I do not like the commercials either, but I don't think theres much that the legal system can do about it. Remember when cable TV was surposed to be commercial free? Thats why they were charging for cable wasn't it?

I love the comment at the end where they say they don't play anymore then 3 minutes of commercials. I think that it is wrong to play them.. I am paying to see a movie, not commercials.. and as for the cable thing.. the premium channels that you pay extra for do not run commercials.. but basic cable does.. and I believe what you are paying for is the actual wire being fed to your house....I could be wrong.

i don't like watching commercials before a movie, but i do really enjoy previews.

but a preview is essentially a commercial for another movie, so how does one discern one from the other, legally speaking?

and for that matter, how about that silly movie to get you into the concession stand and buy popcorn.. have you ever noticed in the one where the popcorn guy has the soda pop girlfriend, and he goes to the concession stand and gets another soda.. is he cheating on his girlfriend, or is he a cannable when he starts drinking it, and also not when you see it next.. he throws out the glass before he goes back into the theater, is the pop his alaby, or is he just cheating on her and doesn't want her to know.. hmmm..

there's nothing worse than a cannable with no alaby.

seriously.

I say we should be able to sue the theater for wasting our time and hurting our heads, by showing really bad movies like Gangs of New York.

There could be a sliding scale of payments indexed to the suck factor of the movie.

For example, a movie like Daredevil that only blew little bitty chunks, would merit a $50 payment for discomfort.

A movie like "Gangs" however, would be worth $6,579.99 because that my friends, is what they call pain and suffering.

agreed, jack. also, i saw a movie this afternoon and they showed a chevy commercial beforehand that had celine dion in it, and that should be illegal. celine dion, i mean. i want to outlaw her.

How about this one...a few months ago, went to see that 2nd Harry Potter movie. There were ads were for: SUVS, ads for Drugs to ask your doctor about, and products that require having credit card (like that fandamngo). Who are they targetting? The parents? And if so, why do the kids have to pay for the movie at all?

When I orginally read this article, I had to quell my guffaw. 3 minutes, I timed it at that HP at movie 13 mins 42 secs. Lets see, if you figure they charge you on average (Boston area) for a 2 hour movie you pay 0.08 cents a minute (like a LD call to London), that ~$1 for every person in the theatre x the number of times they show the damn thing, x the different movies x ~365 days a year, x Z# of theatres (Loews has how many just by themselves?) I think we all get the idea. ugh.

What can we do? Eevn if the courts don't support this suit, simply not going to these theatres speaks louder than law.