The last movie we attended people were incredibly disruptive throughout the film, to the point that it was difficult to focus on the film. Some people enjoy screaming, laughing, and talking as part of the experience, but it's apparently been normalized beyond my tolerance threshold. Add in the cost and overall movie quality decrease of Hollywood productions, and it's difficult to justify.
Presently, we watch foreign movies at home 95% of the time and maybe a Hollywood production when they manage to find their roots and create something worth watching.
Sort of off topic, but almost the same can be said for music concerts. During slower or softer songs, people can be heard talking and laughing loudly. I get it, they paid their money, same as us, but we didn't pay to hear them.
A couple of years ago, I went to see Echo & The Bunnymen open for Violent Femmes. I had seen the Femmes multiple times, but was really excited to see Echo. These two old biddies that sat in front of us talked the entire show. In between bands, one of them dropped their purse without noticing. I picked it up and offered in exchange for the purse if they wouldn't mind talking through the next act. They were shocked at the nerve and said they didn't talk that much. I then told them all about their kids and their school work and other nonsense that I had to endure. The looked at each other like "oops". To my luck, the show was not sold out, and we moved down our row to get away from them. I obviously gave the purse back
People call the classical music audience prudish for demanding quiet during performances, but IMO when you go to a concert it should be ok to shush people who talk during the quiet parts.
On the one hand, you're at a social experience. On the other hand, aren't you supposed to have your senses engaged in a shared experience? The interpersonal conversation diminishes that. On the other other hand, as long as you're having fun and not doing harm, do whatever. As the Master of Ceremonies, I love it. On the other other other hand, talking pushes up the noise floor, making louder concerts a necessity. A louder concert is more dangerous to your hearing.
There is a difference between us all experiencing a shared artistic experience and us hearing about your kids while we are trying very hard to share an artistic experience.
I wouldn't complain much about people singing along to a ballad or such but yapping, you can go do that somewhere else.
I'm so split on this. Ultimately I think I land on: "if there's chairs, engage in the shared sensory experience. If it's GA standing room only, it's a party and do whatever."
As a musician I ask if the music is so fragile it can't stand up to some extraneous background noise, is it really worth listening to?
Also, if the music feels bad enough to where people find talking to each other more pleasant than listening, isn't that the fault of the 'sensory experience?'
It really depends on the music and the background noise? Talking (more likely yelling) in the middle of a rock concert? Probably not an issue. I’m wearing earplugs anyway. Holding a conversation in the middle of a quiet passage during an orchestra performance? Everyone near you wants you to shut up.
It’s like people talking through a comedy show. Saying something quietly to the person next to you? Whatever. Talking loudly for 20 minutes? Get the fuck out. Go talk to your friends at a bar and let people who came to hear the act enjoy the act.
> if the music feels bad enough to where people find talking to each other more pleasant than listening
But then leave. If you don’t like the show, it’s totally fair for you to just get up and go. Talking through a show you don’t care about and disturbing people who do want to be there? Why?
Curious if you have a sense of how long this has been going on. My perception is that various sorts of rudeness and inconsiderateness have been on the rise for a while, but really jumped post-COVID.
Some of it is minor but just suggests to me that many people lack any sense that they should be aware of others around them. Just today I was walking down the street and a woman was stopped, in the middle of the sidewalk, staring at her phone. She was in front of a shop door but not right in front of it, so she was half-blocking both people passing on the sidewalk and people trying to get into the store. I see this kind of thing so often now, in store aisles, on sidewalks, etc., and a part of me wants to go up to these people and inform them that there are other people around them and that if they want to take a moment to look at their phone they should step to the side.
Definitely post-COVID. I remember going to see bands in between or just after lockdowns ended, and even the bands were taken aback by the change in audience behaviour, commenting on it. Lots of self-entitled behaviour, talking and even yelling out during quiet moments, people walking up to the stage during a seated Nick Cave concert demanding to hand him stuff or shake his hand - I remember him saying "wow, you guys really forgot how to behave over the last couple of years". Now it just seems to be normalised that crowd behaviour is worse, more self-entitled. I'm not sure what's driving it - whether people who previously weren't going to gigs decided, during lockdown, that they wanted to go out and do stuff more, but just had never learned the etiquette, and/or social media making the experience about the individual rather than the performance.
