Re: Texters and Shushers

Invid wrote:

We used to have special theaters for that...

Those special theaters were also used for arresting people. Remember Pee-Wee Herman?

Nowadays, cosplayers aren't safe either.

Last edited by MartyJ (2013-08-13 22:55:49)

It is no longer a game!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Texters and Shushers

Here you go. Just read #5:
http://www.cracked.com/article_20529_5- … ience.html

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Texters and Shushers

MasterZap wrote:

Don't get me wrong guys. I'm not advocating doing ANY of the above in a MOVIE THEATRE. That's not what I am reacting to. I punch people who do myself (and as said, our local theatre frowns quite heavily on it).

The *issue* I am having is the surprise at this (in my perhaps biased Swedish eyes - we are in the top 3 internet using populations in the world) kinda "unconnected" attitude, that is almost held as some kind of hipster "I use my phones to make calls" attitude? I just find it odd... since we ALL met as "netizens", it .. .just kinda surprises me. People who use SMS texting with any frequency.. is just... odd... to me.

That is all... mkay?

Don't... everybody sleep with their network connected phone under their pillow to stream your Spotify "sleep gently" playlist, or the latest DownInFr^H^H^H^H^H^HWAYDM podcast!?!?

No?

Nobody!?

Okay I guess I am wierd then..... wink

/Z

Yeah, you're weird wink

Actually, and its funny, roughly a third of the customers I encounter in a given day either don't have a smart phone or don't have the internet. So, while I find it amusing that some people don't have computers I find it equally amusing that there is a need among people to be constantly connected.

Also, I literally only text or call on my phone smile

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

54

Re: Texters and Shushers

I have a non-smart cell phone, but it lives in the car and I put $10 when I need to make a call. This happens maybe twice a year. Otherwise it sits in the car and does nothing and costs me nothing. The things Zap lists I do on an mp3 player, a home laptop/media PC, a Canon T4i, or paper. Mostly I'm addicted enough to the internets when it's only accessible from home. Paying another monthly bill to increase an activity I do too much of...no thanks.

(Relevant: http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-m … a-tel,429/)

On topic, I generally prefer watching movies at home instead of at a theatre precisely because I can make occasional comment/observation. Not to mention I can pause the movie when my mom does the classic 'What's happening? Who is that? But I thought...'. Oh mom...  tongue

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Texters and Shushers

Also, I can yell at the screen when the fictional character does something dumb...honestly, it really is a good experience.

A query: what if movies reverted back to more of a stage play where (depending on the play) audience participation was encouraged?

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Texters and Shushers

fireproof78 wrote:

A query: what if movies reverted back to more of a stage play where (depending on the play) audience participation was encouraged?

I would say that it is currently acceptable for a minority of movies (Rocky Horror, the Room, horror 'don't go in there!' movies, etc.) in the same way that it's okay for a minority of plays, which would be about 3-5 mainstream shows. I think you're thinking more of audience reaction, not participation.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Texters and Shushers

fireproof78 wrote:

A query: what if movies reverted back to more of a stage play where (depending on the play) audience participation was encouraged?

Seriously, you talk/text/interrupt a stageplay I will fucking cut you, not only are you now ruining the experience for other people you are disrespecting the live real humans trying to entertain you, (and if those humans are good what at what they do they will never let you live it down, and will most likely publicly embarrass you.)

Do not fucking do it.

Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2013-08-14 08:46:29)

My movies: ZangrethorDigital.ca
Let's plays: youtube.com/bigdamnartist
Other movie thing I do: youtube.com/BullskitComedy

58

Re: Texters and Shushers

Marty J wrote:

People do far worse things in movie theaters than texting.

Wow, I haven't encountered anyone screwing in a movie theater, but I gotta say: as long as they're not filming it with with their iPhones, I think I might be cool with it. big_smile

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Texters and Shushers

Only got to listen to the beginning so far.  I don't have a huge objection to texting in a theater in and of itself.  But Trey's comment about our devaluing of media is spot on.  I was really sad to read this part of that blog post:

Blog Post wrote:

I’d love to watch Pacific Rim in a theater with a bit more light, wifi, electricity outlets and a second screen experience. Don’t tell me I’d miss major plot points while scrolling on my ipad – it’s a movie about robots vs monsters. I can follow along just fine.

