---

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 02-21-2005, 02:00 PM:
 
Actually, it's Connecticut that's considering that bill - which is one of the most asinine things I've ever heard. Since when does the government have a right to control the CONTENT of my advertising (excepting obscene material). What's next ... government mandation of showtimes so that the moviegoer always knows when a movie is playing regardless of theatre location?
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 02-21-2005, 07:16 PM:
 
I'm in favor of the movie, not the ads, starting at the advertised time, but I agree that this should not be legislated.

I doubt that these laws will ever hit the books, but the fact that this is even being considered means the public is not happy. If legislators are hearing about it, then people are talking about it. And, they are not happy.

Recently, when I've gone to a movie, I have seen, on average, 20 minutes of ads/trailers/etc before the picture starts. The start time in the newspapers is the time the ads begin. Usually with the dreaded, "Now, for the pre-show countdown". I wish it really was a countdown...the hot dog jumping into the bun is MUCH more entertaining than most of the junk I'm forced to watch.

I'm captive in a theatre. At home, I usually channel surf during commercials, or skip them entirely with my Replay box.

These ads are having an impact. They are one of the reasons I'm seeing fewer movies in theatres. I used to see 3-4 a month, now its about 1 every 2 months. I now look at my cinema options and, in most cases, decide to wait for the DVD. It's cheaper and it starts on MY schedule. I would definitely have seen MILLION DOLLAR BABY and SIDEWAYS by now. But, I'll just wait until they are $15.99 at the local Target store. And, Target even sells movie candy at a substantial discount over the local movie house.
 

---

Posted by Don Cross (Member # 2980) on 02-21-2005, 08:04 PM:
 
Difficult to believe that this country is actually technically considered a democratic republic- or sorts. It seems as though big brother wants to have their hands in as many pies as it possibly can.

If the government can find a way to regulate something, then it will want a piece of that action.

Very depressing...
 

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 02-21-2005, 08:57 PM:
 
Don,

The sad thing is that 'Joe Consumer' cries to 'Big Brother' for their oversight...

It's akin to saying "I'm to socially inept to maintain a clear and concise thought sequences for myself, please hold my hand while I go to the bathroom".

JFC, when are people going to accept some responsibility for their own actions and stop turning to the federal agencies for intervention?

It's simple. You dont' like ads? Don't go to the F'n movies.

Plain and simple.

Ads are revenue, and as such, have become, yet another, necessary evil in today's mega-lo-plex. Accept it or wait for the rental/On Demand release.

I don't like it, but it's the way it is.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-21-2005, 09:44 PM:
 
First, let me say that the proposed legislation is truly stupid and I hope that it dies a quick death.

Second, let me also say that I don't believe that screen advertising is necessary at all. Independent theatres don't show ads and often charge less than mainstream commercial exhibitors. A while ago, I posted some rough estimates of the extent to which ticket prices would need to be raised in order to do away with screen advertising and it came out to something like $.25-.50 per ticket--hardly enough to make most moviegoers think twice about attending a show.

I really believe that the reason why screen advertising is popular is that some theatre chain execs looked at the concept and thought "FREE MONEY!" without considering the impact on showmanship that the ads would have. No one has considered that they will cause long-term harm to the entire industry--even the exhibitors who do not show screen ads.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-21-2005, 10:52 PM:
 
Exhibitors are not stupid -- They know the ads annoy some of their customers. Yet they can't resist the temptation to push it to the limit: "How far can we go with ads before the increased revenue is more than offset by lost ticket sales?" Seems like a dangerous game to play if you agree that once people become fed up and stop going to movies, they may stop going for good.
 

---

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 02-22-2005, 01:13 PM:
 
Our company runs pre-show ads which I don't think are a terrible bother. The bothersome ads come when show-time hits and you run 6 trailers plus 5 minutes of additional rolling stock ads. We never run more than 12 minutes of trailers and they begin promptly at show-time. Our local news channel ran the New York city council story last night and began complaining about trailers, not ads. They mistake what people dislike and can create a dislike for trailers by running these stupid stories. I believe most customers enjoy trailers and use them to decide on future attendance. Why shouldn't theatres have every right to consider the trailer program part of the show, how else do we get people to see what is coming soon. Pre-show ads are a non-issue in my opinion. If you aren't there early, you won't see them, but you may not get a seat either.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-22-2005, 01:48 PM:
 
I think writers have to have something to complain about to fill up space. This year it's ads. Last year it was cellphones. Before that it was people talking. Before that it was loud previews. Before that it was high prices. Before that it was the deadly popcorn oil. I have a feeling these writers are getting "kickbacks" from the video industry. (Well it wouldn't surprise me.)