> many people lack any sense that they should be aware of others around them.
It's not "people". One half of all people grows up playing contact sports or at least have some form of rough-and-tumble with their homies in schoolyards. This half also knows that you can get punched if things get too rowdy.
The other does not. Almost all of the entitled road blockers are in this category.
I went with my daughter to see Taylor Swift in Tokyo. It was an amazing experiences. Swift fans prefer recording Tokyo performances because fangs don’t sing along to the music or talk during the performance.
Audiences in Tokyo aren’t quite to make it easier to record. It just so happens that audiences in Tokyo tend to be quiet, so the recordings of the Tokyo shows tend to end up the clearest.
I saw Avatar 3 here in Tokyo where I live. It was great! I saw the Dolby 3D version. Popcorn was pretty cheap, tickets were reasonably priced, the audience was as quiet as the dead.
I've seen several other movies (normal ones, not 3D/IMAX/etc.) here since I moved here, and they were all the same. Audiences here have excellent behavior.
We're planning to see Project Hail Mary this weekend when it comes out, this time on IMAX.
A couple years ago I went to a county fair because someone said the pie judging was worth seeing. I’ve been to fairs before but never really watched the judging part. They had all the pies on this weird low table, like not quite a kid’s playset table but close, so people leaning in to look kept bumping it with their legs and thighs without noticing, and after a while one of the pies just slowly started sliding toward the edge every time the table got nudged until it eventually tipped off and landed upside down on the floor while the judges were busy debating crust integrity on another pie.
I picked it up and put it back and they still gave it third place.
Just went to a very small show, 200 tickets but lots of no shows. Maybe 100 people there total. The folks at the bar were so rude to the talent just loudly talking over them. I just don’t get it.
Couldn't disagree more. It's a social experience, it's so unfun and antisocial to have some go to a large gathering of humans and get annoyed when their presence is detectable. Go listen to the song by yourself in a room
With current TV setups or projector technology I basically have cinema in my living room.
As a kid who grew up in 90’s I would say it is easily better than what cinema had back then.
I don’t have that high expectations of sound/video as many people will point out that streaming kills the quality but for all its worth still much better than what I need to enjoy a movie.
One of the criteria for me to go to the theater was the big screen and big sound would really add to the experience. The last film I saw in the theater was was so loud that it physically hurt and ruined the experience.
As you say with the image quality being as high at home now plus a decent surround system really makes the theater experience at home very enjoyable.
These days it's hard for the screen and sound alone to compete with home theater tech. So the only remaining edge a theater might have is the presence of others. The Minecraft movie was the perfect example of this. Some of our kid's classmates went to see it multiple times due to the viral audience cues. And to think that some theaters tried to suppress it.
If you are in an urban area and are not a millionaire, you probably live in some kind of apartment or studio. And yes, you can stick up a projector and a good surround system... but it might be that the builder cut corners on the floors and your neighbors already come knocking when you are talking, much less turn up the audio system to a tenth of the sound pressure a good cinema sound system provides.
I do live in an apartment and I am far from a millionaire.
I don't have any of the problem - but I don't have "cinema sound system" as I mentioned whatever I have must have just clear sound and clear doesn't mean loud. I don't need "sound experience" to enjoy a movie.
> I don't need "sound experience" to enjoy a movie.
Unfortunately, most cinema movies are not properly remastered in their audio tracks, but keep the original cinema mix. That results in very silent dialogue (which is not a problem in a cinema, at least as long as people behave and don't yap around all the time) and very loud sequences particularly in action shots.
When you now give such a movie to your usual home theater setup, you have to turn up the volume enough so you can understand the dialogue and either constantly turn it down whenever it gets heated or live with neighbors complaining.
Straight-to-streaming releases usually don't suffer from that problem, because they are made and mixed for normal users streaming on their laptops with shitty speakers. Note I said usually, because Disney's Star Wars series are still mastered for decent setups with dynamic range.
