Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Teen's Parent Complains

This is topic Teen's Parent Complains - What would you have done? in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000897

Posted by Paul Goulet (Member # 297) on 08-23-2003, 10:58 PM:

O.K. Here is the scenerio:

Teenager comes with friends to a movie. They purchase tickets to a PG movie because they know they cannot get into an R-rated movie. The usher sees them going into the R-rated movie and tells them to go into the movie they bought tickets for. Shortly after they are again seen in the R-rated movie and are told to leave the building. On the way out they start swearing and waving middle fingers at the ticket seller and usher. Two weeks later, the teens again try and buy tickets and are refused tickets and are told to leave and not try to buy tickets for any movie, they then leave. This weekend they again go to the ticket window to buy and tickets and are again refused. They leave after the ticket seller and Assistant manager tells them they cannot come in. 30 Minutes later, father of one of the teens comes to the theatre to talk to Assistant Manager. After talking to the Assistant Manager and insisting that his son is a saint and would never do anything wrong, he asks to speak to the Manager. Here is the question..As Manager would you..

A. tell the father you refuse to sell tickets to his son and friends and they cannot see any movie anytime?

OR

B. tell them that they CAN come in for a movie, not just tonight, but any other time.

Comments and suggestions would be appreciated!

(Topic title edited so it is not a "teaser")

[ 08-24-2003, 04:33 AM: Message edited by: Joe Redifer ]

Posted by Roger Katz (Member # 1625) on 08-23-2003, 11:15 PM:

How about telling the father that his son is more than welcome to come see the R-rated movie anytime just as long as he accompanies him to it?

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 08-24-2003, 12:17 AM:

Pretty much what I was going to say. The only other solution would be to allow the teen to watch movies there again but to keep the father's number (preferably his cell phone number) handy so that you can call him and inform him of any problems as they happen.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-24-2003, 02:46 AM:

He was caught breaking the rules...he was caught breaking the rules a second time...and was rude and vulgar to staff (essentially a third infraction). And your proposed solution is to do basically nothing except that you're going to try to make sure the rule (parent must accompany...) is followed in the future? What kind of message is that going to send? It basically means there is no down side to flouting the rules because the worst consequence of breaking them is that maybe they will try to enforce them against you in the future.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-24-2003, 03:31 AM:

I agree Steve. I choose "A".

It's all about behavior and acting responsibly.

If after a reasonable amount of time is allowed for these "juveniles" to grow up, then the situation should be re-evaluated.

>>> Phil

Posted by Roger Katz (Member # 1625) on 08-24-2003, 08:03 AM:

Steve: I think what I said about telling the father he needs to accompany him is essentially banning the teenager from the theatre because A. What teenager wants to be accompanied to the movies by his parents, and B. What father wants to go waste two hours of his life sitting through a movie aimed at teenage boys? I don't think he'd ever see the kid again if he'd said that he could only come accompanied.

I'm not in the movie business (yet). I am a teacher and that is how we keep problem kids off field trips. We tell the parents the kid is welcome to come with the rest of the class on the field trip if the parent comes and chaperones. I've never yet had a parent agree to chaperone their kid.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 08-24-2003, 11:36 AM:

Sounds pretty much like you've discovered the source of the teen's moral foundation... that parental resistance to accountability that we see all too often these days.

I think Roger has a great idea... tying the two of them on the same leash... at least until such time as the teen might apologize, which doesn't seem likely right now.

Steve also makes good points. These kids are growing up with a warped vision of "rights". Too many of them believe that merely plopping their money on the counter puts them in a position where theatre staff and management are required to tolerate their [bs]

... which, unfortunately, seems also to be the policy of some bosses.

In the quest for all dollars possible, too many owners seem to miss the point that ejecting abusive and disruptive patrons makes for a more pleasant environment for staff and reasonable customers alike, which makes the people you really want in your buildings more likely to come back to you, and not to someone else's theatre... or maybe a home [dlp]

I wouldn't lose any sleep over this kid. Keeping him out is a good object lesson to his friends. If he really wants to get back in there, let him figure out on his own that an apology & attitude adjustment might get him farther than sending his daddy.

