Movies & Cinema during the Pandemic? Catch-all Discussion (1 Viewer)

[ManW_TheUncool]

I probably wouldn't go to a movie theater -- I rarely went before anyway -- but I would consider an occasional live concert at Carnegie Hall or similar. In fact, I already started subscribing for the next season of concerts as usual... though Carnegie Hall, et al probably seek to be significantly safer than movie theater chains. As it is, they already canceled a few Fall concerts involving international orchestras (and more will likely follow).

_Man_

 

[Jake Lipson]

Carnegie Hall, et al probably seek to be significantly safer than movie theater chains.

I don't think they will seek to be "safer" because that implies that movie theaters won't try to be as safe as they possibly can. But I don't think they will be opening live theatre back up for significantly longer than movie theaters. Movies are easier because there are multiplexes and the same movie can be shown on several screens if need be. My movie theaters has 20 screens in it. They can show a movie across several different screens in order to get a large audience total, even if they have to cut capacity in each individual auditorium to adhere to social distancing. Live events can't do that because it's live, it only happens once and the economic model for live entertainment does not work in a socially-distanced way. If Carnegie Hall or Broadway opened to 25% capacity, they would not be able to make enough money for the production to be successful. So I think it will be a much longer time before we have live events, relative to when we will be able to have movies.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Damn, I didn’t know we had our very own “rocket scientist”, so-to-speak, on the forum. This is cool.

Far from it. Just an analytical chemist in Quality Control. A cog in the machine.

But I’ll take the “Rocket” part, as I strongly identify with this wonderful, broken character. I think James Gunn and I would really get along (as he is Rocket, and I’m kinda Rocket too).

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I don't think they will seek to be "safer" because that implies that movie theaters won't try to be as safe as they possibly can. But I don't think they will be opening live theatre back up for significantly longer than movie theaters. Movies are easier because there are multiplexes and the same movie can be shown on several screens if need be. My movie theaters has 20 screens in it. They can show a movie across several different screens in order to get a large audience total, even if they have to cut capacity in each individual auditorium to adhere to social distancing. Live events can't do that because it's live, it only happens once and the economic model for live entertainment does not work in a socially-distanced way. If Carnegie Hall or Broadway opened to 25% capacity, they would not be able to make enough money for the production to be successful. So I think it will be a much longer time before we have live events, relative to when we will be able to have movies.

Perhaps, that wasn't the best way to put it -- I was trying to keep it simple and succinct -- though I do think Carnegie Hall is run by and involve people and organizations (and for a market) that's less willing to take health risks than typical movie theaters and would also exercise better discipline toward safety. There are other logistics intrinsic to live concerts (as you mentioned) that also end up restraining such risks or simply make them harder to achieve a certain level of safety.

NOTE I'm not suggesting all theater live events would be quite like Carnegie Hall's either. There definitely are different logistics between Broadway shows and most Carnegie Hall concerts (NVM others like rock concerts). For example, I imagine restrictions/hindrances on travel (of performers) will impact Carnegie Hall (which already caused some Fall cancelations), but not nearly so much for Broadway. OTOH, Broadway theaters are typically much more densely packed and might depend a bit more on full houses -- I also wonder if Carnegie Hall might consider moving their smaller (chamber) concerts into the next bigger hall(s) to allow needed social distancing, if they'd have to cancel the bigger concerts anyway, since they do have 3 halls of graduating sizes.

Another diff from movie theaters is they don't rely nearly so much on concessions -- extremely little by comparison, and certainly not inside the concert halls themselves, but only during pre-concert and intermission at designated locations.

Don't know if enough concert goers would consider wearing masks for Carnegie Hall, but that's probably much less feasible for movie theaters, especially if concessions remain a critical source of revenue for them. Something like mask-wearing would almost certainly be much more enforceable for Carnegie Hall than typical movie theaters, if they would consider it.

_Man_

 

[Sean Bryan]

Unfortunately, for me personally, I’m not sure there will be anything that the theaters themselves can do to make me feel better or safer. It’s not their fault and it’s not fair that they’re gonna bear the brunt of my caution, but there is literally nothing they can do that will make me feel better:

-The virus travels through the air and can traverse great distances thanks to HVAC. Movie theaters depend on HVAC for audience comfort. There’s no way they can eliminate air flow and there’s no way I won’t worry about it.

-People should wear masks at all time to prevent the spread of the virus. People eat at the movies. People already are showing armed resistance to using masks in areas where it’s the law. There is no way people will have anything close to 100% compliance on masks no matter what the theater policy is. There is no way I would consider going without that.

