Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

No-Children Theatre?

Children Parenting No children theater Missouri 2003

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 08 July 2003 - 12:44 AM

Well, if the local market can support a child-free theater, then I support the right of the theater-owner to make the change. I don't know why they'd want to get rid of all G and PG-rated movies, though. Some of us grown-ups like the gentler stuff from time to time. (Hey, I thought "Holes" was excellent! If that was PG, it was barely PG, and "The Rookie" with Dennis Quaid which my wife really liked [. . . yawn . . .] was G.)

Anyway, good luck to them.

As for theater disturbances, I have been bothered by children in the theater, but probably as much by teenagers and adults. I guess I've never had an experience so awful that it's driven me away, though.

Okay, once . . . but the biggest problem was that the movie stank.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#22 QuiGon John

QuiGon John

    Gone

  • Islander
  • 4,158 posts

Posted 08 July 2003 - 02:40 AM

You know, it's weird.  I go to the movie theater a couple of times a month, usually.  I invariably go to matinees, which you'd think would be where all the kids were, and I often go to see things like Disney movies and Star Wars-esque adventure films.  My level of interest in R-rated movies tends to be low.

I've never had a problem with kids at the theater.  There was one time, during the Two Towers, when some girls were laughing at inappropriate moments and it bugged me... but they weren't really young kids, and it wasn't tremendously intrusive.

I dunno if my theater is quieter than most everybody else's, or if I'm just less discriminating in my movie experience... ;)

#23 Jid

Jid

    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,554 posts

Posted 08 July 2003 - 03:29 AM

I wish they had rules about certain things like that here.

I'm with Zack and Kathy on this one.

Case in point:

I was seeing FOTR ring for the first time.  The showing that got out at 11pm.

I had a restless six year old kicking my seat from behind me (when they weren't getting up to get get to the bathroom thanks to the GIGANTIC soda their parents had bought them :eek: ).  I withstood it, because the movie was just *that* good.

But what got me:  5 minutes before the end of the movie, A baby starts crying.  Not a toddler.  An INFANT.

I fail to see why someone can afford the 50 bucks for a movie and overpriced popcorn, but can't afford the same amount to get a babysitter.

Then TTT came out.  I spent three hours with a restless 8 year old bumping his knee against my leg rhythmically, because he wasn't used to sitting still for 3 hours (and I don't see why he should be.  He's 8!)

I'd totally be in favour of prohibiting kids under a certain age at night showings here at the theatres I attend, but that's just my preference.

I don't think it's elitist of me to want the peace and quiet that comes with young children out of the theatres.  Especially in movies that I'd say kids have no place being in.

#24 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 08 July 2003 - 03:44 AM

I've read of theaters that have special "Parents with Babies" nights, so that all those with young'uns can get out to a movie with a bunch of others who have young'uns, and since all of them are in the same predicament--and all of them are also pretty happy to have a chance to get out of the house--no one complains and everybody's happy!
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#25 Brynhilde

Brynhilde

    An ardent admirer

  • Islander
  • 4,316 posts

Posted 08 July 2003 - 03:53 AM

Jid, on Jul 7 2003, 04:25 PM, said:

I was seeing FOTR ring for the first time.  The showing that got out at 11pm.

I had a restless six year old kicking my seat from behind me (when they weren't getting up to get get to the bathroom thanks to the GIGANTIC soda their parents had bought them :eek: ).  I withstood it, because the movie was just *that* good.

But what got me:  5 minutes before the end of the movie, A baby starts crying.  Not a toddler.  An INFANT.

Then TTT came out.  I spent three hours with a restless 8 year old bumping his knee against my leg rhythmically, because he wasn't used to sitting still for 3 hours (and I don't see why he should be.  He's 8!)
What on earth was a 6 year old or a baby doing out at 11pm?

Meh, kids kicking my chair is possibly the most annoying thing, but what I really hate is when (and this is mostly people of about 15 or so) spend the whole time chatting and making witty commentry the whole way through the frelling movie! Its really annoying that just because some people of those ages can't sit still or be quiet through a movie that the whole age group is condemned, but unfortunatly you can't tell on sight who the sensible ones are going to be. Thing is, when they put age restrictions on things, there are always ways of getting around them and just because someone passes an age restriction won't make them behave and just because they don't doesn't mean they won't. Young children, yeah, but I'd like to think that after someone reaches their teens they could sit still for 3 hours. Oh, and I've never really understood why children kick people's chairs, couldn't they do something else? And besides, if they're that bored at the movie why are they even there if they're not going to sit and enjoy it?

