Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMC Drops 'Texting Friendly' Theaters Idea (networkworld.com)

Posted by msmash on from the all-sorted-then dept.

netbuzz writes: Stung by a ferocious backlash on social media, AMC Entertainment this morning took to Twitter to announce that it will not be experimenting with "texting friendly" movie theaters, a trial balloon floated only days ago by the company's boss. "NO TEXTING AT AMC. Won't happen. You spoke. We listened," the company said.That escalated quickly.

150 comments

  1. Put your fucking phone away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pretty simple, really.

    1. Re:Put your fucking phone away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This was just a publicity stunt by AMC. Nothing to see here, just an ad.

    2. Re:Put your fucking phone away by LizardBMG · · Score: 1

      It's not the actual zoned out act of texting that is the disturbance. Aside from people not putting their devices on silent (without Vibrate which is usually not very silent) ...Device screens are VERY bright. And it seems most folks dont have their set to automatically adjust, or they simply can't dim enough not to visually distract other patrons. All those lights popping on throughout a public performance, like a concert or a movie, can be very distracting, especially in a movie a live theater performance, concerts less so, depending on the lighting design of the show.

    3. Re:Put your fucking phone away by Spugglefink · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I went to my first rock concert in years, and all three bands had adopted the same shtick. Cell phones are the new Bic lighter, and if several thousand people all use the "flashlight" app on their phone at the same time, the amount of ambient light is impressive.

      I'm going back inside now, so get off my lawn!

    4. Re:Put your fucking phone away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you do something like:
      - put configurable walls around the seats; configurable in the sense that panels separating seats can be moved to create sections of 2 or more seats without walls between them (like the ability to left the separating arm supports out of the way)
      - put a ceiling on top of the configurable walls

      This creates the ability to isolate your chair from the vision of all other movie-goers. Mobile device users can enjoy a show however they like without affecting others. Obviously, silent mode/headphones are still needed, but it's not that difficult of a problem to create a test solution. Granted the separators will result in the loss of some seating capacity, but still should be viable as a test.

    5. Re:Put your fucking phone away by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      the amount of ambient light is impressive.

      Meh. It is not as impressive as everyone using a 500 Tera-Watt NIF laser.

    6. Re: Put your fucking phone away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's going to pay for these walls, Donald?

    7. Re:Put your fucking phone away by toonces33 · · Score: 2

      You could just put an LCD screen in each toilet stall. The people that want to text can sit there.

    8. Re:Put your fucking phone away by dissy · · Score: 1

      I don't really thing it's the same thing at all.

      Now I admit I haven't been to a rock concert in years, but has there ever been one that outright banned said lighters? It seemed to always be encouraged to me.

      In that case replacing one OK thing with another similar thing logically should also be OK.

      But in the AMC case, we have people who want to go to a movie theater with NO intend to watch the movie and FULL intent to annoy everyone around them.

      We call those type of people trolls, and we don't tolerate trolls.
      At best we ignore trolls and at worse we fuck with them back, aka trolling the troll.

    9. Re:Put your fucking phone away by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 1

      This creates the ability to isolate your chair from the vision of all other movie-goers.

      I already have something that does that. It's called my living room. The point of seeing a movie in a theater is that it is a shared experience, and that you are not isolated from other people. Participating in this shared experience requires everyone to adhere to the terms of the same social contract: don't talk, don't smoke, don't yell "FIRE", keep your feet off the seat in front of you, and turn off your damn phone.

      --
      I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
    10. Re:Put your fucking phone away by mishehu · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it was an ad for The Alamo Drafthouse... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    11. Re: Put your fucking phone away by jofas · · Score: 2

      Ah, I see all roads lead to idiocracy.

    12. Re:Put your fucking phone away by phrostie · · Score: 1

      the problem is that the theaters don't make money on the ticket sales.
      that all goes to the mpaa studios.
      the theaters only make money on concessions.

      what they need to do is the offer a handful of theaters per location that allow it and charge extra.
      they could block the cell towers and offer wifi, but why bother.

      anyway, just my .019 CAD

    13. Re:Put your fucking phone away by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      I don't really thing it's the same thing at all.

      I think you need to re-read the posts you replied to.

    14. Re:Put your fucking phone away by Spugglefink · · Score: 1

      I don't think anybody spends $287.45 for a movie and snacks (a 5-gallon bucket of soda and a 30-gallon bucket of popcorn, which is the small size, and comes with free refills) with no intent to watch the movie. The problem is that most people in the smartphone age have the attention span of a fruit fly. "Movie is slightly slow, let's check Facebook for just one second. Oh look! Cat videos!"

      Also, I would like the record to reflect that when they asked me to fire up the "flashlight" app on my phone, I scratched my head briefly, then got out my Bic lighter.

    15. Re:Put your fucking phone away by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I have seen quite a few movies and television shows in the last 5 years where the phone is used as a flashlight by people who logically should have real flashlights. Ie, a police investigator looking for clues, someone exploring a cave, etc.

  2. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sounds great. Have texting theatres and no fucking texting in the other theatres. Then there would be no excuse.

    1. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is "no excuse" now. If you're so deranged you can't stop trifling with your phone for 90 minutes then stay out of the theater. And stop causing crippling, deadly wrecks too; I personally know three twenty somethings that have caused serious wrecks fucking with their phones.

    2. Re: Why not? by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 1

      How about everywhere? Do you want texting, or non-texting? You could even expand it. Data, or non-data? WiFi, or non-WiFi?

    3. Re: Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      It does mean that society needs to account for how people use technology when offering public service.

      WTF? We're not talking about a public service here, we're talking about movies which people pay to watch, not pay to be interrupted or blinded by assholes.

    4. Re: Why not? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      There beans, eggs, bacon, sausage, WiFi and spam. It hasn't got much WiFi in it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re: Why not? by Chas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Put it this way. If everyone was considerate, dialed the screen brightness all the way down, and set their phone to vibrate, then got up and left the viewing area of the theater to text or talk, that'd be one thing.

