airline movies

May 16, 2006 8:52 AM

Why are movies on airplanes so bad? I just sat through 12 hours of oxygen-deprived mediocrity (Cheaper by the Dozen 2, Rumor Has It, King Kong, The Transporter 2). I mean, it is just simple economics -- do the airline companies get a better deal on movies that suck? But then why does it cost no more to watch or rent a good movie than a bad one? If they're aiming for wide mainstream taste, couldn't they at least have things everyone wanted to see -- movies that have won awards, or genuinely done well at the box office?
posted by jgballard to society & culture (35 comments total)

I think it mostly has to do with the fact that you can't show most movies in the PG-13 or R range on a plane due to the diversity of ages possible in the audience. So they mostly show PG flicks or edited PG-13 ones to take out the -13
posted by jduckles at 8:54 AM on May 16, 2006

You also probably don't want to watch movies about things blowing up, or getting hijacked, etc. when you're stuck in the air on a plane, so that further reduces your range of choices.
posted by occhiblu at 8:55 AM on May 16, 2006

Those movies were pretty successful, all told, if you consider Transporter 2 to represent a subgenre that the airline wants to cater to. The four movies that outgrossed Kong in '05 -- Star Wars 3, Narnia, Harry Potter and War of the Worlds -- all had as many detractors as Kong, and are likely playing on different flights. Cheaper by the Dozen 2 was outgrossed in its genre by, in increasing order, Are We There Yet?, Monster-in-Law, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Fun with Dick and Jane, The Pacifier, Hitch and Wedding Crashers.

Really, the question here is, what exactly do you want, and does what you want represent the desires of the airline passenger demographic, as tempered by the content concerns pointed out by occhiblu?
posted by blueshammer at 9:02 AM on May 16, 2006

there's definitely a large cost difference on suck vs. non-suck. I don't know anything about airline pricing, but the non-theatrical group I choose movies for might pay $1200+ for "good" blockbusters (LOTR, Harry Potter, anything that recently won an Oscar), as compared to $400 and sometimes less for the mediocrity.

Also, it has a lot to do with what airline you're flying, and what plane you're on besides that. Emirates? Choice of, like, 70 movies, including kids, R-rated, international, etc. New American Airlines plane? Choice of about 8 channels, some good, some okay, also include popular US shows (e.g. CSI). Old American Airlines plane? One movie, probably one of the ones you had to watch!
posted by whatzit at 9:04 AM on May 16, 2006

On an airplane, you are a captive audience, so you are much more likely to shell out your money for a piece of crap than you would be on the ground. Yes, they do tend to choose movies that are not going to upset the passengers, but I have yet to see a good movie on a plane that I can remember. In fact, I even once saw Waterworld, on a plane, and it included a scene in which an airplane was harpooned from the ground.
posted by bingo at 9:08 AM on May 16, 2006

They're looking for mainstream films with wide appeal, I'd wager.
posted by fire&wings at 9:12 AM on May 16, 2006

bingo: The statement "I have yet to see a good movie on a plane that I can remember" directly contradicts the later statement "I even once saw Waterworld, on a plane".

*grin*
posted by Netzapper at 9:22 AM on May 16, 2006

I don't know about this - when I flew to Ireland last year, the films offered included: Hotel Rwanda, Sideways, Starsky & Hutch, Hide & Seek, The Phantom of the Opera. Not all of them suck. I think it depends on when you go - if three months before hand was a particularly sucky movie season, you're stuck with sucky movies. If it was good, then you got some good ones.
posted by MeetMegan at 9:31 AM on May 16, 2006

And what, pray tell, was your objection with King Kong?
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:33 AM on May 16, 2006

Movie selection also largely depends on the airline, aircraft, and route. Last Friday, I (re)-watched The Matador and Kingdom of Heaven on a United flight (UA828, HKG-ORD). Of course they also showed some absolute shit -- including Cheaper by the Dozen 2 and Big Momma's House 2. That's when you ignore the movie or switch to the map.
posted by nathan_teske at 9:35 AM on May 16, 2006

Air New Zealand has on demand movies for each passenger and when I flew, I watched all 3 Lord of the Rings. It was the shortest flight I have ever had. On top of that they had about 30+ other great movies.....
posted by jasondigitized at 9:38 AM on May 16, 2006

One word/acronym: LCD, Lowest Common Denominator. Airline movies are chosen based on least objectionable content. They don't care whether you love it or not, but whether you'll complain or not. More people will complain about interesting, controversial movies than the dross they normally show.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:43 AM on May 16, 2006

Completely depends on the airline. I just flew a couple of transatlantic flights on British Airways and watched Match Point, Brokeback Mountain, Good Night and Good Luck, and The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada. Some pretty decent flicks.

