Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: How to stop / discourage kids from making out or more in theaters.

This is topic How to stop / discourage kids from making out or more in theaters. 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=002101

Posted by Andrew Bangs (Member # 4938) on 09-18-2008, 02:30 AM:

We have a problem now and it is kids, usually high school or college, doing some serious making out or even other more private activities, in the theaters. This is happening during the movies, usually with a towel or blanket which we now discourage our guests from bringing, after the movies in the very front rows or the very back rows.

What have some of you done to discourage this or is it just our kids?

The major problem is the parents of some of our employees are complaining because they, understandably, don't want their kids walking in on this or having to be exposed to it period.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-18-2008, 03:39 AM:

Turn the hose on 'em!

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 09-18-2008, 09:16 AM:

Walk up behind them and whisper "I got next"
That'll at least keep them from doing it again.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 09-18-2008, 09:40 AM:

Your employees work in an establishment where they are expected to be exposed to certain things. Would you let them out of doing theater patrols because the movie was R rated? In fact, teenage employees are your greatest asset in combating this type of behavior, because they are likely to know who at school has a reputation that would suggest this sort of behavior. I can understand staff being uncomfortable approaching people engaged in this sort of behavior, but at the least, they can find them and go get a manager or older staffer to come and take care of the problem.

Posted by Marc Hansen (Member # 705) on 09-18-2008, 09:59 AM:

How about a camera and a bulletin board in the lobby. First time their parents come in...

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 09-18-2008, 10:50 AM:

Yeah, and the flash will certainly startle them, too. [Smile]

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 09-18-2008, 12:21 PM:

But its just so fun!! [sex]

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 09-18-2008, 12:28 PM:

I really like the camera idea! Louis

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 09-18-2008, 12:56 PM:

I prefer the direct approach.

"Get out."

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 09-18-2008, 05:29 PM:

I think its just your kids.

People over here don't do that. The theater would have to be almost empty before anything freaky would happen. [Wink]

Walking in to do a presentation check would probably stop most people. And a handy dandy flashlight.

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 09-18-2008, 05:42 PM:

A squirt from a water bottle from the booth window usually cools things off, or if it's not in an important spot in the movie, such as commercials or policy, just switch on your lights. Cleaning preferred if acessible from the booth, or just max houselights if not. Make it sudden, so they're suprised, and hopefully the act will be openly visible to the other patrons (if there aren't any sensitive eyes in there, kids). Maybe it'll teach them a lesson about doing such in a public environment, or at least embarass them enough not to try it again for a while.

I usually just hit them with the squirt bottle tho.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 09-18-2008, 07:51 PM:

You have to take a stand on this. We had this a lot at a cinema I worked at. People even advertised on craigslist looking for sexual encounters at the cinema that's how bad it got. We'd find at least five couples a week who were way too intimate and were always trying to combat the problem.

I would always try to do one screen check during the programme if/when the lights are up, walking up and down all the aisles, making yourself visible. In my experience this prevents some people from causing trouble as they'll assume you're checking regularly even if you don't get the chance to. If your screen design permits this do the same every 20-30mins during the feature. This is how we caught most people.

We played it by the situation with regards to kicking people out, depended on the severity and their manner when confronted. Just be upfront and say you saw what they were doing and would like an explanation. Some people only need a warning in the screen, others need to come out to the lobby for a chat or to be removed.

Also, always go in twos. We had a couple where the guy needed four security staff to restrain him after we found them. Some people's reaction to embarrassment is anger it seems. You'll also get aggressive denials and accusations. A way of shutting people up to remind them they committed a crime (if sexual activity in public is one in the US), possibly with minors present, and we could call the police. We actually had serial offenders (some who wanted to get caught) and in the end had to resort to this to stop them.

Hope this helps, we were literally a road away from Soho which is the kinda red light and gay district of London and the whole West End is pretty seedy so lots of sex about. If you make it very clear you don't tolerate this behaviour it will drop off.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-18-2008, 08:02 PM:

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
If you make it very clear you don't tolerate this behaviour it will drop off

Good choice of words there. [Eek!]

