Perhaps the allure to text, talk, whatever...at a theater is simply because you are not allowed to? Then again, when my girlfriend asks me five minutes into a movie: "whats going on," I think it could just be people have no idea what theater etiquette should be because they have such short attention spans. This is why I think short films are on the rise. We are too connected to our devices and that is why we can't drive and text, watch movies and text, and be in classes and text. They are young and will eventually become too reliant on these devices.

There was a series of interactive films about 10-15 years ago, John Hurt starred in one of them, and I think somewhere down the road - mainstream films will experiment with audience interaction. The film, which I still have on DVD, was called Tender Loving Care. A "trailer" of it can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRHNcDPrVhs The idea was, John Hurt played a psychiatrist who would more or less "interrupt" the film and a series of questions would be asked of the viewer - standard psychological stuff - and this would dictate how the story would then play out until the next plot-point. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. My thinking is something similar may be explored where the plot progression and outcome are dictated by audiences punching in data based on similar type questions, catering to the majority of the audience's desires/input. The concept would be pretty interesting - the idea of seeing a movie multiple times with different audiences to fulfill various experiences. It would be the most interaction at the movies since rice was thrown at the screen during The Rocky Horror Picture Show... or for some of us, the obnoxious person behind us yelling at the screen.

I'm not in this age group, but my guess is that most teens would think connecting with their friends and using social media would enhance any situation they're in, not just going to the movies. I bet most teens would like it if they could go online while eating dinner with their families too. Oh man, I sound old... get off my lawn!

I think everyone who has grown up with the internet and social media views sees posting a message or interacting with someone on it as nothing more different than talking to their friend next to them. Also, we need to keep in mind that TV networks encourage people to use social media during programmes – just look at all of the shows that include a hashtag DOG in the corner of the screen. Once that's normalised, it's not a stretch for social media being used during cinema screenings to be normal. As I'm the sort of person who has to watch TV alone, because I can't stand people talking during the programme, I'd be OK with people using social media while watching a movie, if it kept everyone silent. But only if their phones were kept silent and the screens turned off, so they don't beep and buzz continually and flash light around the auditorium like a mix of searchlights and distress flares. But otherwise, I think that these rules should be rigidly enforced: http://www.bbc.co.uk/5live/films/code_of_conduct.jpg

Far from "adding" to the experience, posting or using the Internet while trying to absorb and understand a movie can only detract from it. Michael Brown brought up attention span and that's a key point: You only have so much attention to devote to something, be it taking the SAT, reading a book or watching a movie. If you're splitting your attention between any of these activities and using a computer, then both activities suffer. In order for a movie's "moments" to have any kind of impact, you have to be fully on-board for the whole ride that precedes them. How can a betrayal, reunion or death have any meaning if you're fuzzy about who's being betrayed, reunited or killed? These media users may think using their devices will enhance their experience but they're only really hurting themselves if they think they're actually watching a film. They might as well take their $11 and email it to that Nigerian prince that's been messaging them.

It won't be long before movie theaters employ cell phone dampeners. If some don't already.

What do we expect when this age group is constantly sold quick, fast paced stories with quick cut action sequences and super slo mo, reverse, smash cuts for practically every scene in the movie? For some that's what they're there for. They want to talk, txt, snicker until -- "Oh, snap! Did you see that!?" We all reap what we sow - does a business that dumbs down the product it sells to it's core customers anticipate thoughtful, cinema buffs to show up? No they expect short attention span geeks who, just like the studio, care more about the special effects and the lore of the already branded entertainment. (Yes I'm talking to YOU comic book super heroes who are ALL.THE. SAME.) Bottom line is this reaction merely reflects what the studio puts out for that demo and also that demos total lack of respect for movies as an art. It's nothing more than entertainment for this age group. Besides everyone know that if you really want to get into a movie these days you watch it on a computer with headphones. Deep, lose yourself immersion is connected to the computer up close, not the big screen far away.

