Movie theater makes an example of a texting audience member

[MJ12]

According to Tim League, the Drafthouse's founder, the woman in question was warned twice about texting during a screening, and then, in accordance with company policy, was escorted out without a refund.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs&feature=related

"It seems like nothing, but if you spend as much time as I do at the movies, you realize the entire theater sees it and it pulls you out of the movie experience. It's every bit as intrusvie as talking."
However, the determined texter was not about to let the matter rest. She called up the Alamo Drafthouse and left a profanity-laced (and perhaps slightly inebriated) message decrying the theater's policies. "Yeah, I was wondering if you guys actually enjoy treating your customers like a pieces of sh*t," she opened, "Because that's how I felt when I went to the Alamo Drafthouse!"

"So excuse me for using my phone, in USA magnited States of America" she raged, "where yer-you are free to text in a the-a-ter!"
But the theater (and its future patrons) are getting the last laugh. The Drafthouse took audio of the woman's voicemail, transcribed it, and turned it into an in-house preview that warns theatergoers against cell phone use during movies.

"Part of what we're trying to do is have a comedic message about what to us is a very serious issue," said League. He declined to give any more details about the woman at the center of the recent PSA--it's not about shaming her, he said, but about making people think about how rude they are being when they use their phones.

 

[Remus]

Well that's fine as long as the "company policies" are clearly visible for all to see before entering the theatre.

 

[Krynn72]

Hilarious, and thats my kind of business. If I lived even remotely in that area I'd go there more often because of this.

 

[ríomhaire]

Damn if I lived their I'd totally go to that cinema. Round here we get teenagers drinking and talking in the back row of the cinema sometimes. Most annoying thing ever. Saw a girl throw up twice in the aisle once. Haven't experienced that in a while though. Maybe they cracked down on it.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

awesome.

 

[Raziaar]

Why can't they kick people off our streets for texting.

 

[Vegeta897]

Isn't texting while driving illegal in Texas yet?

 

[Raziaar]

Yelling "fire" in a movie theater is illegal too, but that doesn't stop me.

 

[unozero]

OK STORY TIME!



when I went to see Let me in last year this fat C*** brought like 5 kids to watch the movie as well and during the first 40 minutes of the movie she was on her Iphone texting or playing games.I was sitting behind her and the glare was distracting.after 40 minutes I got fed up I walked down the rows leaned over her shoulder from behind and put on a rape face and said" turn off your phone it's distracting." She was just looked at me all freaked out lol I didn't even say anything else I turned around went back upstairs and that bitch never got on her phone again after that.

 

[dfc05]

Heh nice. I've been there once. Pretty sweet theater. You sit at tables and can order food and drinks.
That said, if she really was just using her phone to find her seat, that seems reasonable and I wouldn't mind someone doing that in a theater. But if she was texting a lot, then yeah kick her out.

 

[Stylo]

Ha ha haaaaa. I hate it when people go to the cinema and just act like the most annoying f*ck they can be.

Unfortunately, living in the shithole that I do, there's usually some chav trying to show off to his mates so we have a rule to throw food at them each time they get distracting.

It's proven to be effective thus far.

 

[StarBob]

Shitty they don't give you your money back but whatever. I don't talk or text during movies, but I figure the commotion it would cause to kick someone out would be far more distracting than a tiny light in your field of vision...

 

[Vegeta897]

Shitty they don't give you your money back but whatever. I don't talk or text during movies, but I figure the commotion it would cause to kick someone out would be far more distracting than a tiny light in your field of vision...

Not to be rude but that's really stupid logic.

That's like saying teachers shouldn't punish students who are being a distraction because this causes more of a distraction.

It's preventing more incidents from occurring in the future, so in fact it's causing less distraction in the long run.

Personally, seeing someone get kicked out who has been annoying me the whole time with their ****ing phone would provide me entertainment to make up for the entertainment I lost while being distracted.