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 09-18-2008, 08:07 PM:

Bring on the puns! I've found it difficult to keep a straight face when dealing with this situation so many times.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-18-2008, 08:18 PM:

or, do the vid then with the monitor in the lobby so everyone will see, then when they walk out, have an applause rating for the best makeout session an give them a 'white elephant' award.

We did that once at a complex (not with vid setup though) but we recognize the "spitswappers" as they came out and gave them a round of applause...

they never came back again .....

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 09-18-2008, 08:57 PM:

quote: Andrew Bangs
We have a problem now and it is kids, usually high school or college, doing some serious making out or even other more private activities, in the theaters.

You're just now experiencing this? I could open a second hand store with all the different articles of clothing we've picked up out of theatres over the years. I'm sure others here have seen girls leaving the movie with the tag of their sweater sticking up under their chin. What I don't get is how you can forget your bra. Wouldn't you notice that something feels different?

I think it really took off when drive ins started shutting down. Most kids don't care. They'll have something to brag to their friends about. Most adults too for that matter. Stadium seating seems to limit the behavior. Is it that big a nuisance? I can't really believe too many parents would be finding out about this from their kids that work there and then complaining about their little Johnny being exposed to such filth.

To Galen's comments, many theatre chains do not allow employees under 17 to enter theatres playing R rated films. Its a double standard if you deny your customers but afford your employees that privilege. As far as what they can expect to be exposed to, there is no way upon hiring you can tell an employee to expect to see to real people doing some real acts. That's ridiculous. In that regard, maybe the parents do have a legitimate complaint.

Maybe the suggestions were a joke, but I would stay far away from photographing anything, in case one of them does happen to be a minor. I would stick with the bright flashlight idea and tell the concerned parents you are glad they are concerned and you are welcoming suggestions as to how to stop kids from wanting to have sex.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 09-18-2008, 09:52 PM:

Spotlight, video camera and digital cinema projector....now we're really talkin'. Public embarassment carried to the max. Louis

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 09-18-2008, 10:07 PM:

A policy trailer would be cool. Just like those AMC ones about noise and cell phones.

"Please don't spoil the movie by adding your own porn."

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 09-18-2008, 11:16 PM:

I recently used a child's toy video cam as a prop to embarrass the hell out of tweeners when I walked up on them with cam in hand and told them I'd make them famous on youtube if they didn't stop. They stopped immediately.

On another occasion I had a tween couple in a kids film (Madagascar) that were "making out" and I simply waited till I saw the kids come out and when their chaperon came to pick them up I casually walked up to the vehicle before it pulled away and told the adult what the two had been up to. It turned out to be the boys mom and she was none too happy.

Posted by Poon Limpapun (Member # 4551) on 09-19-2008, 04:45 AM:

We have CCTV cameras installed in all of our cinemas.
That seems to help... I mean we could record the action
and post in on YouTube... NOT! basically it is installed
to detect piracy activities and so as all that XXX....

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-19-2008, 10:41 AM:

Get a video camera with good infrared capability and a good zoom lens. Figure out how to remote mount the thing in the auditorium and tape the customers in the act. Upload the video to YouTube. Or if it's really saucy, start your own porn site and rake in the big bucks!
[evil]

It would probably scare horny movie-goers enough to see a sign in the lobby somewhere saying "making out activity may be photographed or videotaped." Include a staged photo of a shocked couple in the theater seats still locked in an embrace, but looking up at a blinding camera flash. Make the color all green looking so it has that Paris Hilton porn tape flair.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 09-19-2008, 11:45 AM:

quote: Chad Souder
To Galen's comments, many theatre chains do not allow employees under 17 to enter theatres playing R rated films. Its a double standard if you deny your customers but afford your employees that privilege. As far as what they can expect to be exposed to, there is no way upon hiring you can tell an employee to expect to see to real people doing some real acts. That's ridiculous. In that regard, maybe the parents do have a legitimate complaint.

