Suit Filed Against Exhibitors over Pre-Movie Adver

[Guest RepoMan]

Exhibitors Draw Fire on Pre-Movie Blurbs

 

By Carl DiOrio

 

HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - High school teacher Miriam Fisch wants those four minutes of her life back -- and she thinks Loews Cineplex ought to pay for their alleged theft.

 

 

 

In a class-action lawsuit filed in Illinois state court on behalf of all Loews patrons, the Chicago-area English teacher claims the theater circuit's policy of playing pre-film product commercials amounts to a deceptive business practice because the ads begin at the time advertised as the start of a feature movie.

 

 

The legal action reflects the reaction of many moviegoers jarred by the increasing prominence of onscreen advertising in theaters industrywide. In fact, the succession of such pre-movie ads now often lasts up to 10 minutes or longer in many venues.

 

 

Even many proponents of the trend say cinema advertising is best limited to a few minutes prior to the advertised showtime, but that often isn't the case. Part of the problem involves the time required to clean theaters between showtimes, which can leave too little time to present commercials before the advertised movie time.

 

 

"It is completely ludicrous to have moviegoers pay good money to watch commercials," said attorney Douglas Litowitz, who is representing Fisch in her suit. "They can do that at home for free."

 

 

The suit seeks "lost time" damages of up to $75 per plaintiff covered under a class action, as well as an injunction to force Loews to stipulate separately when its onscreen ads will run and when movies will play.

 

 

Litowitz said he may target other big chains with similar suits in the future. "We feel the most people would be best served by going after the biggest chains," he said.

 

 

Litowitz and another Chicago attorney, Mark Weinberg, operate a Web site called NoMovieAds.com. He described Fisch as a "friend" who was troubled by the intrusion of ads prior to the showing of Miramax's "The Quiet American" at a Loews in suburban Chicago.

 

 

"The proposed class of plaintiffs includes a nationwide class (of) all recent moviegoers who have been misled by Loews' movie advertising," the attorneys said.

 

 

Loews spokesman John McCauley declined comment on the Fisch suit, saying the company had yet to be formally served.

 

 

Litowitz said he and Weinberg are mulling a similar action against No. 1 U.S. exhibitor Regal Entertainment, which recently debuted a digital "pre-show" of ads, movie trailers and interstitial entertainment on about 2,000 of its 6,000-plus screens nationwide.

 

 

But in what could prove a key distinction, Regal execs claim their 20-minute pre-show runs prior to the advertised showtime for feature presentations. Regal's non-digital venues also will adjust "rolling stock" advertising to play prior to advertised movie times, though some of its theaters still run those commercials after the lights go down at the scheduledmovie time.

 

 

Meanwhile, it appears unlikely that even a groundswell of negative public sentiment could reverse the industry's march into onscreen advertising. By 2001, such ads pumped an estimated $250 million in supplementary dollars into exhibitors' coffers, and the industry figures on double-digit annual growth in cinema advertising revenue for some time to come.

 

 

"My guess is it was up 20 percent in 2002, and we're expecting at least 30 percent growth in 2003," said Matthew Kearney, president of the recently formed trade group Cinema Advertising Council.

 

 

Kearney, who is chief executive of on-screen advertising giant Screenvision, said the Fisch lawsuit was "ridiculous." U.S. moviegoers are already used to movie ads, he said, though cinema advertising has yet to gain a level of acceptance in the U.S. to match its well-established presence in European exhibition.

 

 

"Everybody knows when they turn up at a cinema there's going to be some announcements, some trailers and these days some advertising before the main feature starts," Kearney said.

 

 

In a press release, Litowitz and Weinberg said the Fisch lawsuit "does not challenge the right of movie theaters to show movie previews prior to the start of the show." But current practices make moviegoers "unwitting subjects for annoying commercials," they said.

 

 

As far back as 1998, Ralph Nader's consumer group Consumer Alert was arguing that newspaper listings of movie times should be based on actual movie times and not the pre-movie commercials. The group also called for laws to govern movie listings.

 

"It's bad enough there are so many product placements paid for by brand-name companies in the films themselves without frontloading the audience's movie experience with more ads," Nader said at the time. "Whatever happened to art?"

 

In certain European territories, newspaper listings and box office signage stipulate both movie times and times for pre-show ads and trailers.

[Guest El Satanico]

damn right...I totally agree with this lawsuit. Get those damn commercials out of theatres.