-Between myself and my immediate family, every one of us has possibly elevated risk factors of some kind. Some are more “the doctors don’t think it will be a problem but they can’t say for sure” and some are more “do whatever it takes not to get this virus”. I simply cannot risk the lives of those dearest to me for a piece of entertainment that I will be able to see in my living room two months later.

I appreciate that there are theater owners that do care and want to do the right thing, but the right thing for me is to stay home, and I genuinely believe theaters staying closed is also best for the public health at large.

Like I keep saying - with no malice and no hard feelings - 2020 for entertainment in public is over. It may not be official yet, but it is for me and I suspect it will be official for everyone before too long.

Working at a vaccine production site, in a state where face coverings at work places is mandatory per the governor, and the company also mandates that masks are mandatory except while eating I can 100% confirm that we cannot rely on others to comply to this reasonable (and respectful) behavior to protect ourselves.

Look, wearing masks all day sucks. It fucking sucks. Your breath gets hot and moist and steams up your safety goggles or glasses. The straps start to dig into your ears, the mask rides up into your eyes causing you to keep adjusting it down. I can’t freaking stand it. I wear it because I hope it gives me some small protection from others and I know that it gives significant protection to others from me if I’m infected but asymptomatic. It’s the right thing to do. But I’ve witnessed how it is simply a forced compliance behavior for many people and how some take any chance they get to take it off if they can get away with it. And this is at a place where people are supposed to be science and public health minded. Sorry to say, but a significant portion of the general pop are just freaking selfish, ignorant animals when it comes to this stuff. A mob. You can’t trust the mob to do the right thing when they don’t want to be told what to do, and when the right thing is uncomfortable.

So sadly, I don’t think anyone should rely on every random person to do what’s right to protect us from them. No one should go to a movie theater expecting that everyone in there will be wearing a mask even if the theater says that face coverings are mandatory. For your family’s sake, don’t believe that everyone in the theater you are in is doing the right thing. They aren’t.

While theoretically we could all have significant protection and relatively low risk in a place like a movie theater right now if everyone wore masks in there and behaved as if they took this seriously the reality is that too many don’t take it seriously. No one should trust in others behaving properly for their protection. I’m sure many feel similarly, so I can’t imagine too much of a turn out at theaters unless there there is some other option for protection that doesn’t rely on “people” doing the right thing. Theaters can’t control that. We can’t control the people that go there. So we are going to need a vaccine or kickass therapeutics to make it a safe experience again.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

@ManW_TheUncool
I don’t mean to be rude, but if these venues can’t enforce “no cellphones during the performance” (which they can’t), what hope is there of enforcing a mask rule?

 

[Robert Crawford]

If Tenet plays in July, I'll be there watching on the big screen in the theaters. But I respect those who want to wait until their level of safety has been satisfied.

I hope I don't offend you with the following, but it's how I truly feel about it. Good luck as you literally play this game of Russian Roulette!

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

@ManW_TheUncool
I don’t mean to be rude, but if these venues can’t enforce “no cellphones during the performance” (which they can’t), what hope is there of enforcing a mask rule?

"No cellphones" is nothing like this issue though... and even then, pretty sure people violate that kind of rules much more frequently in movie theaters than at Carnegie Hall.

No rules are ever completely free of violation, but you don't just give up because of that, right?

The viability of a rule isn't whether you can guarantee 100% compliance, but something close enough. Otherwise, we should just give up on the use of law at every level, everywhere.

Of course, I'm not saying a mask-wearing rule will definitely "work" at Carnegie Hall, but I do suspect it has a much better chance than at movie theaters. And of course, that probably wouldn't be the only thing to do and/or going for Carnegie Hall compared to movie theaters...

_Man_

 

[Robert Crawford]

"No cellphones" is nothing like this issue though... and even then, pretty sure people violate that kind of rules much more frequently in movie theaters than at Carnegie Hall.

No rules are ever completely free of violation, but you don't just give up because of that, right?

The viability of a rule isn't whether you can guarantee 100% compliance, but something close enough. Otherwise, we should just give up on the use of law at every level, everywhere.

_Man_

However, non-compliance in this case can lead to somebody infected spreading this virus.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

However, non-compliance in this case can lead to somebody infected spreading this virus.

And how is that actually different or worse than some of the laws broken regularly?

People are literally murdered daily. And we even have different categories for such a thing.

We have DUI laws, etc, but that doesn't completely stop DUIs, etc. Pretty sure DUI is worse -- it's certainly no less bad. And nobody's remotely considering bringing back Prohibition or make it much harder to get a driver's license, etc. IF anything, our country is actually even moving toward gradual deregulation and/or dropping the war on drugs, etc.