Then I would say many theater chains are stupid. If you hire people to do a job which includes patrolling theaters, and then disallow them from patrolling certain theaters based on the MPAA's arbitrary ass rating system, you are dumb. My previous theater allowed 16 and up to see R rated movies, and had a minimum hiring age of 16. Problem solved. I'm not advocating that anyone make 16 year olds go slap some half naked kids around, but part of the typical usher's job description is to patrol auditoriums for unruly patrons.

If they are understandably uncomfortable with approaching two people having sex, they can certainly identify people who appear to be having sex from a distance (thus diminishing the likelihood of seeing even partial nudity) and go get someone else to throw the people out. Managers make the "big bucks" for dealing with crazy customers, so let them do it, but I know I usually have more important things to do on a Friday night than to do theater patrols constantly.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 09-19-2008, 12:53 PM:

Somewhere along the line, I formed the impression that the big chains really don't want to hear comments from their customers... good or bad. Think about it... if you have anywhere from a few hundred screens to a few thousand, the staffing you'd have to have to read and respond to even one comment from each screen per day would mean having to add a floor to your building.

No... I think the chains expect the Managers to insulate them from the customers. That's why most of them have big rolls of passes in their safes, and that's why you don't hear much about confrontations between management and customers, even when warranted.

On the other hand, a privately-owned business, where the owner IS the manager, is usually much different. We generally know who we want to serve, what kind of atmosphere we want to encourage and what limits of behaviour we're willing to accept. That can tend to fly in the face of some customers' attitudes, when they think that an admissions ticket buys them a piece of the rock.

Because of the "hands off" policies of the chains, I think it surprises people to learn that private theatres can enforce policies not much different than if the customers were in the owner's back yard... which sometimes, they are.

I'm not sure we'd go the squirt gun route, but we do find ourselves dealing with behavior that's not directly related to the movie on the screen [Wink]

.

Generally, most problems are fixed by telling them that we're a family show, but that doesn't include making one at our place (a drive-in!). If what they're doing is obviously visible to other customers and staff, we just send them down the road. Law enforcement's always an option, but we rarely need to go that far.

The point is that we can deal with unwanted behavior, and we do. A chain manager may not want to, may not be required to, and possibly, for reasons of liability or just financial greed on the part of his boss, could be prohibited from corrective interaction with customers, except in fairly well-defined circumstances.

If the chains aren't willing to get aggressive with cell phones and loud conversation, why should you expect them to deal with "spit swapping" (that was funny!) and 'related activities' in the auditoriums?

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 09-19-2008, 04:06 PM:

quote:
But its just so fun!!

YEAH!!!!!!!

Kerrville eh Andrew. Say Hi to Patrick Hall for me and my Brother Lance

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 09-19-2008, 04:38 PM:

Couples of all ages and persuasions engage in alternate activities in theatres. Several years ago I exited the booth on a Saturday night when the theatre was nearly at capacity with about 300 in the balcony. Stepped out the door and looked around and spotted a couple in their late '30s on the back row way over to one end screwing. Quite a few people had turned around to watch when somebody coughed and startled the couple. When they discovered they were the center of attention they quickly covered themselves and left. The woman's panties fell out of her purse about half way down the aisle. Quite a scene, too bad nobody had a camera.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 09-19-2008, 09:39 PM:

[QUOTE] My previous theater allowed 16 and up to see R rated movies, and had a minimum hiring age of 16. Problem solved. /QUOTE] Actually, problem created. Not to wander too far off topic, but this is a major fault of some theatres. I know you're no longer affiliated with this theatre, but it is exactly that kind of non-compliance with the MPAA rating system that will ultimately lead to a bored session of congress making it law. That would be horrible for all of us. This has obviously been discussed around here before, but like the system or not, the government does compliance checks regularly at theatres large and small and if their non-compliance percentages come back too high for long enough, the rating system will become law and those 16 year olds that work there either won't work there any more or will be strictly prohibited from entering auditoriums showing R rated pictures, much like you have to be so old to serve alcohol. Beg your higher-ups to comply with the rating system, as it is this compliance that is keeping the rating system in our hands, or keeps it arbitrary ass as you put it, instead of legal ass.