      But, in general, people are self-centered ASSHOLES.

      So we get Big Ben jangling out of a phone at 100 decibels.
      Then a strobe light going up in the middle of a theater.
      Followed by some asshat going "Yeah! YEAH! I'm at the movies right now! IN THE THEATER! No! I can't hear you! I'm IN THE THEATER!"

      Fuck that noise...

      "We can't tell 20 year olds to put away their phones..."

      YES YOU FUCKING CAN!

      For the prices being charged for admission, not to mention the CONCESSIONS, it's not a huge stretch to expect to be able to enjoy a movie uninterrupted by some jackass and their phone.
      Seriously, that's the main reason movie theaters still exist! The provide a quiet, controlled environment for showing films!

      If Phoneguy McDouchebag is constitutionally incapable of keeping his phone off for 90-120 minutes to watch a movie, he needs to GET THE FUCK OUT!

      Not sure why the hell this is such a novel, or hard to grasp concept.

      Allowing that sort of stuff to go on in a theater is basically removing the primary reason people still go to movie theaters!
      It's actively destructive to the business model.
      Because groups like Screening Room can charge you $50 (about the price of ticket and concessions for one person) to stream you a brand new movie on opening day.
      So if someone's got a boss home theater setup, they can do Screening Room, invite a dozen friends and supply their own food.
      The theater makes NO money. And the industry loses a dozen ticket sales. PER PERSON VIEWING.

      I'm glad AMC listened and axed this so fast. Someone eventually elected to use their brain on this subject.
      Better late than never...

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    6. Re: Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure your options are "spam", "spam, spam, and spam", or "spam, spam spam, WiFi, spam, and spam"

    7. Re: Why not? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      I'm accustomed to having access to my phone, but that doesn't mean I am going to use it during a movie. I payed $15 to watch a movie, not to sit in a dark room and send messages to people.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    8. Re: Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree there are many reasons we can't have nice things. Strict enforcement theaters are one solution and texting/smoking/talking/throwing toilet paper OK theaters are another. AMC listened to those people who prefer the former, that doesn't mean there is no market for the latter.

    9. Re: Why not? by unrtst · · Score: 1

      ... we're talking about movies which people pay to watch ...

      According to your logic, if there is a market for this, then they should allow texting, and screw you and your concerns.

      I know I'll get heat for this, but IMO, it's like smoking areas in restaurants and bars, especially outdoor areas. I don't feel the need to explain this further.

      I also suspect that the majority of people that are so adamant about no texting in a theater are also part of the group that regularly uses the word "glasshole" when referring to someone wearing Google Glass. Those same glassholes could text without any impact to anyone around them, but people are terrified of a blatantly obvious camera if it's worn on someone else's face.

      For the record, I don't want texting allowed anywhere/anytime in theaters, but I'm all for a texting section (as long as they have phones on silent), or special showings that are 100% text friendly. There are people that obsess over that connectivity, and that number is growing - it's a market they should probably not ignore completely. There are also people that legitimately need to be able to receive texts 24x7, but probably won't get any (anyone on call). Why not just give them the back row? No one behind them to see the light from their phones, and there is a good chance they'll be on the younger side of the spectrum, so they'll likely have good enough vision to see from back there too :-)

    10. Re: Why not? by omnichad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People are used to pooping, too. They still leave the theater to do it.

    11. Re: Why not? by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure your options are "spam", "spam, spam, and spam", or "spam, spam spam, WiFi, spam, and spam"

      But that's got spam in it!

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    12. Re: Why not? by Chas · · Score: 2

      Sure, and I'm sure there's a market for those who prefer to felch while watching a movie too.

      Doesn't mean it's a large enough segment that it's worthwhile to service...

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    13. Re: Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know I'll get heat for this, but IMO, it's like smoking areas in restaurants and bars, especially outdoor areas. I don't feel the need to explain this further.

      I kind of think you do. I was pretty young the last time I saw one of those. They were removed from restaurants, starting with family restaurants, by popular demand, then eventually from the last few holdout bars by law. There are younger people here.

      I also remember a problem with the smoking section -- the smoke didn't obey the smoking section boundaries.

      I also suspect that the majority of people that are so adamant about no texting in a theater are also part of the group that regularly uses the word "glasshole" when referring to someone wearing Google Glass.

      Nobody (to within experimental error) regularly uses the word glasshole.

      But anyway, this is different. Texting in a theater necessarily involves points of light moving around in a dark room that is dedicated to controlling your audio and visual experience. Somebody wearing Google Glass is impacting you on a psychological level, not a physiological level.

      Anyway, in principle I'm not opposed to special showings that are text friendly, and the texting section if it is in the extreme back of the theater or is otherwise isolated so it can't bother people in the non-section.

    14. Re: Why not? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I was at a casino in Washington with a smoking section in December. The non-smoking section was up a half-flight of stairs, where all the smoke collected, and you had to walk through the smoking section to get to it. You know, the arrangement could have actually worked out if the smoking section were upstairs instead.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    15. Re: Why not? by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I see you've never stayed long enough for the lights to come back on.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    16. Re: Why not? by suutar · · Score: 1

      In Georgia at least, the law is apparently not "thou shalt not have smoking", it's "thou shalt not have smoking and allow minors"... I know of one restaurant that opted to allow smoking and block minors instead.

    17. Re: Why not? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I know I'll get heat for this, but IMO, it's like smoking areas in restaurants and bars, especially outdoor areas. I don't feel the need to explain this further.