I think the truth is that hardly anyone would stop going to the movies "just" because of the ads. Or if they do stop, then the next blockbuster that comes along, they'll be back.

I also still don't see why theatres keep getting singled out for these ad-bitch articles when there are ads at every single other out-of-home entertainment too...I guess it's just because they're not up on a screen in the dark.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-22-2005, 01:48 PM:
 
The legislation is insane and probably unconstitutional. Where does government come off telling any business how to run it's time-table? I go to a MacDonalds that has a big sign posted saying Opened 24hrs. But if I go at 4am, I am told I have to wait until 6am because they are cleaning. How come they are not fined $1000 because they are not sticking to their schedule? How bout airlines or trains....do they get fined when they don't run on schedule?

On the other hand, if the exhibitor corporate suits were smart, they would heed the writing on the wall. This is clearly telling them that patrons are complaining enough for politicians to get involved (politicians mostly react rather than lead and they love to be on the side of a public cause that they think is popular). So lots of people must be complaining....not a good business omen. How come exhibition isn't heeding it?

And how far will they go? How many ushers do they cut back when they think they can get away with it? How many projectionists do they dump in favor of cheaper untrained minimum wagers? We've seen it all already; they will go as far as they think they can and, IMHO, most of the time never seeming to consider the disasterous, long term consequences. Once a patron "has had it," and decides it's just not worth going out to a theatre to see movies, almost nothing exhibition can do after that fact will lure him back. Jason put it well:

quote: Jason Black

---

Ads are revenue, and as such, have become, yet another, necessary evil in today's mega-lo-plex. Accept it or wait for the rental/On Demand release.

---

And more and more people are doing just that. This should scare exhibitors a lot more than it seems to be doing.

Reality: We know that the exhibitor will look at ads and see nothing but $$$$, and then he will say, "Well, they don't mind watching two ads, why not up it to three?" Another ad over 6000 screens is probably a good chunk of free change. And if they can tolerate 3, why not 4, and so on and so on. I have no doubt they will do this until they see their attendance drop, but by then the damage may be done and it may be irreversible.

My fear is that the studios are no less greedmongers than exhibitors. How long do you think it will take them to realize, hey, how come the exhibitor is getting all the money from those ads when the only reason the patron whose ass he is selling to the ad agency (so much money for so many plays to so many people) is only in that seat because of the studio's picture that he's paid to see. If it weren't for the studio's product, the exhibitor wouldn't have a viewer to sell to the ad agency. That's the same argument they made years ago when they wanted to get a percentage of the concession sales. I always found that argument quite compelling, scary as it is for me as an exhibitor. I am glad the courts ruled in favor of the exhibitor, but there is no reason they can't revisit that argument again. And now there will be one BIG difference -- people don't HAVE to buy concessions, but they HAVE to watch the freakin ads. This could be the one point which might allow the distributors to get their foot in that door. If that happens, it will be a united front to keep ads on the screen in ever increasing numbers.

Disney once was vehemently opposed to screen ads. If you wanted to play their picture, you couldn't precede it with any ads whatsoever....it was in their contract. I saw that note which was in the can of one of their animated titles -- POCAHANTAS I think. I was impressed as I read how they didn't want to pollute the movie-going experience. I thought, gee, that's pretty good of them -- pretty lofty concern for the patron and the artistic integrity of the work. Then I got to the next paragraph which went on to say that Disney knew precisely what the exhibitor was doing -- he was making profit off Disney's property and as long as the studio was not included in that economic model, they would not allow the ads. In other words, if Disney got in on the take, to hell with artistic integrity and screw the patron. Whores all.

And then there's the distinct posibility that the studios will imbed ads in the front of the DVD release. Hey, why not; if the exhibitor can do it, why not the studio? And they will code it so, just like the FBI warning, you won't be able to skip them. Won't THAT be fun.

Hey, if Coke wants to advertise to me and REALLY wants to impress me and engender goodwill (which their screen ads do NOT do -- their screen ads only engender ANTI-goodwill), give me a FREE COKE instead of abusing me with an obnoxious ad that will only make me seek out Pepsi next time I want a soda.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-22-2005, 01:53 PM:
 
I've got a few DVDs that when you put them in, the movie just starts playing. Sweet relief.

