Jun 04 2007

Free digital camera!

If you want a free digital camera, just follow these easy steps:

  • Go to Cinema Guzzo in Greenfield Park.
  • Watch for someone who goes into the cinema, then goes back to his car for a minute, and then returns to the cinema.
  • Break into the car and steal the camera that he put there because he’s not allowed to take it into the screening room.

I would have been one of your victims on Friday night, except Martine and I opted instead to refund our tickets and leave. We had gone to see “Knocked Up,” only vaguely aware of the silliness brewing around Bill C-59, the “anti-camcording” bill. As a result of the bill (which has not yet been debated or passed), the cinemas are in a frenzy over the issue of “camcording” movies.

A bit of background: the media has been reporting that a lot of pirated movies seem to be coming out of Canada. Specifically, pirated moves of the “camcording” variety. That means pirate copies that were made by someone filming the movie screen with a video camera.

The cinemas are supposedly outraged over the practice, as they feel these crappy pirated versions keeps people from plunking down $12 to see the movie in a cinema. Cinema Guzzo in Greenfield park (and possibly other cinemas too, but Guzzo is the only one where I personally witnessed this), now have a security guard checking people’s bags for cameras. The guard is on the other side of the box office, with no warning signs outside. So you only find out about the bag checking after you’ve paid for your ticket.

They nailed me. I had a still camera in my bag (not a video camera). The guard gave me the option of putting my camera into a big cardboard box along with a bunch of other captured ones, or of going out to the parking lot and leaving it in the car.


First, there is no way I’m putting my $600 Lumix DMC-LX2 into a box with no access control on it. It wasn’t even like a coat check – no chits or numbered tickets. Just toss it in the box and take your chances. (Oh, by the way, that’s another way to get a free digital camera and you don’t even have to break anything. Just go see a movie at Cinema Guzzo and on your way out walk over to the guy with the box and say “I’d like my camera back now” and grab one.)

Second, there is no way I am going to walk out to my car in front of all those people – people who are aware of the new camera policy – to pay a 15 second visit and then turn around and go back to the cinema. I might as well just pull out a bullhorn and yell THE CAMERA IS IN THE GLOVE COMPARTMENT!

If you think I’m being paranoid, I’ll remind you that there are plenty of people who make a living by hanging around parking lots waiting to spot people who park their cars, deposit something in the trunk, and then walk away. I’m not making this up, call your local police department and ask.

There are lots of things going on here, so let’s pause for a breath:

  • Parliament is about to pass a very stupid law based on flawed information from bone-headed lobbyists.
  • The cinemas are over-reacting to the issue, and acting as if cameras were firearms or something.

What really burns me about all of this is how over-blown the problem is. I can understand why the industry is upset over people distributing unauthorized copies of DVDs, because those are direct digital transfers with no loss of quality. They’re indistinguishable from the originals.

But what does a “camcorded” version of a movie look like? I’ve never seen one, but I’ll bet the image is shaky and blurry, and it’s probably twisted into a trapezoid because of the angle of the camera. The edges of the frame are probably clipped off, or there are large black borders because the camera isn’t zoomed enough. No doubt the sound is terrible.

So then the question becomes “who watches such a video?”

I can imagine it playing in a run-down cafe in some tropical jungle village, or at some beach bar in South-East Asia that’s full of Eurotrash pot heads. But no one who actually enjoys going to the cinema would bother with such a thing.

In other words, the “market” for camcorded movies is likely very small, and limited to people who wouldn’t spend $12 on a movie ticket anyway. So in fact there is no loss to the cinemas or the movie industry. It’s like screening a pirated movie to a wall of trees or a field full of sheep. It has no bearing on the box office.

Cinema Guzzo likely did not prevent anyone from camcording “Knocked Up” last Friday night, because it is unlikely anyone would have camcorded it anyway. Or if they had, the only people who would have watched the pirated version are people who wouldn’t have paid in the first place. But their ill-conceived “security” check cost them at least two tickets that night (mine and Martine’s). Cinema Guzzo is just shooting itself in the foot.

If the cinemas really want to prevent the loss of box office sales, I suggest the following game plan:

  • Stop charging $4 for a 79-cent bottle of water.
  • Stop charging enormous prices for popcorn and other “food” items.
  • Stop treating customers as if they were crime suspects.
  • Stop subjecting customers to 20 minutes of advertising and previews before the show starts.

Categorized under Film,Society,Stupidity

129 comments so far

129 Comments on “Free digital camera!”

  1. […] UPDATE: Looks like I’m not the ONLY ONE upset by these measures. […]

  2. Michelon 04 Jun 2007 at 11:49 am

    What’s the law regarding the fine folks at Guzzo searching your bag? What happens if you don’t comply?
    I ask because I’ve always wanted to tell the rent-a-cops at the Jazz Fest to go take a flying fuck at a rolling dough nut whenever they ask me to show them the contents of my pack when walking on a public street.

  3. DAVEon 04 Jun 2007 at 11:59 am

    Michel, apparently they can’t even ASK ABOUT the contents of your bag. (R. v. Mellenthin [1992])

  4. […] to get a free digital camera from a Canadian movie […]

  5. Housseinon 04 Jun 2007 at 12:45 pm

    Cam recording are common but loosing popularity. As you said the quality is so bad that nobody downloads them i guess! The real problem is the Telesync and the now popular R5 releases: these are done by organized groups having accomplices in the theaters…

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirated_movie_release_types

  6. blorkon 04 Jun 2007 at 1:04 pm

    Hmm, Dave and Michel, I’m not sure about that. I wouldn’t trust the validity of any pre-9/11 judgement when it comes to security measures.

    As far as I know, the city grants the Jazz Fest a temporary special status during the course of the festival so that the areas within the festival’s scope (the parts that are blocked to traffic) are considered “private property.” As such, the Jazz Festival has the right to deny you entry. If you refuse to let them look in your bag, then they can refuse to let you in.

    Same applies to the cinema — it’s their business, so they have the right to refuse you entry.

    I’m not 100% sure of this, but I’m fairly confident that’s how it is.

  7. blorkon 04 Jun 2007 at 1:26 pm

    Incidently, I did a bit of reading on R. v. Mellenthin. That case is about “search and seizure” which is different because the defendants did not have the option of not being searched. (They were pulled over by a cop who demanded to search the car.)

    At the Jazz Fest or at the cinema you do have the option of turning around and walking away (as in, exiting the premises). So the cases are quite different from a legal perspective.

  8. DAVEon 04 Jun 2007 at 1:33 pm

    Yes but I want to option of not being searched (because I’m not a criminal and should not be treated as such) and still attending the venue. It’s the being treated as a criminal that deeply offends me.

  9. Irv Washingtonon 04 Jun 2007 at 2:47 pm

    There are only 3 theaters I will visit in the Montreal area currently: AMC Forum 22, where they are happy to let you go from one theater to the other, turning a blind eye since the shows aren’t ever sold out, especially not on a Sunday – but more importantly are showing movies of which 50% are watcheable – unlike Famous Players/Guzzo/Cineplex which mostly show things you couldn’t pay me to see; Excentris, where going to a see a feature there means you probably couldn’t see it anywhere else anyway; and Cinema du Parc, because they play films that you always wanted to see in a theater but never got the chance to.

    I love the cinema. Along the same lines, I love music, but as an industry both have been “preverted” by corporate-drone mindsets.

    At least they can’t sue people into watching movies in their theaters. Of course in our great neighbour to the south they might try.

  10. A.K.on 04 Jun 2007 at 3:26 pm

    Oh, I totally know how you feel! At the college I attend we have to leave our knapsacks and laptops at the bookstore entrance. They say they have a security person watching…(people just pile up their bags on the floor by the door) …how is he/she going to know who’s bag belongs to whom?
    So If i REALLY need something at the store….. I make a big fuss…i try to sneak in with my bags. When they tell me to leave them at the door….I say that I understand that they are trying to protect their property, but that I also want my property protected, so I ask for the security guard or a staff member to escort me to the bookshelf that I want to go to and then escort me to the cash register. They won’t do it. I’ve explained and explained that they are not properly protecting our knapsacks and I also ask them if they have liability insurance to cover the loss of my laptop. NOPE. It just doesn’t make sense. It’s to the point where I will do ANYTHING not to have to buy stuff at the bookstore. I intentionally avoid it. I will go to other universities and colleges to get my books until they get some pay lockers at the entrance to the store.

  11. Martineon 04 Jun 2007 at 3:45 pm

    @Irv Washington: Blork and I are almost always at the AMC Forum (at least for films in English) but the traffic on the bridges to get to the city was terrible last Friday night and I just gave up. (I was already in the car, meeting up with Blork at the metro.)

    I bet you though that it’s just a matter of time until other theaters join in, and it’s absolutely ridiculous. Talk about a way of making sure that people stay home and watch a DVD instead of coming to the theater!

  12. Donalon 04 Jun 2007 at 6:05 pm

    Whatever about the rights and wrong of preventing you bringing a video camera into the theatre, why would they stop you bringing a *photographic* camera? I suppose you could take 26 shots per second and produce a pirated slide show of the movie, but I’m unconvinced about the commercial possibilities for such an enterprise.

    Also, if photographic cameras are prohibited, then shouldn’t camera-phones also be forbidden? If they’re going to insist on acting like jackasses, they should at least be consistent.

  13. mareon 04 Jun 2007 at 6:51 pm

    I have watched CAM movies (I’m guilty!), but only of films that I wouldn’t even want to see in a theatre. The quality is awful, contrast sucks although the sound was surprisingly good. Apparently the have separate sound (first row centre) and vision guys and merge the two.

    However I don’t think it’s purely the cinema’s fault, I think the distributors tell them they have to do bag checks on opening weekend movies otherwise they don’t get new movies anymore. I even read somewhere the distributors put single frame markers in films so they can find out in which cinema the movie was recorded (and punish it). That’s probably why Montréal was singled out in the “no-previews”-press release a couple of weeks ago.
    There are only a few cinema’s that show English movies. I don’t think the market for illegally recorded dubbed movies is that big, but maybe a Francophone reader can prove me wrong. Maybe that’s why it was so easy to know that some CAMs where made here; when there’s only one print it’s easy to compare the scratches.

    O, and since my car is always open, I won’t ever leave a camera in it. AMC has perfect public transport, it’s built on the metro so I don’t see the need to take the car anyway. Tomorrow at six I’m going to see “Knocked up” at AMC on cheap Tuesday. Want to try again?