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 08-24-2003, 12:13 PM:

I would just tell the parent that he broke the rules, was warned...then broke the rules again adding vulgar gestures to it. He is no longer welcome in the theater. You are not a babysitter.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-24-2003, 12:32 PM:

Roger, you didn't say the father would need to accompany him at all times, just to R-rated movies, which is what was supposed to happen in the first place:

How about telling the father that his son is more than welcome to come see the R-rated movie anytime just as long as he accompanies him to it?

I stand by my comments that "punishing" someone by simply making them obey the rules they were supposed to obey in the first place is no punishment at all and means the rules can be broken with no consequence. As a teacher would you not agree?

If you are changing your stance that is a different matter altogether.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-24-2003, 01:03 PM:

Got to be careful about these little "saints." I remember once when we had a "4.0" sailor in the navy. He even won the award of "Sailor of the month" at NAS Whidbey. However, his off-duty hours were a different story.

He was part of a ring of thugs that swapped engines from cars that were in a storage facility while the owner of that car was deployed on a cruise. When that was uncovered, he was promptly court-martialed and after serving time in the Crossbar Hotel he was promptly thrown out of the navy.

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 08-24-2003, 01:20 PM:

I'll jump in on this one. I don't work the floor anymore, but 30 years of teaching high school tells me Steve is absolutely right on this one.

If you are the manager and your assistant has made a good decision,(and he has here) you have to back him up. Then, consider why the father is suddenly at the theatre asking to speak to the manager. It's simple. The father has been conditioned. His son got an answer he didn't like, so like most kids, he will go to the parent to try to have it changed.

Unfortunately, this happens all the time in school. Don't like the teacher's rules? Go get Mom and Dad. Have them pressure the teacher. If you hit upon a teacher with some backbone, no problem...go to the principal and complain about how the teacher is being "unfair and unreasonable". After all, the administrators don't want to make waves, so in all probability there will be a face-saving compromise. Lesson: Rules ARE BREAKABLE and there are no consequences!

There it is in a nutshell. Now equate it to the theatre situation. Kid breaks rules, kid gets thrown out. Go get dad. Go over the head of the assistant manager and see the manager. Tell the manager how his assistant manager is being unfair and unreasonable. Expect the situation will change.

DON"T YOU DARE DO IT! This is not school. You don't want the father to come back with the kid, either, because I'll wager he will be the next guy raising hell in the middle of your lobby about something insignificant next Friday night. Back up your assistant manager. The kid broke the rules, these are the consequences. He's OUT. You are runing a business, not a school. End of story.

Posted by Mike Markwood (Member # 1853) on 08-24-2003, 01:52 PM:

Instead of "never" allowing them back you might want to try 3, 6, or 12 months that they aren't allowed back. That gives you what you want and might calm the parents down a little since their kid can come back in a few months. If they don't follow the rules when they some back get rid of them for good.

Another thing you can try with rule breakers is depending on what they've done to get thrown out you might want to talk to your city's Law Department or your local police dept about setting up a "Trespass List" When you ask people to leave you fill out a form that has their name, a description, etc. You explain to them that they can't come back for 3 months (or whatever time period you specify) and that if they are on your property the police will remove them and charge them with criminal trespassing. I haven't used the "trespass" thing at a theatre but it worked well at a pool I used to work at. I would get rid of the same problem people every day, talked to the City's Law Director and Safety Director and setup the tresspass thing...after that if I got rid of somebody they usually stayed away.

Posted by Paul Goulet (Member # 297) on 08-24-2003, 03:55 PM:

Now, let me finish the story and tell everyone what the outcome of the scenerio was. Let me just tell people that I am the Assistant Manager, NOT the Manager. Let me also tell everyone that even on the shifts I am working, the Manager is also there. As a matter of fact, he is ALWAYS there. Here we go....

