View Full Version : Blocking cell phone signals in theatres.
ZFarms Productions
12-19-2005, 08:09 PM
i just posted a little about this in the Kong is a flop thread. I wanted to know what you think on blocking cell phone signals in theatres. some people are blaming people talking on cell phones on Kong's poorer than expected performance at the box office. so some people want to block the signals in theatres others say that it shouldnt be allowed in case of an emergency... what do u think? good idea to block signals or bad?
HorseFilms
12-19-2005, 08:13 PM
I think people should always have their cell phones set to vibrate when in public. That way, you're not annoying other people, yet you can still be reached in an emergency. Of course, you should always leave the theater before answering the phone.
Blocking cell phone signals shouldn't be necessary.
ZFarms Productions
12-19-2005, 08:13 PM
yeah i agree but people dont leave the theatre to answer the phone. thats why people want it to be blocked
HorseFilms
12-19-2005, 08:16 PM
If we started beating the crap out of people who answer the phone in the theater, I'll be they stop doing it after awhile.
Sirius_Doggy
12-19-2005, 08:19 PM
Nobody is specifically blaming people talking on their cell phones for the poor weekend opening of Kong. If you read the same Times article I did from the other post it says,
"Richard Roeper, the Chicago Sun-Times film critic and America’s answer to Barry Norman, said: “If someone’s waiting through 20 minutes of commercials, you’ve got people behind you kicking your seat and talking on cell phones, do you think a lot of people might say, ‘You know what? I’ve got a great sound system, I’ve got a 50-inch plasma screen. I’m just going to wait three months until the DVD comes out’?”
Which is not the same thing as saying King Kong flopped because I talked on my cellphone during the movie......:shocked:
ZFarms Productions
12-19-2005, 08:22 PM
Nobody is specifically blaming people talking on their cell phones for the poor weekend opening of Kong. If you read the same Times article I did from the other post it says,
"Richard Roeper, the Chicago Sun-Times film critic and America’s answer to Barry Norman, said: “If someone’s waiting through 20 minutes of commercials, you’ve got people behind you kicking your seat and talking on cell phones, do you think a lot of people might say, ‘You know what? I’ve got a great sound system, I’ve got a 50-inch plasma screen. I’m just going to wait three months until the DVD comes out’?”
Which is not the same thing as saying King Kong flopped because I talked on my cellphone during the movie......:shocked:
the article i read was on imdb.
Sirius_Doggy
12-19-2005, 08:26 PM
No matter, This is the article I was referring to.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1943866,00.html
Anyway, how could this be the specific reason that this specific movie flopped? Did everyone just realize that since it was a Peter Jackson movie that it would last an eternity so everyone would be itching to use their cellphones??
ZFarms Productions
12-19-2005, 08:30 PM
its not specific to just that movie according to the article i read. it was for the decline of box office numbers this year. and my original post was going off that article. they were saying that kong didnt do as well as it could have because of cell phones (among other things).
EDIT: sorry it didnt mention kong at all i misread it. it was just talking about ticket sales declining.
Sirius_Doggy
12-19-2005, 08:39 PM
Well I agree that cellphones are a problem but I sat through all three hours and 5 minutes of Kong on opening day and I never heard a cellphone ring the entire time. I did see one person get up and walk out holding his cellphone so he probably had it on vibrate. Cellphones are just part of the movie going "experience" that we now have to put up with. If I had a choice of banning cellphones or small children, I'd ban the small children and the parents that bring them.:)
There's another post that is pretty much covering these same issues.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=41452
ZFarms Productions
12-19-2005, 08:43 PM
Cellphones are just part of the movie going "experience" that we now have to put up with. If I had a choice of banning cellphones or small children, I'd ban the small children and the parents that bring them.:)
haha yeah i probably would choose that too. my 200th post!
HorseFilms
12-19-2005, 08:43 PM
If I had a choice of banning cellphones or small children, I'd ban the small children and the parents that bring them.:)
I couldn't agree more. :beer:
Amerikan123
12-19-2005, 08:45 PM
how about people who bring FUCKING BABIES to theatres? HUH?
I saw Kong and i thought it was great even though there were 3 MOTHER FUCKING BABIES in my theatre!
ZFarms Productions
12-19-2005, 08:47 PM
yeah. why would you even think that would be a good idea to do that? they will NEVER be good and not cry!
Sirius_Doggy
12-19-2005, 08:56 PM
When I was in highschool 79-83 I worked in a movie theatre in my home town. It had two GIANT screens seperated by the consession area in the middle. Anyway, when you walked into the theatre area you could walk in to your left or right. To the left at the back of the theatre was an enclosed room big enough for about 10 people to SMOKE. On the other back side of the theater was another room the same size for crying babies/noisy children.