  14. Vanessa Slaunwhiteon 04 Jun 2007 at 9:35 pm

    I can’t conceive of how they could think a camera would prose a problem. A video camera, yes, but not a regular camera. What, are you going to put on the “burst” option (when your camera takes muliply picture in quick succession), upload it to your cpu, stream them togother and then add the sound with the tape recorder they hopefully didn’t find?

    Also, your very right on the small percentage of people who watch camcorder movies. My roommate brought some home and they were horrible. Go to a torrent site and see how many people complain in the comments.

    I can not stand the commercials at the beginning of movies. If I wanted commercials I’d stay home and watch t.v. Oh wait, I don’t have cable, because I can usually just buy box seasons of shows I like and not have to watch commercials.

  15. Chefnickon 04 Jun 2007 at 10:26 pm

    Fuckin’ A right. Who the fuck would want to watch Lethal Weapon 6 as recorded from a video camera? Oh, okay, who the fuck would want to watch Lethal Weapon 6 anyway?

    These idiots are just trying to cover their asses for years of producing crap; crap; crap, and it goes the same for the music industry. You know, if the only bread is Wonder Bread, everyone is going to try to figure a way to get around this and get some grains.

    Fuck these guys. Camcorders aren’t going to kill their business; bad movies are.

  16. Chefnickon 04 Jun 2007 at 10:31 pm

    Apologies for the French.

  17. vieux banditon 05 Jun 2007 at 8:30 am

    Thanks for the tip, though. I really could use a new camera.

  18. Jack Ruttanon 05 Jun 2007 at 9:07 am

    If you want more (purely anecdotal) outrage. I remember stuff my Dad told me when he was a manager of a shopping mall in the 1970s. Did you know that theft protection systems in stores cost way more than any loss of inventory through shoplifting? Surprised? Enjoy your “Security Theatre.” It’s being done for your own good! (I got my own tinfoil hat theories)

  19. tbiton 05 Jun 2007 at 10:47 am

    most modern digital cameras, especially P&S cams, have a video option but i imagine the quality would be even worse than that from a video camera. i still stand by the fact that shaky cam movies (and there are TONS on sale here on Spadina Ave in Toronto) are only purchased by people who have never seen the inside of a theatre in years. The real damage to the industry is done by the DVD screeners being copied and sold in china town type environments. Those are actual decent to watch and are usually on the street a week after the movie hits the theatre. DVD pirating hurts DVD sales, not theatre sales and I guess that is why they are really trying to shut things down.

    i just miss the days when i could bring a bagged meal into a movie theatre.

  20. zuraon 05 Jun 2007 at 10:49 am

    What can I say – this is a retarded action they have taken. If anything, it will reduce box office sales. “Screw this, I’m going to keep my camera on me and just download the movie for free.” They need to encourage cinema goers, not deter them, and anyone who is truly interested in a movie will want to pay to watch it properly, in its full quality. Feh.

  21. DAVEon 05 Jun 2007 at 11:12 am

    I’m currently having an e-mail exchange with Vincenzo Guzzo. I’ll blog the results soon enough, if he answers my latest volley. Should be interesting.

  22. BLANKon 05 Jun 2007 at 11:58 am

    Here are CAM samples of Shrek 3 and Spiderman 3.


    Quality isn’t THAT bad, nor is the sound. The most popular CAM rips are “Telesync”, ie. shot with a cam, but with external audio (such as the FM audio provided for the hearing-impaired). Most (if not all) popular CAM rips are shot directly from the projection booth, so banning cameras won’t solve anything.

    Anyhow, I fail to see how anyone could make money selling a CAM rip (or any RIP, for that matter). The Journal of Montreal said a CAM rip could be sold for as much as 6000$. Who in is right mind would pay 6000$ for a movie he could simply download off any torrent site or newsgroup for absolutely FREE? If you have 6K$ to spend on a CAM rip, you can probably afford a computer, an internet access and a DVD burner.

  23. Harryon 05 Jun 2007 at 2:21 pm

    The price of a ticket. Annoying people with phones. P eople who insist on talking through movies. Tall-haired people who sit right in front of you when there are only 10 people in the whole theater. Crazy prices on crappy food. The associated prices like parking, babysitters, etc. The ads. The volume. Having to settle for yet another movie that profits from portraying men as nerds or any of the other shit that passes for “art & entertainment” – need I go on? It’s certainly frustrating to be man-handled for a security reason that is blatant overkill, but fer chris’sakes, there are so many other reasons to not go! It’s summer, people. Grab a beer and a used-book store novel and head for the balconey/deck/park. We can rehash this again when frostbite and dead batteries are the other options.

  24. stony_curtison 05 Jun 2007 at 2:53 pm

    i have a friend who shall remain nameless who downloads the world’s most SHITEOUS films (i.e., Jennifer Lopez’ ‘Shall we Dance?’) from BitTorrent, as recorded by camcorders, watches the whole thing, and sometimes burns them on DVDs!!! i think the draw is because he is just such a cheap shit, he is thrilled that he is getting it for free–but hell to the NO! i would not watch a movie like that, any movie!

  25. Chefnickon 05 Jun 2007 at 11:05 pm

    Harry: hear, hear. I’ll take my balcony, a beer and a copy of Mediterranean Feast any day.

    Besides, that way I can watch my cherry tomatoes grow. More entertaining than Spiderman 3.

  26. Chefnickon 05 Jun 2007 at 11:17 pm

    To follow up . . . I always encounter a major dilemma when I go to even the best-equipped video store. Namely, I can browse through 8,000 films and not see a single one I want to watch because either I’ve seen my favorite 20 so many times it makes my head hurt — or that all the rest are just unadulterated dreck.

    It is actually quite incredible how Hollywood can churn out this shit (just watched “U-571″ — just a travesty of a movie — if this is a “blockbuster” we definitely need less of these) while spending billions. More power to them, but please lay off the cocaine.

    Off-topic, maybe, but I can hardly understand why someone would take all the trouble to film it on a camcorder in the theater and upload it, but whaddo I know.

  27. Martineon 06 Jun 2007 at 9:35 am

    @Harry: For some people, cinema is not something you only pay attention to when there is nothing else to do or when the weather is bad. Just pick better movies when you actually go to the theater and you’ll see what I mean!

  28. The End of Daveon 18 Jun 2007 at 9:02 am

    The End of Freedom at Cinema Guzzo Part II: Interview with The COO…

    If you remember in my previous article about Cinema Guzzo searching every bag carried into its theaters, I mentioned it was going against article 8 of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and I also mentioned I had emailed Cinema Guzzo about it….

  29. Amandaon 15 Jul 2007 at 7:58 pm

    I work at a Guzzo cinema, and TRUST ME, no matter how much the customers bitch and moan about how we have to check their bags, I can assure you that we, nor the security guards, or “rent-a-cops”, as they are sometimes lovingly called, take pleasure in having a look-see at what’s in your bags. And as for there not being any signs, at the particular cinema where I work, there are two poster-sized signs in the lobby, a sign on the box office window, a sign just past the door, as well as signs in the bathrooms (the men’s bathroom, at least–there are more poster-holders there).

    If nobody wants to ever go to a Guzzo cinema again because of the fact that we are forced to check bags, and not because we want to, not because management tells us to, or not even because it is the wish and command of the Head Office–that’s fine, whatever, I still receive my weekly paycheck. Just don’t come and DON’T BITCH at the girl in the box office window, at the poorly-paid assistant-manager, or at the usher at door just trying to avoid receiving a written warning for NOT checking your bag. The reason it is done is because piracy in Canada is at an all-time high and if we don’t take positive steps in the prevention of it, we’re never going to have sneak previews again, nor are we going to recieve movies until well after the release dates in the U.S.

    I know for a fact that the fourth installment of Die Hard was pirated at a Guzzo cinema–for propriety’s sake I won’t mention which one–and released online the next day and the manager of that cinema ate shit for it. Chances are that a bag was not checked because some asshole was giving a hard time to a 15-year-old usher working a part-time job to keep himself in fast food and new shoes.

    Now, let me stress the following; I am a low-level employee. I’ve been working for a couple of years, however, but I am not a manager, assistant-manager or even a projectionist. I have absolutely nothing to gain from this other than imploring the good patrons of Guzzo cinemas to quit their fucking whining. If we didn’t check bags, then surely, the MPAA would follow through and start sending their movies weeks after the release dates, and then customers would have even more to bitch about–the fact that they have to wait longer to watch the next remake, sequel, or based-on-a-true-story blockbuster hit.

    And finally? I don’t know about the camera box at any other cinema, but at ours, it is in a locked cupboard with the person’s name written on a piece of paper with an elastic around it and the camera. The camera is taken to concession usually by the individual to whom it belongs, and if someone comes asking for their camera that we don’t immediately recognize as having given us one, we ask them to describe the camera to us before we give it to them.

    We are not supposed to rifle through bags–we are not to touch them. The person owning the bag is to open it themselves and move their stuff around a bit–maybe open a zippered compartment here and there–and that is all. If anyone so much as touches anything in your bag, I suggest you report it to management, as nothing of the sort should happen. I will concede that some people (employees, that is–newer ones, anyway) simply don’t have sense.

    As for inflated ticket prices and blah blah blah, Guzzo cinemas have specials on Tuesdays and Wednesdays–it’s $5 dollars. If that’s too much for you, then surely, you need to re-evaluate your life. Popcorn, drinks and candy may be more expensive than what can be found at the local depanneur, but no one’s forcing you to require food to sit through what is at the very most a 2.5 hour experience.

  30. DAVEon 15 Jul 2007 at 10:44 pm

    we are not to touch them

    Somehow that makes me feel so much safer to entrust 15 year olds with ±2000$ worth of camera equipment. Oh Yeah! I’m not gonna wait till the damage is done to complain to the establishment who already thinks I’m a fucking criminal anyway.

    Now next to the real argument. Do you know why it’s easy to videotape movies? because the recording equipment wont come as a camcorder. It’s gonna be hidden, it wont be in bags. It’ll be off the shelf easy to get and easy to camouflage equipment that anything short of a strip search will not find. Your bosses should know this much.

    And huh yeah, I’m gonna bust balls of every jackass who tries to search me. I don’t care how sorry you feel for yourself and your minimum wage job. Turning the tables on you, if you don’t like your job, if you can’t take the pressures that come with it, just quit, don’t go there anymore. Get a cushy job working at McDonald’s or something.

    Just because you post a sign don’t make it right. Furthermore, posting signs INSIDE, that’s like stating you’ve agreed an agreement inside a boxed product by opening the box. Makes no sense. And if you think it’s ok to treat everyone like a common criminal just to catch to occasional pirate… yer off yer rocker girly!

    Oh and yeah, you do force do purchase my snacks there or eject me from the theater. Damn… love that freedom!

