Tag Archives: texting

Man Who Sued His Date For Texting During A Movie Gets His Money Back

More here:

Brandon Vezmar is celebrating a win this week. The man who threatened to sue his date for texting during a movie is calling off his lawsuit and he got his $17.31 back!  Inside Edition had to play mediator in this epic case. Vezmar and his texting date, Crystal Cruz, went on the show to recount […]

Man Who Sued His Date For Texting During A Movie Gets His Money Back

Rickey Smiley Reveals Which Emoji Is The Most Important [EXCLUSIVE VIDEO]

Read the original:

Rickey Smiley is a busy man, and therefore likes to text instead of having long phone conversations. But sometimes, texting can get long and drawn out, too, and he’s been trying to figure out a way to curtail such exchanges. And now, with the incorporation of emojis into our daily communication with one another, Rickey is pretty […]

Rickey Smiley Reveals Which Emoji Is The Most Important [EXCLUSIVE VIDEO]

NOT FUNNY! Amy Poehler Under Fire For Joke About R. Kelly Urinating on Blue Ivy!

Read the original:

The amount of jokes made at the expense of little Blue Ivy Carter is just getting ridiculous! The most recent and arguably the most offensive,…

NOT FUNNY! Amy Poehler Under Fire For Joke About R. Kelly Urinating on Blue Ivy!

CHICK CHAT: I Met A Beautiful Man Who Sent Me Someone Else’s D*ck Pics

Continue reading here:

Thou shalt not send someone else’s privates.

CHICK CHAT: I Met A Beautiful Man Who Sent Me Someone Else’s D*ck Pics

Kenya Moore Goes Off On Phaedra And Apollo AGAIN….

Go here to read the rest:

As we previously reported, Kenya Moore claims that Phaedra Parks and her husband Apollo Nida have been telling lies about her and she is fed up!…

Kenya Moore Goes Off On Phaedra And Apollo AGAIN….

When Women Text… The Ways We Drive Ourselves Crazy Over SMS

Most of us are women here so I don’t have to tell you that when it comes to communication, we’re different than the men folk. We get very particular when it comes to relaying a message.

Read more from the original source:
When Women Text… The Ways We Drive Ourselves Crazy Over SMS

Lindsay Lohan Nipples in a Weird Photoshoot for Terry Richardsaon of the Day

I love Lohan. Sure, she ignores me even though she once used to text me always and that’s ok…why would she bother texting me….I’m not Terry Richardson, or a film producer, or anyone who can help her, or that she can use for more than being a face to sit on all fucking day, or a body to stand next to to feel skinny, before realizing what she is doing to herself and that she can do so much better, helping her find her self esteem and leaving me broken and alone, even though I have no soul or emotions…..I would have stories of banging Lohan…and possibly a cold sore or two as battle wounds to prove it…. She’s fantastic. I like to tell her we are connected at the soul. I like to believe she’s making a comeback and will win an Oscar….but more importantly…I like staring at her amazing tits that are probably fake…cuz really they are her best performance….

More:
Lindsay Lohan Nipples in a Weird Photoshoot for Terry Richardsaon of the Day

Brit Marling on Sound of My Voice, Guerrilla Filmmaking, and Not Waiting for Permission