I did exactly what Rachel said in her post. Told the kid he can't come back in because he broke the rules and his language would not be tolerated and also told the father that the kid can not come back in, his attitude and language would not be tolerated. However, the father unknown to me, had spoke to the Manager the 2nd time the kid was not allowed back in, and the father said the Manager said at that time that the kid could come back if he apologized next time he came back for a movie. 1st off, when I spoke to the kid, he had no intention on apologizing. Once I found out that the father had already spoke to the Manager, I immediately stopped speaking to the father. I then called the Manager to have him speak to the father a second time. The Manager came down to the lobby, spoke to the father and told the father that yes, indeed his son, "the saint", can come back in for a movie. You can only imagine how I felt and the ticket seller felt when we realized that this little pile of [bs]

would now be allowed back into the theatre.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 08-24-2003, 04:54 PM:

quote:
The Manager came down to the lobby, spoke to the father and told the father that yes, indeed his son, "the saint", can come back in for a movie. You can only imagine how I felt and the ticket seller felt when we realized that this little pile of would now be allowed back into the theatre.

Typical

A staff is no better than the support it gets from its management. How can you do you job when you don't know if your decisions will be backed up. That's one of the first things we make sure our people know. If they follow their training, we're behind them 100%. If not, they have a 50% chance of getting it right... and maybe a 50% chance of losing their job... which is why there are no dumb questions here.

Your story relates to why places like mine have problems with the "no outside food/drink" rule. All of the local theatres have signs regarding this. However, we actually enforce the rule here. Unfortunately, the people we kick out with their 12 piece KFC dinner just go to the local AMC or Regal outlet, where nobody seems to notice. THEIR customers come into our place and don't understand our attitude. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Chase Taylor (Member # 778) on 08-24-2003, 07:36 PM:

I would not let the child back in again regardless if the parent comes with him or not. This kids and sadly the parents will push you and push you just to see what they can get away with. I agree with the above statement we are not babysitters. If you let this go on then you will soon have seats cut up. I promise you don't need their business because they probably run off more business that you will gain from them.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 08-25-2003, 12:42 AM:

I've worked as an usher for two years now. Over these two years, it seems that the situation with these "saints" seems to be getting worse and worse. I can remember my first summer was nowhere near as bad as this past year. I agree with the fact that many companies (unfortunately ours too) has no backbone when it comes to situations like this.

A few of us floorstaffers were once discussing what to do when kids that kicked out of a theatre for bad behavior and if they should get refunds. Of course, all of us said they are not entitled to refunds. These "saints" come in, break the rules, and ruin everyone else's film going experience: why the @!#! do they get their money back? One of our assistants said it is our company policy to give them their money back. This makes no sense to me because these same kids come in week in and week out and do the same thing. Why keep rewarding them for bad behavior? I agree, we are NOT babysitters, but with corporate pinheads that have policies like this we are nothing more than babysitters on Friday nights. [fu]

AJG

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-25-2003, 12:48 AM:

quote:
corporate pinheads

Hahhaha... I just knew you watched Bill... [beer]

>>> Phil

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 08-25-2003, 11:41 AM:

Yes, Bill is da man!

AJG

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 08-25-2003, 08:05 PM:

and it is us who get into trouble when we open the fire doors with their heads when ejecting them.

Posted by Mike Perju (Member # 1482) on 08-25-2003, 11:37 PM:

I say kick out the little pricks, not because they broke the rules to see an R-rated movie, but because they insulted the staff! Most chains will give them refunds, but if you're not a chain, go right ahead an do use their heads to open them ekit doors with!! when people should NOT be given is refunds are times like a while ago when someone complained there were little colorful specks on the screen. What it turned out to be was 3 16-year olds who were intoxicated and found it funny to lick gummy bears, then chuck them at the screen... and you know how sticky those bears tend to get!
Unfortunately management followed company policy that they may "refuse admission by refunding the admission price".

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 08-26-2003, 03:33 AM:

I have no use for onery little pricks either, but is it not more than a little hypocritical to be harsh on them for using 'swear words' when most films they see (or want to see) are filled with such verbage and bad behaviour??