 

[function9]

Hilarious, and thats my kind of business. If I lived even remotely in that area I'd go there more often because of this.

x2. Absolutely cannot stand people that can't go a minute or two without talking or texting on their phones. So annoying in the middle of class some dumb bitch sitting next to me, not so much that she was texting, but that she was reacting to whatever messages out loud. Was so close to grabbing it from her and smashing it.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Really isn't a problem here. You guys sure do have some rude ****s.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

We were all in the theater once as a group and this one girlfriend in the group obviously didn't care much for the movie because she was using her Blackberry messenger every goddamn second from the moment she sat down. About 40 minutes into the movie, my friend from out of town just typed "This is very annoying" and showed her the screen. At least she had the decency to cease at that point.

Cool story, anyway.

 

[Adabiviak]

I would endorse that theater. Our local theater has "no texting", "keep it quiet", etc. messages playing between advertisements from the moment the previous movie ends until the next one starts (in addition to some signs in the lobby), so you'd have to be seriously oblivious (case in point) to not know about that rule.

 

[StarBob]

Not to be rude but that's really stupid logic.

That's like saying teachers shouldn't punish students who are being a distraction because this causes more of a distraction.

It's preventing more incidents from occurring in the future, so in fact it's causing less distraction in the long run.

Personally, seeing someone get kicked out who has been annoying me the whole time with their ****ing phone would provide me entertainment to make up for the entertainment I lost while being distracted.

Wow... I wasn't expecting any real disagreement, but to call it stupid logic?

It's pretty simple - someone texting producing no real audible distraction and only a minor visual distraction for people who can't manage to keep looking forward when something happens near them or... having security come with flashlights and start commotion making lots of sound and the obvious potential for loud and far more distracting resistance... like this dumb girl's phone call but in the theater itself. Your example doesn't really make a good comparison. It would be more like saying teachers should punish a student who's texting quietly because it could cause a big scene... except the kid would have paid to be there and would want to stay... so yeah I guess that doesn't really apply.

The point is, I'd rather rely on my ability to keep my eyes pointed at a big ass bright screen in front of me instead of the tiny ass dim one instead of having one or more people come in disrupting the movie causing me to potentially miss an entire scene or an important piece of dialogue. I go to the movies fairly regularly and most of the time I'm barely aware of someone texting. However, if they're talking on their phone or being a jackass (which occurs far more often and is far more distracting) then that is a more legitimate distraction because I can't focus my ears.

Regardless, it's not "stupid logic" or really even anything to do with logic since it's entirely a matter of subjective preference and ones ability to block out minor distractions. Not to be rude, but for future reference you should become more aware that not everyone has the same subjective opinions or perceptions on every subject. Try not to confuse how you feel about things with a logical objective conclusion.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Subjectively speaking, I'd find someone texting near me pretty ****ing distracting. Honestly, I'd take the large, momentary distraction early on over the small, niggling one throughout the entire film.

 

[JUL3]

Oh good, I've been wanting to share this story for ages. During Deathly Hallows Part I last year, the girl in front of us got a phone call, she answered it and was yacking away for a good 30 seconds. She stopped after receiving a poke in the back of the head from my mother. Everyone sitting near us laughed.

Props to the theater, that's funny as sh*t.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Really isn't a problem here. You guys sure do have some rude ****s.

Well la-dee-da

But yeah, yeah we do.

 

[Unfocused]

If the woman was warned twice, then kicking her out was definitely justified. But if she was looking for her seat, as she claims, then that's harsh. Somehow I doubt it was the latter, though.

Oh good, I've been wanting to share this story for ages. During Deathly Hallows Part I last year, the girl in front of us got a phone call, she answered it and was yacking away for a good 30 seconds. She stopped after receiving a poke in the back of the head from my mother. Everyone sitting near us laughed.

Oh man, what a story, to think it was kept unshared for ages. :>

 

[ríomhaire]

Subjectively speaking, I'd find someone texting near me pretty ****ing distracting. Honestly, I'd take the large, momentary distraction early on over the small, niggling one throughout the entire film.

Agreed.

 

[Vegeta897]

Wow... I wasn't expecting any real disagreement, but to call it stupid logic?