IF Carnegie Hall finds people are too non-compliant (to whatever solution they choose), they can probably go back to canceling concerts until a viable solution is available.

A very big part of what works depends on accepted social norms and peer pressure plus anonymity (allowing violations) vs visibility (deterring violations). And I think those aspects of Carnegie Hall's primary target audience and (more well lit, less anonymous) environment are different enough than the avg movie theater audience and (dark, more anonymous) environment.

Again, I'm not saying those things guarantee that Carnegie Hall can (or will) reopen (safely enough), but I do think they afford significantly better likelihood of it (w/ safer conditions)... and that's besides my trust that they'd exercise significantly better care at whatever solution/plan than the avg movie theater -- there are other as-yet unspoken sociocultural aspects as well.

And that's also besides my idea that they could maybe consider just running the smaller concerts using the larger halls (to allow better distancing) while canceling most/all the large concerts, instead of keeping everything closed -- there are 3 substantially diff size halls w/ varying concerts nearly everyday for all 3. Most of the large concerts involve additional performance obstacles anyway, eg. large orchestra of touring performers w/ travel and safety obstacles in most (though not all) such. Of course, there might be other behind-the-scenes logistics that prevent such switching, but I'm not aware of such.

I'd certainly rather trust my health to Carnegie Hall than any movie theater in NYC...

_Man_

 

[Johnny Angell]

The viability of a rule isn't whether you can guarantee 100% compliance, but something close enough. Otherwise, we should just give up on the use of law at every level, everywhere.

This is one rule that we can guarantee won’t come close to the necessary compliance level.

We have DUI laws, etc, but that doesn't completely stop DUIs, etc. Pretty sure DUI is worse -- it's certainly no less bad.

A guy goes out and drives while under the influence. We get lucky and he doesn’t hurt anyone and makes it home. The possibility of harm is over for the day. Not so with covid. A guys goes out without a mask and makes it home alright. But he infected someone. That someone may infect others. And our original idiot may infect more. That one day keeps on giving.

Not following the social distancing rules is worse than a DUI because the potential for harm is so much greater. This pandemic started with ONE infected Persian.

 

[Robert Crawford]

And how is that actually different or worse than some of the laws broken regularly?

People are literally murdered daily. And we even have different categories for such a thing.

We have DUI laws, etc, but that doesn't completely stop DUIs, etc. Pretty sure DUI is worse -- it's certainly no less bad. And nobody's remotely considering bringing back Prohibition or make it much harder to get a driver's license, etc. IF anything, our country is actually even moving toward gradual deregulation and/or dropping the war on drugs, etc.

IF Carnegie Hall finds people are too non-compliant (to whatever solution they choose), they can probably go back to canceling concerts until a viable solution is available.

A very big part of what works depends on accepted social norms and peer pressure plus anonymity (allowing violations) vs visibility (deterring violations). And I think those aspects of Carnegie Hall's primary target audience and (more well lit, less anonymous) environment are different enough than the avg movie theater audience and (dark, more anonymous) environment.

Again, I'm not saying those things guarantee that Carnegie Hall can (or will) reopen (safely enough), but I do think they afford significantly better likelihood of it (w/ safer conditions)... and that's besides my trust that they'd exercise significantly better care at whatever solution/plan than the avg movie theater -- there are other as-yet unspoken sociocultural aspects as well.

And that's also besides my idea that they could maybe consider just running the smaller concerts using the larger halls (to allow better distancing) while canceling most/all the large concerts, instead of keeping everything closed -- there are 3 substantially diff size halls w/ varying concerts nearly everyday for all 3. Most of the large concerts involve additional performance obstacles anyway, eg. large orchestra of touring performers w/ travel and safety obstacles in most (though not all) such. Of course, there might be other behind-the-scenes logistics that prevent such switching, but I'm not aware of such.

I'd certainly rather trust my health to Carnegie Hall than any movie theater in NYC...

_Man_

I think you still don't understand the significance as to how much this pandemic can still affect our society going forward. You go ahead and place your trust onto Carnegie Hall and I wish you luck in that regard.

 

[TonyD]

If you think because it’s “ Carnegie Hall” it’s going to be safer then a typical movie theater you’re extremely naive.
Guess what, it’s still being run by people. Just like any other place.
There are still going to be people in attendance that are just like the people in any old movie theater or supermarket or any restaurant.

Carnegie Woopdie Doo Hall ain’t any better then any other venue when it comes to this virus.

 

[TonyD]

Oh also the what aboutism is no way to wave off the danger of going out.

You can slip in the shower too. Doesn’t stop us from taking a shower.
Come on.