Though like nathan_teske mentioned, I love the map channel!
posted by meerkatty at 9:43 AM on May 16, 2006

Air France had a choice of about six films, ranging from action-shoot-em-ups to the long borning artsy films that I personaly favor.
posted by desuetude at 9:50 AM on May 16, 2006

Faint of Butt, it would require an entire askme question alone to answer that question...

As for films, yeah, it's been said about popularity. Your selection was not great, but it was a selection. I had to suffer through a transatlantic flight with Jack Frost and Autumn in New York on the main screen. Only other choice was the inflight-radio.

Then, of course, while I was at my destination, the month changed and they reversed their film film schedules, so I got the exact same films to watch on the flight back. At least you had a choice...
posted by slimepuppy at 9:50 AM on May 16, 2006

The map channel makes the trip seem about 10 times longer to me.

I saw How Green Was My Valley, on American, I think. And the end of Galaxy Quest, which was surprisingly entertaining. Qantas was showing Crash in August, along with some other good, recent stuff. In both cases, they had individual TVs for each seat.

So, I guess you just had bad luck.

I haven't seen King Kong, but the word was that it was supposed to be pretty good.
posted by ibmcginty at 9:54 AM on May 16, 2006

Last trip I took, the movie was Walk the Line. No complaints there.

When I've had a selection, like with the seatback LCDs, I've always been pleased with the options. I usually see a movie I wanted to see that I missed.
posted by smackfu at 9:54 AM on May 16, 2006

The experience of watching a film on an airplane is in itself greatly detrimental to watching the film. Five-inch screen that's likely to be a fair distance away and obscured by glare; pan-and-scan; a sound system that's questionable at best even if you bring your own headphones. Even the best films can't survive that.

The last two times I flew (around last Thanksgiving and Christmas), I got Batman Begins and some film with Lindsay Lohan. Interestingly, the plots of both of those could be followed without a soundtrack--the visuals alone were enough.
posted by Prospero at 9:59 AM on May 16, 2006

I bought an Initial DVD player that does DIVX for this reason. Of course, now I'm terrified to download anything, and converting dvds is painful at best.
posted by mecran01 at 10:04 AM on May 16, 2006

NWA on the Tokyo-SFO route at least has per seat screens with a fairly large selection of movies, including a bunch of things deemed "classics" as well as an assortment of modern stuff ranging from "that will win awards" to "latest cliche family movie" or "latest cliche action film". Last time I was on it I happened to watch Gentleman's Agreement which is about a magazine columnist who pretends to be jewish in order to find out exactly how much prejudice there is. The movie was best picture in 1948. Very good movie, IMO.
posted by R343L at 10:10 AM on May 16, 2006

No one believes me, but I swear I saw "Alive" on an airplane once. You know, the movie about the airplane crash in the snow where people turn into cannibals out of desperation.
posted by equipoise at 10:18 AM on May 16, 2006

As ibmcginty points out, there's probably also a huge difference when you've got individual screens in front of your seat versus when there's only one movie for the entire plane.
posted by occhiblu at 10:28 AM on May 16, 2006

DVD/VHS movie rentals, as long as they are for limited private use, are specially protected under copyright law (video game rentals are too, if you're curious).

However, showing a movie to 200+ people on an airplane is not the same thing as watching a movie with your kids and dog at home, so the airlines aren't protected by this special provision. The airlines can't just run down to Blockbuster and rent something to show to everyone on Flight 511 to New York.

Instead they have to get special permission and contract with the movie companies directly (presumably there's some agency which does this). The movie companies probably charge more for better movies because they can.