      It depends on the implementation. Back in the "smoking section" days (NY has banned smoking in restaurants for years now), we'd be seated in the non-smoking section - two seats over from the smoking section. Smoke doesn't tend to respect imaginary boundaries and we'd still smell the horrible stench all through our meal. If you had a "texting section" which was in the same theater, you could have cell phone glare visible in the non-texting section. If you had texting showings, though, then people who wanted to take out their cell phone could do so without bothering anyone. (Or, at least, someone who got bothered about it wouldn't have cause to complain since they'd know they were going to a texting showing.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    18. Re: Why not? by toonces33 · · Score: 1

      Well they can all switch to the aPhone - which is essentially any smartphone that is inserted into the rectum. Then these people will have the satisfaction of knowing they have their phones close by, and they are no longer disturbing anyone.

    19. Re: Why not? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 0

      Smoking is just one more thing that's wrong with the south.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    20. Re: Why not? by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      like smoking areas in bars and restaurants? SO you agree it should be banned (they certainly are here, even in many outdoor areas as you aren't allowed to smoke near food serving areas). Why would anyone want to promote anti social behaviour. I am sure their is a market for a theatre that allows you to rape kiddies, spit on random people and swear at them, not everything should or needs to be catered for.

    21. Re: Why not? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Something like this happened in a theater I was at. An opening week for a Star Wars movie, packed theater. Guy had been talking on the phone at the end of the previews and into the start of the movie. He was speaking loud enough for people to hear, not even a whisper. People were standing up and telling the guy to hang up the phone. I was expecting the thrown popcorn, but vventually he says "I gotta go, I'm watching a movie right now."

    22. Re: Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you think smokers will walk extra... UP STEPS... to smoke? Maybe you don't realize what smoking does to you. :D

  3. Seriously who thought up this idea? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, let's allow movie patrons to be bothered by other movie patrons. What's next a talking friendly theater? The only time when it was appropriate to text was my local theater special viewing/razzing of The Happening where the patrons were allowed to text their commentary that appeared on the screen like subtitles. For example during the wind scene the characters realized it was some sort of pollen spread by the wind and then the group was suddenly caught in a massive wind gust, someone texted: "You know now would be a good time to fart." It was immediately followed by "Who farted?"

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:Seriously who thought up this idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let's allow movie patrons to be bothered by other movie patrons.

      Oooh, a live-action movie theater meta-show: Two movie patrons enter; one movie patron leaves!

    2. Re:Seriously who thought up this idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's next a talking friendly theater?

      That would be good for Black people and any others who like to hoot and holler and make comments while watching a movie. "Don't go in dere, white girl!"

      Why is this modded down? It's known as "Call and Response" and it's a legitimate thing. That primarily black people engage in it is consistent with observable, real world experience. Primarily black people are rap artists too -- does this mean anyone who mentions rap must also be modded down? Have we really become so hypersensitive?

    3. Re:Seriously who thought up this idea? by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      They already have fork and screen theaters. And, surprisingly, its not disturbing when those around you order food. Of course that may have to do with the seats being both larger and more spread out.

    4. Re:Seriously who thought up this idea? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Call and response can refer to a few different things, but the one that best fits this context has nothing to do with making audible comments during the screening of a film.

      tl;dr: you're an idiot.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    5. Re:Seriously who thought up this idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh but it is disturbing. It detracts from the immersion. As in, you're in a cold wet sea cave hiding from the bad guys, you imagine the fresh smell of the sea combined with the musty odors of a closed space, while around you it smells like fish and chips and popcorn.

      Also, the pavlovian association of movies and food is bad not only because of that, but also because it makes the same associations with high-intensity events in movies.

  4. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe I'm missing something. I thought the comments on yesterday's article were quite over the top. Why is it so bad to provide a service to someone who wants it? Nobody is forcing you to go to the auditoriums designated for phone-users.

    Just because it's not something you personally like doesn't mean that someone else can't enjoy it.

    (For reference, I'm not personally interested in the movie theater concept, so I don't care one way or another. But if this is something that some people want, why not? It hurts nobody.)

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just because a service *might* be wanted, doesnt mean its a good idea. Next some *other* totally stupid idea will be expected to be implmented. People are stupid, and given half the chance, they'll expect every company to pander to their stupid ideas. If you think it hurts nobody, you're a prime example of why its not a good idea.

    2. Re:Why? by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Well for one it would replace at least one auditoriom that is not currently text friendly.

      Also you just paid something like $11 for the ticket alone then however much extra for a snack and a drink. You would think that after all that investment they would actually want to watch the movie they paid for.

      If you just want to hang out and text stay in the lobby its cheaper.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you just want to hang out and text stay in the lobby its cheaper.

      Stay at home. Dammit, stay out of your car.

    4. Re:Why? by chispito · · Score: 2

      You would think that after all that investment they would actually want to watch the movie they paid for.

      How the other guy chooses to spend his $11 experience is up to him as long as it doesn't affect me. He can fall asleep, for all I care.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    5. Re:Why? by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      I can only imagine that they were receiving sarcastic suggestions on their comment cards from people who had their experiences ruined by texters and amc took them seriously.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your logic really isn't sound there. You have provided no reason for why it is not a good idea, and have instead resorted to hurling mild insults instead of backing up your belief.

      What you've effectively said is, "if a company provides service X which might not harm anyone, then they might also provide service Y. Therefore they shouldn't provide service X." Which makes no sense whatsoever -- there's no logical implication from one step to the next.

    7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I'm missing something. I thought the comments on yesterday's article were quite over the top. Why is it so bad to provide a service to someone who wants it? Nobody is forcing you to go to the auditoriums designated for phone-users.

      The problem is cost .. about the only way that it would work for AMC would either have to cut the number of movies shown at any one time in half .. half for the traditional crowd and half for the texting crowd.. so the probability is you have to raise the cost to cover the operating costs because you, more frequently end up running movies for screens below the break even threshold or you escalate the number of complaints because of people in the wrong theater.

    8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So effectively your argument is, "I don't want someone else to get something they want if it means I have to share resources with them." (Where "resources" in this case is the limited number of auditoriums at the theater.) Is that correct?

