The Carmel Movieplex 8 in Carmel NY had a sign in the front window: For xXx anyone under 13 must be accompanied by a parent -- under 13 and alone, must have parental consent. xXx is rated PG-13.

Has this happened in your theaters on any PG-13 or PG titles?

Carmel is 40 miles from NYC and the Movieplex 8 is part of the Northeast chain Cinema North.
 

I did the same thing on Messenger, story of joan of arc, even when parents wanted to take thier little jr high school kids as a history lesson. Hey, history is replete with nasty nasty death. They dont need to see it on screen, just let them read, you do remember reading right? That's what I tell them.

Now with films that are PG or PG-13, that once again is a case by case scenario. I prohibited children under 5 from going to star wars phantom menace, primarily because most of them wouldnt care to watch the movie, and would just distrupt the rest of the audience.

I always attached a warning to all pokemon and digimon style movies...

"WARNING, this movie may cause you to want to flee the theater and leave your kids behind! WATCH WITH CAUTION!!!"

I do find it rather funny to think of a sign that reads...

"xXx is rated PG-13"

Dave

Also, if someone ever said to me anything like, "I don’t care if you are clueless enough to try and warp your child for life, but I have a responsibility to the rest of the world safe from little Johnny!", or, "...just let them read, you do remember reading right?", I would punch that person squarely in the nose. Like it or not, you have no right to tell someone else how to raise their child, barring anything illegal. Just like you wouldn’t want anyone telling you how to raise your own child. Really, Dave, I have to believe you’re joking on some of these points you make. They sure make me laugh.

 

I certainly hope you do not work for a major chain and are serious about that post. The MPAA sets the guidelines... not theater managers. Not allowing paying customers to watch a movie because YOU find it inappropriate would probably get you fired in most theater chains... not to mention the bad image your theater could get.

If I were a customer at your theater and wanted to bring my daughter into Braveheart (or some other R rated movie I find value in) and I feel she can handle it and you refuse admission even when I am watching it with her, I would be very upset. Your corporate office would certainly receive a letter. I would then stop going to your theater and make sure everybody else I knew did the same.

Of course, if you are the owner (and that should be the only reason you would be in a position to make decisions like that) you should not book the film in the first place if you think you will have to screen out the "appropriate" customers.

I am not trying to be offensive, but is this pretty common for theaters in Utah?

Bob
The Old Showman
 

I agree with you when you say that the theater has a responsibility to inform the customer why a movie is rated that way. I think putting up signs and informing customers of the reason for a rating is a good idea. When I worked in the box office, I would always inform parents of the content of some of the stronger movies if I saw them bringing their kids. I would have never considered not allowing them in if they still wanted to see it.

I am a strong supporter of enforcing the MPAA guidelines at the door and box.

My problem is when the "manager" decides he will take the MPAA guidelines a step further (beyond what the guidelines say) and refuse service to people only based on his beliefs. It is one thing to refuse admission to a bunch of kids wanting to go into an R rated movie without an adult. It is quite another to refuse admission to a movie to a child when they are seeing it with their parents. As I said before, if I want to watch a movie like Braveheart or The Messanger with my daughter, and I am refused admission because the manager feels it is inappropriate for my daughter, there is going to be a problem. Not to mention, I have a feeling most distributors would have a real problem with this if they heard about this type of thing going on!

I know my child much better than some theater manager I've never met. Let me decide what I think is (not) appropriate for her. Especially if I am there watching it with her. As a parent, I always look at the MPAA guidelines and reasons for those ratings and take them into consideration. The guidelines are not set by the opinion of one person either.

As far as I know, even the MPAA ratings are only guidelines in most states anyway... and they do not completely bar children seeing a movie with their parents.

All I am saying is do not undermine the parents authority in deciding what is right or wrong for their child.

That movie came with a warning that it contained blasphemy.
 

But it is overstepping the rules to deny admission to a paying customer if they want to take their kids into an R-rated movie.

