movie theatre popcorn . did they change yours?

[muffyn]

we don't get to the movie theatre very frequent. I think the last time was 5 months ago.
for a gazillion years , going to the movies, includes a huge container of butter popcorn to share.
love that stuff......... ok well loved .
it was horrid today. tasted all oily, & not a good oil, weird sickly aftertaste after eating a few pieces...
yuck yuck yuck
took the box back to counter, told them something is reallly wrong here, the butter tastes awful, um they tell me that the 'butter' is the same, they started using different popping oil.
now, *ick* , I could not taste the 'butter' over the other oil-ick. so can't believe it was the popping oil. but they insisted the 'butter' was the same...
anyway got a refund,,,,
i cannot believe no one else is complaining, you could not eat more than a handfull without your mouth telling you if you keep this up you gonna be ill.

have they changed your popcorn
& why the heck can't air pop it then

I am just sooooo miserable now, thinking popcorn at the theatre is gone for me

.

 

[bicker]

If they switched to a popping oil that contained lard, I'd be upset. An animal shouldn't die so that we can eat popcorn. Other than that, popcorn just doesn't matter enough. In all likelihood, whatever change there was either was a result of people in general being unwilling to pay enough to warrant using another oil, and/or the old oil being surreptitiously and grievously bad for people, or more likely some combination of the two. We live in society with others; to expect everything to be to our own personal specifications all the time is unreasonable unless we're willing to spend lots of money to have that.

 

[Sosai X]

I have found it depends on how the theater is doing financially. If it's making lots of money, they can afford to buy the premium brands of popcorn like Orville Redenbacher. If the theater is struggling, they will buy the cheap generic popcorn that comes in a 500-pound drum. Also the taste of the popcorn depends on the oil. Discount theaters use cheap vegetable oil. Better theaters will use canola or peanut oil.

But the sick thing is, a 50 pound bag of generic popping corn can be had for as little as $30 dollars online. When you break it down, the bag or bucket of popcorn you pay 6,7, 8 or more dollars for only costs the theater about 30 cents. It's how the theater makes its money. Ticket sales barely cover the license fees the theater has to pay to the studios, just to get the prints or digital copies it exhibits.

 

[badblackpug]

If they switched to a popping oil that contained lard, I'd be upset. An animal shouldn't die so that we can eat popcorn. Other than that, popcorn just doesn't matter enough. In all likelihood, whatever change there was either was a result of people in general being unwilling to pay enough to warrant using another oil, and/or the old oil being surreptitiously and grievously bad for people, or more likely some combination of the two. We live in society with others; to expect everything to be to our own personal specifications all the time is unreasonable unless we're willing to spend lots of money to have that.

Exactly, so if they switched to lard, it is unreasonable to be upset, too. if that's what people want, and that's what is cheapest.

Actually it is the "fat police" at work again. They have changed the butter and the popping oil because of the whole trans fat/ it's not good for you movement. Personally, I am tired of people telling me what I can, or cannot, eat. As long as people are fully aware of the contents of things they should be allowed to choose to eat what they wish.

 

[bicker]

Exactly, so if they switched to lard, it is unreasonable to be upset, too. if that's what people want, and that's what is cheapest.

Yup, they'd be justified in switching to lard, but as an ethical vegetarian I'd be justified in being horrified that society has found yet-another way to unnecessarily eat the misery of animals.

Actually it is the "fat police" at work again. They have changed the butter and the popping oil because of the whole trans fat/ it's not good for you movement. Personally, I am tired of people telling me what I can, or cannot, eat. As long as people are fully aware of the contents of things they should be allowed to choose to eat what they wish.

That would only work if society let poor people with heart disease just die on the streets. A compassionate society takes some care of its people, and as a result the people have an obligation to take some care of themselves. If they won't do so voluntarily, then society is righteous in helping the process along.