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 09-20-2008, 12:54 AM:

quote: Chad Souder
the rating system will become law and those 16 year olds that work there either won't work there any more

And that'd be bad because? No punk kids working the theatres, maybe the quality of service will go up. [thumbsup]

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 09-20-2008, 12:58 AM:

In response to Jack, I know for a fact that the feedback section on Carmike's website is monitored very closely by the highest levels of the company. I don't know how many comments are left there every day but I'm more than certain that they all are at least read, responded too, and in the appropriate circumstances followed up on with theatre staff.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 09-20-2008, 08:29 AM:

In order for any legal rating system to stand the scrutiny of the courts, it would have to have infinitely more transparency than the MPAA's "system." I'm not saying that it would be better, just that the inevitable challenges would destroy it if it were not based on an extremely codified set of standards. One of the few explicit rules the MPAA has is its "one fuck" rule which, while hilarious, makes no logical sense.

As much as I prefer self-regulation over government interference, I don't think the 17 year old rule has a legal leg to stand on. If it became a matter of law, it would almost certainly have to migrate a year up to 18, which the industry's lobby would fight tooth and nail. Plus, when it comes to swaying public opinion, Hollywood has an advantage over Washington.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-20-2008, 08:57 AM:

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
As much as I prefer self-regulation over government interference, I don't think the 17 year old rule has a legal leg to stand on. If it became a matter of law, it would almost certainly have to migrate a year up to 18

That's not correct at all.

In most states, the legal minimum driving age is 16 and most states also have an age of consent that is lower than 18. But if these things became a matter of law (which they have), wouldn't they "almost certainly have to migrate up to 18"?

A law can specify ANYTHING the author/legislature wants as long as the law is constitutional.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-20-2008, 09:36 AM:

And with such lame laws you would get "sting" operations where young impressionable 16-year olds are sent in to catch run amuck theatres...much the same as they do with under 21-year olds to liquour stores.

IMO, this is an area the government would be better not getting involved in. This a matter for the parents (both in child raising and supervision). I think it is great that the industry has a rating system to give a guideline to parents to help chose. It would probably better if it was not within the industry (to take away any incentives for an industry bias) but in no case would I want it to be a matter of law...any more than the TV rating system means that a child under 14 can't see a TV-14 show.

Steve

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 09-20-2008, 11:32 AM:

quote: Chad Souder
I know you're no longer affiliated with this theatre, but it is exactly that kind of non-compliance with the MPAA rating system that will ultimately lead to a bored session of congress making it law.

I have a hunch that this would be very difficult to accomplish. Our political system is so fragmented, I think free speech, morality groups and the ACLU would stop any real movement in that direction.

The FCC has this very problem right now. Just because you say a 15-year-old shouldn't see sex on the screen or hear a "dirty word" before 10PM doesn't mean the next person feels the same way. This concept is further confused by people who feel (gasp!) that the parents should be responsible for where their kids are, and not the theatres.

I understand the concern, but this will only come up when some whack job starts shooting up an auditorium full of 11 year-olds, during a showing of Jackass 3. After a month or so, it'll die down, and we'll be right back where we started from.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 09-20-2008, 12:48 PM:

Chris, the problem is that the legal basis for age discrimination among different aged minors needs to be supported. For example, you mention licensing minor drivers. The 16 year old limit has research behind it, both as to an appropriate level of mental faculty and also average physical size. In other words, a 16 year old is thought to be sufficiently mature both mentally and physically to operate a vehicle, within certain constraints. In Michigan, our graduated licensing system allows 17 year olds to have the restrictions on their license regarding times they can drive removed, but the law does not make a legal distinction between the ages of 16 and 17, but rather uses a tenure system. You get your upgraded license after a year, but you can't get your restricted license until you are 16, so you can't get your full license until you are 17. You don't automatically get it because you are 17, you must still meet the tenure requirement. Hence, there is no actual legal distinction granted 17 year olds. I'm not really going to touch on age of consent laws, since they vary more extensively.