(p.s. not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice)
posted by falconred at 11:03 AM on May 16, 2006

Movie selection also largely depends on the airline, aircraft, and route.

Ding ding ding. The selection and accessibility on modern planes running popular/competitive international routes is much better than yer coast-to-coast hop. I had about 20 to choose from on my last long flight (NWA, AMS-DTW, Airbus A380) with seatback screen and on-demand controls. In fact, there's an entire 'indie' subcategory along with 'classics' and kid-friendly stuff. And it's a nice treat for people flying eastwards on the translatlantic route, since many of the films haven't opened in Europe yet.

Also, they have Bejeweled. That makes a long flight pass quickly.

If you're flying domestically in the States for long enough to have a movie you're going to get lowest-common-denominator pablum. If you're on one of the cash-strapped US carriers using older planes without seatback (ugh, DC10s) you'll get inoffensive crap. And it's only a matter of time before they charge you for watching it.
posted by holgate at 11:51 AM on May 16, 2006

Movie publishers offer their duds to airlines at a reduced cause. Also what jduckles said: airline passengers are a randomly diverse audience so that means politically-correct PG movies only.
posted by StarForce5 at 11:52 AM on May 16, 2006

On the 'indie' thing: I'd imagine that the makers of limited-release films are champing at the bit to offer their films for in-flight viewing at a cut price, since you have captive eyeballs who might not live near an arthouse.
posted by holgate at 11:55 AM on May 16, 2006

map channel is the best channel - that's what I chose when I flew LAX to Auckland couple of years ago. Indeed, the choice of movies that one can watch on Air NZ is quite wide - but the map channel? Oh me oh my - islands, water, and a relentless red line, slowly and surely advancing onto its eventual destination. Much better character and plot development than some blockbusters I had to endure...
posted by seawallrunner at 11:56 AM on May 16, 2006

could be that the ratio of crap to good movies is pretty high anyways, so even if you ignore the airline cheapness answer, you are just more likely to get a crap film, especially once they pre-select movies with no nudity. Plenty of gun and explosion movies get shown
posted by edgeways at 12:51 PM on May 16, 2006

My experience coincides with that of other posters to suggest that the more borders you cross, and the more water you cross, the better the movies are gonna be.
posted by eritain at 3:16 PM on May 16, 2006

Only other choice was the inflight-radio.

¿Que? What about the reading material you brought along?
posted by Rash at 3:31 PM on May 16, 2006

Just wait 'til Snakes on a Plane comes out.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 4:47 PM on May 16, 2006

bingo: The statement "I have yet to see a good movie on a plane that I can remember" directly contradicts the later statement "I even once saw Waterworld, on a plane".


You and the other person who think so are great people, and should keep it up.
posted by bingo at 8:50 PM on May 16, 2006

Instead they have to get special permission and contract with the movie companies directly (presumably there's some agency which does this). The movie companies probably charge more for better movies because they can.

I can't remember what flight it was for sure but I think it might have been an Aer Lingus flight either to DUB from LAX or vice versa where I noticed all the movies being shown were Warner Bros. pictures. I don't know if this was just the airline I was on or if it's a common package deal studios have for airlines or what.
posted by DyRE at 10:03 PM on May 16, 2006

ibmcginty - The map channel makes the trip seem about 10 times longer to me.

You just have to approach it correctly. Instead of thinking, "Oh god... we've been flying for five hours and we're only just leaving Canadian airspace", you have to think, "Holy shit! I'm flying at 650 mph, 40,000 feet above the North Pole! And then we're flying over Siberia! Weeeeeeeeee!" The only thing that would make the map channel better would a high resolution dv camera feed looking straight down.

Back to topic - Big Momma's House 2 was surprisingly entertaining --- In Chinese.
posted by nathan_teske at 12:32 AM on May 17, 2006

The only thing that would make the map channel better would a high resolution dv camera feed looking straight down.

Very tangential to the question, but last time I was on Emirates, they had just that. OK, except for the high resolution bit. They also had a forward facing one, which sounds great, except that the screens were switched off for take-off and landing, the best times for watching it.
posted by Busy Old Fool at 6:05 AM on May 17, 2006