There's a debate to be had about the impact of that on storytelling, as straight-to-streaming these days is produced with the movie/episode on a side screen while people are doing something else, so everything that you would normally see on a screen is verbally described by actors, but that's another debate entirely.
Thanks for clarifying that. I always thinking it was due to my bad hearing or lack of fluency! English is my second language, and without subtitles, I'm having trouble to understand the dialogues without increasing the volume until I reach a level where I also got disturbed from the sound effects, bg music etc. It's a bigger issue with movies, not only due to what you explained about sound mixing, but also error correction of my brain works worse without the context, unlike series where I know the plot and the characters.
Watch out for any show with Christopher Nolan as director. He is notorious for terrible audio mixing, and having actor mumble and otherwise dictate horribly.
As an american and English as my only human language, even I need subtitles.
And the movie "Tenet" was so bad that I ragequit 30 minutes in. Horrible horrible audio.
>you have to turn up the volume enough so you can understand the dialogue and either constantly turn it down whenever it gets heated or live with neighbors complaining.
It doesn't help that many actors these days have become students of the "mumble acting" school of acting. It's amazing watching some 50-year-old movie from the 70s and the dialog is crystal-clear and perfectly understandable.
> It's amazing watching some 50-year-old movie from the 70s and the dialog is crystal-clear and perfectly understandable.
Back then dynamic range in cinemas also wasn't there and TVs were mono as well. You couldn't fix stuff in post to a large degree either, so in moviemaking you were all but forced to have sets as quiet as possible and actors speak clearly.
Back pre digital I was once lucky enough to see Aliens on one of the private cinemas at Fox, and it was astounding. I think people underestimate how poorly operated most normal cinemas used to be, combined with maybe not the best prints etc.
I remember seeing In the Mood for Love on the big screen in my local arthouse cinema back around 2000. It was shot with analogue film and projected as such, and the sheer details of the textures were astounding. It's not a bad film on my 4k monitor, but I don't feel the same awe.
IIRC in the film era there was one "master" of the movie, it was duplicated multiple times to make negative versions of the film, then those negatives are used to make the positive copies that are sent to theaters. So you're watching something that has been copied at least twice.
Commercial theaters are all digital now. They don't even have film projectors anymore. Some independent or "revival" cinemas might still have them.
As a huge film buff, I sadly agree. And theaters in my area aren’t doing a good job keeping their projection technology current. When we went to see “Wicked”, my wife leaned over and whispered that it would probably look better on our 77” OLED, and she was absolutely right. The theater image was dark and lacked vibrant color.
> As a kid who grew up in 90’s I would say it is easily better than what cinema had back then.
The best thing a home theatre system has that is equivalent to the 90's experience and superior to current cinema is that you can have an intermission to take a leak.
In the 90's, the intermission was long enough to visit the bathroom and then buy some more popcorn and candy. These days I have to miss some part of the middle of the movie.
There's a middle ground. I go for the laughter and reaction of the audience. I don't go to hear the 2 people behind me have a conversation during the movie. Nor do I go to have people critiquing the movie out loud as we're watching it. I certainly don't go to watch people pop out their phones and scroll through social media or check their messages.
One of my better cinema experiences was watching Austin Powers 3 at the theater in some random late-morning screening where there were only three friends and me in the hall, plus two elderly ladies in their 70s. They were laughing so hard that the movie became even funnier for us, because you somehow wouldn’t expect them to find it that hilarious.
Also, growing up in a small town in Yugoslavia in the 80s definitely didn’t guarantee a top-tier cinema experience, to put it mildly. But the feeling I had watching the James Bond opening credits from a damaged film reel, with frayed subtitles projected from a decades-old projector, is something I can never quite recreate when watching on a 4K screen from a perfect source. So there's that.
The midnight showing of movies like Rocky Horror Picture show are fun when everyone knows that audience participation is the entire reason of going, but that's the only time I want audience participation.
Well, rude behavior stemmed from lack of empathy for other people who have to listen to them. I am sorry you had that bad experience.