It's pretty simple - someone texting producing no real audible distraction and only a minor visual distraction for people who can't manage to keep looking forward when something happens near them or... having security come with flashlights and start commotion making lots of sound and the obvious potential for loud and far more distracting resistance... like this dumb girl's phone call but in the theater itself. Your example doesn't really make a good comparison. It would be more like saying teachers should punish a student who's texting quietly because it could cause a big scene... except the kid would have paid to be there and would want to stay... so yeah I guess that doesn't really apply.

The point is, I'd rather rely on my ability to keep my eyes pointed at a big ass bright screen in front of me instead of the tiny ass dim one instead of having one or more people come in disrupting the movie causing me to potentially miss an entire scene or an important piece of dialogue. I go to the movies fairly regularly and most of the time I'm barely aware of someone texting. However, if they're talking on their phone or being a jackass (which occurs far more often and is far more distracting) then that is a more legitimate distraction because I can't focus my ears.

Regardless, it's not "stupid logic" or really even anything to do with logic since it's entirely a matter of subjective preference and ones ability to block out minor distractions. Not to be rude, but for future reference you should become more aware that not everyone has the same subjective opinions or perceptions on every subject. Try not to confuse how you feel about things with a logical objective conclusion.

Okay, so you're basically just trying to describe the problem in as tame a way as possible or rather the least annoying possible scenario, even though this thread demonstrates that people clearly have more of a problem with it than just a 'tiny ass dim' and 'minor visual distraction'. And how about Uno who even took matters into his own hands to tell the person to cut it out? Following your logic he should have just kept enduring the 'minor distraction' instead of taking himself completely out of the movie experience to get up and go tell the person to stop.

except the kid would have paid to be there and would want to stay... so yeah I guess that doesn't really apply.

Hahaha. How does it make any difference that the person paid/wants to be there? The concept of making more of a distraction to end an ongoing one has nothing to do with that kind of circumstance. Obviously they don't want to be there quite as much as you if they're spending their time texting.

 

[StarBob]

Okay, so you're basically just trying to describe the problem in as tame a way as possible or rather the least annoying possible scenario, even though this thread demonstrates that people clearly have more of a problem with it than just a 'tiny ass dim' and 'minor visual distraction'. And how about Uno who even took matters into his own hands to tell the person to cut it out? Following your logic he should have just kept enduring the 'minor distraction' instead of taking himself completely out of the movie experience to get up and go tell the person to stop.

Hahaha. How does it make any difference that the person paid/wants to be there? The concept of making more of a distraction to end an ongoing one has nothing to do with that kind of circumstance. Obviously they don't want to be there quite as much as you if they're spending their time texting.

I'm not trying to describe it in a tame way, I'm describing a specific scenario of someone texting. I made it clear that I wasn't referencing someone talking or dancing in someone's face with the phone. Again this has nothing to do with a logical truth or any objective statement, it's again merely a matter of ones ability to block out a minor distraction of seeing a phone.

The reason it makes a difference if a person paid/wants to be there is because that's the exact scenario. The relevance is not exactly whether they want to be there or not, but whether they deem their distraction worthy of giving up the priviledge and their money. If they don't think the action is justified there's a chance they will protest and disrupt the movie further... hence the whole situation I described before. It's really simple - which is why my first post was a single line. There's not a lot to disagree with. I believe that if you're so sensitive to minor distractions such as a text, then you'll probably be completely floored by the potential commotion caused by someone getting kicked out of a movie they paid for doing something that it generally within their rights even if its disrespectful to others. If you don't believe it will cause a protest, just watch the video again and think about that happening during two minutes of your movie.

 

[Unfocused]

I believe that if you're so sensitive to minor distractions such as a text, then you'll probably be completely floored by the potential commotion caused by someone getting kicked out of a movie they paid for doing something that it generally within their rights even if its disrespectful to others.

It's preventing more incidents from occurring in the future, so in fact it's causing less distraction in the long run.