Javert Rovinski, on Jul 6 2003, 11:26 PM, said:

No kid's movies, no kids, and no teenagers below the age of 17

But 17, and not being allowed to go to the cinema without parents would rather cripple the social lives of quite a few people, unless you started opening and designating specific times and places for under 17s to go to the movies. Very young children really shouldn't be there though. I can't actually remember going to the cinema much before I was 8 or 9 years old, and by then I was well accustomed to sitting still and acting with a bit of respect for other people in public.

I mean, in cinemas young children probably should be monitered a bit more, but I remember watching Terminators 1 and 2 and the Rocky Horror Picture Show at about age 9 and I turned out fine ;). Then again, I saw those at home, not in cinemas, and I had my parent's consent.
"Ah, get born, keep warm
Short pants, romance, learn to dance
Get dressed, get blessed
Try to be a success
Please her, please him, buy gifts
Don't steal, don't lift
Twenty years of schoolin'
And they put you on the day shift..."

~ Bob Dylan, Subterranean Homesick Blues

#26 AnneZo

AnneZo
  • Islander
  • 688 posts

Posted 08 July 2003 - 04:25 AM

John Burke, on Jul 7 2003, 12:07 AM, said:

While I support their right to have an adults-only theater if that's the business they choose to run, I dislike the idea myself and wouldn't really care to attend such a place.  It strikes me as an elitist and unfriendly policy.

Children need to be taught how to behave in public before being brought to places like the movies, yes.  Some parents fail in that responsibility, yes.  But we're not talking about cigarette smoke here-- this is the future of our civilization.
I agree. :)  If there's a problem, the answer isn't banning children from society, it's te3aching them to live in society.

OTOH, I support the theater's freedom to do this if they want. If enough people support the concept, then it will be financially viable.  Free-market economics.

I disagree that it's "elitist" though. It's really not, nor is it actually discriminatory if they're not going to be showing "children's" movies. As someone who is childless and who has spent $6 or $7 or more on a movie ticket only to have the experience ruined, on more than one occasion, by poorly disciplined children, I sympathize.  I've sat close to fighting siblings, crying babies, and kids who were just plain bored. And I'm talking about kids brought to movies they couldn't have been expected to sit still and enjoy, not "kid movies," okay?

I sympathize with parents who can't afford both a babysitter and movie tickets, but the question is whether or not they have the right to allow their noisy children to ruin the experience of the other hundred or more people in the theatre.

#27 Lyric of Delphi

Lyric of Delphi

    A little too much LDS

  • Islander
  • 9,092 posts

Posted 08 July 2003 - 05:12 AM

I think the age limiting policy is a very good idea. Many movies that I have gone to were ruined by screaming children with irresponsible parents.

I don't like the idea of no little kid movies, though. Those are sometimes my favorite ones to go see!

A total ban of kids under 6 in the movies is simply brilliant. Often, such as when I went to see Terminator 3, I am reminded of why I don't carry a gun myself.

The kids ages 6-16 having to be accompianed by a parent thing is a bit harsh, though. Kids 6-12 or 11, maybe, but 13 on up usually seems to be okay. It's those little screamers that ruin the movie experience....

#28 Rayhana

Rayhana
  • Islander
  • 961 posts

Posted 08 July 2003 - 08:42 AM

Banning children under 6 may also hurt some movie makers.  Look at all the Disney films that are geared for the younger ones.  If a theater has an issue with small children and have had numerous complaints (not one here and there), then I can see perhaps stating certain movie times will be for adults.  I mean, generally a movie is shown throughout the day at several different times.  So, it's not too difficult to say kids under 6 welcome at matinees, but not for the evening showings.  

I don't feel it's fair to completely say kids unders six not allowed.  Yes, I will admit parents should have more sense as to what movies they take their kids too and what time of the day/night they take them.  But I have had more problems in theaters with adults than with kids.  I get so tired of the talking, whispering and more.  I have to say I have never been to what I would call an adult movie where a crying or talkative child disrupted me.  What disrupted me was the people who wanted to discuss other topics during the movie, the long legged guy behind me who can't get comfortable and is constantly hitting my seat, the person who came to the movies with a terrible cough or cold and hacked sniffed and blew their nose through the whole thing.  

I think theaters can accommodate everyone in most cases if they really want too.

#29 Rhys

Rhys

    ... a learning experience.

  • Islander
  • 5,491 posts

Posted 08 July 2003 - 08:59 AM

Note that it's not all theatres implementing this policy, just one, or a select few.