As part of this age group, I do NOT understand why people would want to text/surf the web in a theater. When you pay to see a movie, watch the movie! It is harder to enjoy things when your attention is divided. Multitasking is fine if you're rushing to get out the door before work, but not when you're trying to get swept up in a world the filmmakers have worked so hard to immerse you in. And when people in the front of the theater text through the entire movie, the bright light of their phone distracts everyone else in the theater. It's frustrating to see my generation being perpetuated as the zero-attention-span millennials. I spent four hours straight reading Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina today, and I didn't send a text message once. It pains me when people immediately assume that, because of my age, I can't appreciate movies without being hooked into the internet as well. So please. If you're going to shell out the cash to see a movie, don't ruin for the rest of us it by texting. Do that in your own home.

Oh HELL NO. If this becomes a trend, I will start going to the Alamo Drafthouse exclusively, I hear they're opening a theatre in Los Angeles soon. I'm a little suspicious of this poll, too. They may have polled people who don't actually go to the movies that much, and I agree with the above poster that there's some stereotyping going on here. The last time I had to bark at somebody for using their Dingleberry during a movie, it was a 50-something woman during the beginning of PUBLIC ENEMIES. Ruined the prison break sequence for me.

Things you will not see on Twitter, now or in the future. "At new Goddard flick, counter-reflecting on cinema's role in revolt. #deepstuff" "Yes that is Dame Judy playing against type." "lol oblique reference to the Warriors. #Tarentinowannabes" The audience that would enhance their viewing pleasure by being able to text and so forth are not even the knuckle-draggers of my generation. It's the kids going out for some mindless entertainment of which there is plenty at the box office. Who really needs to concentrate to follow those stories? We've seen them in different variations a thousand times. After all, camp is only fun if you're not alone. Ask the guys at Mystery Science Theatre 3000.

i'm 29 and and i just don't go to theaters too often because i don't want to pay $15 or $20 for tix and popcorn and then have to deal with txting and chattering masses during the actual film.

I don't get it either, Scott. I don't really get the whole status update thing teenagers love either. I'm all for someone re-posting a cool article or video, a funny story or an exciting bit of news, even a mini review AFTER the seeing a movie; but posting every little thought that meanders through their brains... I think social media in movies is only going to result in more of the same nonsense. People tweeting how someone sucks, or how an action scene rocked, or how the story doesn't make sense after watching for six minutes. No thank you.

Well, if so many movies these days didn't hit points where the plot screeches to the halt and we watch a five or ten minute dissertation to explain how the world of the film works, it would be easier to keep people involved. There are parts of movies where I feel like pulling my phone out and checking sport scores or something because I know I won't miss anything. I check Twitter after a TV show sometimes, just to see what others have to say. There's one showrunner who posts on Twitter and I like to see what people say to him after his show airs. But I can't imagine doing all this while I'm watching. I think that trying to make some effort to get people to tweet or post on Facebook right after they've watched a movie would be a great way to build word of mouth. You need to create a space where you do it right after you've watched the movie, otherwise you're liable to forget when you get home. I don't like saying this, but getting people to tweet during the end credits would seem to be the best way to engage more people socially, while not completely ruining the movie-going experience. The best way would be to let people hang in the auditorium for a few minutes, but no theater wants that (time is money). If you want to beat this thing, just make better movies. If you build every single scene so that it absolutely has to be taken in, people won't be trying to pull their phones out. I think filmmakers take advantage of a "captive" audience, who aren't so captive anymore.