Off topic, but since I retired a few years ago, I go to movies all the time but I go during the week and catch movies between 11am to 3pm. Theaters are almost empty, but just enough other people in the theater to feel like a shared experience. I see about five or six movies a month, and my wife goes with me about half the time. I worried that my local theater would go out of business until we went to a Saturday night movie and all 16 theaters seemed busy, will wall to wall people in the huge lobby area.
So, I hope the movie industry survives in close to its present form. I share your fondness to foreign films, BTW.
This is why I strongly endorse buying a projector if the space allows for one. Changed the home experience. I thought I might be making a mistake when I bought my first (720p) years ago but I'd never go back to a traditional television.
I completely disagree. This advice made sense 20 years ago, but today an 85" (or smaller even) OLED screen will easily outperform any projector.
The problem with projectors is that they can't display black: they're shining light through a filter, so they can't produce a true black, and the contrast ratio isn't that great. For best effect, you need an extremely dark room. With an OLED screen, black is absolutely black, because black pixels simply aren't lit up at all, and you get better contrast ratio than a projector. As a bonus, you can even watch it with the lights on.
A 120” or whatever screen is still massively larger than an 85” OLED. Yeah, the picture quality isn’t as good but it’s also more like a theater, so you get that nostalgia factor.
Obviously it depends on your projector/screen choice but it’ll probably be cheaper, too. The portability is also nice.
If I watch a movie by myself, I would choose my $500 27" 4k monitor connected to proper speakers/headphone over a $300 55" TV without external soundbar any day. Most people probably will choose the opposite, which I totally understand.
My preferred methods at the time, sneaking/breaking into houses, stealing, and ganking/PKing unsuspecting souls (emphasis on graveyards, dungeons, and miners). Stealing items, often the offensive spell reagents, out of someone's bag before a fight made for no shortage of quality interactions.
My nontechnical friends only know about ChatGPT, all other LLMs are a complete and total mystery to them outside of what is built into Google's search engine and Copilot. I imagine they represent the majority of consumers. It'd require significant marketing campaign for most of them to switch or for OpenAI to make a substantial mistake.
do they use facebook or instagram? meta jammed their LLM into the search box there. Do they use google at all? the AI summary produced by Gemini leads you to click on "more details" with gemini.
so while this is technically true:
> My nontechnical friends only know about ChatGPT
they may actually use a ton of other LLMs without knowing
It's rare to find local newspapers owned locally, and even rarer to find a local newspaper that's a fair representation of the local population instead of an insulated clique with heavy handed control over what's represented.
Local online forums dedicated to a locality produce more representative content and everyone can participate as long as their isn't a similar controlling clique in charge of moderation. See /r/Seattle and /r/SeattleWA for how moderation manipulates outcomes. Both perspectives are important, but each clique tends to omit what others deem important; leading to topic over-representation/under-representation problems.
There's clearly a loss on long forum informational pieces, but your community is misinformed or misrepresented if those pieces only support the motives of the clique.
Seattle actually happens to have some absolutely great examples of local journalism as well as some extremely bad examples of corporate owned "news" factories.
https://westseattleblog.com/ is run by a single person (formerly a husband and wife team) and she attends huge numbers of local events and city meetings providing hyper-local coverage on things that are happening in the area.
The overall food quality in Germany is significantly higher than in the US. Visit an Aldi or Lidl in Germany, then visit one in the US; night and day difference in food quality.
You can tell Germany cares for its population via food regulation and from what's offered; whereas, it's a toxic trash heap in America solved with drugs or paying a higher premium for healthier items. The healthier items in America should be a baseline instead of pricing out people. Feels like Americans are paying for a premium upfront or downstream via pharmaceutical/healthcare solutions.
Probably 95% of Germans live 15min from an Aldi. There are no Dollar General food wastes because the country is much denser and poor people have access to much better public transport
True. Population density differs by about 2.5x, and the US has some truly depopulated areas that essentially don't exist on the European contintent.
