A combination of health-conscious cinemagoers rejecting sugar-coated popcorn and disgust at its distinctive smell is steadily spelling "The End" for the snack in some arthouse cinema chains, the Observer reported.

Does U.K. "popcorn" = U.S. "Cracker Jacks"?

sugar-coated popcorn????

no wonder they've got rotten teeth...

Sugar-coated popcorn would make a biatch of a mess. I can only eat a handful of that stuff without feeling sick.

Regular popcorn = simple awesomeness

That's a load of fiddle-faddle and poppycock, I say.

To be fair, it's not "the Nanny State" getting rid or banning popcorn. It's a theater chain owner that's getting rid of it in the ones he owns.

So don't everyone panic!

Basically what you have here is three people who complained about popcorn, and a cinema chain who wants to save money by cutting costs.

"Disgust at the distinctive smell" gimme a break!

Banning sugar popcorn is fine by me, but you farkers stay away from my American Heart Attack Inducing Butter and Salt popcorn

"I am saying there is no way in which it fits with the culturally sophisticated brand I wish to sell."

What a soulless douchebag!

"I'm not saying no popcorn is better than popcorn," he added. "But I am saying there is no way in which it fits with the culturally sophisticated brand I wish to sell"

Good luck with that.

'Nanny State' my left testicle. Submitter = cockmonkey.

Good. I for one am tired of having to put up with second hand popcorn.

real shaman: no wonder they've got rotten teeth...

I think it has more to do with the British government repeatedly jamming the pacifiers back in the mouths of their subjects.

How's the nanny state involved? This is the work of one pretentious entrepeneur in theatres that he owns. Headline fails.

For some reason the words "health conscious" and "British" don't go well together.

I mean they're complaining about popcorn in theaters when they're known for eating things like Fish and Chips, Shepherd's Pie, Full English Breakfast, Yorkshire Pudding, Toad in the hole, etc.

Didn't they used to eat roasted crickets, when watching Shakespeare's plays?

This isn't a "nanny state" issue this is a "pretentious jerkoff art-house moviegoer" issue.

RTFA

This is a privately owned chain of movie theaters that caters to the type of idiot that assumes cultural/intellectual superiority over the benighted common herd by his choice of entertainment consumption.

Popcorn is for the proles...

FTFA: "Popcorn is a contentious issue. Lots of people absolutely hate it and have asked us to ban it, so we're going to do exactly that," the group's head of media, Gabriel Swartland, told the Observer.

Who the fark hates popcorn? I can see not liking it, choosing not to eat it, but hate? To the extent that you want to deprive others of eating it at the movies?

/confused

So one chain of upmarket cinemas decides to experiment with not selling popcorn, and that equates to a Nanny State ban?

Does subby not understand the way private businesses try to serve customers to maximise their profits?

Rethorn: Banning sugar popcorn is fine by me, but you farkers stay away from my American Heart Attack Inducing Butter and Salt popcorn

Heh. I actually don't eat popcorn at the movies because even if you get it without butter, there's still a ton of butter on it straight out of the popper. It's too greasy and it loses the natural flavor of the popcorn that I like.

Cutting costs by not allowing popcorn? Do they not gouge you for it like they do for us across the pond?

What 'culturally sophisticated' replacement are they offering? Sushi?

Submitter = Idiot.

That is all.

Sounds more like he is making a business decision...which he is entitled to do.

/hates nanny states

Man was born to eat corn (together with sacrificed human flesh).

Didn't US cinemas ban popcorn and hotdogs and 12 oz drinks when they showed Schindler's List?


/were falafels on sale?

The Numbers: So one chain of upmarket cinemas decides to experiment with not selling popcorn, and that equates to a Nanny State ban?

Does subby not understand the way private businesses try to serve customers to maximise their profits?

This just in: Sometimes people submitting headlines will use extreme wording to draw in people, let's see if it works

FFS people, relax. It's a Fark headline not the bible

Has anyone mentioned that it isn't a Nanny State issue yet?

Just checking...

Jombafomb1: a cinema chain who wants to save money by cutting costs.

Save money? Most movie theatres I've dealt with would rather sell popcorn than show movies - if they could get you to buy popcorn without the inconvenience of showing a movie, they would. They make lots more money off concessions than ticket sales.

"Disgust at the distinctive smell" gimme a break!

I've known US companies that have banned microwave popcorn or restricted it to the break room because people complained about the smell.

Jombafomb1: Basically what you have here is three people who complained about popcorn, and a cinema chain who wants to save money by cutting costs.

I'm sorry, but you completely and utterly fail,

"But I am saying there is no way in which it fits with the culturally sophisticated brand I wish to sell."

Translation: He wants to attract a higher income group of customers and then sell them something with an even higher profit margin than popcorn.

In America cinemas make very little money from selling tickets (the distributors take most of that). Most of their profits come from selling snacks and drinks.

If the English have a similar model, they're just going to have to sell some upscale snacks instead of popcorn to profit.

"Popcorn is for the proles."

I think this is what is really going on here. It
is more about the elitism of the people going to an "art cinema".

What the fark? Sugar coated popcorn? They actually do this in the UK? In most theatres I've been to in Canada, most people still buy popcorn, and no, it's not sugar coated.

Jombafomb1: Basically what you have here is three people who complained about popcorn, and a cinema chain who wants to save money by cutting costs.