      Look at it from another angle: suppose you don't like some popular movie. Do you tell the movie theater to not show it, because it's using up valuable auditorium space that could be showing a movie that you approve of? That's ridiculous! If there are customers willing to pay, the movie theater is glad to show it and take their money. So similarly, if there are people willing to pay for a cell phone friendly experience, what business of yours is it to say what they should or shouldn't do?

    9. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Texting might be appropriate in the 'dining' auditoriums that some theater chains have. You already have distractions in those theaters.

      Otherwise, put the phone away.

      Last time I went to a movie some lout next to me could not stop checking the phone. WTF
      I think I'll stick to the more rural cinemas near me from now on.

    10. Re:Why? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd guess perhaps because it validates this sort of rude, narcissistic behavior rather than shames it?

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    11. Re:Why? by unrtst · · Score: 1

      If you want a completely distraction free viewing, just wait and watch at home. It's cheaper.
      (see, that sort of argument is pretty useless!)

    12. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enabling the behavior now validates it over the long term. The progression is kind of like this:

      1) Being an asshole is bad. (now)
      2) Being an asshole is not so bad as long as you only do it around other assholes in the asshole-space we give you. (proposed theater idea)
      3) Being an asshole is no big deal, you can always go to an asshole-free option instead. (future theaters that are default text-friendly and the non-texting option becomes the premium)
      4) Being an asshole is the norm you entitled shitbag.

      It's basically what the internet has been going through.

    13. Re:Why? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      What if he starts to snore?

    14. Re:Why? by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      This was intend as a reply of the last line where it said "why not? It hurts nobody." Yes it would limit everyone else's selection.

      I want to equate this to smoking or non smoking rooms and resturaunts but smoking areas seem to have been eliminated entirely and people texting in the theater poses no health concern. (except maybe to the texter)

      I'm actually suprised that they didn't go ahead and do a trial run anyway. It might workout but I personally would be more interested in seeing the maximum number of texters that can be in the same room and still be able to watch a movie.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    15. Re:Why? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Why is it so bad to provide a service to someone who wants it?

      Geez, isn't it obvious?! Idiocracy wasn't an instruction manual! We need to be stamping that shit out, not encouraging it.

    16. Re:Why? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I thought the comments on yesterday's article were quite over the top. Why is it so bad to provide a service to someone who wants it? Nobody is forcing you to go to the auditoriums designated for phone-users.

      It's not an issue until it:
      a) removes options for the traditional alternatives i.e. 3D movies, do you know how hard it is to find a standard session of a major blockbuster nowadays. The last thing I need is those options to be further reduced because half of them are yack on the phone sessions.
      b) legitimises perceived anti-social behaviour. Like seriously this isn't a product. Unless your idea of a product is telling people it's okay to be an unbearable thundercunt at a movie disturbing others who paid good money to see something.

    17. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I'm missing something. I thought the comments on yesterday's article were quite over the top. Why is it so bad to provide a service to someone who wants it?

      Because nobody actually wants to be in a theater where other people are allowed to text/call, and most cases where someone texts during a movie it's they responding to a text they received (that is they didn't not plan to send any texts when they bought their ticket).

      The practical end result of this is people still text in the no texting theaters, people mainly use the texting theater when the no texting theater is sold out or when they want to have sex in a movie theater but aren't quite brave enough to do it in a full one, and everyone's ticket prices go up.

    18. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he is in a snoring allowed theater then if you care you chose the wrong theater.

    19. Re:Why? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      >If you just want to hang out and text stay in the lobby its cheaper.

      For a certain tweenie bopper demographic, it's all about being downtown and hanging out. Actually going to the movie is hugely secondary. Seeing and being seen is what it's all about. Kind of like clubbing but for those too young to get into clubs.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    20. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you don't think banning texting-friendly theatres would limit people's selection?

      Or is it only your preferred selection that you think is important to protect?

    21. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only rude and narcissistic if you're doing it in company that doesn't like that. Don't you people get this?

      Is it so impossible to understand that in contexts other than yours, texting while in a group of friends can be an accepted, even important part of the shared social experience?

    22. Re: Why? by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      No I don't. I've seen how much they already text in non texting theaters. I don't feel giving them their own texting area would solve the problem. But like I said I'd be interested to see the results of a trial run. Hey make it biased make the texting theater tickets 1$ cheaper each I figure it would still have a lower turnout.

      Not sure what you mean there.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    23. Re:Why? by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      I suppose I can understand that but many other places they could be.

      There is also an arcade in the lobby.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    24. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd guess perhaps because it validates this sort of rude, narcissistic behavior rather than shames it?

      I've been to movie theaters that serve full sized dinner courses + alcohol. You KNOW you are going to that theater for that experience before you show up. If executed correctly I would welcome a similar experience with cells phones, tablets, laptops, etc. that would allow patrons to text and talk during the movie WITHOUT disturbing other patrons. Somebody posted in the other Slashdot story a link to the Oatmeal and a giant bubble. If AMC can somehow come up with an innovative solution (micro-bubbles?) that patrons are willing to pay the premium for - I applaud their efforts.

      In reality - such a solution would likely NOT be cost effective and they'd end up losing money on the idea. A for creativity, F-- for execution.

      P.S. Read the fine print that comes with the purchase of your movie ticket. It exact wording varies per theater. The one I worked at - management reserved the right to refund your ticket price and throw you out at any time. Concessions were NOT refundable and that's where the money was made for the theatre anyways. No hesitation in ejecting rude moviegoers after an initial warning. As a patron, I would encourage you to leverage theatre management if (after a reasonable conversation) other said patron is not amiable to the idea of putting away their phone and wants to be an ass. Not hard to cut off a movie while its running to ejects patrons - quite comical actually.

    25. Re:Why? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      I'd guess perhaps because it validates this sort of rude, narcissistic behavior rather than shames it?