I suppose we could provide people a chance to opt-out of society's safety net: Perhaps society should offer "just let me die" contracts. Note, though, that that doesn't get you out of the obligation of contributing to the safety net itself, today - it just would earn you the right to do things in your life now that perhaps will make it more likely that you'll need that safety net later, but when that time comes, you get put in the refuse instead of receiving society's care. Are you ready to sign-up for that, should they make it available?

 

[badblackpug]

Yup, they'd be justified in switching to lard, but as an ethical vegetarian I'd be justified in being horrified that society has found yet-another way to unnecessarily eat the misery of animals.

That would only work if society let poor people with heart disease just die on the streets. A compassionate society takes some care of its people, and as a result the people have an obligation to take some care of themselves. If they won't do so voluntarily, then society is righteous in helping the process along.

I suppose we could provide people a chance to opt-out of society's safety net: Perhaps society should offer "just let me die" contracts. Note, though, that that doesn't get you out of the obligation of contributing to the safety net itself, today - it just would earn you the right to do things in your life now that perhaps will make it more likely that you'll need that safety net later, but when that time comes, you get put in the refuse instead of receiving society's care. Are you ready to sign-up for that, should they make it available?

Absolutely!.... and they do offer it. DNR/DNI/DNH orders exist in health care proxys now. You have the right to choose what treatment you do or do not want. I don't think the government has any right to tell someone what they can or can't eat or why. ... and for the record I am nearly obsessive about what I eat in regards to calories, carbs and fat.... Where I live the schools have gone as far as telling you what you can or cannot pack in your child's lunch. Buying the popcorn is a choice. You are not forced to do it. If you know it isn't good for you, and you don't want to eat it for that reason, then that is your choice (general "you/your) but you don't have the right to tell others what they can, or cannot do. it's the same that you are a vegetarian, you choose not to eat meat for, whatever reason, but I would assume that you would not ban everyone else in the country from eating a burger.

 

[bicker]

Absolutely!.... and they do offer it. DNR/DNI/DNH orders exist in health care proxys now.

That's actually not what I was referring to at all. You should reread the message you replied to.

You have the right to choose what treatment you do or do not want.

That's not what I said. What I said was that you would sign-away all rights and claims to any consideration whatsoever, in the future, from any aspect of society (not just the government and municipal health services, but also from group insurance policies, where your choices could adversely affect others), in return for having free reign to do whatever damage you want to yourself now.

I don't think the government has any right to tell someone what they can or can't eat or why.

Obviously you're wrong. However, more importantly, that would be absolutely horrendous for society if it were ever to be true. Society means living in community with others; living life with no consideration for the impact of your actions on others is reprehensible. In another thread this morning, you claimed that you would give over your benefits of early arrival for a parade to a family with small children, because you would be concerned that their enjoyment of the parade would be harmed by your height. How can you acknowledge an obligation in such a trivial circumstance and fail to acknowledge the analogous obligation in an important circumstance such as we're discussing in this thread, when the obligation is a societal imperative rather than just your personal preference?

Where I live the schools have gone as far as telling you what you can or cannot pack in your child's lunch.

And for good reasons, even if you disagree with them. Heck, I may not even agree with those reasons, but I don't think for a minute, as you appear to, that my personal preferences should prevail on society. I'm just one person. You're just one person. There are considerations beyond just ourselves.

it's the same that you are a vegetarian, you choose not to eat meat for, whatever reason, but I would assume that you would not ban everyone else in the country from eating a burger.

Not because of my concern about the ethical treatment of animals, no. However, I could see banning burgers on the basis of how the saturated fat in them adversely affects human health. Ethics is a matter of one's own personal convictions. Heart disease is a reflection of human physiology, not personal conviction. I'm sure you can see the difference.

 

[badblackpug]

That's actually not what I was referring to at all. You should reread the message you replied to.

That's not what I said. What I said was that you would sign-away all rights and claims to any consideration whatsoever, in the future, from any aspect of society (not just the government and municipal health services, but also from group insurance policies, where your choices could adversely affect others), in return for having free reign to do whatever damage you want to yourself now.