 

[TravisR]

The complicating factor for me is that my mother is a lung cancer survivor with severely compromised breathing. If it were just myself I were risking, I'd probably go for it; what's the point of living if you're afraid to do anything? But I'd never forgive myself if I infected her and she died from it.

What's incredible to me is how people can bury their head in the sand to the real possibility of infecting themselves, family or friends. I'm not goofy enough to think that they'd care about strangers (though they should) but you'd think that simple self-preservation would make them exercise some caution. However, they've got a source of 'news' that tells them what they want to hear and that they don't need use any caution so they just do what they want.

@ManW_TheUncool
I don’t mean to be rude, but if these venues can’t enforce “no cellphones during the performance” (which they can’t), what hope is there of enforcing a mask rule?

Yeah, I wouldn't really blame the employees either. Whenever theaters reopen, they'll be stretched to a breaking point in terms of staffing and they'll have even more work to do (more cleaning, etc.) and they can't be expected to have round the clock theater monitors to make sure that people do the right thing and and keep a mask on. And when you have to trust people to act right, good luck.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

This is one rule that we can guarantee won’t come close to the necessary compliance level.

A guy goes out and drives while under the influence. We get lucky and he doesn’t hurt anyone and makes it home. The possibility of harm is over for the day. Not so with covid. A guys goes out without a mask and makes it home alright. But he infected someone. That someone may infect others. And our original idiot may infect more. That one day keeps on giving.

Not following the social distancing rules is worse than a DUI because the potential for harm is so much greater. This pandemic started with ONE infected Persian.

Actually no. It's not nearly as simple as you (and others) paint it.

Someone doesn't automatically infect someone else just because they didn't wear a mask for 2-3 hours. IF that's the case, we're all already doomed... because that would already be true w/out going to a theater, especially for the roughly 2 months prior to recent guidelines -- and even now, there are a lot of people not consistently wearing masks (or even keeping 6ft apart).

Also, pretty sure someone getting hit by a car is much more likely to die or be severely crippled than someone being infected, especially if the infected doesn't have significant underlying conditions.

Of course, the frequency of actual severe cases resulting from DUI is much lower than what we've been seeing w/ infection rate so far, but most/much of that higher infection rate also involves lack of restraint -- and more importantly, the severe cases do tend to occur much more w/ certain demographic whereas severe DUI victims are essentially random and uncontrollable.

And ultimately, that's not all what I meant anyway by worse. DUI is worse partly because it's generally a more clearly intentional disregard for others' lives whereas we can't convincingly argue the same for someone asymptomatic disregarding those rules -- yes, there is disregard, but it's much harder to argue that being greater disregard.

IF not wearing a mask or violating 6ft social distancing, especially while being asymptomatic, is actually worse, then we should have stiffer penalties for that than DUI, but of course, we do not and should not.

I understand it's difficult to make an exacting comparison, but I will have to disagree that merely going w/out a mask or temporarily breaking a social distancing rule is worse than DUI -- and we haven't even consider other damages that can occur w/ DUI.

_Man_


PS: I should probably qualify "asymptomatic" to mean "asymptomatic and not already tested positive". IOW, not known to be (likely) infected.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

RE: others, I get that you all disagree there's any meaningful differences, and I can see I probably won't convince you otherwise.

So be it... but I do think most of you are falling into false dichotomies and absolutes about much of this... instead of reasonably scrutinizing meaningful details and differences and weighing accordingly.

Ultimately, much of this comes down to risk management, and generally, that doesn't work w/ an overly simplistic, all-or-nothing, one-size-fits-all approach to problems that ignores context and differences...

_Man_

 

[Tino]

So be it... but I do think most of you are falling into false dichotomies and absolutes about much of this... instead of reasonably scrutinizing meaningful details and differences and weighing accordingly.

Sorry Man but that’s a bit insulting just because some disagree with you.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Oh also the what aboutism is no way to wave off the danger of going out.

You can slip in the shower too. Doesn’t stop us from taking a shower.
Come on.

It's not (relying on) whataboutism as much as pointed out why we try using different rules or laws and not others.

It was a response to the argument that a mask-wearing rule wouldn't be effective (enough) just because we won't get 100% compliance.

I wasn't saying don't have such rules, but quite the opposite.

And I gave examples to help flesh out the point.

_Man_

 

[TravisR]

You can argue the severity but I'd say that going out without a mask and DUI are the same in the sense that people have the misconception that they'll be fine if they do it and that both show a high level of disregard for other people. No one hops in a car drunk and thinks that someone will be killed by that action but it can happen. The same goes for not adhering to social distancing rules. It's not really a hard thing to do so to not do it is just selfish.