This is all to say, unless there is research backing the claim that R-rated movies are okay for 17 year olds, but not 16, the court is going to have a hard time choking it. Age discrimination has become a legal consideration, and a clear distinction is easy to establish legally between 17 and 18 year olds, but not so much between minors among themselves. I doubt the court would accept such a law from the federal government unless it was strongly supported by psychological research.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 09-20-2008, 01:10 PM:

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
I doubt the court would accept such a law from the federal government unless it was strongly supported by psychological research.

quote: Jack Ondracek
I have a hunch that this would be very difficult to accomplish.

They did it with music. Yeah, it was just an explicit lyric warning on the label, but essentially that's what we already have with our rating system. Anyone remember Dee Snyder in that congressional hearing vs. Tipper Gore? That warning sticker on music is law and hey, baby steps. I don't know if the video game rating system is required or not.

Point is, self regulation is vital. If theatres are not uniform in supporting the rating system, however flawed or illogical it may be, we're in trouble. And I still hold that if you don't allow under 17 to buy a ticket, you can't (at least on paper) allow under 17 employees to go in that theatre either. My company allows parental consent for R rated features. If they sign a waiver form, the parent can buy the ticket and leave. At the very least, it would be a good idea to have a new employee's parent sign off on a consent form that its ok for their young kid to go into an R rated feature in the course of their job.

Posted by Troy Hilsman Powell (Member # 4326) on 09-20-2008, 02:32 PM:

Do like I do,hit the high button on your dimmer control.They will be running out the fire exit hanging on to their pants.Done it many times.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-20-2008, 11:36 PM:

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
I'm not really going to touch on age of consent laws, since they vary more extensively.

They vary so much because, to an extent, they're arbitrary. There is no research that says that a 17 year old having sex is somehow worse off than an 18 year old who does the same thing. And same thing goes for 16 year olds vs 17 year olds. So if this kind of semi-arbitrary rule is something that the court can "choke" why would it somehow be impossible for the court to "choke" another semi-arbitrary rule?

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 09-20-2008, 11:56 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
They did it with music. Yeah, it was just an explicit lyric warning on the label, but essentially that's what we already have with our rating system. Anyone remember Dee Snyder in that congressional hearing vs. Tipper Gore? That warning sticker on music is law

No sir, it is not. That's something the music industry chose to do to itself.

Frankly, I'd rather see government try to impose the level of censorship they (very quietly) threaten. In my view, having such draconian measures out in the open where they can be given a public hearing and shown for the unConstitutional nonsense they are is infinitely preferable to the closed-door way the MPAA and RIAA handle it now (remember: if entertainment industry organizations weren't constantly trying to curry favor with politicians, the politicians would have no power over these industries).

Posted by Andrew Bangs (Member # 4938) on 09-21-2008, 01:12 AM:

The issue is not with the kids going into the "R" rated movies because frankly this does not happen in those theatres it usually happens in the "PG" or "PG13" films. Having said that we do not allow our 16 year old employees into the "R" movies in fact for cleaning the theatres we generally want them to wait till the credits are done as well. We are of the mind if they can't go in as a guest they can't go in as an employee. We strictly enforce the no parent no "ID" no admittance rule as well. Even though the parents argue with us more saying why can't they go we give them permission. I figure if it is not suitable for the parent to go see then it is not suitable for the kid.

As far as the legal Age? 16,17,18??? Frankly if your old enough to do it legally then you can watch it.

As For my original Post since it is a fairly small town and we are the only game in town We decided to hit hard and throw out anyone caught in a compromising position we also have them fill out trespassing paperwork letting them know they can't come back and if we see them again we will call the police. Hopefully after the first few word will get around and this will stop. Unfortunately we are dealing with some displaced refuges from Houston and IKE this has made life interesting as well. Thankfully they are slowly returning home. Don't get me wrong we love the extra business but the manners just aren't there.