We ignore a huge opportunity if we criticize and dismiss this outright. I am with Scott and all of the above commenters: I think movie time is sacred and I hate when others in theatre distract me from that experience. However, this presents a huge opportunity for 1) enhancing the social experience. I'm not talking about social media and texting and all that. I'm talking about the experience of sharing two hours with two hundred other people. Imagine the ways we can get those two hundred souls to interact with each other. You know that crazyawesome buzzy feeling you get when you're at a great concert, the one where you just love that you are alive and singing and sharing that moment with hundreds of other strangers? Well, the social media platforms could be used to accentuate the experience solely of those people within that specific theatre at that specific time. 2) Stretching the boundaries of storytelling. There must be some way that we can capitalize on this "social media in the theatre thing" and still create art. Does the three-act structure only work with a captive audience? Maybe. How do you define captive? Could two hundred strangers texting together as they are watching a movie be considered captive? I think there is room here for some terribly exciting stuff. 3) Keeping the movie theatre alive (related to #1). Writing's on the wall: won't be long before most releases are straight to VOD/Netflix/whatever else there is. The only thing that will enjoy wide release will be the "Hunger Games" of the world. I believe our world is a better place when it is filled with specific locations for strangers to socialize in a story environment. The more we (writers, entertainers) can do to keep that alive, the richer society will be. 4) I don't know this far - but someone smarter will figure it out. I think there is opportunity. We should embrace this as another outlet for storytelling. But, yes, I'd rather people just be quiet in the darn theatre. And get off my lawn!

Texting in a movie theater is like drink-driving - we're fine (allegedly) to drive after a few beers, it's everyone else who's the problem. What these people actually want is to be able to text and tweet themselves, while everyone turns off their phone, shuts up, and lets them enjoy the film. Once everyone in the theater has a phone out, flashing lights and beeping, they'll be the first to complain...

While I detest the idea of sitting in a theater where the audience has been encouraged to turn on their phones and do anything, could there be a way to do both? If a theater has two screens set aside for a film, could one be the "social-media" auditorium while the other remains the "quiet" auditorium? You can choose your viewing experience, and might actually get some of those annoying talkers out of my quiet theater...

I think this is a good compromise, but which side is going to be the 'value add' site, the one where consumers pay more? Could it be theaters would charge people more to not have people texting around them?

Lots of good points have been made already, I'll try not to be redundant. I'm in the age group, but I've been called an old soul most my life, so what do I know. Multi-tasking, like Amy mentioned, is seen as the new normal. It's even kind of an insult. When I have to walk out of a room to take a phone call, I get back and I'm met with, "What, you can't multi-task?" It's seen as a negative that you can't focus on two things at once. There's a lack of recognition that in doing 2 things at once, both things suffer in some way, my attention isn't on either fully. There's a lot of benefit that can be gained from social media, but like any tech it's how you use it. I think society is sort of lobotomizing ourselves, thoughts in 140 characters or less, the constant need to be connected to your network. It has the potential to be a great tool to span huge distances and connect vastly different people to share big ideas & thoughts, I just don't think that's how it's being used by the majority. Michael M. is also right. This is what entertainment is becoming. I used to be able to find a movie every week I felt like I wanted to go see. These days it can be months between trips to the theatre. I dunno is the quality has gone down, or my cynicism has gone up :p But, the biggest point which I haven't seen made yet, is that it's instant validation and recognition. My generation is all about the immediate. Patience isn't a virtue, it's a the anchor holding me back from getting something right now. Whether it's patiently following along a slow part of the story, or patiently waiting to tell your Twitter friends about the movie you just saw. If I have the ability to do it now, then I should do it now, and feel tremendously good when people retweet my witty comment or reply with their own. In seconds I know my opinion matters. The movie I'm watching can't do that.

