Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Can you tell a fake ID from a real one?

This is topic Can you tell a fake ID from a real one? 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=001786

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 10-24-2006, 01:15 AM:

I'm curious how many people can actually tell a real ID from a fake. If you THINK an ID is fake, do you deny admittance? I came across a questionable ID, out of state, all taped up. At what point do we turn someone away because we THINK the ID might be fake? Is there a resource for fake ID's? I don't want to be fooled by a fake ID, but then, I don't want to turn someone away for showing a valid ID that I am simply not familiar with. Does your theater have a policy on this issue?

Posted by Edwin Sheldon (Member # 4001) on 10-24-2006, 05:56 AM:

My employer, by policy, only accepts government-issued photo IDs. Not that it really matters. I doubt a single one of my employees could tell a fake out-of-state license from a real one, let alone a mil ID or any of a number of less common ID types.

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 10-24-2006, 07:10 AM:

I know there is a book you can get with pictures and details of licences/State IDs from all 50 states. Don't ask me where to get it though, I see it a lot in convienence stores. Haha, I'm not much of a help.

Posted by Chris Erwin (Member # 176) on 10-24-2006, 08:41 AM:

Rachel is 100% on the money.

Get the book

At my "day job" we keep one handy.

Hope this helps.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-24-2006, 01:13 PM:

Umm...does it really matter? It's not like it is really the end of the world if some kid with a fake ID happens to get into an R- or NC-17-rated film.

Obviously, this is a completely different issue (and one which needs to be taken very seriously) for theatres which serve alcoholic beverages and are subject to licenses and fines for serving underage customers.

Posted by Edwin Sheldon (Member # 4001) on 10-24-2006, 04:36 PM:

It's a big deal if half your customers are suburbanite housewives just looking for a reason to complain. The second one finds out her little Timmy got into Saw III, you'll never hear the end of it. [puke]

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 10-24-2006, 06:12 PM:

Yes, and in Australia there are severe penalties for cinemas that allow under-age admissions to MA15+ (must be accompanied) and R18+ (no admission.

It is difficult to tell a 14 year old girl/woman or a 17 year old 6 foot boy.

Add to this the technology available to kids that make possible the production of perfect fakes and we have a problem.

Unfortunately, our authorities have lumped the problem on the theatre operator.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 10-24-2006, 06:59 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Umm...does it really matter? It's not like it is really the end of the world if some kid with a fake ID happens to get into an R- or NC-17-rated film.

Yes..it does really matter. Everything you do at work SHOULD matter. If a parent found out that their child bought a ticket and went into a NC-17 movie because the ticket seller just didn't care, your opening yourself up to a lot of problems. Glad you dont work in a bar...

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 10-24-2006, 07:09 PM:

I think the point Scott was making is that at a bar its the law and at a theatre (at least in the US) its not.

While I would agree an obvious fake would need to be turned away-how many 'good' fake ID's could you honestly expect to see at a theatre? I mean, people get fakes when their 18 to show their 21 so they can get into a bar. I don't see a kid dropping $80 plus on a 'good' fake ID just to see a movie.

The real 'fake' problem you'd have is people using someone else's ID that is older than them but looks close enough to pass.

I guess it comes down to that policies do need to be enforced but to what extent. Do you really want to treat your customers like criminals?

PS-For what its worth in our area the problem is exactly the opposite-I've had parents get quite nasty at me because I WOULDN'T let their teenage kids go to a movie unless they accompanied them.

Opening weekend of Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning I had a lady get quite pissed at me after I was called to box because I wouldn't let her buy the tickets for her kids. Her kids ended up buying for Accepted and predictibly sneaking into Texas. While doing my routine pre-show auditorium check I spotted them and told them they had to see the movie they had bought tickets for. They opted to leave-not very happy, sarcastically yelling 'Have a nice day' to me over their shoulder as they exited the theatre.

The next set I walked by the same two kids-waiting with their movie to get into the movie. The mother remarked with a sneer, 'There's your friend.'

Sometimes I don't know why I even fucking try.

Posted by Edwin Sheldon (Member # 4001) on 10-25-2006, 02:41 AM:

Oh, I've had those people, too. I also once had an unaccompanied 16-year-old girl who asked to see a manager at box office because she got carded. (I don't know what she expected to accomplish, being 16 and unaccompanied by an adult!) She then complained that she got carded and said that she was only carded because she wasn't as ugly as my box office cashier! Oh, the NERVE of some people! [fu]

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 10-25-2006, 01:44 PM:

Everyone knows that if the rating system was enforced the way it should be, we wouldn't have any school shootings or any other problems at all, and the world would be a perfect place.

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 10-25-2006, 04:18 PM:

quote: Jesse Skeen
Everyone knows that if the rating system was enforced the way it should be, we wouldn't have any school shootings or any other problems at all, and the world would be a perfect place.

I really hope that was sarcasm...

