Why cinemas can go to hell, and I will pirate [** MOD WARNING IN OP **]

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

I recall the IMC Dundalk used to do €4 tickets for students on Tuesday or Thursday. that was deadly.

Think it's about 5.80 for evening showing for students now, can't complain. Also a 3.80 daytime rate for people on the dole. It's good to see them making some effort and it has gotten them some custom from me that they wouldn't have got otherwise.

Sad Professor

Re: online bookings, don't ever book use the Vue website. They have a card handling charge which really adds up if you are buying more than one ticket. It's a bit ridiculous.

Hyperbullet

mikemac1 wrote: »

My complaint

Our local cinema takes your bag off you
You might be coming home from college Friday evening, head to the cinema with your bag and no way will they let you bring it in

Could be an expensive laptop in it and they don't care, just put it in the storage room with everyone else

No ticket system, you just tell them which is yours.
"Ah yes, that laptop bag there is mine"


I've never ever seen this in Dublin or Limerick

I know cinemas have rules about bringing in drinks and sweets but small local cinemas drive away customers with this

Your protests that you are just off the bus will get you nowhere

You can put that down to fire safety regulations. Cinemas are under strict orders that backpacks blocking up the aisles between seats are a hazard during an evacuation. The same applies to childrens buggies etc.

Handsome Bob

Hyperbullet wrote: »

Handsome Bob wrote: »

Whichever side of the argument you're on, you have to agree with one thing: to force someone to buy 3D glasses is absolutely incredulous. Never heard of that one before, I usually used either UCI (now Odeon) or Cineworld and I think I've always been asked "do you need the glasses."

That really is ****ing outrageous.

So they should be free? The cinema has to pay for the glasses, in the case of Dolby colour filtered systems they're incredibly expensive.

And don't take that as me having a go, just interested to hear what is the ideal scenario regarding 3D glasses.

People typically keep their 3d glasses, what i'm saying is that if you already have them, you shouldn't be forced to buy new ones. The price is already increased due to the film being in 3d, so to force people to buy 3d glasses on top of that is just pure greed.

Hyperbullet

Handsome Bob wrote: »

People typically keep their 3d glasses, what i'm saying is that if you already have them, you shouldn't be forced to buy new ones. The price is already increased due to the film being in 3d, so to force people to buy 3d glasses on top of that is just pure greed.

I see where you're coming from, you already paid for them once, you're attending the same cinema again, you shouldn't have to pay for them again. Fair point.

ebbsy

UCI in Newbridge d'ont charge for glasses if you already have them. So there must be others out there.

If you d'ont want to buy the popcorn or the drinks in the cinema well then nobody is forcing you to.

A lot of the movies I have seen in the cinema I would not have enjoyed watching on a computer or some copied dvd.

Bullseye1

There is a tiered price at our local cinema so a show at 4.15 will cost €6.75 with an 0.80 credit card charge. If you order more than one ticket it's still 0.80 CC charge.

A show at 19.00 will cost €7.70 ditto cc charge.
A show at 21.30 will cost €8.65 (most expensive ticket).

Child prices are cheaper and there is a family ticket for €24.00.

You pay €1.00 for your 3D glasses but you can keep them. They were originally free and people would just return them on exiting the cinema. Maybe this was abused and that is why they introduced the charge. I just keep a pair of glasses in the car so it doesn't bother me.

It's the price of popcorn and drinks that are expensive but I try to limit the amount of eating I do there. Overall I'm very happy with my cinema and with he Reward points system I get free tickets every few outings.

zenno

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I know, it's kind of like paying to see a load of words printed on a technologically primitive page and giving you eye strain.

Apologies for the sarcasm, but the above is the most ludicrous quote of the thread yet.

I must be going to the wrong cinema so as the quality on screen is terrible and always a headache from using those 3d glasses. I must be the only one so, ludicrous indeed.