Sundance ’11 darling Brit Marling is now a year and change removed from the stunning festival debut that made her one to watch thanks to two films she co-wrote, produced, and starred in: The moody sci-fi drama Another Earth , released last summer, and the mesmerizing Sound of My Voice . The latter film finally hits theaters this week, giving audiences a chance to see a different side of Marling: Earthy, enigmatic, dangerously charismatic, and — as the leader of a cult amassing members in a basement in the Valley — possibly from the future. Movieline spoke with Marling last year about Sound of My Voice , in which a would-be documentarian and his girlfriend (Christopher Denham and Nicole Vicius) find themselves falling deeper under the spell of Marling’s Maggie as she prepares her followers for an unknown event. As with Another Earth , which was co-written and directed by Mike Cahill , Marling penned the script for Sound of My Voice with director Zal Batmanglij (who is currently at work on his SOMV follow-up The East , a drama centered around an anarchist group starring Ellen Page , Alexander Skarsgard , Julia Ormond , Patricia Clarkson , and Marling). Marling herself has since filmed the dramatic thriller Arbitrage with Richard Gere and Susan Sarandon and will be seen in Robert Redford ‘s The Company You Keep . In Movieline’s chat she discusses the borderline illegal guerrilla filmmaking tricks that made Sound of My Voice possible, her thoughts on taking professional risks, her dream director list, and how to avoid the “morally-corrupt swamp” that is Hollywood. (A longer version of this interview was previously published here .) Sundance was a huge coming out event for you. How did you process the sudden attention of being named a Sundance darling in your first major festival appearance? To be perfectly honest, it’s a little weird. It’s weird because, I guess, you’re working for so long in a vacuum — writing this work, making this work — and you’re doing it really on your own. It hasn’t met up with the world, and you’re totally sustained by just making the work. So it’s a completely different experience for it to enter the world and to get responses and reactions. And of course, the Sundance experience was amazing. I’m incredibly moved by the programmers of that festival — that they would search out these films that are so small, handmade, truly outside of the system of filmmaking, and that they would bring these movies that were made in little caves in Silverlake and take them and bring them into the light. It’s pretty amazing. Not only that, you also got to bring two films to Sundance with two of your close collaborators, Mike Cahill and Zal Batmanglij. You were all three roommates once upon a time, right? For a long time in L.A. the three of us lived together and we were kind of each others’ family in L.A., in a way. We’d all left family on the East Coast and come out to the West Coast, and L.A. can be a very isolating city. Doing this kind of work is really extreme work. I think we were really lucky that we had each other and could encourage each other, because there was quite a bit of time before we were able to make these movies. And of course you’re filled with doubt; can you really do this? So it’s nice to have each other for encouragement, to keep going. Otherwise I’m not sure. Maybe I would have ended up doing something else. What would you be doing instead? When I think about what I would be doing if I wasn’t an actor… maybe an environmental activist? An eco-terrorist of some kind? I don’t know. [Laughs] Take us back to your days at Georgetown. How did you meet Zal and Mike in the first place? I was a freshman and they were seniors and there was a film festival at Georgetown, which is really odd because everyone there is going to work on Capitol Hill or at an investment bank. But they had a festival, and it was the first year they’d had one, and the films were all horrible. I mean, the worst student filmmaking ever. And then there was this film that came on at the end, and it was colorful and poetic and it was digital filmmaking like you’d never seen before. It had all this breadth to it, really beautiful imagery, the rhythm of it, an interesting story. I remember it won first place and I just popped up and led the standing ovation for the film. The filmmakers came onstage to get the award and it was Mike and Zal, and I saw them and I was like, “Okay. I have to be friends with these people.” And the three of us started making movies together. That was an amazing time; I don’t think we thought we would ever end up making movies that way later. We came out to L.A. and assumed we’d learn to make films properly, whatever that means, but because of the recession, because of the way filmmaking and technology has changed, we pretty much ended up making movies in the same sort of completely illegal guerrilla fashion that we’d been using to do stuff at Georgetown. You folks still talk, and openly so, about the semi-legit hustle of getting Sound of My Voice made… Like returning our Mac every 14 days! It was actually really hard; we would pull up, I would put on the emergency lights and Zal would run in with this heavy computer. Tamara Meem, the editor, had to reinstall the Final Cut software every time. It was an intense way to go about it but it was also the only way we could afford to do it. [Laughs] Yeah, we were pulling a lot of tricks like that. You have to think that somewhere