      I really don't understand this argument. Social norms are defined by communities. If people are in a community of like-minded people, who don't mind others' texting at movies, how are they being "rude" or "narcissistic"?

      Don't get me wrong: I find such behavior in "normal" theaters to be obnoxious. But if they want to have their own theater where they can do this, why should it bother me? Why should I feel the need to shame someone who isn't even doing the behavior I find "shameful" in my presence?

      I see this as no different from one restaurant having a "jackets required" policy and insisting on reasonable etiquette and decorum, while another restaurant allows people in with ripped jeans who like to swear and be rowdy as they have a good time.

      Maybe I don't prefer the latter in my dining experience, but I know some people who might. If they're not doing it in my presence, why should I care if a restaurant offers that option?? They're only being "rude and narcissistic" if others around find them to be so.

      Of course, if it ever got to the point that this behavior became the "norm" so it was impossible to find a theater that offered the "no texting" experience, I think that would be a loss. Or... well, actually, I don't go to movie theaters that much, so I probably would just stop going the few times that I do. They just lost my business. That's a choice.

      Anyhow, I don't get the need to "shame" others for non-destructive, non-violent behavior that doesn't affect me and isn't even done in my presence. Just like I don't give a crap whether somebody uses the "wrong fork" to eat fish at a BBQ joint. Social norms and etiquette are defined by community and circumstance.

    26. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the sake of argument, let's say that a theater offers the same movie in two halls: one text-friendly, one not. Now let's say that there are enough people (like them or not) who are down to hit the hall that allows texting (talking, whatever) to make that theater profitable. The movie theater now makes *both* parties happy: silence advocates won't have to deal with people using their phones, phone advocates won't have to deal with people yelling at them to stop using their phone, and the theater still makes money. Why wouldn't that be a good idea?

    27. Re:Why? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Given that so many people apparently thought this was a terrible idea, it's pretty clear that texting in theaters is not yet a "social norm". And the reason I call it "narcissistic" is because the people that currently do this are either unaware or simply don't care that it annoys others. That sounds pretty self-centered to me. So, I suspect the idea of catering to those people tends to rub those who have been annoyed by them in the past the wrong way.

      Also, to clarify, I'm not personally making this argument. I give it as a possible explanation as to why other people might care. I go to movie theaters very rarely, so honestly, this doesn't really affect me. I actually don't care much one way or the other.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  5. I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I agree. What would the harm be in giving them a showing or two of the most popular movies, and getting them the fuck out of mine!

  6. Sounds like a PR stunt by hawguy · · Score: 3

    Sounds like this was just a PR stunt to remind people that movie theaters still exist. I think I've only seen 2 movies in a theater (and one of those was a work event) since I got my 55" 1080p TV + Bluray + surround sound, there's not much reason to see a movie in a theater anymore, I prefer the experience I get at home (where there's an open bar and the movie will pause for bathroom breaks and if anyone talks over the movie, I can rewind). And the blu-ray costs about the same as a pair of movie tickets. When 4K content is more readily available (the TV's are already available and relatively affordable), that will mean even less reason to go to a theater.

    1. Re:Sounds like a PR stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like this was just a PR stunt to remind people that movie theaters still exist. I think I've only seen 2 movies in a theater (and one of those was a work event) since I got my 55" 1080p TV + Bluray + surround sound, there's not much reason to see a movie in a theater anymore, I prefer the experience I get at home (where there's an open bar and the movie will pause for bathroom breaks and if anyone talks over the movie, I can rewind). And the blu-ray costs about the same as a pair of movie tickets. When 4K content is more readily available (the TV's are already available and relatively affordable), that will mean even less reason to go to a theater.

      You forgot the single biggest reason not to go to a theater: droves of obnoxious self-centered people who have no idea how to act in public and be considerate of others. An environment where the polite thing to do is sit quietly and not be disruptive really highlights them, more than most other situations. I don't know what happened but there's a whole generation of them. People who won't STFU, people talking or texting on their precious phones with the screen brightness all the way up, people who bring crying toddlers into movies that are far from G-rated, dipshits who bump or kick your seat, insecure morons who think basic manners like saying "excuse me" when you slide by someone's seat is a sign of weakness, people who reveal the ending out loud, you name it. Why would I pay to experience this?

    2. Re:Sounds like a PR stunt by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

      I don't know what happened but there's a whole generation of them.

      Hahaha. What happened is you got older, gramps. You are not the first old guy to complain about the younger generation's manners.

    3. Re:Sounds like a PR stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what happened but there's a whole generation of them.

      Hahaha. What happened is you got older, gramps. You are not the first old guy to complain about the younger generation's manners.

      Same AC here. If 31 is old then okay, I'm old. What I observe is still ... what I observe. That you would assume advanced age is a sign of narrow-mindedness (perhaps even bigotry) on your part. Meanwhile, you failed to actually address anything I said.

      That I was brought up by an immigrant who came from what was much more of a respect-culture than modern USA might have something to do with it. That is, I was born and raised here, but brought up by someone who valued not being a self-centered asshole, due to not confusing it with individuality.

    4. Re:Sounds like a PR stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was born and raised here in the US and I was also taught manners, but I must admit that most people my age appear not have have received similar information. They chew their food with their mouths open like an ape. They talk far more loudly than is required for the situation because who gives a shit about anybody else. They'll answer their phone and have a conversation in a packed elevator/subway/restaurant/checkout line because fuck everyone else. They use trashy language in places that are supposed to be more respectable (upscale restaurants, nursery schools, etc.). They are complete and utter garbage.

  7. Perfect new idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Each viewer or self-selected groups of viewers would enter a dedicated room with couch seating and its own dedicated viewing screen. The room would be soudproofed such that activity in the room by the viewers would not disturb viewers in their room.

    My company has a patent pending on this tech. We have a name for it, but we are open to suggestion. It is called LiveInRoom.