It of course depends how successful this would be in preventing incidents in the future and how quickly can the staff remove someone from the theater, but all-in-all I think we should be attempting to counter this sort of behavior, rather than endure it.

 

[flamingdts]

Did she get a warning? If not then I think it's a bit harsh.

 

[CyberPitz]

Did she get a warning? If not then I think it's a bit harsh.

Learn to read the article, and the first line of the damn OP, please.

According to Tim League, the Drafthouse's founder, the woman in question was warned twice about texting during a screening, and then, in accordance with company policy, was escorted out without a refund.

 

[MJ12]

If the woman was warned twice, then kicking her out was definitely justified. But if she was looking for her seat, as she claims, then that's harsh. Somehow I doubt it was the latter, though.

She clearly was texting in the theater, because she changed her story from "I was looking for my seat" to "This is America where you are allowed to TEXT in a theater. I didn't know I wasn't allowed to TEXT in your theater, etc, etc."

 

[Krynn72]

It also says they have warnings on screen before the previews as well.

 

[StarBob]

It also says they have warnings on screen before the previews as well.

I love those hilarious overdubbed commercials they have for them before movies now... beats the hell out of all the other dumb pre-preview commercial shit everyone has to watch now...

 

[Absinthe]

This story actually makes me more happy than when I heard bin Laden was killed.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Again this has nothing to do with a logical truth or any objective statement, it's again merely a matter of ones ability to block out a minor distraction of seeing a phone.

You're kind of conflating two things, though. The subjective statement is "I don't want to put up with this distraction." The objective one (sort of) is "I think people that cause this sort of distraction should be warned/kicked out." I'm with the affirmative on both counts, because regardless of the subjective effect on one's ability to concentrate on the film, they shouldn't have to just ignore it. It's entirely the problem of the person making the distraction.

The reason it makes a difference if a person paid/wants to be there is because that's the exact scenario. The relevance is not exactly whether they want to be there or not, but whether they deem their distraction worthy of giving up the priviledge and their money. If they don't think the action is justified there's a chance they will protest and disrupt the movie further... hence the whole situation I described before. It's really simple - which is why my first post was a single line. There's not a lot to disagree with. I believe that if you're so sensitive to minor distractions such as a text, then you'll probably be completely floored by the potential commotion caused by someone getting kicked out of a movie they paid for doing something that it generally within their rights even if its disrespectful to others. If you don't believe it will cause a protest, just watch the video again and think about that happening during two minutes of your movie.

Like I already said, I'm fine with a larger distraction if it means I'm spared the smaller one for the rest of the movie. Someone fidgeting or texting or whatever right near me would annoy the hell out of me (yeah, I'm neurotic, but who isn't~), so I'll miss a minute or two of the film if it means I can enjoy the rest in peace.

Also, it's about setting a precedent, as Vegeta already said. If they don't back up their policies by kicking people out - especially after multiple warnings - they're sending the message that this kind of behaviour is acceptable in their establishment. I don't have any proof of this, but I'm pretty sure that "customer is always right" mentality is the very thing that creates these kind of self-entitled twats in the first place.

I love those hilarious overdubbed commercials they have for them before movies now... beats the hell out of all the other dumb pre-preview commercial shit everyone has to watch now...

I miss this one. :3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlDb-vb3utc

 

[Stylo]

I don't care on what level the distraction is, it's still a distraction. You don't go and pay to watch a movie to be distracted, therefore, kick the annoying bastards out.

The service being provided is not one where you can wave your phone about / be a hassle to other patrons.

 

[unozero]

the brightness of the screen is what pisses me off the most.

 

[Krynn72]

the brightness of the screen is what pisses me off the most.

I think that's the only thing that could piss anyone off. If they could text without lighting up a screen and, therefore, having me notice and get distracted, then I wouldn't give a damn. Its not like I care if they're paying attention.


Also, this is my favorite pre-movie courtesy message.

 

[unozero]

hahahha that was awesome

 

[JUL3]

Oh man, what a story, to think it was kept unshared for ages. :>

I know right?