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

Of course one can argue with that sentiment since it is a rather moot point.
The fact of the matter is if everyone collectively stopped paying money into the film industry (and instead spent it elsewhere) the film industry would go bankrupt and there would be no new movies. Now, you're probably thinking that is a very unlikely scenario, but even in smaller doses it does harm the film industry. As others have pointed out, perhaps not so much the big Hollywood blockbusters, but certainly the damage trickles down to smaller indue studios an their films.
It's a red herring to say, "Ah sure the money would just go elsewhere, like the offo/pub" when the topic at hand is discussing piracy's effects on the film industry, not the drinks trade.

No, you can't argue with it.

If you're pirating all your movies and not spending money in the cinema then the money will go somewhere else. Even if you save it, eventually it will go somewhere else. Its basic economics.

However I thought it was obvious that was made in jest, it was not an actual viewpoint. The point was that no industry 'deserves' to exist. They are all competing for our money. The independent movie industry doesnt deserve to exist any more/less than the Hollywood blockbuster, just because some film prats prefer arthouse movies. And the local cinema industry doesnt deserve to exist any more than the IT industry.

If an industry wishes to exist it needs to win over the customers and earn their money. £27.80 for two tickets to a trailer screening isn't the way to achieve that.

DoesNotCompute

Sanjuro wrote: »

And here's the first problem. Almost every cinema I looked at the listings for, either didn't give you the option of 2D, or had final 2D showings during the day. Post 5pm, it's 3D or nothing. You want choice? Fuck you. It's our way, or no way. Second problem. I went up to the desk to purchase the tickets. Two regular tickets, no premium bullshit seats. No extras. No popcorn. No drinks. Nothing but the damn seat tickets. My jaw hit the floor when I was charged €27.80. Almost thirty euros for two tickets. 'Wait, I have brought 3D glasses with me. I don't need to purchase any more.' I was told that I had no choice. The glasses were a mandatory charge. This further annoyed me. However, I paid the price as I was damned if I was waiting any longer to see the film. But the annoyance didn't stop there.

While I agree to a certain extent that cinemas are, in general, a right rip off, you could always sign up for a Cineworld Unlimited card, and go see as many movies as you like for €20 a month? There's no obligation to purchase any of the optional extras like popcorn, VIP seating, etc? Even with the extra hidden charges for 3D movies/glasses, it still would work out signifigcantly less than €15 per movie if you got enough use out of it every month

mikemac1

Hyperbullet wrote: »

You can put that down to fire safety regulations. Cinemas are under strict orders that backpacks blocking up the aisles between seats are a hazard during an evacuation. The same applies to childrens buggies etc.

Not so strict if the large cinemas in cities with security never bother but the small family owned cinemas in towns are ruthless over it

Should be everybody or nobody

Sad Professor

zenno wrote: »

I must be going to the wrong cinema so as the quality on screen is terrible and always a headache from using those 3d glasses. I must be the only one so, ludicrous indeed.

Stop going to 3D films then.

Galvasean

Sad Professor wrote: »

Re: online bookings, don't ever book use the Vue website. They have a card handling charge which really adds up if you are buying more than one ticket. It's a bit ridiculous.

That's harsh. cineworld give you a 10% discountif you book online.

Deleted User wrote: »

No, you can't argue with it.

Eh, yes I can and I just did. Just because you are skipping over the fact that this is a debate confined to the film industry does not make my retort any less valid.

reprazant

Went to see Promethius in the LightHouse cinema.

Tenner to see the film and they give you the glasses which you give back when you leave the screen.

Best cinema in Dublin in my opinion.

zenno

Sad Professor wrote: »

Stop going to 3D films then.

I did, as I think 2d is a lot better quality wise and when I leave the cinema after watching a 2d movie I don't have one eye facing north and the other facing east. Like the o.p said 3d is a gimmick at the moment but in a few years time it might be better without the use of them spec-saver glasses. bring on the hologram 3d which will be out in 6 years then the cinema might entice people to pay the extra. As it stands now, 3d and having to wear whack-job glasses is not helping anyones eyesight imo.