Obviously you're wrong. However, more importantly, that would be absolutely horrendous for society if it were ever to be true. Society means living in community with others; living life with no consideration for the impact of your actions on others is reprehensible. In another thread this morning, you claimed that you would give over your benefits of early arrival for a parade to a family with small children, because you would be concerned that their enjoyment of the parade would be harmed by your height. How can you acknowledge an obligation in such a trivial circumstance and fail to acknowledge the analogous obligation in an important circumstance such as we're discussing in this thread, when the obligation is a societal imperative rather than just your personal preference?

And for good reasons, even if you disagree with them. Heck, I may not even agree with those reasons, but I don't think for a minute, as you appear to, that my personal preferences should prevail on society. I'm just one person. You're just one person. There are considerations beyond just ourselves.

Not because of my concern about the ethical treatment of animals, no. However, I could see banning burgers on the basis of how the saturated fat in them adversely affects human health. Ethics is a matter of one's own personal convictions. Heart disease is a reflection of human physiology, not personal conviction. I'm sure you can see the difference.

OMG! LOL! I can see from this, and your other posts you certainly have chosen the right screen name! Hahahahaha


OP.... the popcorn sucks now because they changed the type of oil in which it is popped, and the "formula" for the "butter" because it wasn't considered healthy.

 

[bicker]

Actually, it's a family name. I've had it long before I could type.

From your reply, though, it seems you're not interested in a discussion about the issue. Strange behavior in a discussion forum, but surely your prerogative. Take care.

 

[muffyn]

this is so funny how a thread twists & turns on itself

we ALL know that eating theatre popcorn is NOT at all healthy for you.(neither are the boxes of candy they push either) but it is a choice you choose for yourself. I am just moaning because they changed it so much it is inedible now!!
if i wanted healthy I'd make my own at home ( somehow I guess there is a way to make healthy popcorn).
the fake butter has always been **bad**.
but changing the oil they pop it in? why not air pop it or something?

shoot, i'd rather eat reheated bag popcorn ( ya know the stuff they sell in tubs at christmas?)

people ( me Included ) HATE hate hate the way mc'd's changed their oil they cook their fries in..... now why can't they have a stove where they use the unhealthy great tasting oil is in, for those of us who choose to eat that! just put a big label on the burger ( like cigarettes) that eating it is at risk for your health

oh, & there are plenty of dead piggies already giving up their bacon & chops for us carnivours , no new ones had to be murdered to get lard. ( & I bet that is the LAST oil you would see a fast restaurant use anyway... talk about bad...) <speaking of ,I do have a tub in my fridge... best stuff for fryin' chicken>

ok back to the ORIGINAL question. did they change the popcorn in your theatre? is it edible?

 

[bicker]

why not air pop it or something?

I suspect they're trying to balance opposing forces. There is a middle ground. Everything doesn't have to be either completely one way (air popped) or the other way (popped in trans-fat laden oil).

 

[southern_redhead]

Exactly, so if they switched to lard, it is unreasonable to be upset, too. if that's what people want, and that's what is cheapest.

Actually it is the "fat police" at work again. They have changed the butter and the popping oil because of the whole trans fat/ it's not good for you movement. Personally, I am tired of people telling me what I can, or cannot, eat. As long as people are fully aware of the contents of things they should be allowed to choose to eat what they wish.

This x 1000. Thank you, blackpug. I'm sick of having "healthy, taste free" options thrust upon me because, apparently, most of America feels they can't decide to forgo something or limit their consumption. Very few things are bad for you when done in moderation.

 

[Liberty Belle]

OMG! LOL! I can see from this, and your other posts you certainly have chosen the right screen name! Hahahahaha


OP.... the popcorn sucks now because they changed the type of oil in which it is popped, and the "formula" for the "butter" because it wasn't considered healthy.

Or maybe our names do dictate who we become.

 

[bicker]

Given my real name, that would be quite flattering!