Although, rural Americans are also used to driving longer distances than rural Germans. I would venture that a 30-40 minute trip is not thought of as significant, especially if only done 1-2 times per week.
Rural grocery shopping (real food, not snacks), is typically done at Walmart or a smaller grocery brand or independent. For quick errands, DG does get a lot of it. You're starting to see grocery store logistics push in to what were traditionally gas-and-convenience-store corners, including Aldi, so the commutes for groceries are getting shorter.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the US with the price war over GLP-1 weight loss pills. Unlike Ozempic injections, they're going to penetrate into low income and rural households.
I've never seen it in a tree, but I do see some owners leaving their crap bags on hiking trails and often forgetting about them on the return trip. I'd rather they let the dog poop in the forest instead of encapsulating it in a plastic bag until a Good Samaritan picks it up.
Texas and most other states should push for additional freedom in this space. Anyone who can pass the state's bar exam, should be allowed to practice law. Let the legal market sort out the rest from there.
California, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington already allow people to practice law within their states without attending law school, but via "reading the law" type apprenticeships. Extending this nationally would benefit lawyers and the people who need them.
There's not a shortage of lawyers and Texas is not pushing for freedom. They're taking over accreditation so they can start bullying law schools the same way they have with undergraduate institutions like A&M.
This is likely the correct answer. The ABA really leads (somewhat indirectly) to three things:
1) A common moral and professional code
2) Credential portability through standards
3) A "minimum threshold" of competence
I suspect that it is the first thing that Texas objects to. There's probably a specific flavor of *-ism they want to allow their lawyers to practice. That said, you can already get into law via apprenticeship or reading in CA, VA, VT, WA. It's not the end of the world.
> I suspect that it is the first thing that Texas objects to.
Perhaps, but the piece they are actually acting directly against is the 2nd (perhaps the 3rd, but that is itself really part of the 2nd, rather than an independent thing.)
And the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and Model Code of Judicial Conduct—which presumably are largely what you are referring to by the first—are just what the names say: models; each jurisdiction adopts its own actual rules for these things.
> That said, you can already get into law via apprenticeship or reading in CA, VA, VT, WA.
And in at least some states, also through non-ABA law schools, though there may be additional state requirements in that case (which may also apply to the apprenticeship/reading—two different names for the same thing, not two different options—option where that is available in the same jurisdiction; e.g., in California the First Year Law Students exam is required for both those reading for the law and those attending non-ABA law schools.)
> each jurisdiction adopts its own actual rules for these things.
Sure, but because the schools must be ABA approved that means the ABA gets to decide that schools omitting those codes don't get approved... doesn't it? That was my assumption anyhow.
> which may also apply to the apprenticeship/reading—two different names for the same thing, not two different options
I spoke with a VP of a state bar association who described chronic, widespread lawyer shortages, constant attrition in the pool of eligible judicial appointees, a growing backlog of cases (compounded by the effects of COVID) with trial dates many years in the future, declining law school graduations, and declining projected law school enrollment. These conditions may not hold across every county and metro, but in a lot of places the system is buckling (citizens already waiting 5-6 years for a ruling on open-shut civil matters) because there’s so much more work than workers.
> There's not a shortage of lawyers and Texas is not pushing for freedom.
Exactly. Law isn't medicine, and there are so many law graduates that many of them can't even find work in the legal industry, and the earnings of many graduates are surprisingly low (the distribution is bimodal: https://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib).
Unfortunately too many here will reflexively believe some libertarian narrative of "professional organization limiting supply to drive salaries up," even when it doesn't apply.
Arizona is the only state that artificially limits the number of lawyers it has. Every year they decide how many new ones they need, and that is exactly how many will pass the bar exam.
I don’t think that this has has had the effect of driving up salaries, however.
I disagree, in my opinion passing the bar exam is necessary but not nearly sufficient for competently practicing law.
The bar is an imperfect filter. One could study for the exam and pass and still be hugely deficient in ability as an attorney.
I would argue there's no exam that could replace the evaluative and experiential component of 3 years in law school, and accreditation helps enforce at least some standard of quality in the profession. More incompetent lawyers -> more wasteful behavior -> a more bloated and slower legal system -> worse outcomes for everyone.