I started out as an usher and would excort people to the rooms if a caught them smoking or if they had crying kids. It was great. The rooms were soundproof so you couldn't hear them when the door was closed. The smoking room had a ceilingfan vent. You could still hear the sound through speakers in those rooms and watch through the glass. I hated having to clean that glass everyday.
The baby room was a great make-out room for the teenagers.
That would obviously never fly today with all the security/lawsuit issues today but it was nice back then.
Barry_Green
12-19-2005, 10:07 PM
Y'know, we got along for about 97 years without cell phones in the theaters. What's changed suddenly that all of a sudden we "need" them on, "in case of emergency"?
I say that theaters who want to do it should do it, and should advertise that feature prominently. Then let the ticket-buying public decide. I would bet it wouldn't take long to catch on; like "stadium seating." We had one theater in Vegas offer "stadium seating" (where each row is six inches or a foot higher than the row in front of it, so your view isn't blocked by the guy in front of you.) It was a novelty, at first. Wasn't more than about five years before just about every theater was retrofitted to offer stadium seating. In fact I think there's only one in town that doesn't offer it.
So, let 'em offer it. Let 'em advertise it ("cell-phone free theaters!") and let the public vote with their feet.
While I agree with Barry on just do it and let the public decide (i don't think they would care or even notice via ticket sales), I for one would be livid if there actually was an emergency and no-one had access out. Look at that whole Russian theatre incident a year or so ago. Not saying that would/could/does happen in the US (yet), but still. People are paying for access to the airwaves, and I don't see why a private business owner should be able to impede on that right.
It's all about common courtesy. Just punish those whose phones ring. Kick em out. End of story.
I think it is illegal (in the UK) to electronically block mobile phone signals, however, a Faraday Cage would do the same job nicely... oh, look.... no reception arseholes!
Zach Lien
12-20-2005, 06:33 AM
i think they should be blocked. i wouldn't say cell phones are the reason for a movies flop- it just seems to me that lately people aren't interested in going to the movies. people are lazy- or they dont want to spend the amount theaters are charging. if anything, i'd blame it on the theaters. if you plan on going to see a movie like Kong, plan on 8.50 (for us here) per ticket, a soda @ 3.50, candy @ 3.50, maybe some popcorn; you're getting to 20 dollars for one night @ the movies. its rediculous. its a shame- because i LOVED King Kong.
GenJerDan
12-20-2005, 06:54 AM
I think it is illegal (in the UK) to electronically block mobile phone signals, however, a Faraday Cage would do the same job nicely... oh, look.... no reception arseholes!
Pretty sure they do that in the theater I went to in NJ. Walked in the door and No Signal.
Good enough for me.
David Jimerson
12-20-2005, 08:06 AM
People are paying for access to the airwaves, and I don't see why a private business owner should be able to impede on that right.
They aren't. You don't have to come in.
It's all about common courtesy. Just punish those whose phones ring. Kick em out. End of story.
That would be a VERY good start.
They aren't. You don't have to come in.
True, I was just saying that if someone comes to a place of business, what gives the owner of that business the right to stop that customer's communications they're paying for? Is he going to shut off my cable next? (it's a joke, but on principle)
The issue isn't having cell phones, it's people being obnoxious and not having manners about them. Deal with the root of it, the people. You could always sew people's lips shut at the door too, but that wouldn't solve anything either.
Kick out the talkers.
In Hungary was a cool ad before films started, something like this:please turn off your mobile, because for the "real" talkings you will need normal line phone
Barry_Green
12-20-2005, 07:18 PM
People are paying for access to the airwaves
Same coin, different side -- in the scenario I'm describing, people would be paying for freedom from those airwaves. I'm not saying to convert all theaters, I'm saying give people the choice. Advertise it. Make it very clear that this is a cell-free theater.
For those who are expecting to get an important call, or whose kid is out of town and they can't afford to miss that call, they'd know better than to go to a cell-free theater. And for those who just can't stand the thought of cell conversations in the theater, they can choose to go to a cell-free theater.
It's not that the businessman would be taking away our rights, it's that we'd actively choose to go to him to avoid the unpleasantry of the alternative. He'd be providing a service, one that I suspect several people would find valuable.
Barry_Green
12-20-2005, 07:20 PM
True, I was just saying that if someone comes to a place of business, what gives the owner of that business the right to stop that customer's communications they're paying for?
Which is why I said they should advertise it. It's an additional service that one would be actively choosing: A "cell-free zone". If they just did it with no notice, then I'd see your point more clearly. But I'm talking about actively marketing the fact, and letting people decide (even on a case-by-case basis) if they want to have cell access, or be free from cell interruptions. I would suspect that certain theater owners who choose to implement this will find themselves rewarded at the box office.