out there, aspiring filmmakers are hearing these stories and thinking to themselves, “Brilliant idea!” Yeah, I think one of the things we realized is that sometimes in life when you’re doing your craft, you’re often waiting for permission — for someone to give you money, for someone to read a script and say yes, you can go do it. And I think at some point I was like, “I don’t want to wait for permission anymore.” Let’s just do this, let’s make these movies for whatever money we can raise, we’ll figure it out. And it’s kind of cool because there ends up being as much creativity in the execution of figuring out how to make a movie with limited resources as there is in the screenwriting or in the acting. You multi-task with your films, acting, producing, writing — but you studied a very different field. At what point did you decide to go full-force into filmmaking? I had done plays and studied acting a bit in high school, and I think when I was graduating a lot of my friends were going to theater school. I really wanted to act, but I felt like I knew a lot about plays, about Shakespeare and Chekhov and plays, but not enough about being a human being in the world. I didn’t understand how you could be an actor if you didn’t also study philosophy and study political science, astronomy. And also just go out and live life and have experiences. These are all somehow part of being able to bring something to Chekhov, or bring something to any play or any story. Or just merely having something to say. Yes! And at the time I decided that I was going to get a broader liberal arts education and also just go live some life, because the drama world felt small and a bit self-referential. Not a lot from the outside was coming in. I ended up studying economics — I don’t know exactly how all of that happened — and I ended up working in an investment bank for a while, then I think at some point I just decided that I didn’t want to be afraid. I think when you decide you’re going to go act in L.A. it’s just an overwhelming wave of fears: I’ll never make any money, I won’t survive, I’ll waste all this time in my life that I could have used pursuing another direction, I’ll fall behind… the feelings of illegitimacy, of struggling for so long and not getting to do the work you want to do. Everybody’s writing you off as another young girl who’s gone off to L.A. It’s a huge risk. And I guess I finally came to a point when I was working at this bank and studying econ when it didn’t feel like a risk anymore because I was so not living the life I wanted to live. And that felt like its own kind of death. So at some point you realize that your life is not just going to start one day in the future, that you’re living it. You are nothing more than the sum of the small choices you make on a daily basis, so if you choose to study economics or you choose to be a banker, this is going to be who you are. It gave me more courage to go be an actor, because the more time I spent acting the more I liked who I was. I feel like I’m a much better person when I’m developing my imagination and my innocence and my vulnerability. I like that version of me better than the version where I’m just working on my analytical mind. Since moving to L.A. have you been doing the regular aspiring actor thing, sending out head shots and resumes and hitting auditions? It’s funny, right when I got out to L.A. I realized pretty quickly that one, it’s just difficult to go on auditions as a young unknown. And then even if you can get an audition, what you’re auditioning for is probably garbage. I mean, it’s just horror films, the torture porn genre, or it’s just bad comedies, girlfriend characters, girl in bikini running from man with chainsaw. I thought to myself, “Oh my gosh, I don’t know how I can do this stuff.” People said to me you just have to start somewhere, everybody’s got this kind of work, the skeletons in their closet, and eventually you’ll get to the other side and you’ll get to do substantive work. I remember thinking to myself, nobody says to an aspiring heart surgeon, “One day you’ll get to operate on patients at Cedars-Sinai — but for now, come over to this back alley and remove kidneys illegally and sell them on the black market.” Nobody asks that of any other profession, that you wade through this morally-corrupt swamp. Also what I felt really strongly about was that I didn’t want to play these roles where women are constantly in these submissive positions or being sexually abused or harassed or just sexual objects. I did not want to do that. I didn’t want to be responsible for putting storytelling into the world that other young girls would watch and think, that’s what it means to be a woman. Hell no. So writing became a way to get to act in things that I thought were meaningful, and hopefully write stronger roles for other women. The Lorna character, to write [ SOMV character] Carol Briggs, to create work for other women that wasn’t like the stuff I was reading. Speaking of strong female characters, Maggie in Sound of My Voice is mesmerizing, manipulative, transfixing. There is an amazing power to her that’s almost inhuman. Where did that magnetism and power come from in your performance, and where did you draw her characteristics from when you were writing her? In the beginning when we wrote this, Maggie for a while was a bit of a blank placeholder. She was there, but we had a hard time determining her character. For a while she read