  8. Good Thinking, AMC! by WheezyJoe · · Score: 2

    The last time I heard about texting in a theater, someone got shot. Imagine the guy at AMC doing a late Google search on theater texting and finding this. Uh, Boss, maybe this really isn't such a great idea.

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    1. Re:Good Thinking, AMC! by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      I have a box of dots, and I'm willing to throw them at you if you text during the movie.

    2. Re:Good Thinking, AMC! by suutar · · Score: 1

      Nooo! Not dots! Use jordan almonds for that. Or raisinets.

    3. Re:Good Thinking, AMC! by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      Medicine balls?

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  9. . . . and then you could fill the texting theater by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    . . . . with carbon monoxide or nitrogen, and the species will improve as a whole rather markedly.

    And chances are, they'll be so self-absorbed, that they won't even notice they're dead. . .

  10. Dropped for now by chispito · · Score: 1

    Eventually the reverse will be true. Give it another five years and people won't react so viscerally. Ten years and designated phone-free theaters will be the exception, not the norm.

    Sure, I don't like the idea, but it all depends on who is buying the tickets. Every day more kids with no memory of what movie going etiquette used to be get their first smart phones. Times change.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re:Dropped for now by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Ten years from now we may not even have theaters.

      For one you can buy a 70" tv at walmart today. How big will they be in 10 years?

      Netflix and redbox were able to kill blockbuster I think its only a matter of time until the on demand services are able to kill off the smaller theaters.

      The theater here in town closed a few years back so its now 25 miles to the nearest theater.

      But that's fine if the experience degrades to nothing I just won't go anymore.

      I rarely go now but thats mainly due to the distance and cost.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    2. Re:Dropped for now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How big will they be in 10 years?

      The world currently has a 370-inch (939-cm) Tv. The smallest commercial-grade cinema screen is 360 inches, with 480 inches being popular. This record-breaking Tv is double the size of the previous record holder. (The 300-inch Tv on 'How I met your mother' was fictional.) A live elephant standing in front of this, would block less than half of the screen.

      You probably mean one that can be bought at Walmart: The problem is Tv size has stagnated, people aren't buying ever-larger televisions. This is because most people want a Tv to occupy a small part of their vision. So a bigger Tv means standing further away, meaning using a bigger room. It's difficult to make a room bigger, which is the real problem.

    3. Re:Dropped for now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For one you can buy a 70" tv at walmart today. How big will they be in 10 years?

      4.5 inches.

  11. The texting friendly theatre by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    It's called Netflix.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:The texting friendly theatre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much this. I see the whole texting-friendly notion as advocacy for what people have been after for years. First-run movies available in your home. Sure, charge forty or fifty bucks to see it. If it's worth it for you to pay that to see it at your own comfort and convenience, great! Especially for those who have children, or who might go with a spouse/partner or friends, it can actually be a cost-effective alternative.

      I'd see that as a far, far more profitable move than to make certain theaters texting-friendly.

    2. Re:The texting friendly theatre by unrtst · · Score: 1

      It's called Netflix.

      Backwards. Netflix is where you aren't choosing to sit in a room full of 100's of other random people expecting them all to behave exactly as you'd like.

    3. Re:The texting friendly theatre by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 2

      No, he has the right of it. Polite society has rules. If you expect to enjoy a night out without getting your teeth knocked in, you obey them.

      Your right to free speech/action ends where the person you offends' fist begins.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  12. Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duh!?
    Seriously. We live in a world now where people have become much more "sensitive" to almost any type of slight, whether intentional or not.
    So... Let's allow people who have probably been coddled er educated in a "safe" zone, protected from trigger words and microaggressions to text, in the middle of a movie that they probably are not interested in and "irritate" a large group of people who are probably so ticked off with daily life that they just want to get out for a little distraction from reality... Hm. Not seeing any possible problem there...

  13. Can't believe they even considered it by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    The single biggest reason I don't go to theatres anymore is because the other movie goers drive me nuts. Between talking, texting, getting up to pee (requiring everyone to shuffle and shimmy to make room for the person to get out) or bringing a baby that then starts wailing half way through the movie, etc, it's just not worth the constantly rising ticket price.

    Maybe if theatre chains were more like the Alamo Drafthouse (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs), overall ticket sales would be much higher.

    1. Re:Can't believe they even considered it by mlts · · Score: 1

      I like the Alamo Drafthouse for exactly those reasons. Need to pee? easy to crouch and duck past people without bumping their legs, especially if you sit at a break between tables. Food and drink? On par with any decent eatery. I am more than happy to pay the Alamo Drafthouse their due because I can sit and watch a movie. No screaming kids, no texting, no people yapping on cell phones.

      I understand other people have a sentiment that they should be allowed to do what they so choose anywhere, even if it diminishes the value of something for others... but that is why there are choices, and I rather pay my admission to see/hear a movie, not see/hear someone on their phone. The Alamo Drafthouse does a good job at making it worth going there.

    2. Re:Can't believe they even considered it by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 2

      bringing a baby that then starts wailing half way through the movie

      I've never had a big problem with texters where I attend the movies, but nothing irritates me more than when some fucking moronic parents bring their toddler or younger child into the theater with them. The kid isn't going to pay attention to the movie and won't like being cooped up and sitting still for 2 hours, the parent isn't going to enjoy the movie while dealing with aforementioned squawking child, and everyone else that has to listen to the squawking are going to be pissed off.

      If you can afford to go to the movies you can afford to hire a fucking babysitter.

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    3. Re:Can't believe they even considered it by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      This. I've had movies ruined by non-parental parents bringing their children as tag-alongs to late-night R-rated movies that children have no business seeing. These idiot-parents act all surprised and hurt that their sleepy kid goes into a screaming fit, kicking the seat in front and puking on a stomach-full of candy and artificial popcorn butter. And just think... if it survives, that kid's part of the future of America!

