NationStates

I firmly believe that the movies are a sacred art. They truly are a highest form of art. Without movies, our lives would be crushing, empty, and cold.

With that said, when I pay to watch a movie in a theatre, I'm not just paying for the benefit to be there... I'm paying for the complete experience. To truly appreciate the big screen, you have to fully give yourself over to the movie... remove yourself from all distractions and to try and really feel and connect with what you're seeing and hearing.

Yet out of the seven out of ten times I've gone to the movies in the past few months, I've always been unpleasantly disturbed at some point: bawling children, cell phone business calls, chit-chat next to me, people walking into the theatre late and then talking...

When you walk into a church, a cemetery, or a library... there is a firm expectation of silence, solemnity, and respect. It is a code of honour to respect the sacred values that these institutions represent. The film theatre, is one such institution, yet for some reason it doesn't often command the same deference or the same respect.

People are truly inconsiderate when they text away, talk loudly, or bring screaming children into these hallowed grounds. Those who truly appreciate the movies have paid good money to experience a part of their soul and a vision of true artistry. It is unfair that others should get to carelessly, thoughtlessly, and negligently (or worse, intentionally) disrupt this experience.

There needs to be consequences to deter such behaviour.

I believe it is time for the government and the theatres to work together to protect the rights of movie-goers.

So NSG, what should we do about this problem?

_____

Since there is apparently no common law duty of care towards fellow movie-goers (I couldn't find a Canadian case even in nuisance where a private action succeeded related to modern movie theatres), we should create a statutory duty of care. From this moment on... ALL movie-goers owe each other a statutory duty of care to NOT disrupt the film-going experience. If anyone breaches this, the statute should allow a private right of action with high punitive damage awards.

However, it can be expensive or time-consuming for individual plaintiffs to bring forward these types of cases, so clearly... we can't leave it all to civil liability and private suits.

We need broad enforcement powers.

Movie theatres are after all, mostly privately owned and a very non-intrusive way for the government to deal with this is to encourage and incentivize private actors to enforce this policy. I suggest tax credits, retirement benefits, and other benefits packages to cinemas that take extra action to lay down and enforce internal regulations (within reason) to protect movie-goers from getting interfered with. I expect this will have all the threatres throughout the country implementing changes on their own volition in a race to get these benefits and protect the sacred art.

Finally, there should be state-imposed consequences. In the event that a private cinema has lax enforcement mechanisms and no one is willing to launch a private right of action... there will be a regime of regulatory and criminal penalties. The Criminal Code should be amended to include a new offence: Disturbance of the Sacred Peace (the penalty I suggest, should be up to 100,000 Canadian Dollars and 14 months of imprisonment). However, the elements in a Criminal Code provision can be hard to enforce because they often require proof of intention, which is why there should be a counterpart in the non-criminal regulations imposing regulatory fines (I would suggest, up to several thousand Canadian dollars). With this in place, a concerned citizen doesn't have to burden himself with a lawsuit or rely on the goodwill of the guardians of the cinema to enforce his rights, he can simply exit the cinema and call the relevant authorities.

I believe this will solve the problem. Its a very carefully designed three pronged attempt to solve the problem. To reiterate: 1) a statutory duty of care in the cinemas to be enforced by private lawsuits 2) a benefit package to encourage self-policing in the cinemas 3) Criminal and regulatory penalties against offenders.
____

So this is my suggestion.

However, I understand there are different points of view and different solutions that others could suggest.

What do you think?

Have you ever been interrupted while in a theatre? Do you think this is a serious problem? What do you suggest we do about it?

What should be done about this problem NSG?

"the rights of movie-goers" isn't a thing.

I've only once experienced a "disruption" in a theater, and that was one woman behind us on her cell phone talking very, very loudly about a rainbow she saw that day, and even then I just ignored her. Which is exactly what I do with anyone who is talking, texting, etc. It doesn't decline the quality of the movie. I can still hear and see everything.
I also don't know what kind of churches you have gone to, but growing up in a variety of churches, there was lots of talking, even during sermons. The only place that there was any sort of silence I experienced in a religious place was in my masjid, and even then, talking happened on occasion, and the small children in the women's room could walk about and play.