I guess it might be inevitable to some degree.  But I really hate to see films and the filmgoing experience keep evolving in this direction. 

It may not seem too terrible at first to have separate "douchebag" screenings.  But I don't think it's too crazy to think that if a viewing infrastructure like this were put in place, that the studios would produce content that would cater to said infrastructure.  We joke about dumb "turn your brain off", incoherent blockbusters.  IMAGINE how much worse it could get.  When the filmmaking process is adjusted for people casually missing plot points.

Watch a movie however you please, but I just don't think this type of thinking is healthy for the film industry on a pure content level.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Texters and Shushers

Allison wrote:
fireproof78 wrote:

A query: what if movies reverted back to more of a stage play where (depending on the play) audience participation was encouraged?

I would say that it is currently acceptable for a minority of movies (Rocky Horror, the Room, horror 'don't go in there!' movies, etc.) in the same way that it's okay for a minority of plays, which would be about 3-5 mainstream shows. I think you're thinking more of audience reaction, not participation.

No, I think reaction is generally assumed for the audience, the "gotcha" moments of many films thrive on that. Also, as pointed out by Teague and Co. the Star Wars prequels seemed built for opening night moments that don't hold up beyond that.

I can't think of a good way to describe what I mean (too tired sad ) but my general gist is not just audience reaction but a deeper level than that.

However, again, as pointed out on the podcast, the devaluing of media is actually diminishing audience engagement, which is why I think more audience participation, on some level, should be encouraged.

Something like that hmm














/

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Texters and Shushers

Apart from things like Rocky Horror and The Room, audience reactions/participation have never really been a thing over here. One of the first and only times I've heard an audience applaud a movie was the end credits for Revenge of the Sith. Every other time when there's been applause, it has been a bit more awkward with people only joining in because other people are, turning to their friends saying 'What's going on?'.

My favourite tale of a movie audience comes from an old teacher of mine. He snuck in to see The Exorcist, really hyped for it as he loves his horror. Part way through the flick, a guy gets up and starts walking out, so someone shouts
'Sit back down, shithouse!'.
'I'm just going the toilet!'
'Bollocks, you're a fucking shithouse'

This culminated in to a large portion of the theatre calling this bloke a shithouse, so he ended up sitting back down and presumably pissing his pants.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Texters and Shushers

This guy gets it.

Re: Texters and Shushers

Holy shit, the Total Film article he's responding to.

I agree that some of them could validly be shorter (MAN OF STEEL) or, better yet, not exist at all (WHITE CHICKS, DARK OF THE MOON), but others...

I mean, here's how he'd "fix" FELLOWSHIP:

Cut down most of the Shire scenes. If this is a trilogy about a lot of walking, it’s almost an hour before Frodo even takes his first step.

OH IT'S ABOUT WALKING? IS IT YOU FUCK?! DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY IT MATTERS TO FRODO? WHY HE DOES THE WALKING? STAKES, DO YOU SPEAK IT?!

[deep breath]

...Excuse me. I got emotional.

Thumbs up +3 Thumbs down

Re: Texters and Shushers

Trey wrote:

This guy gets it.

Matt Singer is great and I would have his film critic babies. That is all.

"The Doctor is Submarining through our brains." --Teague

Twitter | Tumblr, for links to all my writing.

Re: Texters and Shushers

Trey wrote:

This guy gets it.

Yep, this guy gets it.

Seriously, my wife and I would nearly kill (perhaps maim, but not kill) to have the experience of going to the movies again. We don't get that chance even though we want to. If we had the opportunity, apparently I should not care if someone is texting during the film.

Going to the movie to "watch a film" is so 1999...why?

I feel almost like a film snob. Apparently, not talking in the theater or texting is too much to ask.

I'm sad now and that is saying something since I was very sad before...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kyuerwmCnX1qzfucto1_500.png

God loves you!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Texters and Shushers

Dorkman wrote:

Holy shit, the Total Film article he's responding to.