William

quote: William T. Parr
Say Hi to Patrick Hall for me and my Brother Lance

Will do but I am afraid I don't know a Lance... [Shrug]

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 09-21-2008, 01:55 AM:

quote: Chris Slycord
They vary so much because, to an extent, they're arbitrary. There is no research that says that a 17 year old having sex is somehow worse off than an 18 year old who does the same thing. And same thing goes for 16 year olds vs 17 year olds. So if this kind of semi-arbitrary rule is something that the court can "choke" why would it somehow be impossible for the court to "choke" another semi-arbitrary rule?

The thing about age of consent laws is that they're determined by the state. Such a sweeping law as a rating restriction imposed by the federal government doesn't have a Constitutional leg to stand on unless you can definitively prove a public good, and demonstrate that the states individually can't or won't take necessary measures. Barring a compelling argument for public good, the closest thing in the Constitution that could apply is the Commerce Clause, and since the Court is currently in a phase of relatively strict constructionism, I sincerely doubt that it would be upheld on those grounds. Even a foreseeable Court with a broad constructionist bent would be opposed to censorship, and rating restrictions are indeed a form of censorship. Therefore, I don't see a modern Court allowing such a law with that sort of arbitrary age discrimination without supporting research. If the law were to be enacted on a state level, the Court would likely not get involved, since I think we are, with a few exceptions, swinging towards stronger federalism. These things move in cycles, so perhaps somewhere down the line such a law could exist from the federal government, but I do not believe it could right now.

I really think self-regulation is preferable to government intervention, but I think the MPAA way is ludicrous and I doubt we are in a place where the government will intervene. I fully support theaters and companies enforcing the policy as they feel is appropriate, and for patrons to consider the politics of rating enforcement when they choose what theaters to give their business to, and let's allow the market to decide. I'm not going to be an activist about it and flout the policies of whomever I happen to work for, but I think a very reasoned argument can be made that 16 year olds ought to be able to see R movies where no law exists. In Michigan, you can legally drive and have sex at 16, so I don't see what real difference there is here, legally, between 16 and 17 that should afford 17 year olds the right to see Burn After Reading, for example, and deny it to 16 year olds.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 09-21-2008, 10:09 PM:

Getting back to the topic at hand... The easiest (and cheapest) solution is the put a sign in the lobby warning that night vision cameras are recording in the auditorums. Then simply pick up a dummy camera for each and mount it on the wall somewhere. Obviously the floor staff should not be made aware that the cameras are fake.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 09-22-2008, 01:50 PM:

quote: Geena Phillips
No sir, it is not. That's something the music industry chose to do to itself.

My fault, I thought the "Tipper Sticker" was required. I just know the record labels didn't do it on their own. They bowed to heavy pressure by the PMRC, a government formed committee.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 09-22-2008, 02:57 PM:

quote: Michael Gonzalez
pick up a dummy camera for each and mount it on the wall somewhere

If you're going to go through the trouble of mounting a dummy camera, why not just mount a real camera. Given all the money invested in screen, speakers, and seats, it seems like this is one of the main areas you want under surveillance. Plus it gives you the added protection of watching for people recording the movie.

I know my boss has played with an infrared camera mounted above the screen looking back at the audience and he said the picture quality was actually very good. The biggest hurdle at this point is running all that cable out over the auditoriums.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 09-22-2008, 04:48 PM:

For one thing though a basic infrared camera is affordable, the kind of camera you will need to watch an entire auditorium (and you will probaby need two to avoid dead spots) will easily run between $600 and $1000 not to mention the actual recording device and running the wires through the entire building. Where as a dummy camera will run about $50 and can be installed in a half an hour by a semi capable person.

The other issue probably varies from state to state and that is the legality of recording the public without their expressed consent(I should point out that there is a difference between recording public walkways like most security systems currently do then there is a captive area like a theater auditorium). I do not believe that a simple disclaimer in the lobby or even printed on the back of the tickets would be enough to prevent an ACLU type of suit. Furthermore if said recording where to get out (via YouTube or similar), you would be asking for a TON or potental legal troubles both civil and criminal (underage teens/sexual situation). To me the risks of putting in actual equiptment would be too great to justify.

Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 09-25-2008, 09:03 AM:

quote: Andrew Bangs
Will do but I am afraid I don't know a Lance...