Hyperbullet

mikemac1 wrote: »

Not so strict if the large cinemas in cities with security never bother but the small family owned cinemas in towns are ruthless over it

Should be everybody or nobody

It's down to the management and staff of the cinema to enforce the rule. Simple as that. If it seriously bothers you I'd take it up with the management.

Sad Professor

I just checked on the Vue site there and the card handling charge is 75 cent per ticket. So if I was going to an off-peak showing of TDKR, it would cost me more than 10 percent extra to book in advance. lol.

Anyone who visits Vue regularly, please give them your thoughts on this and other things using their website's feedback form:

http://www.myvue.com/contact-us-customer-survey

In the meantime, I think I'm going to start going to Cineworld a bit more often.

phasers

I'm a member of the Vue audience panel thing (http://www.vuepoint.co.uk/ if anyone's interested) and they sent me a survey just the other day about a loyalty scheme. people are crying out for it on their forums too. There may be hope yet!

I love the cinema experience, but you're completely right about the prices OP. I cannot justify going to Vue anymore, it's only 2 minutes from my house but the prices are beyond a joke. I also hate that you can't bring your own 3d glasses and save a couple of quid, I have so many feckin pairs lying around! I drive to Tallaght now or get the bus into town and go to the Savoy or the Screen. Even including bus fare in and out I save money!

Brendog

I understand your frustration, but shouting "GET ON WITH IT!" is a bit dramatic.

Just don't go to that Cinema again. I use Omniplex Cinema which is €11 for tickets. No matter what film they show, the ads are never more than 10 mins, unlike that Cineworld ****e where they show 5 mins of ads for cineworld.

In my opinion you can't beat the cinema for experience. There is now way watching a film on a tv will ever be better that in a cinema.

puffishoes

Brendog wrote: »

I understand your frustration, but shouting "GET ON WITH IT!" is a bit dramatic.

.

Pretty bizarre it must be said.

They also have Tallaght/Dundrum a few otherts on the same side without crossing the m50.

Outkast_IRE

So you really like good films and not the hollywood blockbuster hyped up crap.

Good i feel the same way for 90% of the hollywood blockbusters, however you seem to like some of the smaller indie flicks thats great i love a lot of them too but by deciding to exclusively watch pirate movies you are not contributing anything to these movies and thus less likely to see more get made.

I go to the cinema once a month on average as its all i can afford at present, i do download movies and watch them, but most importantly if a film is good enough i will purchase it on dvd or blu-ray afterwards.

Fair enough you think the cinema is a rip off with too many ads , i agree with you for the most part, but i beleive is the film studios taking the bulk to movie screening profits which causes this. The cinema must make its money too and advertisng along with snack sales are how they survive.

zenno

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

So you really like good films and not the hollywood blockbuster hyped up crap.

Good i feel the same way for 90% of the hollywood blockbusters, however you seem to like some of the smaller indie flicks thats great i love a lot of them too but by deciding to exclusively watch pirate movies you are not contributing anything to these movies and thus less likely to see more get made.

I go to the cinema once a month on average as its all i can afford at present, i do download movies and watch them, but most importantly if a film is good enough i will purchase it on dvd or blu-ray afterwards.

Fair enough you think the cinema is a rip off with too many ads , i agree with you for the most part, but i beleive is the film studios taking the bulk to movie screening profits which causes this. The cinema must make its money too and advertisng along with snack sales are how they survive.

i do download movies and watch them, but most importantly if a film is good enough i will purchase it on dvd or blu-ray afterwards.

Ahh comon out of that, why would you download a film and watch it and then buy it ? really. Why watch it and then buy it and watch it again thereafter. I find this conspicuous.

krudler

zenno wrote: »

Ahh comon out of that, why would you download a film and watch it and then buy it ? really. Why watch it and then buy it and watch it again thereafter. I find this conspicuous.

I've done that, for extras or a better transfer or whatever

frozenfrozen

I go to the cinema when I am forced to unless there is a big release I want to see.
The price is constantly on my mind. I am comparing the experience to the price I paid.
I don't like 3d and i dont want to have to have a plan about what time I must go to enjoy a movie. If a film was shot in 3d and was intended to be enjoyed in 3d then I will enjoy it otherwise it's just eyestrain and the scenes lose depth, except for when an unneeded effect like a hand reaching towards my face ruins any suspension of disbelief.