Yeah, those lists of theirs are getting worse, they should stop them now. This is how he'd fix Zodiac-

Focus on the mystery and cut down the personal lives of the people involved. It IS sad that Jake Gyllenhaal’s wife leaves him over his obsession but really, we just want to know who did it. And quickly.

Which makes me think he actually hasn't seen Zodiac.....

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Texters and Shushers

Roger Ebert said that most movies could stand to lose 15 minutes, and I'm inclined to agree, at least with the recent crop of 150-200 min films.

However, the original article's recommendations were pretty bizarre. In many cases, you couldn't EDIT them down by 15 min. You'd have to rewrite them. But half of them need another rewrite anyway.

Matt Singer is terrific. He's half of Filmspotting SVU.

Warning: I'm probably rewriting this post as you read it.

Zarban's House of Commentaries

Re: Texters and Shushers

Zarban wrote:

Roger Ebert said that most movies could stand to lose 15 minutes, and I'm inclined to agree, at least with the recent crop of 150-200 min films.

He also famously said that no good movie is too long and no bad movie is too short, so he probably would have had words about this article.

Zarban wrote:

Matt Singer is terrific. He's half of Filmspotting SVU.

Oh yes. Alison Willmore is also fantastic.

"The Doctor is Submarining through our brains." --Teague

Twitter | Tumblr, for links to all my writing.

69

Re: Texters and Shushers

Yeah, not a very bright article. In a sense, every movie ever made could be shorter, right? We could cut that whole "Over the Rainbow" number from The Wizard of Oz, and it's still the same story, so why not? It's also possible to shave some paragraphs from Moby Dick without detracting from the central narrative. After all, there's long stretches where you're just reading about the protocols of being on the deck of a whaling ship, or reading page after page about the intricacies of harpoons. What gives, Herman? Time is money, and we all have shit to do.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Texters and Shushers

Rob, I know your being sarcastic right now but you actually raise some good points  cool

Extended Edition - 130 'Doctor Who Series 10'
VFX Reel | Twitter | IMDB | Blog

Re: Texters and Shushers

Yeah, I agree on Moby Dick actually, which I'm fairly certain is only that way in the first place because words were money at the time.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Texters and Shushers

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Texters and Shushers

Dorkman wrote:

Yeah, I agree on Moby Dick actually, which I'm fairly certain is only that way in the first place because words were money at the time.

In the 19th century, the only literate people were gentlemen and ladies who had servants to do all the work. With no TV or 'net and cumbersome transport between places, the leisured classes had to amuse themselves somehow.

And just like that...

Thumbs up Thumbs down

74

Re: Texters and Shushers

Yeah, I guess part of the reason we tend to find the here's-40-pages-about-harpoons sections tiresome is because if we, in 2013, want to learn about what it was like aboard 19th century whaling vessels, we have options. Google, maritime museums, college courses, the Discovery Channel. But when that book was written, the only way to know what it's like on a whaling ship was to go be on a whaling ship. Or maybe you'd run into some crazy-ass dude who'd been on one and is willing to tell you all about it. Or if you're lucky (and literate), you'd come across a book about it. Living in the information age allows us to know how big the world is, so to speak. But some barefoot doofus living in Wyoming in 1851, not so much. To him, 40 pages about harpoons might've seemed kick-ass. Hey, it beats staring at the wall. Or syphilis.

There's a cool scene in Django Unchained in which Jamie Foxx asks Christoph Waltz to tell him the German fable of Broomhilda. Foxx's character sits like a little kid, in rapt attention, mesmerized by the faraway tale. The scene captures how information-deprived a person could be in days of yore. If someone had a story you hadn't heard, or wanted to give you an lengthy treatise on harpoons, you'd lap it up. It's not like you had a spin class you'd be late for.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Texters and Shushers

Moby Dick originally got mixed reviews because people back then recognized it was kind of a rambling mess too. There were plenty of books about whaling if you wanted to read them. It was a huge industry.

If you can make a movie better by taking something out, you should. There are plenty of clear cases.

Last edited by Zarban (2013-08-17 19:22:38)

Warning: I'm probably rewriting this post as you read it.

Zarban's House of Commentaries