  31. Amandaon 16 Jul 2007 at 4:46 pm

    Yeah, you’re absolutely right! We don’t allow outside snacks in our theatre. Again, why are you seemingly required to be able to stuff your face with junk food at all times? Also, why don’t you bring a McDonald’s bag into a La Belle Province (for example), and see how long it takes before they tell you that, “This isn’t a cafeteria/picnic/etc.”?

    Get over it, already. You sound like a petulant child. Clearly, level-headed arguments are not for you.

  32. Vanessa Slaunwhiteon 16 Jul 2007 at 7:39 pm

    Well Fuck anyone that has diabetes or a strict diet they must follow, I guess.

    And simply because you didn’t win him over with your one ranting post doesn’t make him sound like the ‘petulant child’, Dear.

  33. Amandaon 16 Jul 2007 at 7:50 pm

    Not winning him over didn’t lead me to believe that he was acting childish. Saying I was “off my rocker” and, more importantly, calling me “girly” did.

    And exceptions are made for people who have things like fruits and juice boxes when they have a strict diet they must follow. Usually, said honest people take it up with management before they enter, asking if it’s okay if they take, say, apple slices and a box of orange juice inside with their child because they have, for instance, low blood sugar, and can’t fuel themselves properly with M&Ms and TCBY. Having your Doritos or Second Cup taken away on your way in doesn’t fall into the same category.

    For the rest of my argument, in case you haven’t seen it, go here. http://theendofdave.com/?p=1167

    He pissed me off with his condescension, of which there was no need.

  34. DAVEon 17 Jul 2007 at 9:21 am

    Oh no I was almost thrown out for bringing in a bottle of water because I felt that paying 5$ for a 99¢ bottle of water was excessive. My friend was told to buy another ticket because she had put her purse in the seat next to her’s. I’ve seen a guy get kicked out for using his laptop while waiting for the movie to start to show his friend his new iMovie he made. Petulent? Fuck no. I’m just asking for some fucking “reason” and “balance” and then people like you come along and defend the machine.

  35. Amandaon 17 Jul 2007 at 10:17 pm

    “Defend the machine”? Seriously? We’re not talking corrupt government and politics, here. Water is actually $2.75, by the way. Granted, not exactly cheap, but there’s no need to continue exaggerating. Maybe the managers that run whatever cinema you frequent are assholes, as things like bags taking up space don’t normally warrant the purchase of another ticket. However, maybe management felt that she could just put it on her lap, as maybe the hall was really full? In any case, you’d be hard-pressed to find any of the three Guzzo cinemas I’ve worked at do the same. Also, we’re not allowed to tell someone not to bring in a bottle of water. So maybe your real issues lie with the executive decisions made by management at the particular cinema you go to, rather than with an entire corporation.

    And about the laptop thing, maybe they thought it was a pirated movie.

    To go back to this whole “defending the machine” thing, maybe I was just presenting another viewpoint to the whole problem. Maybe I, as well, able to see the system sometimes fraught with complications and few loopholes — just as in many other establishments — however, there’s no need to get on any sort of pompous high horses, without info from both sides.

  36. […] remember that post I made a few weeks ago about how Cinema Guzzo was checking people for cameras? Well out of the blue a fight has picked up in the comments between a Guzzo employee and Dave of The […]

  37. DAVEon 18 Jul 2007 at 6:47 am

    It’s still 1.75$ over the shelf price. Buy some chips, 3 times the shelf price. But you cant bring those in and YES they will try to eject you fro the theater (they tried and failed, but they tried)

    Also, we’re not allowed to tell someone not to bring in a bottle of water.

    That’s BULL because there are signs proscribing the import of external snacks and beverages. Because we all know that restauration is the money-maker, not the ticket sales in theaters.

    The guy with the laptop was watching his home movies. He could have been watching anything. Doesn’t matter. They just shut him down for some stupid made-up draconian policy.

    Customers at Guzzo (and other theaters) are treated like criminals just because they have electronic devices on them. Damn I must be a terrorists I have 3 cameras at all times on me, 1 cell phone, music player, USB Key, SecureID Card, battery kits, lenses and other peripherals. Oh and to answer why I always have a camera on me… shutterbugs always have them with them, it’s an art thing.

    The funny thing is, my job is working as a system’s administrator in a bank. I make sure the money keeps moving down the wires, basically. If I do something illegal here, the RCMP will pick me up and lock me up for a long long time before I even see my lawyer, it’s a bank, it’s the economy that relies on my discretion, on my honesty. Yet I go through more insane 1984-like security measures to see a goddamn movie at the multiplex. You honestly think that makes any sense?

  38. DAVEon 18 Jul 2007 at 6:48 am

    Blork! I’ll keep it civil :)

  39. Patrickon 18 Jul 2007 at 7:02 am

    Concerning the “because piracy in Canada is at an all-time high” part, please don’t trust the MPAA.

  40. tbiton 18 Jul 2007 at 9:04 am

    should we bitch at the people working the cinema because they are required to check our bags? No. We should turn around and complain to the manager. If enough complaints are lodged with the management then maybe they will discontinue the practice. but probably not. face the facts; they don’t care about your opinion. they don’t really care about the attending customer. what they care about is the opinion of the movie making moguls who are releasing the movies to the cinema chains. sure, they are really controlled by local or regional distribution companies but once a movie maker like Universal (can you call them studios these days?) tells the distributer to not release movies to a certain chain of cinemas because they refuse to follow the “check bags” policy, then i think they will go back to checking bags.

    why are people watching terrible movies downloaded from the internet? is it because, my usual assumption being, they are the viewers who normally would not attend a movie? unfortunately I think I am being too open-minded on it. i think more people are making the choice — download it (or buy it on the street) or go through the expense and aggravation of seeing it in the theatre. The ROI for the latter just justifies the former. For example, i love scifi movies about time travel / the Future / etc. I also love PK Dick. “Next” was released a few months ago to terrible box office returns. I saw the preview and knew I wanted to see it… but I waited until an early DVD copy hit the internet and watched it. and it was terrible, as i knew it was going to be. i am glad i didn’t spend $25 in tickets and another $20 on food (before or within) on something so sloppy.

    yes, considering the cost and the annoyances and the bag checking and terrible value to movies these days, i think the movie going public is going to continue to decline. but they will blame the lower revenues on piracy because that is soooo much easier.

  41. blorkon 18 Jul 2007 at 9:16 am

    Hey, this is certainly a lively discussion. Amanda, thanks for coming in an giving your perspective as a Guzzo employee. Dave, thanks for your comments too, but I agree with TBIT that there’s no point in giving grief to the workers who are just doing their jobs — it’s management (the people who assign them those jobs) who need to hear about it.

    And you should all follow Patrick’s link and read the Michael Geist article.

  42. DAVEon 18 Jul 2007 at 9:39 am

    No man, no way. The “I was under orders” excuse can only last so long. Everyone is always under orders. Everyone hides behind orders. People cut down forests because they are under orders, doing their job. People pollute the world because they are under orders, doing their job. People reject insurance warranties to ill people because they are under orders, doing their job. People deny others their rights to privacy and protection from unreasonable searches (i.e. searching ppl at theaters) because they are under orders, doing their job. Somewhere you stand up and say HEY THAT’S NOT RIGHT and stop hiding behind the pulpits of easy excuses.

    “Secure in the beauty of military life
    There is no right, no wrong
    Only tin cans and cordite and white cliffs
    And blue skies and flight, flight, flight
    The beauty of military life
    No questions, only orders and flight, only flight”

  43. Cameronon 18 Jul 2007 at 5:11 pm

    I agree that getting in the face of the person tasked with the search etc isn’t necesarily the nicest thing in the world, but if they are breaking the law (illegal search and seizure would be) then I really don’t know what you should do.

    Another thought though, when you go to a privately owned place aren’t you agreeing to follow their rules? That said, it would be nice if they would post them in a way that wasn’t like the shrinkwrap license in software (who ever made the point further up the thread was wise…)

    I really don’t know, but shrugging it off as “we were following orders” or “It’s a crap paying job” is utter crap. And mb if theaters had proper staffing (I can remember when ushers actually hung out in the theatre or at least made passes through) they could cut down on piracy.

    As for the side issue of the cost of snacks at the theatre, the prices are robbery. Period. Sure we can choose not to eat it. I hope Amanda enjoys unemployment if we all start doing that.

  44. Amandaon 18 Jul 2007 at 10:13 pm

    Okay, yes, I didn’t once deny that someone is not allowed to bring in food, drinks, etc. I’m obviously aware of the signs that we have up. However, at my cinema, which is something that should be applied to the entire chain, as is always the case, we can’t take water bottles from our clients.

    As for enjoying unemployment if people choose not to eat food, I have two things to say about that (although, Cameron, I fully appreciate what you said about privately owned establishments, etc.–I’m not bagging on you); 1) People will always and forever be gluttonous, and that’s how we can afford to get away with charging $5 for a small bag of popcorn. End of story. And, 2) I wouldn’t suddenly become unemployed so much as we wouldn’t hire new staff, if for any reason, we started to lose revenue (which, I can assure everyone, is not the case), as I’m an older employee, if that isn’t already obvious.

    As f0r the whole “following orders” thing, I think Dave might be taking it a bit too far (just as when he said I’m “defending the machine”–like I’m the press secretary for the White House or something), but that old stand-by works when it comes to employees working in chain establishments. Chains are always the ones with the strictest rules and the fancy books that are handed to each employee, with the implied being; “Follow these rules, or you’re fired.” Now, I understand what he (Dave) is saying about insurance companies and the like, but when it’s something like, “I’m sorry, but would you mind just opening your bag so that I can see that there’s no camera inside?”, I hardly see it as some big hairy deal. Yes, I can understand how some people can initially be affronted by this, but if they asked for further explanation, then most people would see how reasonable it is. If the few don’t like it, the few don’t have to enter. It doesn’t make a difference to any one of us–and you can ask any one of my managers (hypothetically speaking–I’m hardly about to reveal which theatre in particular I work at)–but if some customer is bitching at them for about twelve years regarding a policy that they’re not about to change for said customer, well, they’re glad to see the back of them. When customers get so huffy as to say, “Well, you’ll no longer be getting any business from me,” you can imagine that by the time their tirade has ended and they’ve gotten to that statement, that we (employees, management) don’t really give a shit.

    If we didn’t like the orders we were following–if we didn’t see them as reasonable in some way, then we wouldn’t work where we do. It’s not as if it’s some high-paying job with extensive benefits. In my case, it’s a place I work my ass off at in order to pay for university. It’s got a fixed schedule with as many hours as I choose to pick up–very handy for school. However, if management were to ask me to, say, I don’t know, start kicking puppies, polluting the earth, or denying people health benefits that would lead to their eventual death… Well, then, I might take issue with my job. At the moment, however, no one is forcing me to do anything I don’t see as maybe having an inkling of sense.