[Guest Kingpk]

Yes, get rid of all those theater adverts. But keep the Agent Provacateur one and show it in the beginning, twice in the middle, and at the end of the movie (Kotz will back me up on this one).

[Guest Spaceman Spiff]

Geez, at most I'd classify it as a minor nuisance, but nothing to sue over.

[Guest El Satanico]

No no it's definately something worth sueing over. I hope they win and the whole practice is scrapped or heavily regulated.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

And people worry of a shortage of lawyers.

 

What a stupid lawsuit.

 

Yes, I can sympathize with people not wanting to see commercials in a theater. But personally if sitting through a commercial or two means all the stupid cattle -- err, people -- that arrive late (even after 15 minutes worth of previews) will block my view of David Chappel (sp?) drinking a Coke instead of having them block me from viewing Gandalf fighting whatever that big fiery thing was, then I have no problem with it.

 

When I was a cashier at a theater, I would have loved an extra 5 minutes of commercials so the stupid customers that arrive late wouldn't bitch because they missed the first part of a film...

[Guest Mad Dog]

It's a silly lawsuit.

 

But I was pretty pissed when I went to LOTR which was supposed to start at midnight but didn't start until around 12:35 after the ads and previews were over.

[The Dames 0]

Ok...that's TOO many previews and ad's Mad Dog. I don't mind the commercials at all, as long as its kept fairly recent. I saw a commercial for Steven Speilberg's "Taken" TV series before a movie, but the damn show had already aired a month prior! Now THAT is just a waste of time.

 

Dames

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Sigh. I wish I had a nickel for every time a socialist complained about advertising.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

Hmm. How many people make it to the theatre on time to see this anyway?

 

Oh, wait. me. Id rather sue the 20 idiots who walk in 10 minutes after the movie starts and have to just walk right in front of me and argue for another 10 about whos gonna sit where and another 5 because someone sat on someone else because its dark and they cant see. I actually had some idiot sit down on me in a theatre once!

 

Among the many reasons why unless its a movie that I am really looking forward to, I'll just wait 6 months to rent/buy the DVD.

[Guest Dangerous A]

If you want to get rid of the stupid commercials for products and services, then fine. But in no way am I for getting rid of moview trailers. For this to go to litigation is retarded though. If it's stalling a movie a good 15+ minutes, then there is something wrong and the theatre needs to examine that. However, I can't stand it when fuckheads walk into a theatre 10 minutes after a movie has started and very loudly look for seats in the dark. These people need to be beaten. With a stick. Unmercifully.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Yah, the commercials suck, but I'd rather have idiots bumbling their way in and cause me to miss a commercial for Mountain Dew or the new Ford Explorer, than the first 10 minutes of the movie(or movie trailers)

[Guest teke184]

Agreed. I have no problem with a REASONABLE amount of trailers being played, but this shit with the Coke, Army, Creative Labs, Satellite Radio, etc. commercials being played just annoys the hell out of me.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

If it keeps movie ticket prices from going up, I'll deal with them.

[Guest El Satanico]

These people aren't talking about the trailers just the commercials many theatres put ahead of the trailers. In fact they made a point to say that they had no problems with the trailers.

 

If it keeps movie ticket prices from going up, I'll deal with them.

ha...keep on dreaming there. Prices have increased even with the commercials. So basically the commercials don't help us at all and only puts more money into the pockets of the theatre owners.

[Guest DrTom]

Commercials should absolutely not be aired before movies. The whole idea of commercials -- which is why they shouldn't be on cable, either -- is that advertisers are footing the bill for the TV you get to enjoy for free. I just payed $8.50 to see a movie, so fuck you, Coca-Cola, and stick your goddamn commercial up your corporate ass. I swear there were fifteen minutes of commercials before Die Another Day and [/i]The Two Towers[/i]. I was ready to start chopping heads off.

 

It's a stupid thing to sue over, but if it takes that to get rid of the pre-movie commercials, I'm all for it.

[Guest Tim]

I disagree totally. Movies are a service, not a right. Simply because you paid for a service doesn't mean that Cinemas don't have the right to show advertising. As for the lawsuit itself, I hope Loews somehow are able to turn the tables, file a counter suit, and bankrupt that woman.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Question: Does the money from the ads go to the cinema or studio? I"m assuming it goes to the theater chain, and seeing how theaters are having trouble making a profit nowadays I don't mind getting an extra bathroom break or chance to get refills on snacks...

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I detest commercials in the theater, and retaliate by costing them the extra money by making a mess of the floor and bathroom. It's cheaper than a lawyer, and more satisfying.