Consistency is the key. Plenty of parents brought their kids to "Saving Private Ryan" because they felt the film would be a good history lesson. If a theatre gets the reputation of having a manager who decides on his own whim who PG-13 and R-rated movies are "appropriate" for, that guy will lose mucho business. Why bundle up the kids to go to "Austin Powers 3" if there's a chance the manager won't let you take them in? It's absurd!

(By the way, I have a feeling Dave's post above was possibly made just to stir up the fire. Worked, didn't it?)
 

Bob
The Old Showman
 

Chad you are very correct. I am joking on some levels, and serious on others. My statement earlier was designed to relay on a very emotional level of what I feel should really be going on. I am sure that I am not alone in this either. Just because a few here would disagree and say I have no right to refuse admission TO MY OWN THEATER, doesn't mean that I would actually be doing something wrong.

I would never actually tell a parent that I know better than they do. I would find a very kind way to inform them that this choice could warp thier children beyond belief.

I did on some occasions refuse admission. Once to a father who wanted to bring his five year old, his three year old, and his girlfriends teenage daughter to see House on Haunted Hill. I felt this was innapropriate. I told him of the graphic level of gore in this movie and that it is not good for the younger ones. The fact that he said that I should shut up and just sell him the sell them the damn ticket is what did it for me. I was only advising him. He got histerical. That is when I said no way.

I have always advised my patrons to the extent of what is in a film, and to what extent I feel it will warp thier children, however I have never refused admission because I felt it would warp thier brain, only if they refused to hear my empassioned plea and instead got rowdy with me.

It is true that we asked people to please leave thier small children at home for pg-13 and r rated movies. These films are for the adult audience, not for kids. Kids only detract from the film experience. If the film was pg, but not oriented to kids, once again we kindly asked. If they did not, we asked them to leave the auditorium the moment thier child starts to make noise or squirm. We issued passes in this case to the offenders, to make things easier to swallow.

As for my working for a major chain? SURELY YOU JEST!!! I have been offered not once, not twice, not three times, but SEVEN TIMES in this last year alone to work for major chains. I have always turned them down. ONE SIMPLE REASON. No responsibility. They are bottom line only. No community responsibility at all. It's all about the almighty dollar.

Mike, if I were to practice as you suggest, I should just turn my head and cough whenever someone in a white coat grabs my balls. I want to see credentials first. As with cinema, if I am forced to run a film that could hurt, I am naturally cautious. It is the big chains that overbuilt and caused hollywood to start spitting out ten times as much garbage as they used to. There are 70 percent more screens now then there were 15 years ago. Our population has not increased 70 percent, so we have to fill these screens with movies that suck ass. The fact that a major chain will just sell a ticket to any damn fool doesnt impress me at all. If anything, It tells me that I should be ashamed for going there myself.

I am independent. I ran an independent for a whopping three years. I left there in january, and for very good reason. The responsibility that I was allowed to express, and make REALLY DAMN GOOD MONEY doing it, was removed after 9/11, in order to get any damn fools money. In a theater with only 1100 seats, I would sell them ALL OUT for six movies every weekend evening show. WHY? Because we would not allow an element that would add harm to community, such as allowing every tom dick and harry to bring in every five year old girl to see 13 GHOSTS just because they want to. I at least get the chance to say to them that maybe they should try a disney flick.

As far as I know, when I make an agreement with a distributor about running a film, I make certain agreements that I follow up to the letter. However, I am sure that I would not be denied a movie just because I would refuse admission to janie and jonny to see house on haunted hill. If I was, I wouldnt want that piece of crap anyway. I would prefer to run family oriented films anyway. There is exception to the rule, but on those exceptions, I take exception to the MPAA.