    Back to you Dave. Nobody thinks you’re a terrorist. In fact, this is Canada — Quebec, even. You can rest assured that probably no normal person in this entire province really looks at anyone and thinks, “Oh, terrorist, definitely.” So, there’s no reason to overreact. Actually, we care an alarmingly little amount about your music player — nor about your USB Key, SecureID Card, or any other myriad of items you may carry around with you. By the way — what do you carry all of this in? Luggage on wheels? But I digress. What we want, very simply, is to see if you have any photography equipment on you. And since you are a self-proclaimed “shutterbug”, your equipment might just have the air of high-tech. Which is something we’re looking for even a little more than some twelve-year-old with her new pink digital Kodak.

    Not only is someone not allowed to film movies, but they’re also not allowed to take pictures of any theatre-related paraphernalia. That includes posters, standees, or any other promotional equipment that belongs, in the end, to big movie studios. All posters are sent back to the Head Office, which are, in turn, sent back to the studios, and standees destroyed. Before we started checking bags, if we saw a flash go off anywhere, you can rest assured that we were forced to confiscate their camera, as well.

    So, now that I’ve become absolutely longwinded on the entire subject, any more questions?

    Also, again, to Cameron, tbit and blork, I appreciate your lack of bias. And overreaction. And condescension. Not to point fingers or name names.

  45. DAVEon 19 Jul 2007 at 7:17 am

    “I’m sorry, but would you mind just opening your bag so that I can see that there’s no camera inside?”, I hardly see it as some big hairy deal.

    This is where I do. Because searching bags, as I’ve stated before MANY times, wont stop piracy and theaters owners, never the geniuses, as most are especially with regards to technology, will not come up with new technology to defeat the recording itself (like the white paint developed that simply refelcts so much light on digital recording equipment that it whites out the entire recording), instead they will escalate searching bags to bodily searches. Searching bags is invasive enough (just asking whats in a bag goes against The Charter to begin with)

    To answer your more entertaining question: All electronic equipment are SMALL, we are in the 21st century after all. One nifty Crumpler bag can fit a whole lotta stuff.

    And yet, I quote your boss, The Liar:

    «Le changement ne se fera pas voir avant les représentations par des fouilles systématiques, mais bien par l’application de la loi une fois les pirates interceptés », explique Vincent Guzzo, vice-président exécutif et chef des opérations de la chaîne.

    Translation: “The changes won’t be seen before the showing with automatic searches, but rather by enforcing the law once the pirate is caught” explains Vincent Guzzo, executive vice-president and COO of the chain.”

    Taken from THIS ARTICLE

    By Applying the LAW once the pirate is caught. Not by treating all the customers like a criminal… thats what he’s saying here himself.

  46. Ozon 23 Jul 2007 at 12:07 am

    Dave, I have to say that as a Guzzo employee who works at the same theatre as Amanda, I’m a little taken about by your comments. For one, how could you possibly equate asking customers to open their bags, at a local cinema which they voluntarily chose to attend, as some sort of invasion of their rights to privacy? All that you’ve done so far is endlessly bitched and moaned about the seemingly malicious, immoral treatment you’ve received at different Cinemas Guzzos. However, did you ever stop for a second to consider the fact that at no point in time were you ever forced to even be there? Even at the time you are asked to open your bag you still are still, somehow, ignorant of our bag checking policy, you’re still given the opportunity to get a refund. In light of this, how dare you deem it as an appropriate response to “bust balls of every jackass who tries to search [you]?”

    You also said that we are treating customers like common criminals… interesting choice of words I have to admit. Once again, I’ll remind that it’s completely yours, and every single other individual’s decision to be there. It would shock me therefore that they would continue to dispense their hard earned funds for the amazing privilege of being treated like criminal scum.

    The simple truth is that Cinemas Guzzo is a privately owned, entertainment based company; it’s not a hospital, grocery store, or even insurance agency. They provide an OPTIONAL SERVICE, not some essential need which is required for the upkeep of our daily quality of life. It really begs the question of why is it, if you’re so tired of what you believe is mediocre service, do you continue to subject yourself to said treatment? Are you some sort of masochist Dave? Get a life and stop annoying people with your insinuations that a movie theatre can somehow violate the rights and freedoms of clients.

    P.S. I didn’t mean to insult you, but you indirectly called me a jackass and I take offense to that.

    P.P.S. Good luck with your dialogue with Vince, I’m sure you’re tireless advocacy regarding this pertinent issue will surely benefit our society in the long run…

  47. DAVEon 23 Jul 2007 at 8:58 am

    Easy answer OZ, because one cannot enjoy one’s freedom if one is forced to be searched at every cinema one goes to. If one cannot chose to go to the cinema, one does not enjoy freedom. I chose to go to the cinema. Being searched for no reason is unethical and goes against the freedoms that our Charter offers. I don’t see why customers should be subjected to searches to find criminal that wont be caught by clumsy ineffective yet invasive search and seizures perpetrated by off-the-shelf rent-a-cops that go against the Charter of Rights and basic ethics in the way other human beings should be treated.

    If I stop going to cinema to not be searched, they have taken my choice away, by taking choice away, you take freedom away. But I don’t subject myself to it. Instead I make the process uncomfortable for the cop-school-reject. I derive pleasure from turning tables on those who attempt to police my life.

    Vince is a LIAR. Not gonna deal with the likes of him.

  48. Ozon 23 Jul 2007 at 1:33 pm

    Dave, your views of freedom are way too broad in this case. The freedom which you are talking about is section 8 of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, which protects individuals from unlawful search and seizure. However, this ideology was created solely for the purpose of constraining the powers of police, other government based agencies, and the powers that be in general. Also, they describe search and seizure as a forced event, wherein citizens are compelled, by law, to undergo it. In this case, asking a client to open his or her bag, although we have no court order or official mandate, is not a violation of this charter.

    In addition Dave, you call our searches clumsy and ineffective. From what you may have observed, this may be completely true. But let me tell you that you cannot possibly, from your limited knowledge of how things are done at every single Guzzo, possibly assert that our bag checking policy is ineffective. Do you have any proof of this? If so, then please share it with us.

    Oh ya, and back to that whole freedom thing. You, not being able to go to a movie theatre, does not constitute a loss of freedom on your part, and especially not a denial of such on Guzzo’s. Let me repeat, they provide an optional, non-essential, entertainment based service. By your reasoning, if they were to raise their prices too high, or only show 16+ movies, they would be violating people’s rights regarding their freedoms. You have no fundamental, intrinsic or even moral statute that grants you unfettered access to movie facilities. As such, Guzzo has no obligation to provide to you with said service.

    And let me give you some advice. At my, and I believe most other Guzzos, the security guards are only there twice a week; for the rest of that week, it’s me, and other ushers who check bags. If you are really in the business of changing things, you should do a couple of things. For one, stop insulting the security guards by calling them “off-the-shelf rent-a-cops” or even “cop-school-reject.” They are not the ones who instigated any policy, and are simply doing their jobs. Secondly, if you are aware of this policy, yet, still continue to “derive pleasure from turning tables on those who attempt to police [your] life,” do you really think that you’ll fix anything? At my theatre, our response to dealing with clients like you is to simply reiterate the rules until you either comply with them or leave. Simple. Then we’ll probably have a laugh about the whole thing later. If you want to change things, instead of yelling at the people who are only doing their jobs, you are completely free to contact our head office, a number which you already have because I know that Amanda gave it to you.

  49. DAVEon 23 Jul 2007 at 1:58 pm

    I never scream. I simply make jokes. don’t put words in my mouth. I Invite them the search my bag of skittles for example.

    By clumsy and infective. I mean opening a large bag and simply looking at the top of the duffel bag. Whats the point? That’s not even looking.

    “simply doing their jobs” Oh stop repeating that tired old excuse…

    But all you defenders of Vinny, dont get that bag searching isn’t right, despite any old argument you pull out of your butt and its also useless since that’s not where the pirate will hide his camcorder. Last time I came in with a baggy coat where I could have hid 3 camcorder easy. But instead they searched my BestBuy bag with Family Guy DVDs… go figure.

  50. Ozon 23 Jul 2007 at 3:18 pm

    …I never said that you scream, and I clearly used the copy and paste buttons and put your words in quotations. Please, stop it with the false accusations as they only take away from the real issues.

    Criticizing the security guards over only checking the top of a duffel bag really shows a few things about your arguments. If you really cared about some sort of “invasion of your privacy,” should you not see it as a positive measure that the people checking your bags are so “ineffective” that they fail to even look deeper inside? And speaking of that baggy jacket, the bag checking policy only started, as you know, in summer; a time when most people don’t wear jackets of such bulk. Your criticisms also show your level of ignorance with regards to this problem. How can you possibly insinuate that the limited situations which you claim to have observed, concerning security not properly checking bags, pertain to all Guzzos at all times. I work there, if there are items preventing us from seeing everywhere in the bag, we ask the client to momentarily remove them.

    And what are you talking about stop using the excuse of “simply doing their jobs?” What excuse?? Please explain yourself.

  51. DAVEon 23 Jul 2007 at 3:58 pm

    Sorry I meant INSULTING not scream.

    You’ve assumed to much. I’ve been to 3 different Guzzo’s and I make a habit of checking such things. People come in with huge back-packs and they unzip the top and the security guards only look at the top of the content.

    My point is that no one should be looking in my bag to begin with. The cinemas (not just Guzzo though at first he was the only one doing this) come out and assume we the paying customers, the ones who put money in his till, basically signs YOUR pay checks, us, to paraphrase Amanda, that sweetie, us, fucking whining bitchy stupid (on a rampaging like scale) clientèle are treated and debased as as criminals. This is where it begins.

    You can’t carry a camera in Montreal without having security follow you around. You should try it.

  52. Ozon 23 Jul 2007 at 4:28 pm

    You make it a habit of checking such things? Are you standing right next to the security guards as they are checking bags? Do you even know if the bags are full or empty, so there may not be any need to look further? Let me also explain something to you as best as I can Dave. The huge majority of bags checked are not, in fact, huge back backs or duffel bags, but rather one’s that only require the briefest of examinations. So much so that even as I, an usher, who is at door for several hours at a time, might only see two, or three actual large bags. And it is not just like this at my Cinema, but all of them. How is it possible then that you are able to give an opinion on the matter if you are only habitually checking such things, and probably on a sporadic basis at that? Which means that you are either a liar, or simply a person who goes to the movies for the simple pleasure of watching for hours on end as bags are checked.