If a business doesn't want such activity, why promote (and celebrate) it in your product?? I'm speaking of the 'entertainment' industry in general, not individual theatres, which have little choice over what gets made into so-called entertainment.

Big double-standard, IMHO.

Ron Yost

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-27-2003, 05:07 AM:

Option B wouldn't be an option at all over here, because the licence which a cinema needs to operate from its local council almost always states that no-one must be admitted to a film who is under the age indicated by its certificate. If you did admit a 13 year-old to an 18-certificate film, you'd be breaking a condition of your licence. If the incident were proven, the cinema could have its licence revoked, and in that case it would no longer be legally able to charge members of the public to see films.

I've never heard of a cinema losing its licence for persistently letting people in under-age (though I have for other reasons), but I have heard of councils sending kids in to 'test' whether a cinema is complying or not.

On this specific issue, I'd say ban him from the building until he is whatever age you need to be to see an 'R' film. Then, just as long as he pays up, you won't need to worry what he's trying to get into! [Smile]

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 08-27-2003, 10:54 AM:

quote:
I have no use for onery little pricks either, but is it not more than a little hypocritical to be harsh on them for using 'swear words' when most films they see (or want to see) are filled with such verbage and bad behaviour??

If a business doesn't want such activity, why promote (and celebrate) it in your product?? I'm speaking of the 'entertainment' industry in general, not individual theatres, which have little choice over what gets made into so-called entertainment.

Big double-standard, IMHO.

First of all, if a film has a substantial amount of vulgar language, it's going to be rated R and the little pricks, as you call them, aren't supposed to be in there in the first place.

Second of all, behavior on film is not an excuse for behavior in life and never was. If they go to see a Western, do we then say it's a double standard when we arrest them for having a shoot-out on the street?

Film, novels, as well as many other forms of entertainment are fantasies. It's not a double-standard to ask youth to understand the difference between those fantasies and real life.

But there is one area where I think this is a problem and that is radio and some reality television. The language on radio has gotten ridiculous - we're at the point where "anything goes". And since this happens within the context of ordinary discussion or "documentary" footage, it makes it appear that this type of discourse is totally acceptable within any public forum.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 08-28-2003, 03:38 PM:

I had an instance a couple of years ago when a group of 12-14 year olds, about six of them, tried the exact same thing. I eventually was tired of the routine, and called the sheriff's office. The officer that responded actually knew one of the kids, the ringleader himself. It turns out this kid was the son of his duty seargent.

He explained to me that he could not site these kids because it could get him reassigned to more meanial traffic duty. So the kids were allowed to continue to behave like little dorks repeatedly day after day, according to this wimp.

I instead offered to call Aaron Kennard, our county sheriff, and discuss the matter with him and get his view on the problem. He instead offered to talk to the little brats.

After the conversation, I never saw them again. However, the officer did tell me that the kid was rather a rude prick and was not going to listen to reason. The officer told him that if he didn't vacate permanantly, that I was going to go to the county sherrif himself, and file a complaint against his dad. This seemed to get his attention.

I hate little pricks.

Dave

Posted by Travis Hubrig (Member # 1745) on 08-29-2003, 11:50 PM:

That is too bad that the manager didn't back up his assistant. In that situation the manager should be left on his own to deal with the kids.

I have had problems with groups of teens before, and many times it is in PG-13 movies. One time I kicked out two rows of loud kids in a nearly sold out auditorium. They weren't the only group that was loud, but they got the majority of complaints. I kicked out somewhere around 15 kids. (it was still in the previews and I was pretty vocal about it in the auditorium) The others got quiet very quickly. I only had to deal with one parent after that night, and I didn't take much [bs]

from her. She started about her little 'saint' and I told her that none of the other kids or parents felt wronged when their kids were kicked out and it was because they deserved it and knew that they deserved it.
It probably could have been handled better... but once they gave me attitude, I wasn't going to let them walk all over me.
It seems like kids are getting worse everyday...