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  14. Whatta dork -- theatre vs. rental/buy is not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    theatre vs. rent/buy is not a "new thing"

    And only a dork would think theatres exist are mainly because of the screen size.

  15. Who goes to movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone actually go to the movies any more? It seems like the only reason to go to a movie is to get out of the sunlight so you can see what's on your phone.

  16. Re:Why is this even a thing? by sims+2 · · Score: 1

    Well when you are in a dark auditorium and someone goes to tapping away a text on their 8" display smartphone max brightness its rather noticeable even when your not looking that direction.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  17. And if, the theaters actually enforced the rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Alamo Drafthouse is the only chain that I'm aware of that actually throws people out for the second offense. Use your phone once, you get a warning, use it twice you are escorted to the door without refund.

    If more theaters actually did that.. cellphone use would no longer be an issue.

  18. I'd pay extra for.... by perotbot · · Score: 1

    ..theaters with jammers built into the walls that kick on during the cellphone message and turn off when the house lights come back up.

    --
    ~corporate tool, but employed~
    1. Re:I'd pay extra for.... by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't have to pay for that, it should be a built-in FEATURE of seeing a movie in a theatre. Or ballet, or opera, or classical symphony. Wouldn't work for rock shows but hey, gotta start somewhere.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    2. Re:I'd pay extra for.... by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      ...bouncers. That's right, gorilla-sized bouncers with sharp eyes and authority to deny admission or throw you the fuck out if you text, talk, film, fart, kick seats, throw food, twitch, got bad B.O., or attempt to sneak a toddler into an R-rated movie or any movie after 8 PM.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  19. Re:. . . and then you could fill the texting theat by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    How very Nazi-ish of you.

  20. Because of seating capacity by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

    The theater doesn't have unlimited capacity... Lets say they have two showings of a movie at the same time. One allows texting, and one doesnt. Which one do you think will sell out first? Do you actually know a single person who would choose the texting theater? Not just a make-believe "millennial", but an actual person that you know?

    If the movie is popular, the normal no-text-allowed theater will sell out because they now have half of their otherwise normal seating capacity. And now some consumers will be reduced to the options of seeing the movie with texting, or not seeing the movie at all. Compare that with the alternate scenario, where the option is a normal showing and watching the movie, which is why you are there in the first place. There is no scenario where consumers benefit, unless you happen to be in the very small percentage of viewers who want to text, and not get thrown out. But guess what- those people are the ones getting dragged along by their friends to the normal theater, where they will text anyways, and sometimes get thrown out. Its a lose-lose situation for everyone, especially the theater who sells half as many tickets. This idea was not well thought out. It is typical of what happens when you bring in a complete industry outsider as CEO for his "fresh ideas".

    1. Re:Because of seating capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no scenario where consumers benefit, unless you happen to be in the very small percentage of viewers who want to text

      I haven't been to a movie theater in years, so I don't know what the experience is like. But based on all the comments I see that imply that just about everyone is using a phone in theaters now, combined with the fact that I don't ever see someone just walking outside minding their own business without tapping away at their phone, implies to me that the majority actually want the texting-only theater. So it sounds like you're actually on the wrong side of the argument. The no-phone theaters will be the empty ones. And I imagine for those who want it, it would be glorious! :-)

    2. Re:Because of seating capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's closer to the truth that in every auditorium of 100 people, 3 of them are texting. Or something like that. Hard to go to a theater (other than a near-empty one) without experiencing the problem, but most people are still not contributing to it.

    3. Re:Because of seating capacity by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      This idea was not well thought out.

      Actually, it might have been very well thought out. AMC may be getting some static from vocal ID10Ts who want to be allowed to ruin everybody else's experience at the theater and are demanding to be allowed to use their phones during the movies. Simply ignoring them won't work because they're too self-centered and selfish to accept the fact that they're not being allowed to act like spoiled children. Now, however, AMC can point to the fact that they did consider giving these phules what they wanted until they saw how bad it would be for business and everybody else is happy.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re: Because of seating capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think a movie screen must be dedicated solely to a single audience?

      If only 3% of patrons want a shared movie experience they can include their text buddies in, then the management designates just 1 showing in 30 to that market segment, regardless of how many screens they have. The biggest impact on everyone else is that they're less likely to see texting in their own sessions.

  21. Re:. . . and then you could fill the texting theat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing like proposing mass murder to push your beliefs. :-)

  22. I did one better by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    I stopped going to movie theaters. Now the $40-50 I spent every time on me a 1-2 kids paid for a large tv and just grab the show on DVD/BR from a pawn shop for $2-5 per disk.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:I did one better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's kind of odd to me to hear that people still buy DVDs and Blu-Rays in the Golden Age of Streaming.

    2. Re: I did one better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not everyone has Google Fiber where they live, you stupid asshole.

    3. Re:I did one better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I prefer owning a physical object they can't take away, hipster dufus.

    4. Re:I did one better by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's kind of odd to me to hear that people still buy DVDs and Blu-Rays in the Golden Age of Streaming.

      1. If you want to stay legal, there are WAY more movies available on DVD than via streaming.
      2. You can buy used DVDs, watch them, and then sell them for about what you paid for them.

    5. Re:I did one better by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      You can also take DVDs out from the library for free. Well, you pay for it in your taxes but you're going to pay for it anyway and of all the things taxes pay for, libraries are one of my favorites. If a library doesn't have what you're looking for, they might be partnered with a library that does and might be able to request it for you. Some libraries even have game discs for rental. (My oldest is playing The Lego Movie on our WiiU thanks to the local library.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    6. Re:I did one better by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      But but you actually have to leave the house... Streaming.... Sure technology makes some thing more convenient but call me when the studios will sell me a real download for $1-5 per show which I can own and do with as I wish.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    7. Re:I did one better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "pawn shop" euphemism for warez sites rofl...