I heard a thing on NPR about how popcorn is becoming less profitable in the USA, too, due to rising costs and waning demand. Popcorn is usually highly profitable, since the theaters pretty much break even on ticket sales.

I consider this just part of the evolution of movies, though. Soon theaters will be extinct, and I don't see that as a bad thing.

Movie theaters are all rude patrons and overpriced snacks. I have a much better experience at home with a widescreen TV, 5.1 surround, DVD extras, pausing for potty breaks, volume control, rewind for missed dialog, and whatever damn food and beverage I please to consume.

Rethorn: Banning sugar popcorn is fine by me, but you farkers stay away from my American Heart Attack Inducing Butter and Salt popcorn

Second.

Sugar coated popcorn? You're doing it wrong, England.

KellyLockhart: Has anyone mentioned that it isn't a Nanny State issue yet?

Has anyone pointed out that the UK is known as the Nanny State? And maybe this article has nothing to do with the government banning popcorn, but the fact that the theaters that do ban it are in the United Nanny State Kingdom.

"I'm not saying no popcorn is better than popcorn," he added. "But I am saying there is no way in which it fits with the culturally sophisticated brand I wish to sell."

Good luck getting caviar our of your seats, dickweed.

Jombafomb1: Basically what you have here is three people who complained about popcorn, and a cinema chain who wants to save money by cutting costs.

"Disgust at the distinctive smell" gimme a break!

I'd rather wallow in your puke then smell popcorn.

well, in America you have to take out a second mortgage to AFFORD popcorn at the theatres.

peachpicker: who the fark hates popcorn? I can see not liking it, choosing not to eat it, but hate? To the extent that you want to deprive others of eating it at the movies?

That's a loaded question. The better and more fair question to ask is this - do you personally dislike popcorn so much that the smell of it keeps you from going to the movies? For me, the answer is yes. I personally dislike the smell of others eating popcorn enough to keep me from going to the cinema more often. I would go more often to cinemas more often if I didn't have to wonder whether I would have suffer popcorn (or rather, the salt and butter poured on top of it) smell.

For what it's worth, I *do* go to pubs and clubs more in the UK now that they are non-smoking.

Neither of these is a value judgment on you or your derival of pleasure from the activities mentioned.

I also think it worth mentioning that the "Picturehouse" chain of cinemas is pretty much the only one i ever frequent in the UK, and, yes, it is basically always to watch some pretentious artsy "douchebag" film. So, we're not talking about a screening of Bib Mama's house where 50% of the audience would like to eat popcorn typically. At the picturehouse where I frequent, there are usually maybe a couple of people eating popcorn, max, per screening, but, yes, it does stink up the whole cinema.

dugrik: In America cinemas make very little money from selling tickets (the distributors take most of that). Most of their profits come from selling snacks and drinks.

If the English have a similar model, they're just going to have to sell some upscale snacks instead of popcorn to profit.


It's actually true, which is why the headline surprised me until I read it was just some art-wank cinema chain.

When I was much younger I did an article on how a cinema works and the boss said this in an interview I did with him. Concession stands make more bucks than actual ticket sales.

/same cinema I used to visit and steal packets of sweets from when the old counter assistant turned her back getting my hotdogs
//also used the buy one ticket and open the exit doors for 10 of your friends routine there
///actually ended up working in the same cinema years afterwards as a projectionist for a wee while
////closed down now - ABC/Cannon Kirkcaldy

Back to tomato and cress sandwiches, then.

fenrael23: That's a load of fiddle-faddle and poppycock, I say.

I see what you did there.

Goofball_Jones:
To be fair, it's not "the Nanny State" getting rid or banning popcorn. It's a theater chain owner that's getting rid of it in the ones he owns.

So don't everyone panic!

If it happens in Britain, it's "The Nanny State" no matter who does it. It's them lefties, infiltrating everywhere.

SynthLord:
Movie theaters are all rude patrons and overpriced snacks. I have a much better experience at home with a widescreen TV, 5.1 surround, DVD extras, pausing for potty breaks, volume control, rewind for missed dialog, and whatever damn food and beverage I please to consume.

Movie theatres are actually for the people who don't have $4000 home theatre systems and want to actually see some movies BIG. I can't argue with the potty breaks though, there's 5 minutes of Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skulls that I won't see until I rent the DVD. 3 hour movie + any liquid at all = I WILL have to miss 5 minutes somewhere.

To further the debate re: Irony - does it qualify as ironic that people using the terms "Nanny State" and "Snowflake" are the loudest whiners of them all?

JWideman: Sugar coated popcorn? You're doing it wrong, England.

we have that here, in america, we just call it carmel corn or kettle corn

The Everyman in Hampstead? It's about as culturally sophisticated as fish and chips.

PacManDreaming: KellyLockhart: Has anyone mentioned that it isn't a Nanny State issue yet?

Has anyone pointed out that the UK is known as the Nanny State? And maybe this article has nothing to do with the government banning popcorn, but the fact that the theaters that do ban it are in the United Nanny State Kingdom.

I don't really understand the point you are trying to make here. These are private businesses that are choosing not to serve popcorn. Are you saying they should be prevented from making such business decisions? If so, who exactly prevents them? If your answer is 'the government', you are an idiot.