A $100,000 CD fine and 14 months in jail for "disrupting" others watching a movie? Really?

Fucking watch things at home.

Maybe you have a bit of a point but the penalties you propose are ridiculous.

Is it annoying when someone pulls their phone out in a movie theater? Yes. Is a movie theater holy ground? No. Should people be allowed to do things that purposefully disrupt the experience of fellow patrons? Only if absolutely necessary (An emergency of some sort I suppose).

If people are being disruptive report them to a manager at the theater. If they don't do anything about it, ask for a refund.

This is pointless to debate. There's no reason to make it a crime, no reason to impose penalties, and absolutely no reason to discriminate against patrons with children. The worst that should happen, if the offense is really egregious, is a ban from the theater. This is really a trivial matter in the scheme of things, though.

Finally, there should be state-imposed consequences. In the event that a private cinema has lax enforcement mechanisms and no one is willing to launch a private right of action... there will be a regime of regulatory and criminal penalties. The Criminal Code should be amended to include a new offence: Disturbance of the Sacred Peace (the penalty I suggest, should be up to 100,000 Canadian Dollars and 14 months of imprisonment). However, the elements in a Criminal Code provision can be hard to enforce because they often require proof of intention, which is why there should be a counterpart in the non-criminal regulations imposing regulatory fines (I would suggest, up to several thousand Canadian dollars). With this in place, a concerned citizen doesn't have to burden himself with a lawsuit or rely on the goodwill of the guardians of the cinema to enforce his rights, he can simply exit the cinema and call the relevant authorities.

I'm almost certain you make these outlandish proposals to get a reaction from the posters here.

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:A $100,000 CD fine and 14 months in jail for "disrupting" others watching a movie? Really?

Well I don't see the Criminal provisions being used too often.

Most of the time, the fine options under the regulatory offence category should be invoked instead.

It will just be like how we organise a lot of things under the current competition law regime. For example, they have both a criminal and a regulatory set of penalties for anti-competitive conspiracy. In theory the maximum penalty for the criminal category is up to 14 years for this offence yet in Canada, the government has never used it.

This can be one of those. I see most of the troublemakers simply getting fined with the regulatory provisions. The Criminal Provisions are just in for the scare effect (and also to arrest those who truly show malicious intent to continually disrupt).

In general, criminal provisions are harder to use because the courts may declare them unconstitutional. They are much likely to interfere with regulatory penalties. But it's good to have a few of these heavy-hitting laws on the books.

It is a big waste of money to go to the movies, much less getting any concession stand items. You'd be better off with something like Netflix. I haven't gone to one in well over 10 years.

Norstal wrote:

Finally, there should be state-imposed consequences. In the event that a private cinema has lax enforcement mechanisms and no one is willing to launch a private right of action... there will be a regime of regulatory and criminal penalties. The Criminal Code should be amended to include a new offence: Disturbance of the Sacred Peace (the penalty I suggest, should be up to 100,000 Canadian Dollars and 14 months of imprisonment). However, the elements in a Criminal Code provision can be hard to enforce because they often require proof of intention, which is why there should be a counterpart in the non-criminal regulations imposing regulatory fines (I would suggest, up to several thousand Canadian dollars). With this in place, a concerned citizen doesn't have to burden himself with a lawsuit or rely on the goodwill of the guardians of the cinema to enforce his rights, he can simply exit the cinema and call the relevant authorities.

I'm almost certain you make these outlandish proposals to get a reaction from the posters here.

That, and can you imagine this?
"The court finds the defendant guilty on three counts of Disturbance of the Sacred Peace."

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:A $100,000 CD fine and 14 months in jail for "disrupting" others watching a movie? Really?

Well I don't see the Criminal provisions being used too often.

Most of the time, the fine options under the regulatory offence category should be invoked instead.

It will just be like how we organise a lot of things under the current competition law regime. For example, they have both a criminal and a regulatory set of penalties for anti-competitive conspiracy. In theory the maximum penalty for the criminal category is up to 14 years for this offence yet in Canada, the government has never used it.

This can be one of those. I see most of the troublemakers simply getting fined with the regulatory provisions. The Criminal Provisions are just in for the scare effect (and also to arrest those who truly show malicious intent to continually disrupt).

