First of all, before anyone gets their hopes up, we didn’t bring back film times in this issue. We’re not going to in the future either, even if you leave me a voicemail calling me a “selfish little pig” and demand my firing. I hope you weren’t hoping to hurt my feelings, angered film aficionado. The ship containing my soul sailed long ago. I might remind you that hurt people hurt people. Don’t be afraid to ask for a hug once in awhile.
I understand that seeing the page of movie listings was part of a weekly ritual for some of you, looking to see what you had until Thursday to catch and what to look forward to on Friday. However, I hate to say it, but we have to evolve as a paper to reflect the state of information in 2013. Movie times are available nearly everywhere, from a phone call to 1-800-FANDANGO (free Fandango plug there … despite what some accused us of, we’re not getting a kickback from them) to our own website, several free smartphone apps, or even just Googling the name of a movie (the company’s Knowledge Graph project puts today’s showtimes at the top of the search page, conveniently enough).
We only have so much page space to work with and only so many hours as a staff to put together a paper each week. When information like film times is available so many places, it doesn’t make much sense for us to manually compile them and devote three quarters of a page to printing them each week, especially since most people I talked about the change with said some variation on the sentiment “You still run film times in print? Why? People have phones, right?”
I admit being a little surprised by how angry some people have been about this change, but I also understand that people have expectations about what the Weekly should be like. But we’re not getting rid of film reviews; in fact, I’m looking for more ways to cover local film. My goal in the editor’s chair is to provide the best possible product each week and the film times didn’t hold up to that standard. You can disagree (and gosh, you sure have!), but there’s a ton of good stuff you’ll miss in each issue if you rush off in a sullen fit.
FYI, check out our new TV column this week. It’s really good.
This article appears in Feb 7-13, 2013.
I love it when an editor has the balls to do something constructive. Keep up the good work.
I believe by removing something that can be obtained in many other ways and replacing it with a second crossword puzzle was a great move. If the haters really want to see their film show times in print they can obtain the ADS’s Caliente insert (The Star’s answer to TW) which is usually available for free @ the Sun Tran depots around town.
Would have been nice if you’d provided a link to that new TV column.
While you’re recovering from the flak you got in response to the decision to drop the movie listings, I thought I’d offer a friendly suggestion for another editorial change. I think I speak for a lot of vegetarians (and vegans) when I say the restaurant reviews aren’t as helpful as they could be. I usually get little or no sense of how well the restaurants you review accommodate vegetarians. Do they have many options? Are they well executed?
Out of curiosity, I recently searched the Chow Features on your website for the keyword “vegetarian.” I found 17 occurrences in the last three years. That’s 17 out of 156 issues–barely over 10 percent. We’re a minority, sure, but so are medical marijuana users, and they get a weekly column. Shouldn’t we be on the radar of an alternative newsweekly more often?
No movie listings? Big deal! Perspective, let’s move on
It’s bad enough when so many Americans sound like 3rd grade drop-outs, but you’re an EDITOR! If you feel uncomfortable with “his” after “anyone” you should pluralize the subject. “before anyone gets THEIR (Shame on you!) hopes up” could be correctly written “before people get their hopes up” without changing the meaning.