If the DVD market is such a HUGE deal, why isn't there a raft of complaints about those unavoidable animated garbage menus, trailers, warnings and other crap that shows up BEFORE the movie I'm paying for, and EVERY time I decide to watch it?
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-22-2005, 02:09 PM:
 
Clearly this is the best argument to burn a "backup" copy (allowed by virtue of the single copy rule) of every DVD you purchase. In the process, delete all that other crap.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 02-22-2005, 02:23 PM:
 
I bought the Shrek 2 DVD and it has 2 unskippable trailers when you put the disc in, for Shark Tale and Madagascar. The only way to start the movie is to let both trailers play all the way through or manually scan through them, which still takes some time. Normally I like trailers on DVDs and always watch them the first time I get a disc, but when I want to watch the movie a second time I want to go straight to the beginning of the movie, and this prevents me from doing that. Therefore I didn't go see Shark Tale in the theaters, and I haven't bought the DVD that came out a couple weeks ago. Madagascar hasn't even been released yet, but I already know I won't be seeing that either, or buying it on disc because of the lengthy promo for it that's shoved in my face on the Shrek 2 disc. I've heard the Shark Tale disc has a forced trailer for that movie as well! If Dreamworks plans on doing this on all their DVDs, I simply won't buy any more of their titles, period.
The problem at theaters that I don't think anyone's mentioned yet is that the exhibitors don't get to keep enough of the ticket price, which is already high enough for the customer. Better terms should be worked out so that there's a more equal split of that revenue. Regardless of who gets the money however, most ticket prices are high enough that the customer shouldn't be subjected to any paid advertising.
An interesting website:
http://www.captiveaudience.org
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 02-22-2005, 04:03 PM:
 
In parts of Latin America and the Caribbean ads have been the norm for decades...but in such locations such as Puerto Rico they list the advertising (cartelaras)and feature start showtimes. Used to love the smoking ads....climbing mountains, surfing, sky diving....and still have enough lung power to smoke Liquor and beer ads...busty women, flowing spirits and not a drunk person in view
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-22-2005, 04:23 PM:
 
Ads were the norm 30+ years ago in theaters in Bangkok, Thailand. Condoms were among the products routinely advertised. They also had several ticket price levels, based on seating location, with escalating prices for the better seats. And you could pick out the exact seats you wanted when buying tickets.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 02-22-2005, 05:33 PM:
 
I just love when people claim that the Fandango trailers are "ads". It's the theater's online ticketing service you idiots!
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 02-22-2005, 09:33 PM:
 

quote: Jim Ziegler

---

the lost revenue would have to be made up somehow..

---

Yes, money that you NEVER HAD IN THE FIRST PLACE is considered "lost" revenue.

It's all corporate double-speak bullshit!

"They" can phrase it any way they like to make it sound like the end of the world will come about sooner if they don't have a way to make up for their "lost" money! The truth is that the consumer is going to bend over and grab his ankles to take it up the ass just as long as they are willing to put up with it. There's only one way it's going to stop. That is is we show them what "lost revenue" REALLY looks like!

I can't stand going to watch a movie at the very theater I helped build! They've fucked it up in so many ways it's not funny! There needs to be more people who stop acting like sheep and vote with their wallet. It's the only way companies are going to get the message.

I'm not talking about boycott. I'm just saying that people THINK about where they are spending their hard-earned cash. If the company that you are contemplating doing business with doesn't satisfy 99% of your wants or needs, DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH THEM!

If the theater has too many ads for your taste (or ads AT ALL) and you don't like it, don't go there!
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 02-22-2005, 09:47 PM:
 
I keep reading the term "captive audience". Apparently these people are strapped to their seats or something.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-22-2005, 10:09 PM:
 
Well they are not strapped in, but they certainly won't get up and wander the lobby to avoid seeing the ads (and how would management handle a couple of hundered people actually doing just that?).

Or they can do what a small number of New Yorkers did about 8 years ago when they first started ads in New York. Seems like the whole town was in revolt. The papers made a big deal abou it and even the Mayor had his say (what did I tell you about politicians?!) So people began going into the theatres with those personal alarm horns -- small compressed air devices which fit in the pocket or purse and when you press the button, it gives out one loud horn blast. As soon as the ad hit the screen, WHAAAAAAAH-WHAAAAAAH! Loud as hell. It always got applause. I don't know if this was the reason ads disappeared for a time and were held at bay for at least another few years.

It made good press, but Randy has it right. Don't go to theatres that do stuff you don't like. Problem is, that's exactly what we are talking about, isn't it -- people abandoning theatres as the place to get their movie entertainment. They do it for a variety of reasons, unwanted, annoying ads is just another one of them.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-22-2005, 11:08 PM:
 
I have no control over the ads other than put them on when I get them. But, If the film companies feel like they are losing revenue because people are avoiding the movies do to the ads, then it is up to them to demand that they not be played prior to their features. Pretty much as Disney does for their G and PG movies
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 02-23-2005, 02:56 AM:
 
Warner banned rolling-stock ads from their movies a little after Disney did, but around 2000 they started allowing them again, right when I went to work for a theater that ran them.
 