pretty one-dimensionally, and then she started to flesh out the moment that we came up with the scene between her and Peter [Christopher Denham], where she kind of pressures Peter about his past and gets him to throw up, physically and emotionally. I think that scene gave us as writers insight into her character, in that she’s deeply intuitive, really compassionate on one hand, but on the other hand there’s a scorpion- or viper-like quality to her. If she feels dismissed or threatened, or if she feels someone accusing her of being a fraud, she will attack and it will be fearless and aggressive and very dangerous. I think that seed from that scene gave birth to this girl who’s at once potentially magical — is she a time traveler, is there something ethereal, or is she ordinary? And look, even if she is a time traveler, which I’m not going to answer, but if she is a time traveler, a time traveler is just a person from the future who comes back in time. She can be sort of an ordinary girl who, like, smokes menthol cigarettes and is kind of crass in the future and travels back in time. That ordinariness doesn’t leave her. I think we liked the idea of that juxtaposition, that she’s telling people the future and smoking softpack menthol cigarettes and has really badly chipped nail polish on her fingernails. [MILD SPOILERS] About that ending; you don’t have to tell us the answer, but is there an answer? Yeah. And that’s what’s amazing about this; this was actually conceived as the first part of a larger story. Oh my gosh, there are hours of storytelling that could be had. Whether or not that’s a trilogy of films or a TV show or a miniseries, it doesn’t matter — there is an ending that you come to between Peter and Maggie that is so, I think, beautiful and complicated. A really great love story. And I hope that we get a chance to tell that, because right now only Zal and I and another person know that ending. [END SPOILERS] It might just drive people crazy to know that more story is out there, even if it only exists in your minds. [Laughs] We’d love a chance to share it. Maggie’s a character that I think there’s still a lot to mine, in who she is. After Sundance, you signed with an agency. Did Sundance completely change things for you in terms of career opportunities, and what kind of roles have you been approached with since? It’s a very cool thing to begin to have the opportunity to read really great scripts, to actually go in and meet the people who are making those stories and really be in a position to be a part of them. That is awesome. But so far I haven’t been approached with anything similar. You do have to be careful of that, but because these films haven’t fully entered the world yet people still don’t really know. Absolutely, I don’t want to do another role that’s similar to Maggie or similar to Rhoda; I think as an actor once you’ve explored that territory it becomes safe and you begin seeking out the dangerous territory, something new that you feel you maybe cannot do. So I’m looking for that, and it obviously becomes much easier when you have an agent and managers and people supporting you that believe in your work and your ability to do it. As far as studio vs. independent films, I’m interested in any story that’s good and a lot of the great stories that I watch are huge studio films. I love 12 Monkeys , it’s one of my favorite movies of all time. I love The Princess Bride , I love The Fugitive . I also love Dogville and Edge of Heaven and I Am Love . So it doesn’t really matter to me, the budget or how it’s being made. It’s really a question of the story and the people behind it. The common thread in many of those films seems to be that they’re made by iconoclastic directors with very strong visions . Yeah, and I think that’s what interests me the most about being an actor. You have to surrender. You have to really trust the director and the way that they see things, and how can you surrender to anyone who doesn’t move you deeply and whom you don’t trust? I’m excited to meet those other directors and writers that will move me so much that I’m like, “Take me on the journey with you.” I will do my homework and know this human being that I’m playing inside and out and I’ll trust you to keep me safe. You have to be willing to make yourself really vulnerable. Who are some directors you can name who have inspired you that you’d like to work with as an actor? Oh, gosh. Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden; I love their work and Half Nelson is, I think, the most stunning film that’s come out of our generation. Fatih Akin blows my mind. Luca Guadagnino. So many people. In terms of directors working closely with their actors as you have in your films, Guadagnino developed I Am Love over a long period of time with Tilda Swinton. And her performance in it is transcendental! She’s speaking Italian with a Russian accent and then Russian? It blows my mind. Also Elegy , directed by Isabel Coixet. Beautiful film based on the Philip Roth novel. For whatever reason it came out at the same time as Vicky Cristina Barcelona and it got sort of got buried, but it is an amazing movie and she is a stunning director. A female director who also camera operates, which I think is so cool. Oh my gosh, there are so many directors I look forward to getting to know. Sound of My Voice opens in limited release Friday. Follow Jen Yamato on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .

Excerpt from:
Brit Marling on Sound of My Voice, Guerrilla Filmmaking, and Not Waiting for Permission

Strange Fruit Tells the Epic, Enthralling Story of The Beatles’ Failed Apple Records

The film : Strange Fruit: The Beatles’ Apple Records (2012), available on DVD via Chrome Dreams Why It’s an Inessential Essential : Clocking in at a mammoth 162 minutes, Strange Fruit: The Beatles’ Apple Records is an exhaustive new documentary about the short-lived record and film label that the Beatles used to release such artists as Badfinger and James Taylor. And while the absence of Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney and the lack of archival interview footage of the Beatles is striking (John Lennon only chimes in around the 135-minute mark), that’s also sort of liberating: The film takes a semi-critical look at why Apple, a label that was meant to have established artists promote new artists, never really took off. One could easily accuse talking heads like The Iveys’ bassist Ron Griffiths of having an axe to grind. Griffiths bad-mouthed Apple and said he was disappointed in their non-existent promotion of the band. But others, like Mojo Magazine’s Park Paytress, Apple biographer Stefan Granados and Beatles biographer Chris Ingham, all clearly know their stuff and hold no grudges. They also all have their own unique takes on the artists and history of the Beatles (Paytress is especially fond of Yoko Ono’s debut album Yoko Ono/Plastic Ono Band). Ultimately, Strange Fruit works because the filmmakers don’t have to be beholden to the Beatles’ sides of the story. That approach is almost immediately rewarding, too: The film quickly establishes that part of the reason why Apple was created was to help the Beatles pay less tax money than they otherwise would have had to. Apple Records’ financial failure is, after all, mostly due to creative mismanagement. It’s great to see Badfinger guitarist Joey Molland defuse tension by saying that he’s not mad at the Beatles but rather at the music industry in general. But it’s also more directly the Fab Four’s fault for not following through on their ideas and leaving almost all of their new artists in the lurch by not properly promoting them. How the DVD Makes the Case for the Film : There’s an interesting supplementary feature on the DVD where Stephen Friedland (aka: Brute Force) provides an emblematic example of why Apple artists like himself never really had a chance. Friedland was mystifyingly approached by George Harrison in 1968 to release “King of Fuh,” a bratty and deliberately button-pushing song that Friedland thought, at the time, was a sign of his “genius.” Along with McCartney, Harrison at the time was the only Beatle to take Apple’s mandate to discover and develop new talent seriously. But, after basically stumbling upon Friedland’s album thanks to a friend of a friend of a friend, Harrison casually called up Friedland, saying, “‘Hello, this is George Harrison. Just want you to know that you have a record on Apple Records.’” Because of the song’s risqué nature (Geddit? “Fuh King?”), both the BBC and FCC refused to play it. So as the documentary filmmakers relate through intertitles, even though Harrison “add[ed] string arrangements from the London Philharmonic,” EMI, the Beatles’ own record label, “refused to press or distribute [the single],” and, “it remained unreleased for years except for a small pressing by Apple of 3,000 copies.” Other Interesting Trivia : Of Strange Fruit ’s many interesting anecdotes, some of the most interesting are the ones about the artists that crossed paths but didn’t make establish any kind of working relationship with Apple or the Beatles. For example, apparently David Bowie and Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young were both considered to be Apple acts but didn’t quite make it that far. In the long run, that may not be such a bad thing… PREVIOUS INESSENTIAL ESSENTIALS The Last Temptation of Christ The Sitter Citizen Ruth The Broken Tower Dogville Night Call Nurses Simon Abrams is a NY-based freelance film critic whose work has been featured in outlets like The Village Voice, Time Out New York, Vulture and Esquire. Additionally, some people like his writing, which he collects at Extended Cut .

See more here:
Strange Fruit Tells the Epic, Enthralling Story of The Beatles’ Failed Apple Records

Are We Actually Going To Let Industry Heads Advocate Texting in Theaters?