Popcorn is too expensive. Drinks are too expensive. If they made the prices closer to what can be got in the shop outside, they would make a huge amount more money. for 50 cent difference I would buy a cold coke inside rather than a warm bottle next door. Everyone I know that goes to the cinema buys their food and drinks outside and brings them in.

People on their phones during the showing is fun too. And kids running up and down the isles of a 16+ movie to go to the toilet.

For every advantage of the cinema there are at least two disadvantages.

Torrenting in my opinion isn't as bad as it is made out to be. For music, I can get a 320kbps version of a song, I can't do that on iTunes. For movies, I can watch the movie straight away, no ads, no "you wouldn't steal a toddler," I can then put that movie on my phone, or if I were so inclined an ipad or whatever else people may use to watch movies on the go.

I felt bad for music artists. Once. Then I saw MTV cribs.

Here's how to fix this:

Cinemas have fairly priced drinks and food. Effect: people buy food and drinks inside the cinema, and no longer bring in their own.

Cinemas actually do something about people kicking seats, talking on the phone (!), texting, talking to eachother (old women do this far too often.)

Movie trailers before the movie are fine. I like seeing them. Ads for mcdonalds? well they're ok if they're not something I've been forced to watch on tv for months before. Release the ad in cinemas before tv. Problem solved there.

Ticket prices are fine if they improve all those things, just allow people to bring their own glasses from the last time if it's 3d.


Easier said than done but if a service can be replaced as easily as I've replaced going to the cinema there's something very wrong. It's not my problem that they're no good at running a business.

krudler

what about getting HD versions of stuff you already own? grey area? if something is on netflix then yay, great its probably better quality than an early dvd release, case in point: Glengarry Glen Ross, the original dvd version is appalling, its not even in widescreen, whereas as you can get a rip of it or on netflix and its much nicer looking. you've basically paid for an inferior version of something thats now available in the way it should have been to begin with.

Outkast_IRE

zenno wrote: »

Ahh comon out of that, why would you download a film and watch it and then buy it ? really. Why watch it and then buy it and watch it again thereafter. I find this conspicuous.

Because if a film is good enough i will watch it more than once, this premise is the basis of the entire dvd/bluray industry :rolleyes:

So you do you download movies and then not make any effort to support the industry that made them ?

TheDoc

I'm with the original post 100%.

although thankfully I also only saw Prometheus Sunday gone, as I hadnt the time previous. Got the 2D showing (There is only one on at 5pm every day) and there was **** all people in the cinema and was grand.

What wasn't grand was forking out €46 for two tickets and two medium popcorn combos.

Adding to what can only be described as the continued drop in cinema etiquette, I'm not going to loose sleep over pirating, and to be honest I've never had. I just go see the big films really, and support the low key ones at smaller cinemas.

johnny_ultimate

To be fair, popcorn, drinks and snacks are in no way a mandatory part of the cinema experience. Ticket prices are, so there is a concern there price-wise (although, as our counter-argument maintains, the experience at a chain multiplex at peak hours for a 3D film is not necessarily representative of the more general cinema pricing). But popcorn is a luxury, and cinemas are entitled to charge whatever they want for it - and they will to make the profits they do not get through ticket sales. No-one is forcing you to buy their overpriced, low quality snacks, and if even a minority of patrons are willing to pay those extortionate prices, then they'll keep charging them. And going by the incredible lines at the Cineworld counter everytime I'm there, clearly the absurd price (clearly advertised, at that) does not turn many off. You can only blame yourself, really, if you're willing to pay 20 euro for popcorn and watered down cola flavoured beverages. This is not a new phenomenon, and anyone has been to the cinema in the last two decades should be well aware that cinema snacks are inevitably overpriced.

(And thankfully people still do buy them, as it's keeping cinemas open for us cheapskates who smuggle in bottles of water )

zenno

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Because if a film is good enough i will watch it more than once, this premise is the basis of the entire dvd/bluray industry :rolleyes:

So you do you download movies and then not make any effort to support the industry that made them ?

