my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » Can you tell a fake ID from a real one? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Can you tell a fake ID from a real one? Chad Souder Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 962 From: Waterloo, IA, USA Registered: Feb 2000 posted 10-25-2006 09:40 PM                     It is true that the rating system isn't law, as many here have pointed out. What we all need to avoid, however, is it becoming law. Thus far, our government has allowed the theatre business to police itself, but they are most certainly watching. Studies have been done and will continue to be done to determine how many people under the age of 17 are getting in to R rated shows. False ids make up very small percentage of kids getting in to these movies. Right now there is a lot going on in this country that is getting people's attention, but you can bet that when things settle back down again those people that don't have anything better to do will once again begin to piss and moan. It is at that time we all need to prove we have been able to police ourselves and the government does not need to get involved, because it will help none of us if it does become law.  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 10-25-2006 10:18 PM                       The problem I see is a lot of parents these days don't seem to care if their kids watch R-rated pictures. It's beyond me.  |  IP: Logged Dustin Mitchell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1865 From: Mondovi, WI, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 10-26-2006 01:10 AM                     Frank, the best way to enforce the ratings policy is to follow the policy and it states that the parent/gaurdian must accompany the child into the show. For a smaller theatre letting the parent purchase the tickets might work, but at a larger theatre this just isn't practical. How is the doorman to know the children presenting him tickets had them bought by their parent rather than some random person they gave $5 to? No one expects you to card for PG-13 movies, that is not the purpose of that rating. www.filmratings.com  |  IP: Logged Chris Erwin Expert Film Handler Posts: 195 From: Olive Hill,KY Registered: Oct 1999 posted 10-26-2006 08:40 AM                     Here's what gets me: Kid can't go to the theatre and see it some places,but...wait 6 mos...and the kid can buy or rent it in many places with no questions asked. Heck, around here the slacker clerks cost one rental place a few adult titles. Someone let the kid rent porn (14 yr. old) and guess what...he never returned them. They let him rent in his parents name. When it come to collecting, they never did go to the parents as they didn't want to admit what they allowed to happen. All else fails, the kid will just watch the film on the internet if he can't get in the theatre.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 10-26-2006 01:37 PM                     I get pretty annoyed at politicians and other people in the media who piss and moan about the content of movies when they should probably be paying more attention to what is happening on TV. There's a number of things I really don't like about the MPAA ratings system for movies, especially when they refuse to draw the line between a serious adults-only movie and hardcore pornography. The upside is the G, PG, PG-13 and R ratings are pretty easy to understand, and they have added specific descriptions of what sorts of objectionable content the movie may have in the rating's verbiage. I think what goes on with TV is a lot more vague. Children have a much greater chance to see all sorts of objectionable content there. Some of the subject matter on talk shows and so-called "reality TV" is pretty toxic. All that seems to be done is bleeping the curse words and fuzzing out part of the screen when some lady rips open her shirt. The concept in the messages still gets through. The R-rating really intends for the parent to watch the movie with their teens or younger children so they can at least know specifically what their kids are watching and how they're reacting to it. If the parents aren't going to do that and just let the kids watch the movie alone, then they have only themselves to blame if the movie has something they find offensive. Overall I think a lot of parents have just thrown in the towel and given up. Many just don't have the time or even want to bother making the time to keep up with what their kids are seeing on TV and the Internet. R-rated and X-rated stuff is easily accessible within the home. That's why the act of politically kicking around commercial movie theaters is just bat-shit crazy.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 10-26-2006 02:20 PM                        As far as TV goes, the bleeping out of profanity is kind of amusing. I mean shows like The Daily Show routinely include bleeped profanity and I bet if you asked 1000 viewers to identify the word that was bleeped, all 1000 would get it right, whether they're 8 years old or 80. The V-Chip is there if parents care enough to use it. I wonder if many do. The MPAA movie ratings perform a useful function, even if they're not 100% consistent in how they're assigned. And I really don't get why NC-17 is so controversial. I mean, if a theater books an NC-17 film and honestly controls access to it so nobody underage gets in, at least to the best of their ability, where's the problem?  |  IP: Logged Frank Dubrois Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 896 From: Cleveland, OH Registered: Mar 2005 posted 10-26-2006 07:04 PM                    quote: Dustin Mitchell How is the doorman to know the children presenting him tickets had them bought by their parent rather than some random person they gave $5 to? Because we dont let our box people do that. The only person that can purchase a ticket for a child going into an R rated movie, is their parent. If the person looks like they actually could be their parent, we allow it...who are we to question that? If our box people sell tickets to underage kids or older kids buying tickets for younger friends, they get into serious trouble, if not terminated.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 10-26-2006 07:42 PM                     quote: David Stambaugh And I really don't get why NC-17 is so controversial. I mean, if a theater books an NC-17 film and honestly controls access to it so nobody underage gets in, at least to the best of their ability, where's the problem? The problem is Jack Valenti made the irretrieveably retarded decision to allow the NC-17 rating to be applied to anything adult oriented. Originally, the NC-17 rating was supposed to be reserved for movies that were adult oriented but not pornographic in nature. The porn folks could keep the X rating for themselves. But then Jack Valenti decided he wasn't going to make an "artistic" decision on what separated a porn movie from a dramatic movie only for adults. You literally have to be quite a "fucktard" to not be able to tell the difference between a hardcore porn movie and something like Henry and June (the first movie to get the NC-17 rating). Really. It's just that. If you can't tell the difference then, congratulations, you are a fucking moron. In one movie the actors are ACTING like they're having sex. In a hardcore porn movie, they're not acting at all. They're really doing it in front of the cameras. We're not talking an "artistic" decision here. It is a PHYSICAL decision. Duh!!!!! Several movie theater circuits across the nation, including Carmike Cinemas, have a flat, non-flexible policy on refusing to book any movies with a NC-17 rating. Since NC-17 is still being treated like a differently named X rating those circuits are going to have nothing to do with product rated that way. This controversy also gets back to the fact the MPAA is very influenced by people with religious or political axes to grind. The people doing the actual ratings work are often tied to political or religous organizations. They also often lack any kind of professional experience in the movie industry itself. There is a great lack of professionalism and objectivity in the board -which would explain a lot of the wierd inconsistency in the ratings handed out from one movie to the next. I think the MPAA honestly loves the stigma that the NC-17 rating carries. They don't want to differentiate it from porn. If they did that they would give up a LOT of the power of censorship they still wield. They know they can get a good movie hacked to ribbons if they threaten that NC-17 rating. If the NC-17 rating were used as it should have been, with the X rating covering all porn, then their censorship power would have been reduced. We would see a lot more in the way of serious adults only movies not chopped down enough to get under that rated-R bar. Frankly, I think the MPAA needs to be totally reinvented or it just needs to be dismantled. Really. If they're not ever going to do their damned jobs correctly then why do they even need to remain employed? They're not keeping anyone from seeing anything. Lots of DVDs have "unrated" versions now. There's so many of them that the term has little impact anymore. That's especially true with all the bullshit PG-13 movies that have an "unrated" DVD version that's hardly even enough to rate an R-rating. Whoop dee fucking doo!  |  IP: Logged Frank Dubrois Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 896 From: Cleveland, OH Registered: Mar 2005 posted 10-26-2006 10:53 PM                    I think DVD's get their UNRATED rating because the MPAA doesn't rescreen the movies to rate the addition 3 minutes of footage (or whatever they add). Its no different than describing the special features as "Unrated". I think its the people that confuse UNRATED with "extra violent" or "extra nudity". Its not the MPAA's fault at all, its the idoits that continue to repackage DVD's and add a small amount of unscreened footage just in hopes that some schmuck is gonna run out and buy it.  |  IP: Logged James Westbrook Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1133 From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa Registered: Mar 2006 posted 10-26-2006 11:37 PM                     Here in Lubbock the movie rating system is a city ordinance. One of our security guards who works for the PD looked it up and found it. It dates to 1969. Technically, the R rating may be "law" in Lubbock. (17 and up). Of course, like other cities, the council has likes to create ordinances to appease the voters, whether it is prudent or not. The council passed an ordinance demanding the Library install internet filters to block adult sites on the for-public terminals, despite the library's insistence that this will interfeer with legitimate searches. A lot of the ordinances out here are forgotten about eventually and not enforced.  |  IP: Logged Frank Dubrois Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 896 From: Cleveland, OH Registered: Mar 2005 posted 10-26-2006 11:53 PM                    I'd like to see a City or State enforce a LAW created by a "company". It can't happen.  |  IP: Logged Michael Gonzalez Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 790 From: Grand Island , NE USA Registered: Sep 2000 posted 10-27-2006 03:31 PM                     quote: Frank Dubrois the parents see the rating, know about the content, but will make the effort to come in and buy the tickets for the kids, who are we to say NO to that? You know what, that is an excellent point that I have honestly havent thought through before. The rating system is suppose to be just a guideline for parents. And that is a decent argument as far as allowing a minor to see a restricted movie unaccompanied. I guess the only answer to that would be not to allow them in out of respect to the other patrons seeing the movie. I know that there are customers that feel uncomfortable seeing a R rated feature with minors in the same auditorium even if they well behaved and accompined by an adult.  |  IP: Logged Frank Dubrois Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 896 From: Cleveland, OH Registered: Mar 2005 posted 10-28-2006 04:05 PM                    Some theaters have a policy of not letting children under 7 into an R rated movie under any circumstances. I don't think movie content has anything to do with that, but rather the "uncomfortability" factor, and also the young children that cry or run around can be annoying. Those are things you'd expect in a kids movie, but definately not in an adult R rated feature. I like the policy.  |  IP: Logged Michael Cunningham Expert Film Handler Posts: 186 From: Anchorage, AK Registered: Nov 1999 posted 10-28-2006 06:14 PM                     Morality issues and damaging impressionable young minds aside, there is another reason to strictly enforce the ratings guidlines. In today's litigation-happy society, certain people are looking for any excuse to make a buck off your corporation. Because the issue is sensitive with parents, church groups, etc., the commercial theatre chains will offer a settlement almost every time to avoid public outcry against them. This leads to higher costs for these chains and therefore reduced salaries, capital expenditures, maintenance, etc. As commercial chain theatres, we fall under agreements made with the MPAA. Their rating standards and admittance policies thereby are a publicly known, published system by which we are all bound. To fail to adhere to these is to violate your company's stated policy, which leaves you "actionally vulnerable". All it takes is for little Johnny, who's mother is an avid churchgoer with an attorney acquaintance, to purchase a ticket to Saw III and come home with nightmares. Your corporation just lost several thousand dollars... no argument, no recourse, just flush all that money away. So: G - Let anybody in. PG - Let anybody in, but warn parents that extremely young children MIGHT be frightened or confused. PG-13 - Let anybody in, but warn parents that children 12 and younger MIGHT be frightened or confused. R - NOBODY 16 or younger gets in unless Mommy or Daddy will sit with them and hold their hand for the ENTIRE presentation. NC-17 - NOBODY 16 or younger gets in... ever... no matter what. These are the policies your theatre has agreed to in order to be included under the auspices of the MPAA. They're not that difficult and only require you to check ID's for the 16 to 17 age change and only for two of the ratings. Are the ratings arbitrary, confusing and often meaningless? Certainly, but it's not our place to asign our own ratings because we don't agree with the MPAA. Just enforce them as is and save yourself a lot of headaches.  |  IP: Logged Frank Dubrois Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 896 From: Cleveland, OH Registered: Mar 2005 posted 10-28-2006 08:19 PM                    quote: Michael Cunningham They're not that difficult and only require you to check ID's for the 16 to 17 age You have to be kidding me? If we could TELL the 16 year olds from the 17 year olds, we wouldnt have to card. Its the 14 year olds that look 18 that we have to be careful for. Its also the fact that some 15 and 16 year old box people may feel a little unfortable carding someone who looks like they could be under 17 but turn out to be 21.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.