There’s nothing more enraging to me as a moviegoer than that dreaded moment when, in the middle of a movie, the unmistakable, un-ignorable glow of a cell phone screen cuts through the glorious darkness in my field of vision and takes me out of the viewing experience. Texting , sexting, checking emails, Tweeting — I don’t care what your excuse is, it’s not okay to ruin everyone else’s experience by using your phone (or talking or shaking the entire row of seats with your nervous-boredom knee jiggle or letting your stank feet air out in the aisles or snoring, you selfish prick.) So why would theater owners or studio heads, whose job it is to deliver an enjoyable movie-going experience to their paying customers, ever even entertain the notion of allowing or encouraging texting in a movie theater? That’s just what some members on a panel discussion entitled “An Industry Think Tank: Meeting the Expectations of Today’s Savvy Moviegoer” at CinemaCon reportedly proposed today in a conversation about issues facing the industry. Deadline’s David Lieberman reports : Regal Entertainment CEO Amy Miles says that her chain currently discourages cell phone use “but if we had a movie that appealed to a younger demographic, we could test some of these concepts.” For example, she says that the chain talked about being more flexible about cell phone use at some screens that showed 21 Jump Street . “You’re trying to figure out if there’s something you can offer in the theater that I would not find appealing but my 18 year old son” might. You know what else these hypothetical teenagers want when they go to a movie? To see R-rated boobs and sneak into other movies without paying, so let’s just let them do all of that, too. IMAX’s Greg Foster seemed to like the idea of relaxing the absolute ban on phone use in theaters. His 17 year old son “constantly has his phone with him,” he says. “We want them to pay $12 to $14 to come into an auditorium and watch a movie. But they’ve become accustomed to controlling their own existence.” Banning cell phone use may make them “feel a little handcuffed.” To which I say: Handcuff those kids! Teach them some self-control, for goodness sake. And what does it mean when the IMAX guy is totally okay with his kid being on the phone in a movie? In an IMAX theater there’s literally no room in your field of vision to look at anything else, but interrupting your experience to look down and text is cool? Which brings me to the first issue here: Kids. Not the kids themselves per se, but the fact that pretty much the entire hypothetical justification for allowing cell phone use in theaters stems from an attempt to solve the issue of dwindling attendance by blaming the teenagers. You think every kid out there is so ADD-addled and attached to their iPhones that they won’t or can’t focus on a movie for two hours? (I mean, maybe.) Does that mean we should let them or anyone of any age do whatever they want in a theater? HELL NO. Here’s the thing: You can’t just let The Text-Crazy Kids blaze up Facebook in a theater in order to boost box office without messing it up for everyone else — and that includes the rest of us old people and that segment of the teenage populace that, you know, doesn’t need to compulsively check their phones at the movies and maybe, just maybe, hates it as much as the rest of us when other people do it. To officially allow texting in a theater is to effectively encourage texting in a theater. And while folks like Miles might experiment with outside the box teen baiting strategies –and good luck to her in that — how can you even effectively host a text-friendly screening? By offering specialty showtimes, a la Baby Brigade or 21 and Up screenings, maybe? Who knows? Such an approach might just work, and I’m sure the theater owners would rejoice in the box office boom and bathe in the shower of gold coins and allowance money that followed. But here’s my request, if it comes to that: Keep those screenings segregated and instill a text-friendly screening surcharge; if moviegoers MUST TEXT during a movie, make them pay extra for the privilege. The real problem with this line of thinking, though, is its potential effect on film culture at large: Once texting is allowed, why not talking, or any of the plethora of bad theater behavior that could snowball from there? The thing is, texting in a movie isn’t just an issue of allowing overstimulated kids needing to be plugged into their apps and social networks and conversations at all times; it’s a far more problematic issue of engagement at the movies. And not just for the texters, who might be half-paying attention to a movie while chatting up their friends, but for those around them who deserve to be able to watch a film without interruption or distraction. By encouraging texters to engage half-way with a film and allowing their bad behavior to ruin fellow moviegoers’ ability to escape into the magic of the movies, we’d be killing the sanctity of film culture. Audiences will learn not to pay full attention to a film — and if you can’t focus on a film, how are you to appreciate it? Why come back to the movies every week if you care less and less about movies themselves? The exhibition and studio pros at CinemaCon seem to care less about the greater impact on film culture in their desperation to increase ticket sales. Thank goodness for Tim League . His Alamo Drafthouse cinemas, headquartered in Austin, Texas, take pains to protect the filmgoing experience — recall the infamous anti-texting video that went viral last year — and at CinemaCon it seems he was the lone reported voice of reason on the issue: “Over my dead body will I introduce texting into the movie theater,” [League] says. “I love the idea of playing around with a new concept. But that is the scourge of our industry… It’s our job to understand that this is a sacred space and we have to teach manners.” He says it should be “magical” to come to the cinema. Note that in response to League’s laudable declaration, Regal CEO Miles reportedly retorted that “one person’s opinion of magical isn’t the other’s.” In Miles’ world, “magical” probably means “profitable.” In other news, remind me to never patronize a Regal theater again. Going to the movies should be a magical experience, even for those casual ticket-buyers who just want to escape for two hours and who go to the cineplex maybe five times a year. My two favorite theaters in the world, League’s Drafthouse and L.A.’s New Beverly Cinema, notably enforce a no-talking, no-cell phone policy because the people who run them and their patrons, for the most part, agree that movie-watching is a special experience. They love the movies, and I’m not sure I can say that Miles and Foster proved at CinemaCon that they do, too. Movies are meant to transport, and by their nature that’s an intimate relationship between art and receiver. You should never have to compromise your movie-going experience because of some fidgety asshat in the row in front of you. So: Am I alone in this, or do other people have to fight the urge to wrestle texters’ cell phones out of their hands during a movie and hurl them at the wall whenever that dreaded light illuminates the dark? And at what point should we become alarmed if industry execs keep batting these ideas around to boost ticket sales? Sound off. Photo: A sign reminds people of strict rules regarding cell phones in the theaters on opening day of the 28th Telluride Film Festival August 28, 2001 in Telluride, CO. A ringing phone during a screening will result in immediate ejection from the theater and no refund. (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images) Follow Jen Yamato on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .

Read more:
Are We Actually Going To Let Industry Heads Advocate Texting in Theaters?