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 10-25-2006, 06:03 PM:

quote: Dustin Mitchell
Opening weekend of Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning I had a lady get quite pissed at me after I was called to box because I wouldn't let her buy the tickets for her kids.

If a parent buys the tickets for her kids, we accept that as parental approval. Like you said, the rating system isn't law, its just a system to inform people and parents of the movie content. We, in the business, put the restiction on children going to R rated movies. If 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? I must admit that I've NEVER carded anyone for a PG-13 movie, nor will deny admittance to a 12 year old...I mean, how can that be enforced? 13 year olds dont have ID. Its definately an imperfect system, but we have to as much as we can...and just make the best of it.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-25-2006, 06:19 PM:

In Va. movie ratings/admissions are not law, strictly voluntary for ratings less than NC-17 or X, we don't card for anything less than those ratings.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 10-25-2006, 06:57 PM:

You don't card for rated R movies? Even if an 8 year old wanted to buy a ticket?? Thats....not good.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 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.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 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. [Confused]

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 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

Posted by Chris Erwin (Member # 176) on 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. [Mad]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 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?

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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!!!!!
[Mad]

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!

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 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.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 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.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 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.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 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.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 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.

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 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.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 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.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-28-2006, 09:10 PM:

Card everybody who even remotely looks less than 42. A bar couple blocks up the street from the theatre cards everybody who orders alcohol regardless, a friend who is 84 had to show ID last week.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 10-28-2006, 11:55 PM:

"These are the policies your theatre has agreed to in order to be included under the auspices of the MPAA."

I don't think that most theatres have made any such agreement. What's the source of this claim?

--jhawk

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 10-29-2006, 01:22 AM:

That's why I said commercial chain theatres. Independant houses are, of course, free to do whatever they want and good for them.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 10-29-2006, 08:27 AM:

I understand you said commercial chain theatres. I am still skeptical. So, again, I ask, what's your source?

Do you perhaps mean NATO? I believe most chain theatres are members of NATO (not MPAA), and that NATO has taken a relatively firm stance that it believes rating should be enforced.

But that's not the same as saying all NATO members enforce the ratings, nor is it saying all NATO chains enforce the ratings. And it is certainly not saying that all NATO chains enforce the ratings to the degree you suggest.

You say:

"R - NOBODY 16 or younger gets in unless Mommy or Daddy will sit with them and hold their hand for the ENTIRE presentation."

I don't think this is at all required.

In 2000, after Columbine, NATO released a "12-point Ratings Initiative", but even that was extremely wishy-washy on what is required of members:

quote:

2. Each company will take steps to reaffirm the NATO ID-check policy for R and NC-17 rated films, and will examine its operations and training policies to improve compliance with the policy.
3. Each company will assess current practices whereby managerial personnel visit company locations for other reasons, and will endeavor to add ratings enforcement compliance inspection to the duties of said personnel.
4. Each company will appoint a senior executive compliance officer(s) to review on a regular basis the company’s ratings enforcement practices.
...
6. Each company will endeavor to post personnel at the auditorium entrance for particular, extreme R-rated films, and for all NC-17 rated films. For films so designated, individual companies will seek financial assistance from the distribution company responsible for the film to help defray labor costs.

It does not require compliance, merely that members will try to "improve" compliance. Notice that nowhere does it specify exactly what compliance means. The best I can find is the formal MPAA/CARA definition:

R: Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian

This makes no claim about parents being required to sit with their children for the whole movie, nor does it require the accompanying adult be a parent.

Furthermore, NATO admits that compliance is weak. On their web site, they offer a 100-page PDF, TC Follow-up Report on Marketing Violent Entertainment to Kids and Ratings Enforcement, which on p.8 notes, "Finally, the Commission’s undercover shopper survey of children’s access to tickets for R-rated films indicated significant improvement by movie theaters, as only 36% of the 13-16- year-old shoppers successfully purchased tickets. In contrast, DVD retailers – included for the first time in this survey – sold R-rated DVDs to 81% of teen shoppers seeking to buy them."

So, once again, I ask you: What's your source?

--jhawk

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 11-14-2006, 09:05 PM:

As far as I know, there are no legal ramifications for non-compliance with ratings here in New Jersey. If someone slips through the cracks, the theater can not be prosecuted.

Now on the other hand, if Washington passes legislation making non-compliance a crime, look out. How can you legislate morality, and if you do, will it stand up to the scruteny of the courts? Your guess is as good as mine.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-14-2006, 09:25 PM:

quote: John Hawkinson was the last to post
These are the policies your theatre has agreed to in order to be included under the auspices of the MPAA.

This sentence has a couple of things wrong with it, as jhawk has attempted to point out.

I would guess that the above quoted sentence is the product of some over-zealous film-company hack.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-14-2006, 11:39 PM:

In regards to the claim that theatres are somehow obligated to follow the rating policy or face legal action from the MPAA I'd have to agree with the above posts and say this doesn't make much sense.