In general, criminal provisions are harder to use because the courts may declare them unconstitutional. They are much likely to interfere with regulatory penalties. But it's good to have a few of these heavy-hitting laws on the books.

1. The idea that this should be a crime is laughable.
2. Why put the maximum prison time/fine so high, if you know beforehand that no one will ever be assigned penalties that high?

I'll agree to fucking execute anyone whose phone rings during a move, with me being the executioner...as long as we also add that expensive concession items also ruin the experience, and any movie theater that charges $6.00 for a thing of popcorn the size of a medium drink cup shall be burned down and it's owners put to death.

People still go to cinemas?

I don't see how big of a disruption one can be in a room where what's playing is 10x louder than they are. But $100,000 and 14 years of prison just for coughing during a movie? What the fuck? I understand if they went like James Holmes on the place, but not for something as little as a minor disturbance. For fuck's sake, you don't HAVE to go to the theater to see a damn movie. It's not going anywhere.

go to hipster theatres
mostly cheesey b-movies and criterion shit, but combined with a relatively quiet audience alcohol is served, making bearable any little disturbances
and besides, it's not as if any movies of any worth make it to the mall theatre these days.

I wish I could watch movies... Being a virus does have some drawbacks.

I don't think this is a serious issue. Out of all the people I have ever infected, I have never seen one of my hosts disrupt a movie.

Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:Maybe you have a bit of a point but the penalties you propose are ridiculous.

This.

Also, if without movies your life would be so glum, maybe it's high time to leave movies and find an S.O. , OP.

Risottia wrote:

Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:Maybe you have a bit of a point but the penalties you propose are ridiculous.

This.

Also, if without movies your life would be so glum, maybe it's high time to leave movies and find an S.O. , OP.

What's an S. O. ?

I believe S.O. may refer to this:

http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/20 ... -otter.jpg

Pope Joan wrote:I believe S.O. may refer to this:

http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/20 ... -otter.jpg

link isn't working for me

care to explain?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:I believe S.O. may refer to this:

http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/20 ... -otter.jpg

link isn't working for me

care to explain?

S.O. is short for "significant other." The link says "significant otter," though, and the picture is adorable. Almost makes me want to go out and see if I can infect otters...

-Ebola- wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
link isn't working for me

care to explain?

S.O. is short for "significant other." The link says "significant otter," though, and the picture is adorable. Almost makes me want to go out and see if I can infect otters...

I see...

Infected Mushroom wrote:

-Ebola- wrote:
S.O. is short for "significant other." The link says "significant otter," though, and the picture is adorable. Almost makes me want to go out and see if I can infect otters...

I see...

Here, I think you can see it this way, even if the link does not work:

Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:Maybe you have a bit of a point but the penalties you propose are ridiculous.

The figures I list are for the high ends of the offences (they will rarely be used, like most things, most of the time this will simply be prosecuted at the regulatory level).

And I don't think you'll need to wait until large numbers of cases are taken to court before the deterrence effect starts.

Nobody would want to risk being fined or reported.

Infected Mushroom wrote:I firmly believe that the movies are a sacred art. They truly are a highest form of art. Without movies, our lives would be crushing, empty, and cold.

I firmly believe you're wrong and overstating the importance of movie on the basis of enjoying movies a lot yourself. Having seen a lot of trash in my day, I could not possibly call movies by definition "sacred" or "a highest form of art".

Regarding your crazy idea for punishment for speaking in the movie theatre, no, that would be a terrible idea. Absolutely terrible. I wouldn't be surprised if it led to people just ceasing to go to the movies out of fear.

Have you ever been interrupted while in a theatre? Do you think this is a serious problem? What do you suggest we do about it?

What should be done about this problem NSG?

Yes, I have, and no, I don't think so. If they bother you too much just ask them to pipe down. It's not hard.

The private sector can deal with this.
The government need not be involved.
CInemas can self-regulate.

It's up to customers to report a disruption and let the management know it's harming their cinema going experience.
(That's if the person won't shut the fuck up after being asked politely.)
You'll often get a discount or free ticket as apology.
They are sensitive to the recent decline in movie goers. Any reason people can find to instead pirate or watch the movie at home is going to get pounced on.