I think reducing barriers to completing the legal education (part-time programs, lower cost, etc) are better avenues for increasing access.
I don’t have an opinion either way in this, but the legal profession seems like it suffers from some of the same issues that emergency healthcare does that makes licensing important.
It’s not something regular people are using consistently so they have researched the people in advance. They usually have to scramble when they need a lawyer. And it’s very hard for a lay person to identify whether a lawyer did a good job or not.
But even when it comes to bigger firms which do have the resources to find good lawyers, there’s a different advantage to heavy handed licensing. The fact that the law depends extremely heavily on lawyers being largely honest especially when it comes to stuff like discovery and maintaining confidentiality. Licensing is one of the strongest tools has to ensure that.
I'm currently looking to get a law degree and the education requirements are... silly. I've done a significant amount of law-and-law-accessories work over the past ten years and have had a nice career in sysadmin/sre/devops/ops work. Yet I need a(ny) bachelors to even get started and I don't even have an associates.
It truly feels like the only way forward is to waste several years of my life and exhaust myself to the bone to get a degree.
But more honestly, it comes from reflecting about the ways that knowledge gaps affect FOIA litigation/conversation/interpretation and the criminal litigation reporting/research/investigations I've done/beenapartof. A lot of law-and-law-accessories is learnable within context-and-scope, especially with attorneys to help interpret, but I would like to get past that point. It helps that it's all very interesting.. and people keep asking me when I'm going to become a lawyer, so, ope.
How would "the legal market" sort out someone who repeatedly uses the legal system in bad faith but, because they're in Donald's orbit the only hope left of consequences is the threat of disbarment? It increasingly seems like the last line of defense of late.
It's not about removing the requirement of the bar exam, just who decides who can take it
> The Texas Supreme Court issued an order Tuesday finalizing a tentative September opinion, asserting the ABA should "no longer have the final say" on which law school graduates can take the bar exam — a requirement to becoming a licensed lawyer in each state.
Agree. Also, most JD programs in most states require a 4 year degree to enter.
That sounds like "a good idea" to a lot of people in the context of high school graduates. But for someone older who had a (let's say successful) career in the trades, or software engineering, without needing a 4 year degree.. It's a huge barrier to entry needing 4 years of college before even starting JD for those interested in law later in life.
This, and most law schools are businesses capturing student debt and too many law students foster a flawed perception of legal practice. There's a surplus of debt-laden law graduates who are unemployed, underemployed, or working in completely different fields. Transitioning to an apprenticeship styled career path would help solve the significant mismatching that's occurring. Too many people misspending their youth and incurring debt by falling for law school marketing ploys.
Turn Tier-1 law schools and state flagship law schools into legal scholarship graduate studies for people interested in pursuing highbrow judicial work.
> California, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington already allow people to practice law within their states without attending law school, but via "reading the law" type apprenticeships.
Famously this is how Kim Kardashian tried to become an attorney without ever attending undergrad, let alone law school. However, to date she has not be able to pass the bar exam.
There are already way too many attorneys, and way too many lawyers who can't even get jobs as attorneys, I'm not sure how letting anyone who takes the bar exam cosplay as an attorney will help things.
(I am not an attorney, or a lawyer, and I've never attended law school)
> Let the legal market sort out the rest from there.
This isn’t a field where supply demand free market economics should be the goal. Literal lives could be at stake. Should we also let surgery market sort itself out by allowing people to perform surgeries if they pass an exam?
You mean in Texas where they cap medical liability or somewhere with no limits of liability and insurance markets to determine relative costs of practicing while incompetent?
Fun fact: the reason bar associations exist is because people got tired of the free market free-for-all that existed before bar associations.
Law, like medicine, isn't something you want some rando handling. The free market is not a magical panacea. Rules are created for a reason, and that reason is usually grounded in human suffering.
Presently, we watch foreign movies at home 95% of the time and maybe a Hollywood production when they manage to find their roots and create something worth watching.
reply