---

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 02-23-2005, 06:07 PM:
 

quote:

---

Yes, money that you NEVER HAD IN THE FIRST PLACE is considered "lost" revenue.

It's all corporate double-speak bullshit!

---

quote: Randy Stankey

---

In the long run, they are driving away the very customers they are hoping to court.

---

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

I don't know what's worse. The corporate offices thinking the ads are good and entertaining, or the fact that they believe the customers really are entertained by them.

---

quote: Randy Stankey

---

In the current corporate culture we live under, once revenue is seen it becomes the norm. If that revenue stops coming it is seen as a loss. This is not a problem by itself. It's just psychology. However, it becomes problematic when people use that psychology to justify their own agendas to the detriment of other people. Namely, the customer.

---

This is the Wall Street mentality. And stock price definitely has something to with this front end loading of commercials. Film distributors have been badly screwing theater chains over bloated print inventories (as many as 8000 prints for one release) and other moves designed to grab a greater share of the box office pie. I think theater chains see these ads as a quick way of replacing some of that revenue, and then some.

Once the economics of those ads gets budgeted in as a "dependable" revenue stream then there won't be anyway to remove the things. To use an analogy, I don't think there's any way how to repeal Bush's tax cuts without making a bad dent in the economy. Too many people have adjusted their budgets to depend on them. Or in others words, regarding these ads, the genie is out of the bottle and out for good.

Ads on DVDs are pissing me off as well. Most will at least allow me to chapter past them or hit the menu button. However, some companies disable those buttons and force you to fast-forward through the ads. That sucks. I can see the day coming quickly where some asshole film company executive decides to disable the fast forward button as well. If I buy a DVD movie that does that, I'll return it to the store and demand a refund.
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 04-07-2005, 01:26 PM:
 
Hmmm,
You pay $20 for two of you to get into Sideways, and then you're shown a TV commercial for Sideways new on DVD new at Target this week!

How f*cking insulting!

Any commercial in a movie theatre for any DVD release is basically telling the customer that they're a dumb ass for just paying insanely high prices to see the movie in a theatre, when they obviously didn't need to...and won't need to in the future either!
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 04-07-2005, 02:57 PM:
 
yeah, well i won't be putting that dvd ad on before sideways just on general principles. i remember a couple years ago in france i went to a movie and the trailer for that very movie (not the dvd) played in front of it. i wondered if i was in the right "salle". i don't know if this is the norm in france or a mistake. don't speak the language anyways.

carl
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 04-08-2005, 01:48 AM:
 
On laserdiscs, which played in a linear fashion unlike DVDs, they would often put the theatrical trailer for the movie right after the movie as a 'bonus feature'. I always wondered what people would think if I'd done the same thing at the theatre and spliced the movie's trailer right to the end of the actual movie.
Advertising DVDs in theaters is insane- there's no need to remind people that there are other ways of seeing movies besides your theater. If I were running a theater right now, instead of annoying customers I'd be giving them a good reason to come and not wait for the DVD.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 04-09-2005, 03:53 AM:
 
what's really hilarious is that our print of sideways is in pretty bad shape. the whole title sequence has creases, dirt, and handprints all over it. that's for a couple minutes or so. then there are cinch scratches throughout and some lines. doesn't look like we'll be getting a replacement either.

carl
 

---

Posted by Matthew Ballantine-Patton (Member # 3007) on 04-10-2005, 11:29 PM:
 
Pre-show ads pay for theater upgrades. It's that simple. Very little of the ticket price goes to the theater, and with people rebelling against concession prices, the revenue has to come from somewhere. If you want to sit in a theater with big comfy seats, the price you pay is watching pre-show ads, or showing up late. I used to work in an independent theater with no ads, and often people would come to me in a panic, to tell me that nothing was showing in their theater. People are used to seeing these ads, and companies are very happy to pay theater owners to show them. I consider pre-show ads a necessary evil. Of course, I see most of my movies after hours, in tech screenings and such. I only have to see the ads while I'm on the clock.

Also-that indie theater where I used to work is seriously considering a pre-show ad system. I guess Landmark beat them to it, but don't be surprised to see ads at even your local "mom'n'pop" theater. It's just economics.
 

---

Posted by Lance C. McFetridge (Member # 95) on 04-11-2005, 07:23 AM:
 
Perhaps the Boston Globe should try to fill it's paper with news and forego it's ads. Just think of the savings, the paper savings alone not to mention the ink.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-11-2005, 01:26 PM:
 
Right - of course they'd have to sell the paper for 5 or 10 dollars, but so what.
 

---