    8. Re:I did one better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure they can. The DRM of blurays has the capability to disable the disk or player remotely.

    9. Re: I did one better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do understand that most places have very crappy broadband speeds even when paying a premium.

    10. Re:I did one better by antdude · · Score: 1

      Not everyone has fast Internet connections to stream. Also, not many people watch stuff online for subscriptions.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    11. Re:I did one better by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      To pick up the DVDs, I do have to leave the house, but my library has a website and app that I can use to request DVDs. When they arrive, my library will notify me so I can pick them up. Then, when they're due, I can renew them via the website/app to keep them for longer. Our library is close enough that we can incorporate it into pretty much any outing. And my boys love going in to pick out new books to read or just to grab a random movie to watch.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  23. Alamo Drafthouse had the right idea by rkhalloran · · Score: 1

    Mark Hamill was there promoting the Kingsman movie and did this for them, he should offer to do the same for the big chains: http://variety.com/2015/film/n...

  24. Re: Why is this even a thing? by omnichad · · Score: 1

    If the phone is in the lap you aren't going to see it unless you're looking down over their shoulder or sitting beside them.

    Simply not true at all.

  25. Well, I guess AMC Entertainment is better off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, otherwise their customers might go out to their cars and get a pistol to solve their problems.

    In Florida, anyway.

    Seriously, what has happened with that guy? Last I heard he was trying a Stand Your Ground defense.

  26. Re:. . . and then you could fill the texting theat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that and left-hand lane U.S. drivers......

  27. I don't get it, why so much hate... by w1zz4 · · Score: 2

    Why does it bothers everybody so much if AMC decide to allow the use of cell phone in certain rooms/screenings?

    1. Re:I don't get it, why so much hate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we remember smoking sections in restaurants. There was less seating for non-assholes because a whole section was set aside for assholes.

    2. Re:I don't get it, why so much hate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe your brain is too small to understand how annoying it is having somebody flash a light at your face when you are in the dark. Because that is exactly what happens every time a moron opens their phone during a movie.

  28. Re: Why is this even a thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would fall under "holding it up in front of the screen". If the phone is in the lap you aren't going to see it unless you're looking down over their shoulder or sitting beside them.

    Nope. Someone operating phone with a bright 6 inch display in his lap is not much different from someone switching on a low wattage light bulb, In a dark cinema, it is INCREDIBLY noticeable and distracting.

  29. Re: Why is this even a thing? by suutar · · Score: 1

    Would that it were so. But even if the light doesn't have a direct path it's likely to have multiple indirect paths, and so that whole area looks lighter, which is pretty noticeable if your eyes are adapted to the dark.

  30. Re:Why is this even a thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    WHY do you even need to use your phone in a god damned theater?

  31. Wheres the $$$? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just can't imagine anyone is saying, "oh cool we can text during this movie, lets go see it now instead of not going to see it." Maybe they were going for a hip new theater image, but man you're not selling a lifestyle you're a movie theater!

  32. Wait till you hear this by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    I even cancelled Netflix last week since everything I like to watch I already have on 800+ dvd's and they went hard after the DNS providers. To me its weird that people would not flock to pawnshops/fleamarkets and buy new/old dvd for $2-5.

    Two weeks ago I got The Tick series DVD for $5 at a flea market. Now I already downloaded it anyways but hey a HD goes the DVD is still there.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  33. no cinema for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time I went to the cinema, It was for the 6th Harry Potter. Not the first week of it showing, but the crowd was
    such a noisy and rude bunch....
    Once a month I go to the $5 bin at wal mart and pick out 1 or 2 or 3...
    Now I have a collection worth having ( I did have to go online to order a few specialty movies..... ).
    No cable TV. Just internet, with no streaming, and dvds ( NOT Blue-Ray / Sony ).
    Works for me and most of my guests ( models - I do bodypainting ! ).
    Fortunately, I do like the horror collections, off-beat comedies, and such.

  34. abusing your cusotmers by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    first you bill me $22.50 for a ticket. It's an additional $25 for popcorn & drinks. Then I sit through 20 minutes of ads (scorn) and a few movie previews (yay).

    but you float this idea of taking me out of the willful suspension of belief, thinking it will be a better business model to ruin the movie-going experience?

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    1. Re:abusing your cusotmers by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --$22.50 for 1 movie ticket? Dafuq do you live, New York? You never go to a matinee??

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  35. The theaters are doing just fine. by westlake · · Score: 1

    Sounds like this was just a PR stunt to remind people that movie theaters still exist. I think.

    Book the right movies and you can fill a lot of seats.

    Currently Zootopia is the highest grossing film of 2016. Just with the six [animated] films released since the beginning of the 2010s, Disney has gained $3,855,100,000; this is more than the total gross of Disney's Renaissance Era.

    'Zootopia': The Highest Grossing Film of 2016!

  36. Thanks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for all the free publicity!

    meh

  37. How dumb do you have to be ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How dumb do you have to be to think that allowing texting during a movie is going to attract more customers. Since when is annoying your current customers a way to attract new ones?

    And here is what this CEO is not getting. The key to better sales is to DROP THE PRICES. That is it. That simple.

    People stopped watching movies at the theater because a family of 4 can easily spend $100 or more on just one movie. And that is mostly just the cost of the 4 tickets.

    Drop the price to $50 or less for the same family and customers will start multiplying .... and spending more on food.

  38. Thanke the gods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's really time we start expecting more from millennials (and that still seems like a broad generization to me, if you don't fit the sterotype, bully for you) rather than bending over backward to accommodate their weaknesses. They are perfectly capable of rising to challenges, it's just that no one has the spine to actually ask them to.

  39. Re:Why is this even a thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You can't think of a good reason" speaks more of your own imagination that as a support for your statement.
    The reason it's bad is because it is distracting, not because it would block the view. A flashlight to the side of the walkway does the same thing.
    It ruins the immersive experience one goes to movies for.