Inflexible People

[Anonymous]

Well, to northerners this is definitely the south! So any social oddities are attributed to the passive aggressive ("who me?!") southern route. You asked.

There were no exigent circumstances that prohibited the sitters from moving, they just did not want to be accommodating. Not sure what this has to do with, but it is prevalent in this area. I would not say it is a positive or even desirable trait.

It is humorous that people are stumbling to make excuses for the wrongdoers.

I would have let the ushers move them without a second thought. Really, a public pissing contest? Really?

[Anonymous]

OP, arrive at the movie earlier.
no need to fuss
Each paying customer is entitled to their own enjoyment. You are being a pain if you are entitled to force someone to move. You asked, they said no, gracious thing would be to accept it.
After all, you are the one who did not arrive on time

[Anonymous]

Maybe he did not move because he was reserving the seat next to him for his friend, who had just stepped out to use the bathroom

[Anonymous]

I thought DC was considered to be the Mid-Atlantic area??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought DC was considered to be the Mid-Atlantic area??

It is. DC is not the South. Certainly it is not "Dixie". People who insist that DC is a Southern city are ridiculous. Washington was the capitol of the Union during the Civil War.

[Anonymous]

OP here. We had our seats. We were one of the first ones there for some reason. We were there "early" and scooted toward the non-movers so others could sit. It would not have occurred to us to do otherwise. I suppose I thank our parents for that. Everyone knew the movie would be packed, it was no secret. There was no requirement or reasonable expectation that anyone arrive "early".

The non movers moved over one so they had one empty seat on either side of them, which I would not have noticed normally. Prior to us sitting, they had two seats on one side of them. After us sitting, they had one seat on either side of them. It happened to be the front row of the second section, where the large middle row separates the front section and the back section (i.e.: no seats/no tall people possible/no impediments in front of our row).

The non movers had no pressing need to hold their ground. The need for more seats far outweighed the need for the non-movers to make a point. The theatre can only sell as many tickets as there are seats, it can not over sell.

Not only would the non movers not move, they would not relocate their jacket/s so others could sit on either side of them. Most people had their jackets on their chair backs or laps. There existed a societal norm for ones personal possessions. The societal norm was not claiming yet another seat - or two extra seats. So if you wanted to get technical, the non movers were using two extra seats seats they did not pay for. By their reaction, not only was it a deliberate action to first move then deny seating, they definitely knew they were in the wrong. So not only did they know they took up extra seats, they were hostile about it.

I know in England (just citing a somewhat expectedly civil society) - one purchases an assigned seat in the lobby, and that is your seat. No more, no less. So I don't think this couple would survive there, for example. Nor do I think they would survive here in most cases given similar circumstances. Perhaps they feel they were lucky this time, or maybe even once before, but it seems their luck will be short lived, or they will inevitably cross the wrong person. If you're wrong, you're wrong.

I happen to be of the age to be "over" the benefit of the doubt. But no, there was none worthy here. Maybe I have simply lived here for too long

[Anonymous]

OP, you have many, many worries about frivolous things

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you have many, many worries about frivolous things

I don't think it's frivolous. Sure, on the face of it, someone moving or not moving seats in a movie theater is frivolous, but in reality, the deteriorating way in which people treat their fellow human beings is anything but frivolous. I don't much like the idea of an every-man-for-himself society, but this area in particular is quickly moving in that direction. Sure, there are plenty of people who are polite and who think of others' well-being, but too often, someone decides that, for instance, it's more important for their coat or bag to have a seat than for an actual human to have a seat. And that's sad, and not frivolous at all.

[Anonymous]

No one I know actually goes to the theater any more. Why would you?

[Anonymous]

OP here - not 10:24 - but I happen to agree. I think there are many who would like to feel it is frivolous for their own convenience. But I think next time, the non-mover is outta there. It is the underlying issues that are problematic. Not the seats.

[Anonymous]

OP again. Nope, no worries about frivolous things. My parents were good to me, among other endless, countless fortunate matters. Which is why I do not see fit to treat strangers in such a primitive fashion.

When you behave the way the non movers did in public, you are telling the world you have problems, and no one wants you there anymore, so you get thrown out. Oops!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you have many, many worries about frivolous things

This. But somebody has to worry about these kinds of things.

[Anonymous]

This is why I don't go to the movies anymore. Also, because babysitting is too expensive to go sit and watch a movie when I could watch one at home. And also, because the movie theaters are sticky and germy and have bedbugs.

[Anonymous]

OP, just forget it and watch the movie.
What did you go and see?
I have not heard of a theatre being that close to sold out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. The standing couple happened to be white. Maybe the sitting couple was racist? It could go either or neither way, really.

Actually, it could be argued that the second couple arrived "on time", as it was before the lights dimmed. Because they arrived after the sitting couple does not make them "late".
It's funny to me that people want to think there is an over riding "hidden" circumstance to defend the people who really had no circumstance. Too much lawyering, perhaps? (I'm a lawyer, BTW, so this is funny to me.) See how anti productive and anti civil this makes us?

The obvious part is that by not moving, the sitting couple was announcing they have a psychological problem. Did that not matter to them, that that was their over riding, very loud and clear statement? "I can't accommodate you because I need tons and tons of therapy!" That's actually the funny part.

How ridiculous. The people who arrive firstget the seats they want. If you come after someone who has a seat you want, you are too late. Sorry, but as someone who always tries to make it early to a movie theatre to get my pick of seats, your argument is ludicrous. Now, that said, if I/We were stitting with a seat on either side of us (I prefr the middle of the row), and NO other adjacent seats for 2 were anywhere in the theatre, yes I would move over1 seat each to create two adjacent seats but I woyuld tyhink I (por anyone who did this) was being really, really nice (not just civil) consiodering that the people who came after me should have to pick from the leftover seats, not create their own good seats. Everyone chooses what time they arrive at th etheatre and the first ones in get the best seats. Its the way it is and it is perfectly fair and civil.