Well I can say this, I review movies and if I see a movie that is good to very good of course I would support their excellence in the making of such movie but the amount of rubbish movies out there lately are so bad I wouldn't support those even if I was a billionaire. But as I said, a good movie I will support without question. Some cinemas are obviously ripping off customers with this 3D junk but if people want to pay for it be my guest but i don't see the attraction.

Technocentral

Only chumps buy the overpriced crap they sell in cinemas, sensible people buy something in a shop and bring it in or have a meal before hand, last time I bought stuff in a lobby was about 20 yrs ago, re: pirating stuff, if everybody had that attitude where is funding for the films you love going to come from in the future? You mentioned Prometheus, if everyone waited to illegally download it its unlikely that there will be anymore films with those budgets. I do agree with you on 3D though, I hate it, luckily my local cinema only has it in 2D (or proper cinema projection as I call it). Apart from destroying future cinema releases by pirating you will also be missing the communal experience of cinema going and the really big screens.

Outkast_IRE

zenno wrote: »

Well I can say this, I review movies and if I see a movie that is good to very good of course I would support their excellence in the making of such movie but the amount of rubbish movies out there lately are so bad I wouldn't support those even if I was a billionaire. But as I said, a good movie I will support without question. Some cinemas are obviously ripping off customers with this 3D junk but if people want to pay for it be my guest but i don't see the attraction.

I agree some cinemas are ripping off with 3d, but isnt it really the studios who are releasing crappy quality movies and throwing in one or two crap 3d effects that are at fault ?
I have seen 4 3d movies in the cinema Avatar, Up, Prometheus, and alice in wonderland.

I honestly believe in Avatar, Up, and Prometheus the 3d added to the movie, with alice in wonderland it was used as a gimmick in a few scenes i honestly try to avoid movies with post effect 3d added, i believe when 3d is done right it is worth the extra money. But unfortunatly there are loads of bad examples , maybe only 1 in every 10 3d movies at the moment is done correctly which is incredibly bad for its reputation.

zenno

This is my point as well. When after I finish watching a good movie I relax and ponder on it and if it was a good film that I enjoyed then I will most definitely support the particular film makers and purchase it and more than likely watch it again for a second time in the cinema in 2D of course and that is how I would show my appreciation for a quality made flick. If it's a terrible movie that was hyped up to look good and I payed to see it then I was a schmuck because I should have read the reviews before-hand.

Bullseye1

What do cinemas make on showing a movie? There was a cinema owner on the radio in the past month and he claimed their profit is in sale of popcorn. They get little from the actual movies. If that is the case and people did not buy popcorn there would be nowhere to show these movies.

zenno

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

I agree some cinemas are ripping off with 3d, but isnt it really the studios who are releasing crappy quality movies and throwing in one or two crap 3d effects that are at fault ?
I have seen 4 3d movies in the cinema Avatar, Up, Prometheus, and alice in wonderland.

I honestly believe in Avatar, Up, and Prometheus the 3d added to the movie, with alice in wonderland it was used as a gimmick in a few scenes i honestly try to avoid movies with post effect 3d added, i believe when 3d is done right it is worth the extra money. But unfortunatly there are loads of bad examples , maybe only 1 in every 10 3d movies at the moment is done correctly which is incredibly bad for its reputation.

i believe when 3d is done right it is worth the extra money.

I agree in a way but the way I can only see 3D working out is when you can watch 3D movies without glasses and when they fine-tune the 3D effects perfectly, as using glasses in this day and age is a joke. Soon in every cinema you will be able to watch a 3D flick without these glasses and maybe then it will be well worth the effort and the extra few quid.

krudler

Bullseye1 wrote: »

What do cinemas make on showing a movie? There was a cinema owner on the radio in the past month and he claimed their profit is in sale of popcorn. They get little from the actual movies. If that is the case and people did not buy popcorn there would be nowhere to show these movies.

