Ziegfeld Theatre
141 W. 54th Street,
New York,
NY
10019
141 W. 54th Street,
New York,
NY
10019
131 people
favorited this theater
Showing 2,076 - 2,100 of 4,511 comments
I checked the listings and nothing is coming out at this theater between Friday and the week after. Why is that? It would be nice to see the theater show something like Beowulf in digital 3-d, since Beowulf is a major movie event. At least the Lincoln Square theater will make a lot of money on this one as they will show it in all three formats.
On some screenings they ask the person to turn off the device and the security sits in with night vision wear.
And, nobody sues? Like I wrote above, I’d love to see these devices banned. People survived for decades without cell phones ringing or text messaging during the movie.
On select pre-release studio screenings, they have security check your cell phones at their station. Before entering the theatre.
What we need is a Federal law banning cell phones in public buidlings. This could be called the “The Anti-Terrorist Act for Secure Buildings”( the ATASB).
People would have to leave their cell phones at the Security check point before they can enter. The fine print can be up to Home Land Security.
Certainly cinemas, theatres, sport arenas and the like could be terroirst targets. And even if privately owned, they are still a public accommodation.
Pete, a building that has no “cell availability” because of location (underground/basement), dead zone, or other consideration beyond the control of the building owner is one thing. Purposely constructing a building in an area with good cell signals to specifically block cell frequencies out is another, and that’s where the trouble with a lawsuit would arise. On this we agree. As you say, people sue for any reason nowadays, and are always looking for “someone to blame”. It would make for an interesting case. Companies are allowed to use cell blocking (not active, but passive) techniques to “secure” their buildings, and you could argue that a theater is a “private establishment” that could do what it wants. However, there are no “corporate secrets” to be protected in that scenario. Again, it would make an interesting case, or argument.
Blocking devices are legal now in France but everywhere else is iffy.
I don’t recall seeing anything in federal law requiring buildings to accept cell communications. When we had the Galaxy in Guttenberg, it was underground and cell and other radio devices didn’t work inside it. I’ll have to look up the actual law, but if I remember, it specifically says “transmitters” that interrupt radio signals. I believe it was the Communications Act of 1934.
As for lawsuits, I agree with you. Anybody can sue for anything and that’s just one waiting to happen. Whether it has merit or not is the debate.
“They are entitled to construct their buildings in such a way that cell phones don’t work”
Pete, you really think so? I’m not so sure about that. Even if that were the case, and the proper signage was put up, and made very obvious to anyone entering the building, I think the theater is still opening themselves up for a huge lawsuit the first time a patron is unable to receive a call that a family member is sick or in need of aid, and in the worst case, dies, because they weren’t able to get through. Taking the obvious out of the formula, like why didn’t that person just dial 911, etc, you’re still looking at liabilities a theater chain isn’t going to want to deal with.
Sorry, theatre operators have no right to break federal law. By blocking cell phones, you’re also blocking emergency police, fire, rescue squad, etc.
They are entitled to construct their buildings in such a way that cell phones don’t work (metal shielding, Faraday Cage, etc.), but the law specifies that ‘active’ jamming gear is highly illegal.
Never will happen the 1st doctor who does not get his call or a parent from the babysitter about an ill child does not get the call its over..
No theater company is going to risk lawsuits….. just not going to happen..
Whether blocking cell phones is against federal law or not, if such is in fact illegal, it’s obviously one of those moot laws the federal government is not going to expend any money and manpower upholding. For cell phones going off in a theater disrupts free speech — the ability of a theater to show its motion pictures without disruption — so of course on that basis a theater operator has EVERY right to introduce whatever it takes to block cell phones from going off inside theaters. For Constitutional law overrides and trumps other laws, just to do the big reality check here.
Anyway, back to your discussion now that we’ve got that point fully cleared up…
I should qualify what I said before. There are quite a few good movies every year. In 2006 I saw about 25 of them, including ones like “Marie Antoinette” and “Borat” that I actually avoided in theaters, but was wrong about – I saw them on cable and enjoyed them very much. But in a good year, there are about 3 or 4 really good movies, ones that might be called classics in future years. For 2006 I’d put “United 93” and “The Departed” in this category.
I haven’t seen too many films in 2007 yet, but I am looking forward to seeing two upcoming ones at the Ziegfeld: “Enchanted” and “Sweeney Todd”.
Howard you are so right if people would look a little there are good and great films out there….
I saw many of those films and agree they were good. The few that I named above were the ones that I enjoyed the absolutely best. My point was simply there are new films, mainstream and arthouse, that are worthy for adults to see.
ALSO …
PS I LOVE YOU
JUNO
both great films
good in 2007
paris je tame
no country for old men
into the wild
rescue dawn
death at a funeral
la vie en rose
eastern promises
black book
lars and the real girl
man named pearl
painted vail
grindhouse
ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO LIKE ALL OF THESE (I DID)
Jeff, I’m not really trying to be rude, but you said all new movies are nothing but “crap” and the moviegoing experience is so bad you prefer not to attend and there’s no movies for adults.
If others followed your example, there would be no movies theaters left open for daily movies including many historic movie theaters that are still open!
Bill at least recognizes “3 or 4 really good movies per year”
JEFF YOU ARE SO RIGHT ABOUT THE CELL PHONE .BLOCKING IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN…
Jeff and I were talking about this the other day, and I said there are about 3 or 4 really good movies per year – maybe more if it’s a good year. The Oscar nominations are a pretty good barometer of what’s good out there. They are for me anyway, although I saw “Babel” on the strength of its 7 nominations and truly hated it. You never can tell.
Blocking cell phones is against federal law, and I could see a whopping lawsuit if a blocked cell phone call got in the way of a medical emergency in either direction (in or outbound).
Gee Howard, sorry to ruffle your feathers, but that’s no need to be rude. I will continue to express my opinion as I see fit, and I will not “Shut Up!”.
Jeff S,
If you don’t enjoy new movies, that’s your problem, and on that point, the best I can say is what the King of Spain said recently to a South American leader “Shut up!”
Just to cite the movies that were indeed VERY worthwhile in the last few months, earlier this year I enjoyed “Ratatouille” at the Ziegfeld, and elsewhere, I saw the remake of “3:10 to Yuma” Though a documentary, “The Rape of Europa” which played the Paris, was great!These movies were just fine for us grown-ups and I didn’t experience any intolerable problems of cell phone/text messaging abuse or coughing, talking, or blocked views, to cite your whines above. I would, though, be happy if movie theaters could employ a system to shut down the cell phones. As to price, movies are reasonably priced. Concessions are too high.
Interesting how that corresponds to the $25 reserved-seat admission for the so-called “roadshow” engagement of “Dreamgirls” this past Christmas. I wonder if the distributors and exhibitors for that engagement used that inflation calcuator to arrive at their price?
How do 1955 general admission prices compare with today’s? What was a typical NYC general admission price in ‘55… 90 cents? That would translate to $6.52 – so in that respect today’s GA tickets are way more expensive in terms of inflationary dollars. Anyone have an accurate GA figure for NYC in 1955?
According to the online inflation calculator at www.westegg.com/inflation/:
What cost $3.50 in 1955 would cost $25.35 in 2006.