    As for your third paragraph, I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say, please reiterate yourself so that your views can be properly discredited. As for your final comment, even if you are right, what does that possibly have to do with this situation?

    P.S. To everyone who thinks that my views are somehow biased, take into consideration the fact that I have absolutely nothing to gain (with respect to my job), by doing this. Truthfully, this issue does not deserve the time we have given it. However, and this is a big “however”, I am simply incensed by the fact that people exist, who would take such a small event, and somehow use it to perpetuate the notion of a societal degradation of basic human rights.

  53. Amandaon 23 Jul 2007 at 8:56 pm

    …Oh, geez.

  54. Amandaon 23 Jul 2007 at 9:00 pm

    to paraphrase Amanda, that sweetie,

    I know, right? I’m unrelentingly charming.

    Yeah, I know you were being sarcastic.

    Anyway, I’m done. I put my side out there and anyone who doesn’t like it, well, I’m not really fussed about it.

    Enjoy, all.

  55. DAVEon 24 Jul 2007 at 9:32 am

    OZ, one needs only be observant. One needs only be standing in a mezzanine waiting in line to get into the auditorium right over the Gestapo and see the bag-checking in action for a good hour. And this on a frequent basis as I am a movie freak.

    Third Paragraph

    Clicking ain’t Easy (Photography illegal in Montreal)

    Montreal Subway: And the Wall Came Crumbling Down

    Private: Photography now Illegal in Montreal

    I am simply incensed by the fact that people exist, who would take such a small event, and somehow use it to perpetuate the notion of a societal degradation of basic human rights.

    That’s because you fail to see it’s where it starts, by the little things, that get the masses used to such conduct and before you know it, you’re in a cage.

  56. tbiton 24 Jul 2007 at 10:44 am

    Wee, this is fun.

  57. Marcon 27 Jul 2007 at 8:05 am

    Heard on CJAD this morning:

    Guzzo sued for “abusive” bag search
    Fri, 2007-07-27 08:29.
    Shuyee Lee

    Julie Berthiaume says she and her two young daughters went to see a movie early last month at the Marche Central Guzzo and was asked to undergo a bag search.

    She didn’t like the idea but said okay. Berthiaume says the theatre worker rummaged through her bag with both hands in a very rough manner.

    She says she didn’t have a camera and wasn’t going to pirate the movie.

    Berthiaume is suing Guzzo for 60-thousand dollars, claiming physical and moral suffering and a loss of enjoyment of life.

    Guzzo for its part defends the search as a measure to fight movie pirates.

  58. DAVEon 27 Jul 2007 at 8:09 am

    AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!! The Best News. I hope SHE FRAKING WINS! Thanks Marc :)



  59. Amandaon 28 Jul 2007 at 2:29 am

    Sorry, I take it back, I’m not done. I don’t know how to unsubscribe from this post and I couldn’t resist replying…

    There is no way that she is going to win, first of all. There was a meeting last week, that Vince held, and he told us about it, and assured us that she won’t win. Do you know how many times people have tried to sue Cinemas Guzzo? I mean, seriously. People will do anything, anything, for a buck. It’s not just Guzzo — huge chains get sued for crap reasons all the time.

    Second of all, a loss of enjoyment of life? 60 thousand dollars? Are you fricking kidding me? Good one. This is Canada — for bullshit like that she should go see Judge Judy.

  60. DAVEon 28 Jul 2007 at 11:06 pm

    There was a meeting last week, that Vince held, and he told us about it, and assured us that she won’t win. Do you know how many times people have tried to sue Cinemas Guzzo?

    It happens so often that Vinny the Liar felt he needed to hold a meeting about it and assure you she wouldn’t win. Yup! When the big boss holds a meeting to notify his lackeys about trouble brewing… the big boss is doing damage control, because the big boss is nervous. I work for a REALLY big company and REALLY see this happen all the time.

  61. Darkly Dreaming Davidon 28 Jul 2007 at 11:28 pm

    Guzzo sued re:bag search | CJAD…

    Marc over at Blork!’s blog informed me of the greatest news. Guzzo Cinema, those bastages who love to search through your stuff because we the paying crim… customers are all pirates who want to camcord movies in theaters, is getting his ASS…

  62. Amandaon 29 Jul 2007 at 12:32 am

    I thought I was done, but then you say these things that just make my stare at my computer screen and go, “What? Seriously? Seriously?”

    I don’t believe I made clear the point of the meeting, but I don’t think that I led anyone to believe that it was solely about that case. There is a mandatory paid meeting that is held once a year by Vince. The meetings cover everything from the answers to questions such as why girls can’t wear pants (admittedly mind-boggling, to be sure), to things that he’s noticed lately haven’t been up to par (for example, so that nobody has a cow and assumes something stupid, the fact that at some of the Mega-Plexes the girls don’t pick the phone up enough). The thing about the suit was an offhand comment, and then he moved onto something else–likely something-or-other about some work pyramid or another (work hard, get promoted to assistant-manager, then manager, and so on blah blah and so forth).

    I’ve skipped around being blunt this whole time, but I have to say that if you really thought the meeting was held by Vince solely because of the suit, then you’ve got to be lacking a few brain cells, I’m sorry.

    And Christ, why should he have to go out of his way to assure us that nothing will go wrong, when it’s a SIXTY-THOUSAND DOLLAR SUIT claiming physical suffering (as if they manhandled her), mental suffering (undoubtedly her mind is suffering, but I daresay anything could have set her off) and for God’s sake, a loss of enjoyment of life? Are you people KIDDING me? Sue Guzzo all you want with anything that doesn’t sound like something that was pulled out of someone’s ass! I give my BLESSING to anyone who wants to sue Guzzo, or any other company, for a damn good reason.

    I understand that she was offended. I sympathize, I really do. It’s not exactly fair, but there are, I think, a lot of logical reasons behind it. Also, nobody should have been putting their hands in her bag. But, again, the signs. For the love of God, the signs. We have signs that say, upon entering our PRIVATELY-OWNED ESTABLISHMENT, that we have the right to check bags. “Oh, what’s this? They’re going to check my bag? Fuck this shit, I’m out.” Why does nobody take that road? Doesn’t anyone seem to realize, even a little bit, that people find far too much to complain about? I think that I’ve been fair in recognizing both sides, and yet SOME people stubbornly refuse to look on the other side of the fence.

    If that woman wins her suit, well fuck, good for her, because honestly I wouldn’t be able to imagine saying anything else other than congratulations to her for winning a case ground in something such as “loss of enjoyment of life” (sorry, but I can’t get over it). Especially for $60,000. If she wins, all the current employees will keep their jobs. Angelo’s kin are still rolling in money. People still come to Guzzo. They keep buying our expensive popcorn. They’ll drink their slush while eating mini Pogos and onion rings. They’ll even continue to put money into boring arcade games.

    I’m sorry, but regardless of what happens with the suit, I can be pretty sure that it will be business as usual, and people will continue to buy into it. Can’t anyone see that, just for a moment? There are the people who can boycott all they want, but there are always going to exist that percentage that are really excited to see whatever brainless new action movie has come out, while eating popcorn with extra butter and drinking Diet Pepsi. That’s just. The way. It is.

  63. DAVEon 29 Jul 2007 at 12:57 am

    Cant wear pants? Holy f*ck thats retarded. Am I the only one old enough to remember feminism?

    Sweet, ever so sweet, Amanda, I just love how you belittle and demean every single customer like they are 5 year olds and then call me out for calling rent-a-cops, rent-a-cops. I’m thinking of a word, starts with an H ends with an YPOCRITE.

    Phenomenal PR job you are doing for Guzzo, keep up the good work.

  64. Amandaon 29 Jul 2007 at 1:27 am

    Yeah, it’s stupid, I never said the skirt thing made sense.

    And no, I’m not belitting and demeaning every single customer. Jesus. I just get frustrated, although I don’t know how to be more clear that yes, God, I know that the company isn’t perfect. Yeah, some of our rules are retarded at times. But my entire point was to have people see the OTHER SIDE. Some people are just rude, no matter what. Some are unfailingly nice. Some are STUPID. A lot of our rules and policies do make sense, and even while someone has a problem with a policy, if you start to explain it to them a lot of the time you’ll get cut off with an, “Okay, whatever, whatever.”

    SO, one of the many advantages of the written word is that I can actually get everything out in one fell swoop. Ironically enough, it seems that a lot of what I’m saying doesn’t seem to be absorbed, anyway.


    I don’t know how to be more clear, really. That’s how all this started. Yeah, I was a little annoyed when I wrote my first comment, but not at any one pers0n. Rather, the small percentage of people that take it upon themselves to find something to complain about in everything. I like my job, I really do. Most people are polite and, if they don’t like what they hear (be it whether or not they’re allowed to bring food in, or our right to check their bag), they either accept it or politely ask for a refund, or for a manager. The world would be an infinitely better place if we could just understand how THE OTHER SIDE (sorry for the caps, but at this point I feel like a broken record and I just want to make myself clear) feels.

    How many times must I say that I honestly understand when people take offense or issue with our policies? Also, how many times must I explain why certain policies are in place? Passes are always an option and cash refunds are always available when people don’t want their bags checked and they want to leave straightaway, and leave the horrible, horrible place to which Angelo Guzzo lent his name.

    For the love of all that is holy in the world, I just don’t know what is left for me to say on the issue anymore!

    Phenomenal PR job you are doing for Guzzo, keep up the good work.

    Oh yeah, remember that time I said that I had nothing to gain, at all, from my comments? I still don’t. So, again, thank you very much for the condescension, and I’m just wondering who you think you are, exactly, that you can continue to sarcastically call me a sweetheart, or that you can call me girly, or anything like that?

  65. OZon 29 Jul 2007 at 1:44 am

    For the record, it was me who was pissed at you for calling the security guards rent-a-cops, get the rant straight. And neither of us demeans nor belittles customers, stop it with the BS. I know that you have absolutely no more of your insightful arguments to throw at us, but let’s avoid the false attacks. And I think that we’ve both said that this isn’t some PR job, just us answering the call of helping a dumbass realize he’s a dumbass. How’s that for PR?

  66. DAVEon 29 Jul 2007 at 12:01 pm

    Oz, yer a true wizard. But you should read her comments. To bad my old blog is defunct (a victim of too much traffic and insane contractual agreements with my hosting provider) so you could read her wonderful comments as well. Condescension inst about words its about tone also. I’m just openly belligerent to those to have disobliging attitudes and I have no guilt about it. I’m equally offensive to my bosses, family and so forth, they all got the memo and understand they have to deal with it. Be nice, I’ll play nice. Pure and simple.