HOWEVER, I'll have to disagree with John, whose post makes it seem that if you do follow the MPAA's guidelines you still don't need to make children unders 17 have a parent or gaurdian watch the movie with them. From filmratings.com:

quote:
Restricted-Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian (age varies in some locations). This signifies that the rating board has concluded that the film rated contains some adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the film before taking their children to see it. An R may be assigned due to, among other things, a film's use of language, theme, violence, sex or its portrayal of drug use.

Emphasis added.

The word 'accompany' clearly means the parent has to go to the movie with the child. If they meant to say 'Under 17 must have parental permission' or 'Under 17 must have parents purchase tickets' they would have said that.

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 11-15-2006, 03:00 PM:

quote: Dustin Mitchell
The word 'accompany' clearly means the parent has to go to the movie with the child.

.....or it could simply mean accompany the child to the theater to give their permission. I think your jumping to a conclusion Dustin. 'Accompany' does NOT clearly mean that the parent has to go the movie with the child.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-16-2006, 02:03 AM:

Are we really having an argument about the meaning of the word 'accompany? As I said, if the MPAA intended the R rating to require parental permission then it would have said 'Under 17 require parental permission to attend.'

http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp

quote:
Parents are strongly urged to find out more about this film before they allow their children to accompany them.

'before they allow their children to accompany them'; ie, before they take their kids to the movie with them.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-18-2006, 02:54 PM:

Not only does "accompany" mean "to the theatre together;" but it actually requires that both parent and child must see the film together in the same auditorium. (Been there, done that.) This way, it is the responsibility of the parent to deal with any "shock" to the child. Louis

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 11-22-2006, 04:40 AM:

quote: Frank Dubrois
.....or it could simply mean accompany the child to the theater to give their permission. I think your jumping to a conclusion Dustin. 'Accompany' does NOT clearly mean that the parent has to go the movie with the child.

Ok, so you are worried that someone might circumvent the policy with a fake id, but, in the same thread try to find a loophole where none exists?

For the record - I strictly enforce the ratings policy. Parents want their kids to see the film, they have to watch it with them. They sneak out the back door (happens about once a month or so), we escort the kids out the front. Why do we do it? It has nothing to do with protecting impressionable young minds. It has to do with the fact that impressionable young minds DO NOT BEHAVE in adult themed movies if the parents aren't there. Since starting this strict enforcement our grosses on R rated films vs our competition have improved and noise complaints in R rated films are virtually zero.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-26-2006, 03:28 AM:

Seems to me we are dancing around the originally posed problem --i.e., how far does the theatre have to go in trying to determine if an ID is a fake or not. Seems to me that since #1, there is no LEGAL requirement to enforce MPAA ratings, and #2, there is the practical limitation as to how much time box office personnel can take to determine if an ID is authentic, a "reasonable" determination would pretty much be that you look at the ID, and if it "looks reasonably" authentic, that would satisfy the theatre's obligation -- moral, contractual or whatever -- to comply with the MPAA rating suggestions.

Here in NYC, and probably elsewhere, it is the LAW not to sell cigarettes to minors. The law doesn't say you have to card people, but of course, that's the safest way to insure you are not breaking the law. On the other hand, in a busy business, any more than a cursory look at an ID would be impractical due to the time factor. I think "reasonable" is the rule of thumb in implementation and that would be the point on which any legal action would turn.

In other words, would any lay person (say the judge or jury in any legal action) look at the kid who was let in and think: he certainly looks 18 and not 15. Or if presented with the questionable ID, would they reasonably conclude that this ID looks authentic? If so, that would satisfy any obligation on the part of the business establish. No one expects that a business hire off-duty CSI forensic experts to scrutinize ID cards to make sure they are not fake.

As for parents freaking out because a theatre let little Johnny into a restricted film, I think all that the manager would have to do is to point out that it's because he used a forged ID. And how come mom and dad have some pre-felon running around with forged IDs?

Posted by Christopher Neill (Member # 3745) on 12-10-2006, 12:37 PM:

We have the book shown above, but our situation is different. We serve beer and wine, and there is no room for error there. Kids under 18 are not allowed without a parent at anytime, and trust me, that makes a big difference

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-29-2007, 04:12 AM:

FYI:

There's a misconstrued meaning of R vs NC-17.

R means restricted and no one under 17 is allowed w/o parent or guardian.

But NC-17 means "NO children 17 and under allowed." At filmratings.com they put it simply that "No one 17 and under admitted."

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 03-31-2007, 01:37 AM:

I'm pretty sure we know that.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 03-31-2007, 07:48 PM:

Teens who have the ability to forge IDs to watch an NC17 movie certainly have seen worse on the internet. I would just go with what is convenient and not sweat if the occasional teen sneaks in with a fake ID. It's not a life or death issue.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-31-2007, 09:43 PM:

quote: Frank Dubrois
I'm pretty sure we know that.

Previous posts in this say otherwise.