"Actually its just the opposite. You ask for a Big Mac (watchable Horror Movie based on capsule summary and movie Poster) and get a veggie burger (poorly done Drama). You would then be entitled to a refund."
Not really, because you're asking the vendor to be responsible for your own personal taste. Your analogy would only hold up if you asked for a ticket to, say, the latest Transformers movie, and they directed you to a theater showing Silent House. In that case, the theater screwed up, and by all means, ask for a refund; as it pertains to entertainment, however, all art is subjective, and it's ludicrous to take a theater to task for your personal expectations of said art not being met.
"Out of curiosity, would those of you who are against asking for a refund apply the same logic to a bad dinner, play, concert, etc?"
Well, I consider entertainment to be a vastly different beast than food. It's apples and oranges, really. To answer your question, I would never ask for a refund on a bad dinner IF I ATE THE DINNER. To digress a bit, I worked in the food service industry up until just after college, and I've seen way too much of that: I've seen a man devour a steak before my very eyes only to tell me immediately after that it sucked. Me? If I receive a completely different meal than the one I ordered, or if I receive a blackened, burnt hunk of gristle when I'd anticipated a savory, rare filet, then yes, I'll send it back. But that sort of thing is directly traceable to the restaurant; a film's quality is not the fault of the theater. They are just the liaison between the filmmaker and the consumer. What you're describing is essentially demanding that a waiter pay for your food because the kitchen got it wrong.
And there's no true objective standard for what constitutes a bad play or a concert because, say it with me now, all art is subjective. I thought Crash was a bad movie; Oscar voters obviously felt differently. Isn't that, ideally, why we're all on forums like this? To offer our opinions on art?
Which only leaves the idea that the OP felt misled by the advertising, which isn't really a good argument. Hell, look at most major studio comedies: the trailers are often stocked with the funniest lines and scenes. One could argue that they were misled by the advertising into thinking a movie was going to be funny.
And considering that Silent House only really changes direction in its final third or so - the first 2/3rds of the film generally keeping up the aura of mystery and suspense - are we as filmgoers supposed to consider any and all plot twists unforgivable acts of fraud perpetrated by devious, deceptive charlatans? If you say "I thought Silent House was supposed to be a horror movie, not a psychological thriller!", what's to stop you from using any shift in tone or plot to justify a refund? "I thought The Sixth Sense was supposed to be about a LIVING psychologist, not a dead one! I want my money back!" "I thought The Crying Game was supposed to be about a guy who fell for a girl WITHOUT a dick! I want my money back!"
Quite frankly, this whole argument is idiotic. The ONE time I've asked for anything remotely resembling a refund was during an 8:00 showing of The Strangers on opening weekend. The theater was full of rambunctious teenagers and at least two mothers with screaming infants in tow. Five minutes after the start of the feature, I asked the manager if we could perhaps exchange our admission for tickets to the 10:00 show. She kindly obliged, I was grateful, my wife and I grabbed a bite to eat, and we came back for the late show undistracted. No harm, no foul.
reply
share