A Stitch in Haste

M. Night Shyamalan, maker of scary movies ("scary" in the sense that some people actually think they're good -- that terrifies me), posits another fear-inducing plotline: the end of the "moviegoing experience" --

"When I sit down next to you in a movie theater, we get to share each other's point of view. We become part of a collective soul. That's the magic in the movies."

Gimme a break. That's not a movie theater -- it's a kibbutz.

In any event, the setting in which Shyamalan's plot unfolds is the debate over whether to simultaneously release movies in theaters and on DVD, a proposal that some moviemakers and studio executives are floating in order to improve the industry's bottom line.

Whatever. If movie theater chains (which almost rival the airlines in their ability to repeatedly go bankrupt) want to get people back into their theaters, it's really quite simple:

--Stop pricing tickets on the elastic portion of the demand curve.

--Ditto for concessions.

--Have adult-only showings (not adult movies, but adult showings) for those of us who neither have nor like children.

--Bring back ushers to expel cell phone users who are "ringer-off challenged."

--Oh, and make some good movies for a change.

It never ceases to amaze me how willfully oblivious to economics some artists can be. The reason people are abandoning the "moviegoing experience" is because the moviegoing experience sucks. Shyamalan should worry more about improving that and a little less about lamenting the loss of our "collective soul."

I'll take my 42" plasma TV, surround sound system and Netflix subscription over Shyamalan's overpriced, child-infested, cell-phone polluted "moviegoing experience" any day. Even if it costs me my "collective soul."

Here are two facts:

1. I am shopping around for a WRT54GS.
2. My parents are shopping around for a cruise.

Now in all likelihood neither of these two statements is particularly informative to you. But they each represent two diametrically opposed ends of the "shopping experience."

Let's begin with Statement #1. It might help to elaborate that I am looking for a Linksys WRT54GS Wireless-G Broadband Router with SpeedBooster. I know that's the model of wireless router I want, and the only consideration left for me now is price. I want it and I want it as cheaply as possible.

So perhaps I will take advantage of the new "shopping phone" program lamented by this Luddite New York Times Magazine writer:

Should the "shopping phone" fulfill its promise, deep discounts will become standard and universal, and stores will have to seek an edge in less familiar ways — perhaps by dressing their workers in clingy costumes the way Las Vegas casinos do. That would be one route: pile on the thrills. The other, more likely, more cost-effective route would be to stamp out the thrills entirely and cultivate a dreary bare-bones efficiency that will make today's Wal-Marts seem like Roman palaces and today's Wal-Mart employees look like emperors.

The piece is peppered with similar infantile anti-Wal-Mart cheap shots, but that's not the point. The point is the dire predictions the writer foresees; that "shopping" is a consumption good in its own right, and should not be allowed to die at the hands of "shopping phones" (or Wal-Mart):

Despite the cost-controlled monolithic gloom of the Wal-Marts and Costcos of the land, human beings, deep down, are still creatures of the bazaar, with a restless desire to haggle and finagle that cuts across cultures and the centuries. Outflanking the salesmen and beating out other customers is a primal survivalistic drive that links modern Topekans with the ancient Turks. It's a contest we lose as often as we win, but when we do win, it makes us feel alive and gives us something to boast about to friends. ... Being ripped off, in fact, can prove invigorating, and it may be a crucial engine of evolution, or at least of personal development.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

Apparently we should allow ourselves to be "ripped off" every so often for the sake of our "personal development," just like we should let ourselves be punched in the face every so often, just to keep in mind what pain feels like.

Perhaps this is the true Original Sin of Wal-Mart — it deprives us of the opportunity to be overcharged for our goods. It stunts our personal development by not letting us be ripped off in the bazaar.

As for "feeling alive," I would much rather "feel alive" at home playing with Diamond, which I can do more of if I don't waste time feeding my inner "haggler and finagler" in a store while trying to stimulate the bazaar of my ancestral R-Complex.

---

Even if this mythical "lost paradise" of haggling and finagling in communal bazaars did have something to offer for its own sake, rather than as a means to a consumptive end, it still wouldn't matter, for the shopping experience that the Times writer yearns for will still obtain in other situations.

Enter Statement #2. I was not being willfully obtuse. My parents know that they want to go on a cruise. And that's about all they know right now. They're torn between Alaska and Hawaii, and have countless other variables to consider — which cruise line, what time of year, how big a cabin to reserve, which airlines to use, etc.

Now unlike "WRT54GS" you can't plug "cruise" into a cell phone and get the unconditionally best price as an answer. Enter the travel agent and her specialized knowledge and experience — her "bazaar" if you prefer.

Travel agents are just one small example. Many people wrongly predicted a quick and painful death to the travel agent industry when the Internet first arose. And certainly web-based alternatives have not benefited the industry. But the travel agent industry is far from dead, and will likely never completely die. Because the Internet and cell phones cannot convey all travel information. Price, sure. Availability, sure. But "Alaska or Hawaii?" That's another matter.

Of course there will always be travel agents — not to mention window shopping and interior designers and fashion consultants and customer satisfaction surveys and movie reviewers and safety rankings and Book-of-the-Month Clubs and countless other ways to keep the "bazaar" alive and thriving.

But can't we, at least sometimes, just get our damn WRT54GS fast and cheap? Must we always succumb to our inner haggler? Is that much of our "Shopping Paradise Lost" at stake? And do New York Times writers really need to keep inventing new ways to unfairly bash Wal-Mart?

Techdirt continues its ongoing lamentations about the decline and fall of the moviegoing experience:

For many years, plenty of folks have been trying to explain that it's not "piracy" that's a threat to the movie industry, but the fact that the movie-going experience sucks. The movie industry has always really provided a service, that of "entertaining people," and that has nothing to do with copyrights. If people want to enjoy a night out, they are more than willing to pay for the experience. Of course, rather than make the experience better, many in the movie industry have instead latched onto the "piracy" excuse to actually make the movie-going experience that much worse. They don't do a good job of policing troublemakers and they treat their customers like criminals to ward off this bogus "piracy" threat. In the end, that just makes it worse. If you know that you're going to be forced to hand over your cell phone because it has a camera in it before you go to the movies, you're less likely to bother. Luckily some theaters, mostly independent ones, have started figuring this out and worked to improve the movie going experience and actually provide positive incentives to get people to go out to theaters.

That's Explanation A; Explanation B (the two are not mutually exclusive) is that the problem with going to the movies is one's fellow moviegoers:

1. Noisy children, screaming babies and their indulgent parents (don't negotiate with them, drag their squalling asses out of the theater!)

2. Rowdy teens and other adolescents (mostly male, but the females are becoming a problem too)

3. Nasty low class trashy people (you know the type: mouth breathing, poor hygiene, looking for a fight types who treat the movie theater as a playground for their illegitimate, uneducated brats).

4. Arrogant cellphone users (someone please pour an overpriced soda over this douchebag's head)

I tend to side with Explanation B — see my previous post.

In any case, here's the comment I left at the Techdirt post:

This all presupposes that there is indeed some "right way" to run a movie theater in the modern era.

There is no "right way" to manufacture buggy whips. Or 8-track tapes or Polaroid cameras. The markets are simply dead.

I see no viable "moviegoing experience" that could ever compete with my 40" plasma tv, surround-sound system, Netflix subscription / VOD, leather couch and refrigerator.

ERRATUM: It's a 42" plasma TV. My bad.

For Discussion: Are movie theaters doomed?