I worked in a cinema briefly years back and I think it was something like 30% of the ticket sales go to the cinema the rest is to the distributor. the cinema pays pittance for popcorn and makes 100's of percent profit on it though.

johnny_ultimate

Bullseye1 wrote: »

What do cinemas make on showing a movie? There was a cinema owner on the radio in the past month and he claimed their profit is in sale of popcorn. They get little from the actual movies. If that is the case and people did not buy popcorn there would be nowhere to show these movies.

Yes, they get very little money from screenings. The first week of exhibition they might get 20% of the ticket sales. This percentage increases in subsequent weeks, so it should be partially inverted by the time it gets to, say, week five or six in the cinema. It's all complicated maths, really, and if you're a producer of a film you'll be waiting a while for any of the box office to trickle down your way.

I don't know how it works with arthouse cinemas, but it's telling that commercial cinemas like The Screen and Lighthouse tend to keep films for much longer than the arts council funded likes of the IFI.

Bullseye1

When you take wages, electricity/heating, rents and rates (if applicable) i would say profit margins are tight. I went to see Jaws last night and there was only 3 people.

Technocentral

Bullseye1 wrote: »

When you take wages, electricity/heating, rents and rates (if applicable) i would say profit margins are tight. I went to see Jaws last night and there was only 3 people.

New tagline "Don't go into the cinema!"

Bullseye1

LOL. It's a pity they did not advertise this better.

e_e

Technocentral wrote: »

New tagline "Don't go into the cinema!"

Ebert began his review of Jaws: The Revenge by saying "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the cinema!"

I found that quite funny.

Doom

Fook the cinema, rip-off galore, the omniplex's even turn off the heat in winter...everytime we go I have to get up 20 mins in to the film and ask the cheap bastards to turn the heating back on......

Goldstein

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

To be fair, popcorn, drinks and snacks are in no way a mandatory part of the cinema experience. Ticket prices are, so there is a concern there price-wise (although, as our counter-argument maintains, the experience at a chain multiplex at peak hours for a 3D film is not necessarily representative of the more general cinema pricing). But popcorn is a luxury, and cinemas are entitled to charge whatever they want for it - and they will to make the profits they do not get through ticket sales. No-one is forcing you to buy their overpriced, low quality snacks, and if even a minority of patrons are willing to pay those extortionate prices, then they'll keep charging them. And going by the incredible lines at the Cineworld counter everytime I'm there, clearly the absurd price (clearly advertised, at that) does not turn many off. You can only blame yourself, really, if you're willing to pay 20 euro for popcorn and watered down cola flavoured beverages. This is not a new phenomenon, and anyone has been to the cinema in the last two decades should be well aware that cinema snacks are inevitably overpriced.

(And thankfully people still do buy them, as it's keeping cinemas open for us cheapskates who smuggle in bottles of water )

But but but, by not shoving premium hot corn in your face which is a cinema's bread and butter you're not supporting the cinema, right?

Bars are the same - we could buy 24 cans of pretty much any well known beer for €1 a can in a supermarket a couple of weeks back. Yet, go to a pub and the exact same thing (pretty much preempting the Goddamn beer pedants) costs 6x times as much. The consumer is the underlying problem in both cases.

So basically, the moral of the thread is: Vote with your feet (and your wallet)

If you like a film/director/cinema, support it! Especially if it's an independent or smaller production. I was delighted to pay to see The Raid 3 times because, well because it was awesome and I want them to make movie siblings and contribute to its success in any small way I can. Not contributing is like not voting in that you should forfeit your right to complain when they come out with endless tirade of $hite like Twilight and Transformers. (The people who went to Twilight should probably also forfeit those same rights but anyway...)

3D would be the gimmick it was initially dismissed as if people stopped going to 3D showings - can't go to a 2D showing? Then wait until you can or go to an alternate more accomodating venue - don't make yourself another lemming playing their game.

900%+ markup on popcorn too expensive? Survive for 2 hours without popcorn...or better still bring your own (As an aside it'd be interesting to know if people have been stopped bringing food/drink in with them).