Even as a member of the MPAA and NATO, I do not think it is any violation to go things a step further, and prevent the wrong people from seeing a movie. It is better than the alternative, which happens in many of the major chains. I have seen time and time again that chains and others allow a small child to see a rated r feature without thier parents, as long as the parent purchased the ticket for them. This violates the MPAA directly, that says the parent must accompany them throught the run of the picture. This does not seem to bother anyone, but it does me. It also bothers many others, who would constantly complain that children were alone in the movie, after their parents ducked out the back door. I dont see the MPAA doing anything about that at all. Or anyone else for that matter.

Do I have a right to take community responsibility? Well I hope so! It isnt me just making sure I am like some god or something, like you suggest, but rather showing the neighbors that I want to do something good, something right. Movies with nothing but adult themes and content are made for and meant for adults only. The only exeptions are when the film has very close ties with historical significance. Such as Schindlers list, or films of the like. It is ok to allow older teenagers to see this, but still hard for very young viewers.

The fact that a parent wants to warp little johhny should be everyones concern. It shouldnt be just take thier money and run. It scares me to think that these children, warped during childhood, will be running whats left of our country some day. What will they have to base thier life on? What values will they have? Blood and terror? Yeah thats a good thing to have. Well if I am running a cinema, I will do whatever I can to help stop that trend.

I am sure you will want to respond with something like "good thing a nut like you doesnt work for a chain" or some stupid thing like that. Believe me, it is good. For me mostly, so I dont have to support a corporate crook interested in greed and nothing else. Ever hear of a living wage? Neither has these chains.

I am working to open a new theater in the next two years. Working right now on recovering from a crushed foot instead. It will show movies from all eras, movies with real good stories to tell, with heart and values. Not this crap we keep seeing. I have always had good support from the community, and I will again. I am glad I dont have to see parents destroying the future of the world, just because they have a right to do so.

And in case you think I dont know what I am talking about, think again. Back in the day, when I was in college, I did a two year study involving more than 300 children, ages 3 to 15, on the viewing habits they had and how it affected thier lives. From the study, I concluded that:

1. The content has a direct link to thier behavior,
2. The content becomes socially acceptable to them if...
a. thier parent watches it with them, and
b. no one tells them this is a bad idea...

As far as theaters in Utah bieng this way, I got carded for South Park the movie. Actually Utah nearly passed the very first law of its kind, allowing local authorities to throw a theater manager in jail for 30 days for allowing a minor into a rated R movie without thier parent, or allowing them to sneak into a rated R movie. The second offence would be a year in jail. It barely NOT passed, two years running, and will come up again next year. In fact, part of the law this last year that did not pass, would allow ONE PERSON in the entire state to actually put a stamp of approval on a movie if a youngin' could see it or not. We have the only position of its kind, a "PORN ZCAR", or Zcarina, in this case, a 50 year old unmarried female self prolamed virgin, whose sole job is to search out and identify what she deems pornography. She gets 75 grand a year for this job. I can do that job, and I know where the pornography is. There is this one bookstore.. ON EVER STREET CORNER IN AMERICA, that sells playboy, damn the stuff is on the internet now... AUGH...

I would rather my child see naked people having sex, then people getting cut in half. But most of the parents who would ask about an R film, would only ask this one question, "is there swearing or naked people". Thats it. Thats all they care about. Language and nudity.

Dr. Dave.. PHD (phool heardy doofus)

True, many movies contain blasphemy, but DEVIL'S ADVOCATE was different in that it went beyond "swearing." I personally don't have anything against that movie but - given the religious climate here - I was certain it would be banned (like SOUTH PARK, HALF BAKED or JAY & SILENT BOB).

My mom is an American and we are both performing artists (she does her performing "on the side"). I actually have much stronger feelings than hers about how evil censorship is (she's kind-of a holy roller). Still, I was born and raised here (a so-called "Christian country") so I never experienced "culture shock" due to the banning of movies. Especially not after I got into the exhibition business and learned that there is always AT LEAST one clergyman (or woman) and a police officer on the viewing board.

As for the American preference for violence over sex...