    Amanda, who do I think I am? Well I called you girly and sweet and perhaps “a sweety” in a sarcastic manner. I said you were off yer rocker girly in an earlier comment. Perhaps you are an easily offended feminist or look to be offended by personlising everything that is said, but, take a chill pill because you insinuated many times that I was a moron just for being a customer in your endless banter on customer cretinism (guilty by association kinda thing). So a little girly here and calling you sweet in an ironic gesture there, hardly boils down to name calling.

    I did however insinuate you were a hypocrite and I’ll own that, but then because I believe you are. You defend the breach of personal privacy for the pleasure of profit making with the naive argument of piracy and do so while assassinating the character of those whose privacy is being breached.

  67. Amandaon 29 Jul 2007 at 12:46 pm

    I can assure you that I didn’t insinuate that you were a moron until very recently.

    And, once more, with feeling; SMALL percentage. “Customer cretinism” is present only in a SMALL percentage of asshole individuals. I’m talking about the lovely sort who complain, and we give them a reason and an apology –the kind that ignore the reason and plough on blindly. I have no issue with people that have genuine reasons for their complaint, but rather with those that complain for the sake of hearing their own shrill voice.

    And as for character assassination… “Loss of enjoyment of life! Throw me a bone, here! That is ridiculous! And I’m not defending the “breach of personal privacy” for the sake of making profit — I’m saying that yeah, maybe it’s not pleasant, but it’s what’s being done by not only Cinemas Guzzo, but by Cineplex as well! And both companies have the same stock answers as to why it’s done. I’m saying that DESPITE all this, the company will still make money, because, ONCE MORE, only a small percentage of people are ruffled by the bag checks, and an even smaller one do things like, I don’t know, sue.

    As for the naïve argument of piracy? What the hell? It’s not a naïve argument–it’s THE argument! It’s the entire reason the bag checks are being performed! It’s a formality that must be undergone because the States in general are getting a little pissed off that a large number of pirated movies are coming from up north! So, okay, fine — call it a naïve argument if you want, but it’s not mine. It is the only. Why else would we look? What other defense could there possibly be? What other kind could there be, with this sort of thing? Oh, okay, you’re right. We’re checking bags for fun. We just wanted to see how it would go over.

    So, that’s enough from me. I’ve got to go to work and either a) sell people tickets knowing that their personal privacy is about to be breached (to use your words) or b) sell them popcorn and wonder why they’re still here, if it’s such a big deal to apparently so many people.

    I’m unsubscribing. I’m officially out. See you around. I would like to say that I hope you were enlightened at least in some small way, but I highly doubt it. I’ve been fair (I think so, anyway. If you don’t agree, well, I don’t care anymore) in recognizing genuine issues coming from the other side up until now, but you know that you can’t say the same for yourself.

    Have a nice day.

  68. OZon 29 Jul 2007 at 8:28 pm

    Great idea Amanda, I think I’ll do the same. I can’t believe the amount of time I’ve wasted trying to get you (Dave) to realize the error in your thinking. I guess I can find some small rationalization for all of this by telling myself that I’ve just been systematically insulting your intelligence… Ya, that does make me feel a bit better. So, to wrap up this farce, instead of adding anything of pertinence to this issue, I’d just like to wish you (Dave), my sincerest of hopes that you are never again given the opportunity to publicly express the stupidities on your mind. Trust me, the rest of the world could do without them. And on a side note, I’d also like to emphasize that this dialogue has led me to be sure of the fact that you are a dumbass.

    And yes, I find it completely appropriate to end things on a sour note.

  69. DAVEon 29 Jul 2007 at 8:34 pm

    I’ll just copy/paste my comment from my blog here:

    When it becomes standard procedure to pat you down, or pat down your girlfriend, will you support it then?

    Go ahead, lets support LIBERTARIAN FREE MARKETS, let’s not regulate companies, let them regulate themselves, because they will always be ethical… yup thats the ticket.

    Piracy is a crime. Movie goers are not criminals. Maybe 1 out of 50 000 customers will attempt to film anything. Why should 49 999 people we treated as criminals in the process?

    Armed robbery is a crime also, how come no one searches people at convenience stores or supermarkets or banks?

    And no one has yet come to answer that argument.

  70. Alexon 30 Jul 2007 at 12:08 pm

    Dave, I also work at the very same theater as Amanda and Oz, I found this site BY CHANCE while searching for why Julie Berthiaume believed that she could win the lawsuit. I was NOT at the meeting, and was not told of this prior to half a dozen customers telling me about it, and having a laugh.

    Have you not seen the comercials? “Downloading Is Piracy. Piracy Is Stealing. Stealing Is Illegal.” I always loved seeing this one! Really, do you trulythink ASKING for permission to check a bag for, and i quote from our signs (of which we have half a dozen in the lobby, and another half dozen inside!) “For security reasons, and to prevent piracy issues, we reserve the right to verify all bags…”

    In reality, it has gone overboard. In the past, it has only been the LARGE bags that where checked, but now, because of the people who do film the movies, who as you know, DON’T bring in a large bag, because they know it would be checked, they bring smaller ones. The fact is, we do find people with cameras, most probably they were not planing on filming the movie, but what if they were? So we do our thing, it gets taken away, or returned to their cars. This is NOT too bad.

    It would make our lives, and the average customers lives, ALOT simpler if people like you, who come just to put up a fight, then give in, or leave, if you would just NOT come! It is not our fault that we must check the bags, neither is it yours, but it is your (people like you) fault that entry into the cinemas takes longer! The majority of the customers do not mind giving us permission to verify that they will not be filming the movie! The only part of this whole thing that the average movie-viewer gets upset about, is when there is a line to enter the cinemas, and that can be resolved by you (and people like you) either not coming in the first place, or just let us do what we must do, and get it over with!

    Now to the food argument, Cinemas Guzzo makes its money from the FOOD SALES, not from the ticket sales, that money goes to the production companies. We have lowered our ticked prices ALOT (5$ Tuesday, Wednesday! 6 or 7 other days! It is only for the weekend night showings when its full price, and even then it is only 9$!). The food is alot, but that is what pays to keep the place open. You don’t want to pay the 2.95$ to buy water? Then DON’T! You can bring 10bottles of water if you’d like! That should be enough drinks don’t you think? But if you want soda, or food, to get the complete movie experience, then yes, you must pay the extreme price.

    But look at it this way will you, at full price, for you and your girlfriend (if you could get one!) it is only 18$, then for popcorn and other snacks, lets say another 20$. That may seem alot to you, but its 40$ for the two of you, for 2hours. That is ONLY 5$ an hour for entertainment! Not a very big deal, and thats only IF you must buy it all, and at the full price.

    What we do is not a crime, what we ask of you is not too much to ask, you have prior notice of our bag-checking policy, so why not leave your expensive camera at home for a couple of hours? That is not to much to ask! If you already have your camera with you, then why not, BEFORE you enter the cinemas LEAVE YOUR CAMERA IN YOUR CAR!! If you are coming from the metro, or a bus, then why bring it with you in the first place? You say you’re a ‘shutter-bug’ but do you really need to bring your camera into a movie theater when you know it will cause problems? NO FUCKING WAY!!!!

    This is the only post i will submit, I believe that Amanda and Oz said MORE THAN ENOUGH to shut you up and put you in your place, I just hope that you will now accept all this, and go back to your cave and live your life and stop causing everyone else problems! Most people are not with you, it may seem the opposite, but that is only because only people who don’t like whats happening, would find this place.

  71. DAVEon 30 Jul 2007 at 12:34 pm

    LOL. The TOTAL cost to fill up a medium size cup of soda (and I mean TOTAL) and this is from price list I’ve seen in the fast food industry, is… wait for it… 0.5¢ yes ¢ not $ but ¢, thats HALF a CENT. at 4$ a drink, thats what? An 800% Markup? Yup, no one is ripping anyone off here.

    But you still cant, like everyone else who has dipped their feet in this pool, answer why convenience stores, supermarkets or banks don’t do searches of their customers for guns just in case someone comes in with a gun, because armed robbery is illegal also (and much more lethal than cam cording a movie). I’m just applying your logic y’all seem to hold so dear in defending Vinny and his tactics. And Yet everyone evades answering that question and continues to berate me with insults and repeating the tired line about “piracy being illegal” like fucking drones but not giving any reasoning behind it.

    Still waiting, still hoping…

  72. Michelon 30 Jul 2007 at 1:58 pm

    This thing still has wings: http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/montreal/version_imprimable.asp?nv=/regions/Montreal/2007/07/27/001-Guzzo-Fouille-Poursuite.xml

  73. Michelon 30 Jul 2007 at 2:00 pm

    Yeah, never mind, I should read all the comments first.

  74. mareon 30 Jul 2007 at 6:45 pm

    Um, this is all nice and well, but where can I get my free digital camera?

  75. Alexon 30 Jul 2007 at 8:36 pm

    I can answer both of your problems. To the first one, the cost of the soda is not from the actual drink, for yes, we all know the liquid is cheap. Why do you think some places offer free refills? Its a way for them to get your business, with ought costing them anymore, albeit, it helps even more if they can get u to buy a second cup!
    Yes it is still a HUGE markup, but that is because that $ is the thing keeping the place open, they make their money off the restaurant, and off the games, NOT the ticket sales. The price is still high, but at least now you know why, accept that fact.

    And to your second question, its all about money, the sooner you realise that the better, this is the real world, and it revolves around $$$! If the theater doesnt check the bags, and a pirated copy of a movie is from this theater, THEY can get in shit. They may lose rights to opening weekend movies, or fines or something else! And that is worth more $ than one or two peoples business. (because that is thousands of peoples business!!!). Now onto the bank, if they get robbed, they are insured. They also have people with guns to deal with costomers with guns, we have minimum waged teens to deal with pirates! And these movies are NOT insured! Would you prefere a bank, a suppermarket, or a convenience store hire a teenager to search for guns? What if they find one? They are dead!

    Also, it is ALOT easier to know when someone is robbing a bank/store than someone videotaping a movie, why? BECAUSE they show themselves! Pirates only get the prize if they can do it secretly, so we must search. Im not saying its right, but legally its not wrong either.

    Also, when a bank/store is robbed, they know it instantly, and are insured, the only thing they aren’t insured for is human loss (obviously not!) And since you already know the world revolves around $, it wouldn’t pay them to have to pay some guy to stand at the entrance to check for security. Also, unless all of them do it, they lose money, because they lose business. At movie theaters, they are FORCED to do it, or they lose money, and also, the usher is already at the entrance, so it doesn’t cost them anything.