Now, how do we stop the ads? Trailers: Want. Ads: Do not want! If I ever catch that Carlton screen advertising bollocks it will go badly for him - thinks he's so cool with his little "t" - **** YOU MOTHER ****ER!!! But I digress. Some might suggest arriving late - but then you risk not getting a seat - an unreasonable sacrifice so this isn't a feasible option. Everyone should ignore the ads for starters - I always continue talking while my time is being wasted by ads but stfu entirely for the trailers and the film obviously. I make a mental note to try not to support wherever possible any company that annoys me by advertising at a screening I've paid to enjoy.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Know all that but it does make you wonder why with a film such as Zodiac, a cinema would wait till the week before a film came out before on DVD before screening it, especially considering that no other cinema had been showing it for the previous 6 weeks.

As for Tree of Life, there were 2 prints in the country which toured around which was a shame as the film deserved so much more. Would have loved to see it on one of the bigger screens in the Eye but they have that horrible habit of putting anything which could be considered art house in the tiny screen,

I guess that was the only slot that that certain cinema could get and I doubt one would turn away the possibility of screening it and losing money, even if it's being released on DVD the next week. I remember with one of the Alvin and the Chipmunks, the movie was on DVD, yet the cinema still screened it and people kept watching it.

johnny_ultimate

Goldstein wrote: »

But but but, by not shoving premium hot corn in your face which is a cinema's bread and butter you're not supporting the cinema, right?

That's why I tend to go to the independent cinemas were popcorn isn't the bread and butter And the cinema getting 20% of my ticket payment is better than 0%. And if even 25% filters down to the distributor, or 1% to the filmmakers, well that's better than nothing.

Now, how do we stop the ads? Trailers: Want. Ads: Do not want! If I ever catch that Carlton screen advertising bollocks it will go badly for him - thinks he's so cool with his little "t" - **** YOU MOTHER ****ER!!! But I digress. Some might suggest arriving late - but then you risk not getting a seat - an unreasonable sacrifice so this isn't a feasible option. Everyone should ignore the ads for starters - I always continue talking while my time is being wasted by ads but stfu entirely for the trailers and the film obviously. I make a mental note to try not to support wherever possible any company that annoys me by advertising at a screening I've paid to enjoy.

Again, there seems to be a surprise ads are a new thing Any mutliplex has long had at least 10-15 minutes of ads for as long as I've been going to the cinema, and if you want to skip them you can do so easily. I'd rather 10 minutes of ads than 10 minutes of trailers, truth be told: I can happily ignore the ads, but the trailers will potentially ruin a film for me. Sure, there's a few irritating ones - thank **** the Saoirse Ronan one ran its course eventually - but they're mild irritants rather than genuine annoyances.

And the greatest, most underappreciated advantage of cinema advertising? Giving the plethora of people who show up 10 minutes late a chance to take their seats without disrupting others. The IFI occasionally shows films without any ads, and inevitably people show up for 5-10 minutes after the advertised start time, which is far more disruptive to my enjoyment of the film than a 30-second ad for Ben & Jerrys.

Ads are basically keeping costs down for everyone, and I'd imagine any one of average intelligence is able to filter them through as the nonsense they are. But it's a solid business model, and really I'd like to see more sites use ad-based revenue to get us more content. I have no problem with ads on sites like Crunchyroll or 4oD, for example, as it allows me to enjoy shows I want for free while also providing revenue to the content producers / distributors. TV obviously takes it to an obnoxious extreme, but without ads we'd be paying so much more for media.

I have to say, I have been to the cinema maybe 12 times in the last 6 years. I got sick of the expense and the ****s who go and ruin movies for everyone.

Then I saw the Beastie Boys movie in the lighthouse. Beautiful cinema, comfy comfy seats and most importantly, reasonably priced tickets. As a student it's €7.50.

So they show films I want to see, at a price I want to pay.

Secret to success right there for an indie house.

Goldstein

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

That's why I tend to go to the independent cinemas were popcorn isn't the bread and butter And the cinema getting 20% of my ticket payment is better than 0%. And if even 25% filters down to the distributor, or 1% to the filmmakers, well that's better than nothing.