There is a pretty famous quote here about the American ratings system. IIRC these words belong to an American film critic:

"Licking a nipple gets an X, chopping it off with a chainsaw gets an R."

For the comment about theater chains, I can understand where you are coming from (I work for one) and can see why you are/were independent. The reason I brought that up is because they usually take company policies to an extreme and a manager making a decision like barring all kids 17 and under (parent ot not) on a personal belief could cost some revenue and hurt the image of the company. Just as Mike was saying: Why bundle up the kids to go to "Austin Powers 3" if there's a chance the manager won't let you take them in?

I tend to think I did very much the same as you when I was at the theater. If a parent was bringing their small children to Jeepers Creepers of 13 Ghosts, I would make sure they knew what was in it directly or indirectly. In many cases, I would suggest another movie... but that would be it. If they still wanted to see it with their kids, I would sell them the ticket with a warning that we do not allow screaming or loud crying during the movie. I would then make sure there that the first disruption that came from their kids screaming because somebody's head got chopped off, they would receive passes and ask them to come back another time because they are disrupting the other patrons. Usually by then, the parents get the hint that they must have missed when we warned them about the movie in the first place.

 

We DO NOT want, as managers, to begin regulating what movie a parent brings a child to, regardless of what we think. Make your opinion known, and leave it at that. The next step would be to make movie ratings law, and that would hurt all of us.
 

Mike and Chad, you are both correct on the business end of things, but I still believe that there should be some responsibility with some of our parents these days. The fact that they dont understand that what is good for them may not be good for thier kids is cause enough to perhaps mandate parenting classes for anyone who even TRIES to bring a small child to JEEPERS CREEPERS.

As Chad can attest, I am very opinionated, and stand behind my opinions till my head pops off! However, I am often using my own feeling and emotion to back myself up, and sometimes will forget that not everyone (meaning everyone) is on the same page as me. So my apologies for my original post, as I did not clarify what my intentions by it were.

I do stick by my second post however, especially the part about my balls.

Dave
 

IMHO, the ratings system is fine the way it is. Now there are ratings reasons under each one, and sometimes simply by looking at the poster you can tell whether the movie will be "appropriate" or not. (Let's see... "Final Destination": A holographic poster with lightning and people turning into skeletons, rated R. Hmm... I dunno, it MIGHT be ok for little Suzie... ) If we take ratings reasons any further, instead of "Rated R for Drugs, Violence and Nudity" we'll see something to the effect of "Rated R because someone smokes some crack, a man gets hit in the face with a hammer, a lady takes her top off and shows her breasts, two men exchange the word Fuck on occasion, and the person whom you thought was going to be the hero dies in the end and the hero is really the character from the beginning. Enjoy the show."

What more do people want? LCD panels on the marquee showing clips of what might be considered "offensive" in the film so that people can make a better decision about wheter to take their 5-year-old to an R movie? No wait... then the kids will see the clips too... hmm....

I guess I am in the minority that hardly anything offends me because I hardly take anything (movies, TV shows, books) seriously. I'm Christian, Polish, and have a large nose. If I got offended any time these issues were poked fun at in a creative medium, I would spend all my time cooped up in a closet writing complaint letters under a low-wattage lamp instead of enjoying this beautiful world.

Actually, probably the only thing I find offensive is Christian groups on campus, as they scurry up to me while on my way to a class, politely explaining I have no time to talk and them telling me I am going to hell because I won't pause to listen to the words of Jesus.

Banning, editing and censoring films is not the answer, as that only caters to those who are offended and isn't fair to those who would actually appreciate the film. But to each their own.

Let the movies play.
=TMP=
 

New Zealand classification is also the law.
G, PG, M, All advisory

Restricted
R13, Blair Witch
R15, The Patriot
R16, Final Destination
R18, Blade
 

quote:

---

Thomas, Glad you are out of the closet.

---

I thought all the puns were reserved for Joe and Bob!