[Guest Some Guy]

Movie trailers are fine, Mountain Dew comercials are not. Show those between moives, you know when we get the veer so fasinating "movie trivia" (I don't give a fuck what Madonna did on the set of some stupid movie I'll never watch) and shit like that.

It's up to $8.50 a movie here and over 230 mintues of comercials. I saw MIB II and wasn't sure what was longer, the ads or the movie.

Sueing over this is just fucking stupid. if enough people complain to the threater they'll stop doing or risk losing business.

I'd rather sue for more leg room in the theater, I think Tom would agree.

[Guest JHawk]

Suing over it is stupid, but get rid of the damned commercials.

 

Someone said "Movies are a service, not a right, so we shouldn't ban commercials just for paying for a service." Well, I look at it this way. Getting your haircut is a service. What if you sat down in the barber's/stylist's chair, had that apron thing put on you, but before you got to the haircut, you had to hear your barber/stylist read 10 minutes of advertisements for shampoo, hair gel, curling irons, and hair brushes? You'd say "Shut the fuck up" and walk out of the barber shop/salon. The only difference is you pay for the haircut when you leave, but you pay for the movie before it ever starts.

[Guest Some Guy]

Good point and anology.

[Guest cartman]

If they win this lawsuit how much do ya wanna bet Movie theater chain's jack up the prices to stick it to us.

[Guest Some Guy]

IF they do that, how much you wanna bet i'll go to even fewer movies?

[Guest cartman]

I already stopped, I got my own Theater here at home.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"Someone said "Movies are a service, not a right, so we shouldn't ban commercials just for paying for a service." Well, I look at it this way. Getting your haircut is a service. What if you sat down in the barber's/stylist's chair, had that apron thing put on you, but before you got to the haircut, you had to hear your barber/stylist read 10 minutes of advertisements for shampoo, hair gel, curling irons, and hair brushes? You'd say "Shut the fuck up" and walk out of the barber shop/salon. The only difference is you pay for the haircut when you leave, but you pay for the movie before it ever starts."

 

You can leave the theater when the commercials start and get your money back. You could also call in advance and ask if the movie you are going to watch has commercials in front of it. You can also wait until the DVD comes out, which isn't much more than two general admission adult tickets.

 

Agree with the general point -- let the free market decide whether or not theaters should insert commercials before their feature presentation, not lawyers...

[Guest TheMikeSC]

These people aren't talking about the trailers just the commercials many theatres put ahead of the trailers. In fact they made a point to say that they had no problems with the trailers.

 

If it keeps movie ticket prices from going up, I'll deal with them.

ha...keep on dreaming there. Prices have increased even with the commercials. So basically the commercials don't help us at all and only puts more money into the pockets of the theatre owners.

Didn't they use to argue that the drinks and food at theatres were so outrageously expensive because they had to off-set how little money the theatres made in the early part of a major release's run?

 

If they have commercials now --- why HASN'T the food dropped in price?

-=Mike --- Who doesn't really eat or drink at theatres, anyway

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"Didn't they use to argue that the drinks and food at theatres were so outrageously expensive because they had to off-set how little money the theatres made in the early part of a major release's run?"

 

Yes they do. Funny story: When I worked at a theater my one manager told me that Disney was trying to negoitate with some theater chains to also get a cut of their concession stand prices when one of their big-name releases came out (I think it was the Lion King.)

 

Yeah, and when a politican proposes a "temporary" tax increase it goes away after the need has been void (First thought comes to mind -- some goofy sur charge on phone service that was to pay for the Spanish American (?) War)...

[Guest DrTom]

disagree totally. Movies are a service, not a right.

They're a service I've already paid quite handsomely for, and I shouldn't be subjected to commercials simply because I'm part of a captive audience. TV is a service, not a right, but it's different when network stations show commercials, since those are actually paying for the programming. I dislike the idea of commercials on cable, since I'm the one footing the bill for that, along with millions of other subscribers; in fact, "pay cable" as it used to be known was supposed to be 100% commercial free. Perhaps I'd be more sympathetic to the theatres showing commercials if buying a popcorn and soda didn't set a body back $10.00.

[Guest DrTom]

I'd rather sue for more leg room in the theater, I think Tom would agree.

Heh. Actually, the Loews I go to has stadium seating, so I tend to have plenty of legroom. The other theatre I go to, less often, is a Regal Cinemas, which also has stadium seating. It's rare to have plenty of legroom in a public venue when you're 6'5", but I really can't complain about the theatres around here.