But would the same be true of the 5th, 6th...10th film you go to on a monthly pass? How much is really trickling down to the filmmakers? I have to admit ignorance of how the cinema membership model works - I'm only playing Devil's Advocate here really, I'd love the membership option in the cinemas where I go.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Again, there seems to be a surprise ads are a new thing Any mutliplex has long had at least 10-15 minutes of ads for as long as I've been going to the cinema, and if you want to skip them you can do so easily.

The ads seem to be getting longer as time goes by, maybe it's a misconception of mine. You can only skip them if you're willing to give up your chance of getting a decent seat though which is a pretty big compromise. I just find them intrusive in the same way people find ads on DVDs unacceptable. Given the numbers, how much can they be bringing in anyway?

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

And the greatest, most underappreciated advantage of cinema advertising? Giving the plethora of people who show up 10 minutes late a chance to take their seats without disrupting others. The IFI occasionally shows films without any ads, and inevitably people show up for 5-10 minutes after the advertised start time, which is far more disruptive to my enjoyment of the film than a 30-second ad for Ben & Jerrys.

I'd wager most of those people are specifically trying to avoid the ads.

Victor

Went along to some film in Rathmines and it had started before the programme time, never mind the film time.

johnny_ultimate

Goldstein wrote: »

But would the same be true of the 5th, 6th...10th film you go to on a monthly pass? How much is really trickling down to the filmmakers? I have to admit ignorance of how the cinema membership model works - I'm only playing Devil's Advocate here really, I'd love the membership option in the cinemas where I go.

I'm unsure how the unlimited scheme works, truth be told. I'm not part of it anyway, as I don't find myself going to Cineworld all that much. But I'm sure Cineworld get something out of the twenty euro they're paid every month. Would be curious to hear the economics.

I'd imagine Cineworld's size and popularity helps support the unlimited scheme, and potentially negotiate rates with distributors. I can only imagine Unlimited accounts for a considerable minority of patrons. Would be the same reasons why it's a scheme that hasn't been adapted by other, smaller cinemas without the same bargaining power. I'd say Odeon would be in a good position to offer something similar.

The ads seem to be getting longer as time goes by, maybe it's a misconception of mine. You can only skip them if you're willing to give up your chance of getting a decent seat though which is a pretty big compromise. I just find them intrusive in the same way people find ads on DVDs unacceptable. Given the numbers, how much can they be bringing in anyway?

I always go early for a good seat, and it still wouldn't bother me all that much. I remember having to sit through the Barbie doll 'welcome to the movies' ad dozens if not hundreds of times as a kid / teenager, so to me lengthy ads are nothing new.

The only ads I've had a massive issue with are where they seriously interrupt whatever you're watching for minutes on end (it's why I stopped watching Film Four when they switched to ad revenue) - before a film I have no beef with them, as long as the cinema isn't ripping the piss (and I have well adjusted to twenty minutes of ads and trailers at this stage). Cineworld excepted, I've actually noticed them getting shorter. IMC Dun Laoghaire, for example, has started the ads five or ten minutes before show time or at least right on the dot, so you only have to put up with a few trailers if you arrive on time.

uncleoswald

I try not to go to 3D but find cinemas make that difficult at prime time showings.
When I asked my local multiplex why I had to pay for glasses each time I was directed to this speel on their website:

Why do I have to pay a surcharge for 3D film?

The premium paid to see 3D films is not for the 3D glasses but rather it reflects the cost of providing this new technology in our theatres. Guests are more than welcome to keep their glasses for future 3D presentations or recycle them in the designated recycling boxes provided on site. The 3D glasses recycling box is then collected by Real-D, the company that developed the 3D technology, and they recycle the glasses at their facility.

I'm not sure what it says though as I'm not fluent in bullsh*t.

Unfortunately I haven't found a cinema in Vancouver that doesn't charge extra for 3D each time and I find the cinema experience here to be even more expensive then in Dublin.