  76. Amandaon 30 Jul 2007 at 8:42 pm

    For the love of God, I can’t unsubscribe.

    Alex, what the fuck. Just… what. The fuck.

    Is my internet traffic being observed or something?

    When you can’t spell properly or when you show a disregard for proper English grammar it lends a certain discredit to your argument, FYI.

    …Alex, what the hell! Go ride your scooter!

    Okay seriously, blork, or whatever, I can’t unsubscribe. Make it stop. I wish I didn’t know that Alex found this blog.

  77. Amandaon 30 Jul 2007 at 9:46 pm

    Ah, that was mean. Sorry, Alex. That was incredibly bitchy. I just flared up an didn’t think. You’re a good kid.

    See you at work. If you wanna swear at me, go ahead. You can even call me a bitch to my face and I won’t say anything. That was really uncalled for.

    But seriously. Give this whole thing up — it’s endlessly pointless. I’m unable to unsubscribe and then I dropped it and I didn’t get any more e-mails (I’m curious to a fault — if it’s in my inbox I’m going to read it), but then you came, and I’m back in it again. That’s why I got bitchy — not your fault, you were trying to help, I guess — sorry.

    But I’m not answering to any arguments because God, enough already.

    Oh and Alex, if you tell anyone where we work you’re one dead kid, and that I’m not taking back.

  78. Jameson 31 Jul 2007 at 12:39 am

    The obvious question: Why would you take a bag to a movie theater in the first place? Don’t take a pile of junk with you when you’re heading out to a film. Easy, no?

  79. DAVEon 31 Jul 2007 at 8:52 am

    Cuz James, sometimes you head out of work, decide to go to the movies and blam Bob’s yer uncle you’re in a theater with your bag with your gadgets. It’s always a “let’s go out tonight” with preparation thing especially when the cinema is a block away from work ;)

    Amanda… you lost it, you lost credibility. When you attack someone over syntax and spelling, you become an internet troll, congratulations ;)

  80. tbiton 31 Jul 2007 at 8:53 am

    not so easy. like many today, i have a murse. i am a pedestrian and often a movie is part of a full day’s activities. i carry my cam, my cell phone (with cam) and iPod. I am not going to spend 45mins going home just to dump my bag. what i will do is hide my cam inside a hidden internal pocket. i know i am not going to commit a crime so no harm on their part.

    i like how this whole bag checking and confiscating of cams started with the free previews when the companies started seeking leaked cam vids appearing before the movie came out. what i get a kick out of is that no matter how many bags are checked and shaky cam vids stopped, the guys who do make a living at this will always get past the feeble security attempts.

    so why don’t people get this worked up over cell phones at movies?

  81. DAVEon 31 Jul 2007 at 9:01 am

    the guys who do make a living at this will always get past the feeble security attempts.


    so why don’t people get this worked up over cell phones at movies?

    huh huh the CLOVERFIELD promo leak was taken on a cellphone

  82. Amandaon 31 Jul 2007 at 9:22 am

    Dave —

    Spare me. As if you ever held any sort of respect towards me that you can actually say that I had credibility and then lost it. And I know the guy, it’s different — and we’re not exactly friends. But then I apologized because yeah, I was being a bitch. I’m not going to say I had a bad day or anything, because it was just a bitchy comment for the sake of it. Although I swear that my traffic IS being observed.

    Anyway, your loss of whatever for me isn’t going to have me tossing and turning tonight.

  83. DAVEon 31 Jul 2007 at 9:27 am

    Although I swear that my traffic IS being observed.

    Just wittle pawanoid ;)

  84. Jackon 31 Jul 2007 at 9:28 am

    Blork, you seem to have a nasty parasite running rampant in your comment streams.

  85. Amandaon 31 Jul 2007 at 9:29 am

    …It was a joke.


  86. Alexon 31 Jul 2007 at 9:29 am

    Amanda, I understand, its strange, out of ALL the guzzo’s how is it that 3 employees from OUR theater find this place? They must be a million to one! I also know how u feel about finding me here, and then you had to respond. I am not a writer, when I write, i WILL make mistakes!

    Dave, how has this post, origionaly posted to make fun of Cinemas Guzzo, now turned into this? I believe that you have the capability to close this blog, PLEASE DO IT! Make another one if you must, but not this one! We are all curious, and will come back if it is still here.

  87. Amandaon 31 Jul 2007 at 9:33 am

    Dave doesn’t own this blog, or post, or whatever. Presumably, it’s blork.

    Sorry again Alex.

    Once again, off to work, and once again, I’M DONE. I feel like a broken record. But every time I try to ignore this thing, I keep getting e-mails because I get a “404 not found” when I try to unsubscribe, and then all of a sudden a new co-worker pops up.

  88. Alexon 31 Jul 2007 at 9:36 am

    Amanda ill see you at work, and i might take you up on calling you a bitch! But are you sure I cant tell anyone? It would be even more fun to have all of us here!

    Amanda i know Dave doesn’t own this blog or post, but i thought he was the initial poster, meaning he was the author, and I believed that the author of any particular post had the capability of closing their post.

    Whoever can close this, do it!

  89. DAVEon 31 Jul 2007 at 9:37 am

    I wouldn’t close down Blork. Blork is an added value to the blogosphere.

    This is a contentious issue for me and y’all just want me to shut up so you can have the last word. Not gonna happen. I have my principles and I’m sticking to them. Searching people at the cinema is wrong, useless and wont work in the end because pirates will still get through.

  90. Alexon 31 Jul 2007 at 9:41 am

    Legally it is not wrong. It is not useless, because since we have been doing this, NO cams have been recorded from our theater. Also, by checking bags we continue to be able to obtain new movies. It has been working, maybe by chance, maybe by luck, but either way, it DOES work. You may think it doesn’t, Hell! Most people think it doesn’t, but it does.

  91. blorkon 31 Jul 2007 at 9:51 am

    Wow, this is turning into high comedy! I certainly won’t close the blog over this (I’ve been running for six and a half years for pete’s sake) but I can close the comments at any time. But I have no plan to do so as yet, as I’m happy to provide a venue for this discussion.

    For what it’s worth, I’ve been back to the Greenfield Park Guzzo once since the original post. At that time I did see a sign outside of the box office warning that bags may be checked. That sign may have been there when I got nabbed, or maybe not; I don’t know.

    As for Jame’s question about why bring a bag, that’s just silly. Others have already explained why so I won’t repeat. However, that one time I went to Guzzo after the original post, I was leaving directly from home, so I took my camera out of my bag. However, I normally carry my camera EVERYWHERE, so I was annoyed at having to leave it behind because of this. I haven’t been back since (although I have happily gone to the Paramount and AMC plenty of times).

  92. Alexon 31 Jul 2007 at 10:01 am

    Blork, ya i meant this one “Discussion”. I’m not sure about Greenfield park, but i KNOW that at the two theaters I’ve worked at, that they have half a dozen posters in the lobby, and still some customers are ignorant of it! (even when some or the posters are on the ticket booths!)

    I personally understand not wanting to leave your bag at home, sometimes you need stuff, but by now, the majority of people already know of the bag-checking policy (the lawsuit did one thing right! it spread the word) so if there is something… personal, that you feel embarrassed to bring, then you leave it, but I can promise that no mater what you bring, we HAVE seen it before, so don’t worry!

    We are not permitted to allow you in with your camera, if we see it. If we see pockets on the bag, we may ask for them to be opened.

  93. DAVEon 31 Jul 2007 at 10:08 am

    but I can promise that no mater what you bring, we HAVE seen it before, so don’t worry!

    This is the same kind of argument you’ll hear from nurses in hospitals, but the issue remains that the patient is allowed to retain his sense of dignity no?

    We all take a piss, doesn’t mean I’ll take a whiz in front of strangers either. Privacy is privacy no matter WHAT is in the bag.

  94. Alexon 31 Jul 2007 at 10:17 am

    Yes, im not saying you should go out and take a piss in front of everyone! You can CHOSE to keep yourself private, but you can also chose to leave it at home, to not go, or, another option, hide it, i don’t recommend the third, but if you really must bring it with you, you take the chance we will see it, and confiscate it, but if that is the only option you will accept, then do that, just dont piss at the usher for doing his job, keeping everyone there happy (by keeping the cinema open!) Just remember, you hold up a line, and the people will be upset at YOU not us.

  95. DAVEon 31 Jul 2007 at 10:30 am

    Don’t worry I wisecrack but I dont hold up the line, I’m just in as much a hurry as the rest to get in the cinema and watch the movie. I go to the movies so much because I love watching them on the big screen… not on DIVX, but I still don’t like rent-a-cops policing my person for no justifiable reason. You catch criminals once the crime is in progress, like Vinny said he would do.

  96. Jonason 31 Jul 2007 at 12:01 pm

    They aren’t really looking for camcorders. That’s just the excuse and of secondary importance. The main goal is to look for smuggled food and drinks where the owner makes most of his profit.

  97. OZon 31 Jul 2007 at 1:19 pm

    GOD!!! MY EMAIL IS FILLED WITH THIS CRAP!! Blork, or whoever the hell is in charge of this blog, I tried to unsubscribe and it’s not working. Please fix that so I can avoid having to put a bullet in my head! I really can’t stand reading this but it’s just way too tempting knowing what the newest batch of idiots have on their minds.

    Alex, just give up. I know that you love arguing and that you feel the need to set the record straight, but the very fact that these people are bitching online probably means that they’re way too far gone to help. Look, just accept the fact that what Dave wants is not to hear your side (which is much more reasonable I should add), but just to rant and compare “Vinny” to Hitler. There’s no helping these people. Save yourself the effort and learn from Amanda’s and my mistakes. GIVE UP!

    Now for all of you people (I know I said give up Alex but I just have to) who think that there’s something wrong with checking bags, either shut the fuck up, or don’t go to Guzzo. Dave, no matter what argument you give, no matter how logical and amazing it is (I say this as a hypothetical of course), it will always come down to Guzzo being a PRIVATE COMPANY! Get it in your thick skull! Vince can do whatever he fucking wants to do because he OWNS IT! And Jonas, some advice, don’t be like Dave and open your mouth when you have no idea what you’re talking about. Now, for fucks sake (sorry for the swearing btw), all of you shut up, get fucking hobbies that don’t involve complaining about the terrible injustices you’ve been subjected to, and BLORK, get me off this thing, I’m dying.

  98. blorkon 31 Jul 2007 at 1:25 pm

    Oz, I have no idea how to unsubscribe you. I’ll look into it tonight.