=TMP=

I also was told that the sign in question was being taken down.
 

In the U.S., is the ratings system law or not?? If it is law, then doesn't that mean that theaters are obligated to follow it? That would mean that no unacompanied children could see an R rated film, right? But if it is not law, then if theaters wanted to, they would have every right to say "yeah, your child can see it as long as you purchase the ticket." So which is it? I used to work for a major chain, and I was told so many different stories about company policy when it came to ratings. First it was we couldn't let anyone under 17 into an R, no matter what. Then for some reason, we could as long as the ticket was purchased by an adult. Also, the definition of "guardian" changed so many times. First it had to be a parent. But then as long as the minor was accompanied by someone over 18, they could see the movie. Etc, etc.... All these different versions over a two year period at two theaters of the same chain! So which of these versions is supposed to be the correct way?

I gather from this thread that the ratings are not law. If that's the case, theaters would not be fined for violation, right? I'm asking this because I have been told that we would be fined for violation, but I don't understand why if it's not a law.

If it were to become a law in Utah, or any other state, that the owner would go to jail for violations, how would that work with major chains? Would it be the owner of the company, who might live on the other coast?

The MPAA was formed so that the US would create no laws restricting what can go in a film. It was also created to get rid of local censorship boards across the US.

Some local communities have made laws that theatres stick to the MPAA rules but not many.

Theatre companies that are signatories of the MPAA may not show un-rated films and must follow the rules. We are most decidedly not members of the MPAA.

The rules of the MPAA are good and for them most part the rating system works. The only issue is what society deems worthy of restriction. It seems strange that the US finds portrayals of sexuality to be more dangerous than portrayals of violence. Also occasionally the MPAA gets a little wound up about words. But other than that and the fact that Jack Valente is older than God, the MPAA is a good thing.

Obviously if a company has signed on to the MPAA, they have agreed to uphold the code. I as an independent have not, and I know of no other independents of whom I'm in contact with that have either. However, I do enforce the rating system, very strickly, and believe that it is basicly good. It is much better to voluntarily police ourselves then have the government do it.

Although I can't think of a time that I have ever barred a parent from bringing a child into a film that I believed was inappropriate for that age of child, I have many times warned them of the content and suggested that they not bring them in. I usually end the warning with the comment: "The management does not recommend this film for children", and then if the parents still want to take them in, I let them. However, as an theatre OWNER, I do feel a responsibility to the community, and therefore I simply refuse to run films that I think are totally inappropriate for kids. I run very few R rated films unless it is a film almost of total interest to adults. If an R rated film appears to be marketed towards teens or kids it doesn't make it to my screen. The "Private Ryans" get shown, the "SouthParks" do not.

On the other hand though, if you are not a signature to the MPAA, and since there are no laws currently affecting movie admissions, I think that a theatre owner can do pretty much what ever they want. You could make up your own rating system, and unlike the MPAA system that only has the five ratings, you could use an age number either as a suggestion or a restriction, and it could vary from film to film. One film might have an S13 rating meaning it's SUGGESTED not to be appropriate for under 13, while another could be R13 meaning under 13 NOT admitted without parent. There might be another rating like NA13 which would mean NOT ADMITTED under 13 under any circumstances. These could be done for any age such as R15, or NA17 or S14... whatever the theatre owner felt was proper for that film and his community standards. In reality this system would be a nightmare. I wouldn't want to be the one to do it. I'm only suggesting that it would be legal to do if someone wanted to at their own theatre. The only thing that would make it illegal as I see it would be if the theatre owner discriminated by restricting one person and then allowing another on the same rating.

I totally agree with Bob that we need more exhibitors willing to honor their responsibility to their communities. There are too many within our ranks that will hide behind any arguement, whether it's free speech, personal lifestyles, parenting rights or what have you... to just get more money in the till, and don't give a crap about what it's doing to our kids, our country and and our society as a whole.
 

Dave