Lance Parr is my brother. He used to be the service tech for the Hall's. He knows the family well, Patrick, Syd and Raymond. His favorite theatre to work on was the Plaza VI in Kerrville.

Posted by Andrew Bangs (Member # 4938) on 09-25-2008, 01:41 PM:

Well unfortunately the Plaza VI is no more. But if I see him some day I will say Hi.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 09-26-2008, 07:22 PM:

I'm sorry am I missing something? Why don't you want people making out in your theatre?, why would you go to the trouble of mounting cameras inside your theaters to stop it? During your bag checks are you looking for condoms?

To me one of cinemas main historical roles has been for dates. Its almost a coming of age ritual. I will never forget my first date ever, it involved a trip to the cinema. When I was older parking in the back rows of a drive in was more memorable than the movie! Personally I believe that these experiences are the basis of what create the life long attendance of many of our audience.

Now we all know that sex sells, do were really want to go out of our way to disturb this audience share and historical reputation with "1984" style surveillance? Or should we be thankful that they come and spend their money in your establishment? Afterall there are plenty of places that cost nothing to make out at.
Even G rated movies like "Chicken Little" continue this myth as part of the story.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 09-27-2008, 01:26 AM:

Nothing beats reading in the local paper about how a statutory rape took place in one of your theatres a few months prior. Granted, making out is not sex, but its best to nip that sort of thing in the bud.

Posted by Patrick Dunn (Member # 3333) on 09-30-2008, 02:33 PM:

I just want to go up to a couple and say to the guy "I told you the other day with the last girl, you can't do that in here"!

Posted by Andrew Bangs (Member # 4938) on 10-01-2008, 01:33 AM:

LOL Ouch! [thumbsup]

Good one!

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-01-2008, 05:50 AM:

The best approach is LAY-a-fair. If you see something getting out of hand (cloths starting to come off), then have the usher step in with Patrick's most excellent remark. But other than that, are you going to post signs in the lobby stating just how much kissing will be allowed or exactly were a patron's hands can wander? Will you post signs defining the amount of he-ing and she-ing the theatre management will tolerate?

We have plenty of college kids as we are on a college campus. We've have our share of PLENTY of "making out" going on -- it's a huge house too, which lets people get some extra privacy by going off in a corner somewhere. And I must say, we've never in the decades I've been there ever had an incident of statutory rape. That's a little overly dramatic, no? Besides, most theatres don't have enough ushers to check the important stuff like picture focus and sound quality, let alone which couple is in enough of a state of arousal to warrant expulsion.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-01-2008, 10:17 AM:

Somewhere around here I have an ancient Filmack catalog that has a film called "Hello Young Lovers." It says there is a time and a place for romance but the movie theatre is not one of them!

We get some makeout sessions in our theatre but if they're not bugging anyone, I tend to let them be. I saw a woman give a guy a "hand job" right below the booth port window once. (They had a sweater covering the action.)

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 10-02-2008, 12:53 AM:

My post was not a hypothetical example.

I'll leave it at that.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-02-2008, 07:01 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Somewhere around here I have an ancient Filmack catalog that has a film called "Hello Young Lovers."

You mean this?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-02-2008, 10:20 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
The best approach is LAY-a-fair.

Do you mean "laissez-faire"?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-03-2008, 12:07 AM:

quote: John Wilson
You mean this?

That looks like it! This catalog shows a different design format, but the wording is the same. I think the one you posted is a newer version.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-03-2008, 02:56 AM:

quote: Chris Slycord
Do you mean "laissez-faire"?

No.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-03-2008, 07:45 AM:

Then what does lay-a-fair mean

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 10-03-2008, 12:35 PM:

Just what he chooses it to mean, neither more nor less. [Wink]

Posted by Paul Goulet (Member # 297) on 10-03-2008, 12:49 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
Do you mean "laissez-faire"?

Don't you mean...

"Savoir Faire is everywhere!"

Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 10-06-2008, 11:11 AM:

We had a car sneak into the exit lane at the drive-in on Saturday night, turn off the lights, and sit quietly behind the fence hoping to go un-noticed. Our box-office lady spotted them, radioed to me and our parking attendant to go "check it out". I waited about 10-15 minutes to see what they were going to do, but the car never moved. Me and Alan walk down to the edge of the driveway, and he goes over to check it out while I stay back to cover for him if he needed me.

About 5 minutes pass, the car pulls off and he comes back and says.... "You're NEVER gonna believe this". I ask "what"? On the way back up to the building he says that inside the car was a husband and wife - both in their late 60's or early 70's who proceeded to move their geriactric "activities" to the back seat of their Buick. Walking up to the car, he saw no occupants, so he shined the flash light into the vehicle. Grandma and Grandpa got busted trying to do the deed at the drive-in. [sex]

They composed themselves and honestly admitted they were working on their "BUCKET LIST". [Eek!]

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 10-06-2008, 01:25 PM:

Good for them ol' folks. If getting romantic at a drive-in is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-06-2008, 04:23 PM:

quote: Barry Floyd
They composed themselves and honestly admitted they were working on their "BUCKET LIST".

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 11-10-2008, 12:31 PM:

I think the ages are dropping. A couple of times when I was auditing theaters for ads a couple of years ago, I noticed a couple of young teens(more like middle school than high school) left alone for late shows and they were just done making out.

Then there was this case of one of my handymen who lives in a house for rent with a widow -landlady and her two kids. The 13 year old daughter asks him if she could get Gonnorrhea in the throat because she was giving oral to her friends in the movie theater. Also she complained that her ribs hurt because she was hunched over too long over the seat dividers. Really messed up widow and kids. She lives in a 550K house in suburbia that is deteriorating due to lazy widow's neglect. A lot of shady elements hang out with that lady(drug dealers , hookers). No wonder the daughter is messed up.

Posted by Andrew Bangs (Member # 4938) on 11-10-2008, 11:31 PM:

They are getting younger. Just the other day we kicked out a couple kids who were two Buts in one seat and two tungs in one mouth. not only that but they were in the front center seats for every one to see. When we kicked them out we got their names and ages. the girl was 14 and the boy was 16. This is just ridiculous!

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-11-2008, 08:56 AM:

quote: Andrew Bangs
They are getting younger.

quote:
the girl was 14 and the boy was 16. This is just ridiculous!

News flash! Kids at that age (and younger!) are going through this thing called puberty. When you said that they are getting younger, I expected you to have kicked someone quite young, but you instead kicked out two people who were doing something quite normal for their age.

Seriously, acting like 14 and 16 are "ridiculously young" to kiss someone of the opposite sex seems to indicate that you're forgetting what it was like when you were those ages.

Posted by Andrew Bangs (Member # 4938) on 11-12-2008, 01:12 PM:

Ok perhaps I was a little shy and never had a serious girlfriend till College. but still the few girls I knew and got together with when I was 16 usually did not put out like these kids today. These two were a camera away from starting their own soft porn video. and in front of an entire audience. If any of the girls I knew even thought about making out with someone they would find a back room.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-12-2008, 08:12 PM:

Consider this (in line with what you alluded to):
People in media and the general public will lead us to believe that kids are just having sex all the time and we are much more sexed up than in the past. But in reality, the highest rates of teenage pregnancies ever recorded in the US happened during the 1950s and have been dropping ever since.

And it's been a common thing, ever since movie theaters existed AFAIK (and definitely something I know kids talked about even when I was young), for people to specifically choose the back row of a cinema to make out.

Posted by Andrew Bangs (Member # 4938) on 11-16-2008, 01:11 AM:

quote: Chris Slycord
And it's been a common thing, ever since movie theaters existed AFAIK (and definitely something I know kids talked about even when I was young), for people to specifically choose the back row of a cinema to make out.

Frankly that is where we used to look for them. But now, like I said earlier, we are not finding them at the back but down in the front for everyone else in the theatre to see. I also just came by some freaky information how true it is I don't know but our town has one of the highest percentages if not the highest percentage of teen Pregnancies in either the state or country. Like I said I don't know how factual this is but from what I have seen and heard I would believe it.