You won't see all thetres doing this, at least not all the time - when a few theatres do it, the demand for a place to take your kids to the movies will be more concentrated, and some theatre(s) will be there for that market share.

What you'll probably see is "no-kids" theatres or showings, and "kids" theatres or showings, which kind of serves everyone well.

Rhys
"It's easy to bond over hating something together - The Internet is total proof of that." Cyd/Codex, The Guild

Change the world!  No one can do everything, but everyone can do something.

#30 silverwind

silverwind

    Not the only one

  • Islander
  • 3,032 posts

Posted 08 July 2003 - 09:25 AM

*scribbles down the name of the movie theater for the next time visiting a movie theater in KC Mo* :look:

Now, as for my opinion:  Good for them.  I'm *all* for banning children under 6 from a theater that specializes in PG-13 and R rated movies.  The material is inappropriate and there is NO good reason, imho, for a child that young to be in a movie geared towards that audience level.  As for the no admittance for kids 6-17 without a parent, I'm actually all for that one too, for a variety of reasons.  For one thing, it means the parents have to *gasp* spend time with their children!  It also means that just maybe preteen and teenaged people at the movie will have to behave a bit better.  (Of course, I've also known parents who bring their 5 year old kid to a movie and promptly fall asleep while the kid raises hell. *shrugs*)

Anyway, at the VERY least, I would very very very much like to see at least one showing a night, of every movie (except maybe G), that was 17+ only.  Personally, I'd make any showing that starts after 8pm on school nights and 9pm on weekends closed to teenagers.  If you figure 2 hours for a movie, that gets them home well before midnight, which can only be good imo.

And I think that's all I had to add. . .I won't regale y'all with my tales of annoying kids disturbing my movies. ;)
Proud ally and supporter of Euro-snobs and international flakes.

Signs your coworker may be able to manipulate time:  "Is this the first time you've called here before?"

Signs your coworker needs to work on their vocabularly:  A:  "It opens up in Notepad and it's just jibberish."  B:  "So you can't understand it?"

#31 Rhys

Rhys

    ... a learning experience.

  • Islander
  • 5,491 posts

Posted 08 July 2003 - 11:17 AM

silverwind, on Jul 7 2003, 06:21 PM, said:

Personally, I'd make any showing that starts after 8pm on school nights and 9pm on weekends closed to teenagers.  If you figure 2 hours for a movie, that gets them home well before midnight, which can only be good imo.
My biggest problem with that is that it's attempting to off-load on the theatres a responsibility that belongs to the parents.

Rhys
"It's easy to bond over hating something together - The Internet is total proof of that." Cyd/Codex, The Guild

Change the world!  No one can do everything, but everyone can do something.

#32 Julie

Julie
  • Islander
  • 777 posts

Posted 08 July 2003 - 12:02 PM

Where I come from, when someone continually disrupts the movie, we just yell, "SHUT UP!" (possibly with swearing).  It may not be the most polite thing to do, but it works.   :D

Quote

As for the no admittance for kids 6-17 without a parent, I'm actually all for that one too, for a variety of reasons. For one thing, it means the parents have to *gasp* spend time with their children! It also means that just maybe preteen and teenaged people at the movie will have to behave a bit better. 
Around here, it would just mean that the theater would go out of business.  I think most of the customers at local theaters are teens and preteens.  The un-coolness of hanging out with friends and parents at the same time aside, adults and teens don't have the same tastes.  Working parents don't have the time to accompany their kid to a movie that they're going to hate.

#33 iMel

iMel

    New and improved!

  • Islander
  • 2,338 posts

Posted 08 July 2003 - 12:09 PM

I wish they'd do that around here! The last movie I saw in the theater was Matrix Reloaded, and four children definitely under the age of 10 were sitting behind me.  One of them was kicking my chair, another continually asked his parents if he could have candy and the other two were whispering.  I still loved the movie, but it was slightly annoying.
I use these words pretty loosely. There's so much more to life than words.
--Over the Rhine, "Latter Days"


Formerly known as Neozephryus :)

#34 eechick

eechick
  • Islander
  • 4,219 posts

Posted 08 July 2003 - 12:14 PM

Just saw TTT for the first time a couple of weeks ago because I wait til the movie has been out for a while before I go to see it.  I like being in a near empty theater because I don't like the crowd noises.  There were maybe 10 other people there  :alien:  It was great.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Children, Parenting, No children theater, Missouri, 2003

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users