  99. DAVEon 31 Jul 2007 at 1:26 pm

    TEAM GUZZO has gone POSTAL :) Keep them away from sharp objects and projectile weapons please. I can hear the bitching already when they cross paths at work lol :)

  100. Ozon 31 Jul 2007 at 1:32 pm

    SEE, THIS IS WHAT I MEAN! I can’t take this but I keep getting a pop-up in my email with every post! You’re a stupid child Dave. How about learning how to form a reasonable argument, or even rant at that? Did you even go to school? Idiot.

    And thank you Blork I appreciate it.

  101. DAVEon 31 Jul 2007 at 1:39 pm

    OZ, at this point, you guys are just cracking me up with your hysterics. I mean REALLY cracking me up. I have to leave my priso… cubicle to take a breather and refocus :D

    People snapping are always extremely entertaining to me.

  102. Ozon 31 Jul 2007 at 1:52 pm

    Trust me Dave, this isn’t snapping. This is channelling my annoyance as a means to accomplish an end, the end being to never have to listen to any of you dumbasses ever again. Dave, you’re really something though you know that. What happened to your little, “loss of freedom” argument? Did you conveniently forget about that? Or did you just realize that bringing it up again to would cause you a great deal of shame knowing that a 17 year old completely owned you in that, and pretty much all the other issues?

    Go get hit by a bus (see that would be me snapping).

  103. Jonason 31 Jul 2007 at 1:53 pm

    Hey Oz / Vince’s bitch.

    You are clueless if you think that Vince is more worried about camcording than people smuggling in snacks. People not buying his overpriced treats directly affects his bottom line while the ineffectual and pointless search of people’s bags will have ZERO effect to his profits.

    BTW, sorry to fill up your email inbox with yet another post. So very very sorry.

  104. Jonason 31 Jul 2007 at 1:56 pm


    the ineffectual and pointless search of people’s bags for CAMCORDERS will have ZERO effect to his profits.

    Sorry about that. Please merge both postings Oz. Don’t want your inbox overflowing now.

  105. DAVEon 31 Jul 2007 at 2:07 pm

    I kept bringing up my arguments, no one addressed them. Instead, y’all sidetracked them with nifty deflections that reeked of sophistry. Then Y’all began disintegrating into this puddle of hysterics and suddenly it got entertaining so I ran with it.

    ah wishing ill of others, always a character building attribute.

  106. Ozon 31 Jul 2007 at 2:10 pm

    OUCH, I’m “Vince’s bitch” now? Well, at least you’re not calling him “Vinny” like certain people (who will remain nameless). Let me remind you of something Jonas, what you probably don’t realize is that if Vince did nothing to combat piracy, there would be a very good chance of him losing certain rights to show movies (something which would probably affect his bottom line as his business model kind of revolves around that). Now, even if he was checking bags for the sole purpose of looking for food, which he isn’t, he has every right to as he owns the damn place.

    And back to the whole “Vince’s bitch” thing, I prefer to be called a crusader; the cause which I’m fighting for (although an annoying one at that), is to keep the ideas and voices of idiots, such as yourself Jonas, from becoming fact in other, more susceptible minds. Wouldn’t you say that that’s a noble one?

    Oh ya, and thanks for your gracious caring of whether or not my inbox overflows, some advice though, your sarcasm sucks, why not stick with your shoddy grammar skills as your main writing technique for your posts.

  107. Ozon 31 Jul 2007 at 2:12 pm

    Dave, I addressed ALL of your arguments individually, and any that I missed have no standing anyway because VINCE OWNS THE PLACE!

  108. blorkon 31 Jul 2007 at 2:30 pm

    Settle down guys. Discussion? Yes. Argument? Yes. Senseless bitch-slapping? No.

  109. Jonason 31 Jul 2007 at 2:48 pm

    It simply comes down to the shift from corporations treating people as consumers rather than as customers. It’s an important shift that naturally causes people to be upset. Searching through people’s bags is a part of that shift. Instead of respecting customers they are now seen as the enemy.

    I acknowledge that a private business probably has the right to do this but that still does not make it either right or more importantly engender loyalty towards said business. The lack of respect towards customers will actually only fuel the piracy it’s trying to stop. You need only look at all the good will that has been lost by the record companies suing it’s own customers.

    Lastly, the ironic part of this whole story is that all this will not make the slightest difference. Telesyncs and Screener versions of movies are still readily available and of superior quality to Cams anyhow. This will make no difference to professional pirates. This is another innane and misdirected attack that will only further alienate customers and make them feel like consumers/criminals. And at that point why not go ahead and download that movie.

    P.S. Oz I’ve tried my best to use correct grammar this time. Please proofread this post and make any corrections you feel are required. Also crusader is an apt title for you. You obviously are unable to question authority and think for yourself. The perfect soldier.

    And tell Vinnie I say hi.

  110. Ozon 31 Jul 2007 at 3:20 pm

    Jonas, I agree with you that this step could very well alienate customers. I also agree with you that corporations are now treating customers more and more like consumers, and, as such, treating them a lot worse. I especially agree with you that they (corporations) have every right to do just that. However, I don’t agree with you that these measures won’t change anything. The truth is that a huge percentage of pirated movies come from Canada, with Guzzo being a relatively large player in the theatre business. If nothing else, this is at least the first of many steps to help combat the problem, and ensure that movie creators receive the credit they deserve.

    And I didn’t mean the grammar thing literally, I only felt like insulting you. Truthfully, I think your arguments make a lot more sense than Dave’s as I can actually agree with the majority them. And please, I said before why I’m doing this and it’s not in the least to defend the COO of the company I work for. He probably has no idea I’m doing this. So thanks for saying I’m unable to question authority, I am such a “perfect soldier” aren’t I?

    P.S. Stop it with the insulting one-liners in the end of your posts, you’re not good at them, they make you look bad, and take away from quality, grammatically correct (I just had to), arguments.

  111. Jonason 31 Jul 2007 at 3:26 pm

    Last point.

    Oz Wrote

    “if Vince did nothing to combat piracy, there would be a very good chance of him losing certain rights to show movies”

    I’d respect and and frequent his establishments more if he actually stood up to the industry and refused to turn his customers into consumers. Instead he’s no better or no worse then the rest of them. And don’t tell me he can’t as he’s very proud of the fights he’s had and won with the distributors when it served his own interests.

  112. Jonason 31 Jul 2007 at 3:37 pm

    I’ll quit the insults (although that’s my favorite part!)

    About the prevailance of piracy in Canada check out this article
    U.S. movie piracy claims mostly fiction

  113. Jack (not Jack Ruttan)on 31 Jul 2007 at 3:37 pm

    Dave, that’s very big of you to suggest that you were just following everyone else when you have been setting the tone. Quite a coincidence that this sort of degradation of comment strings seems to follow you around.

  114. DAVEon 31 Jul 2007 at 3:39 pm

    Piracy mostly from Canada?

    Check out this report from CBC:


    and this


    And of course THIS


  115. ni.vu.ni.connu / Le DVD…on 31 Jul 2007 at 3:54 pm

    […] disponible en entier sur le Web (illégalement, bien sûr). Il y a dû y avoir quelqu’un qui a mal fouillé un sac à l’entrée d’un cinéma… […]

  116. Amandaon 31 Jul 2007 at 4:38 pm

    After a nice shift that fulfilled my Gestapo quota for the day, I see TWENTY-SEVEN new e-mails in my inbox. I’m with Oz on the need to unsubscribe, lest I blow my brains out.

    I haven’t read everything, since it’s getting kind of petty… I don’t think I really ever went that low. So, blork, I implore you to please figure out a way for me to stop receiving e-mails every time someone replies, aside from getting a new e-mail address.

    I feel like all my hard work to discuss things in a sensible manner has gone out the window.

  117. Vanessa Slaunwhiteon 31 Jul 2007 at 4:51 pm

    Hey Jonas, thank you for the link to the “U.S. movie piracy claims mostly fiction” article. Looks like perhaps someone researched their facts and didn’t just retype a press release.

  118. Cameronon 31 Jul 2007 at 8:22 pm

    Asking someone to open their bag is illegal for a cop. Period. They will ask. But they do so knowing that they really can’t. It’s a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Period.

    If the cops can’t do it, I really have no idea why a Cinema employee has the right.

    I’ve had this conversation twice this week with nice people at Francofolie.

    They are wrong. So is Guzzo.

  119. blorkon 31 Jul 2007 at 9:55 pm

    OK folks, I’ve upgraded the “subscribe” plugin, but I don’t know if it’s going to make any difference. Stupid plugin writers are notoriously bad at not giving very clear instructions and leaving huge gaping holes in their products (like, um, giving the ability to unsubscribe). So there are three possibilities:

    (1) The updated plugin will allow you to unsubscribe,

    (2) It won’t allow you to unsubscribe, but your old subscription will be broken because of the update,

    (3) Nothing has changed.

    Let me know!

  120. blorkon 31 Jul 2007 at 9:58 pm

    OK, I just subscribed and then unsubscribed myself, so anyone who wants to unsubscribe should be able to as well. Just look for the subscription manager link under the box where you type your comments. Go there, and you’ll be able to unsubscribe. But then you have to COME BACK HERE and un-check the “notify me” box or you’ll just end up re-subscribing.

  121. Amandaon 31 Jul 2007 at 9:58 pm

    (1) was correct.

    I love you. You are the greatest person in the entire world.

    No more e-mails, yay! Thanks!

  122. Ozon 31 Jul 2007 at 10:01 pm

    Thanks Blork, you’re amazing! See ya!

  123. tbiton 02 Aug 2007 at 12:02 pm

    Now if only Blork could get this kind of arguing over his food.

    GEORGE “No!! Rare meat is an affront to ALL animal lovers !!”

    Penelope “Rare meat is a right that all gourmands have, live with it.”

    Francois “Red Meat is just another way for The Man to make money…..”


  124. DAVEon 02 Aug 2007 at 12:04 pm

    I love animals… rare, with gravy :P

  125. tbiton 02 Aug 2007 at 1:28 pm

    i should have said, “….over his food Posts.” I am sure a number of people would fight over his food… fight in order to get some :)

  126. blorkon 02 Aug 2007 at 2:40 pm

    Heh heh. :-)

  127. DAVEon 02 Aug 2007 at 2:52 pm

    This page is getting longer and longer to load… I wonder why ;)

  128. DAVE IDon 20 Aug 2007 at 8:22 pm


  129. Darkly Dreaming Davidon 27 Aug 2007 at 9:03 am

    Oh Guzzo, Guzzo, where art thou Guzzo…

    Well I decided it was time to look up what was going on with my buddy Guzzo. Nothing much has popped up. Only a few articles.
    Slashdot has picked-up on it, as you can see with this cool graphic.

    But most interesting is the National Posts’ lenght…