Marc, thanks for that post. I certainly can relate to that desire for immediacy. I've been on Twitter now a little over 3 years and it is THE major source of my news about screenwriting, TV writing, movies, TV, and Hollywood. It's like having my own personalized ticker tape and it's indispensable for what I do here on GITS. But here's where I fall off the wagon and I'll make the point with a personal anecdote. I was producing a TV special about the green movement and we were at Randall Island for Farm Aid 2007 where we interviewed Willie Nelson, John Mellencamp, Daryl Hannah, Dave Matthews and others. At the end of a very long day of shooting, I got to sit fourth row center to watch Matthews set. Awesome, right? Wrong! There was a young lady behind me who as soon as Matthews started playing got on her cell phone. A paraphrase of her conversation: "Oh, my God! This is AWESOME! Dave Matthews! I mean he's like right HERE! Listen, you can HEAR him! [holds phone out for a few seconds] I mean it's him, RIGHT? I can't BELIEVE I'm THIS close to DAVE MATTHEWS! I mean it's INCREDIBLE!" On and on and on she went until I finally turned around and said this: "You know you might get more out of the experience if you actually LISTENED to him perform." We entered into an uneasy truce whereby between songs, she'd call up another friend and gab for a while into the next song, then I'd shoot her a look, and she'd shut down. This went on the entire set. The irony is ginormous: In the need to share the experience IMMEDIATELY with someone else, the person is actually NOT experiencing the event. Yes, I understand that is not entirely accurate. They are THERE. They are LISTENING [partially]. They are WATCHING [partially]. And they sure as hell are MULTITASKING. But are they really EXPERIENCING the moment? Western born yogi and spiritual teacher Ram Dass wrote a book called "Be Here Now." It is in part a call to live in the present. To live FULLY in the present. That difference between "being" and "doing" is one that has vexed me my whole life, but I know in my heart of hearts the truth of it. Circling back to movies, perhaps that's one reason I love them so much because they force me to be here now, I am compelled to stop, look, listen, think and feel. Which is why I'm only joking somewhat when I say that going to a theater to see a movie is - for me - like going to a church, it's a 'sacred' space set aside from normal life where we, the 'congregation,' share the transformational power of story through cinema. Introduce texting and cellphone chats into that environment, it's almost sacrilegious. But hey, if exhibitors want to designate certain theaters for social media during the screenings, fine by me. Just keep that shit outta my place!

Hey Scott, I'm with you on all fronts. We all have our own individual experiences and how we internalize things, so maybe people who are texting or chatting during concerts, movies, whatever are experiencing it in a very meaningful way to them, but I personally think it's in a very superficial way. Like you, I go to see a movie to, hopefully, become immersed into a world and the story of characters so compelling that for 90 minutes or more I forget about everything except what's going on on that screen in front of me and when it's over, there's an immense satisfaction of having shared in something so amazing, and some sadness that it's now over and I have to return to the ordinary. I can't say for sure, but I do have a guess as to why people my age like to always feel connected. It's because in being connected they are recognized and validated in some way. For some people, I'd say it even goes so far as bordering on entering the cult of their own celebrity. As one of my friends who Twitters incessantly put it, "I have 1,000 followers who expect me to post what's going on in my life. I can't let them down!" More and more people are creating worlds for themselves that are only electronic manifestations, but the effect in your head is the same as being a respected or beloved member of an physical community. And like you said, in doing so they only partially experience the world around them. If you talk to the generation that first saw any older classic movie (Star Wars, Breakfast Club, etc.) they relate to it in a deep way. Something about the story or characters spoke to them, enabled them to relate, they were able to see themselves in some way. Today I'd guess if you ask the girl at the Dave Matthew's concert why she loved it so much it wouldn't be because one of his songs transported her back to her first kiss, or because the music felt like it was flowing through her. No, it would be invariably because she got to see Dave Matthews, a celebrity, and her other friends didn't. She saw something special, which somehow makes her special, and that's why it was so amazing to her. Totally sacrilegious! And just missing the mark entirely.

Whether it's talking or texting, these offenders lack consideration for others and simply don't care. For those who do care and are considerate, we lack the balls to do anything about it.

Speak for yourself. I tell people to shut up. I regularly go to an indie cinema in London called the Prince Charles, and the audiences there aren't shy about telling people to shut up either. Of course, some of the talkative regulars aren't shy about telling the people who tell them to shut up to shut up. And sometimes, talking is positively encouraged: http://www.princecharlescinema.com/events/events.php?seasonanchor=biglebowski

I agree. I think it is the ability to say " I am doing this right now" which may bring about some OMGs or be the first to say something about a movie and have a tastemaker status. It is akin to reporting live from something. I see this on some comment sections on blogs I read where some people must be the first person to comment and then the comment they leave is "FIRST!". This is definitely a different state of mind. I watch a lot of tv but only catch about 50% because I am working or doing something else on the computer, but I know the only way to really get the most out of something is to focus as there really is no true multi-tasking.