Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Christmas Carol scared kid walkouts?

This is topic Christmas Carol scared kid walkouts? 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=002287

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-15-2009, 09:19 PM:

So has anyone had scared kids leaving A Christmas Carol?

We've probably had four or five little kids (with parents) leave early over the course of the run so far. We were gone over the weekend and our ass't manager reported a lady with 2 kids left and demanded a refund. I haven't seen the manager yet to find out how far into the movie they left, or how old the kids were, but I'm just wondering if anyone else has had this happen.

Posted by Dwayne Benallie (Member # 4443) on 11-15-2009, 10:26 PM:

(SPOILER ALERT)

Yesterday and we had a family ask for a refund on the movie due to some scenes being too scary for their kid. I seen the movie and it's where the 2nd ghost (ghost of x-mas present) transforms (dies?) into a skeleton and then dust. Then the 3rd ghost, whom is death, appears and the movie gets a little more darker... i like the movie due it's darker tone at the end but yeah i can see what the parents are saying when they say their kids are scared.

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 11-15-2009, 10:46 PM:

We've had a few walk out due to it being too scary for the little ones, but then we're playing it in 3D too, so that probably made it just that more scary.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-15-2009, 10:53 PM:

I really don't understand this.

If you have ever read the original Dickins manuscript of "A Christmas Carol" you would know that the very first sentence reads:

Marley was dead: to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that.

Even if you have never read the original manuscript (I find this entirely unconscionable!) you should know that Jacob Marley comes back from the dead to haunt Ebenezer Scrooge. Thus, even a complete moron should know that there are ghosts, dead people and other scary things in "A Christmas Carol."

Now, I suppose there are some people who think only in terms of the sanitized version of the tale and would not consider that ghosts and apparitions are, in reality, a rather gruesome sight. (If it was actually possible to see a ghost.) In rebuttal to this idea of sanitization of the original story, simply look at the rating on the movie. It is rated "PG." (Parental Guidance Suggested.)
This would tell a reasonably intelligent parent that there MIGHT be some things in the aforementioned movie that could be troubling to their kids. It would be the parent's responsibility to check into this BEFORE one actually took a kid to the theater to see the movie. Regardless of how funny the trailer looks when you see it on TV, it is still the parent's responsibility to check the rating of the movie beforehand.

Even if you have never read the original "A Christmas Carol"; even if you only know the sanitized version of the story; even if you only watched the television ads and trailers but did not notice the "PG" rating; even if you did see the rating but ignored it there is STILL one overriding piece of information that every parent should tell their kids. It's a very simple sentence. It's got four little words:

"IT'S ONLY A MOVIE!"

When did parents stop teaching kids that the things they see on the movie screen and on TV aren't real?

Regardless of the myriad whiny, relativistic excuses people may dream up, there is no substitute for parental responsibility!

I can't believe that people are so fucking stupid!

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-15-2009, 11:27 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
When did parents stop teaching kids that the things they see on the movie screen and on TV aren't real?

I would much rather see kids getting scared at a movie like this and have the parents take them out than have the parents taking them to see movies like Saw or even Paranormal Activity. It used to be that part of being a kid was being scared by the monster in the closet and what not. Now kids are seeing so much crap at a young age that nothing seems to phase them.

Back on topic, we have also had a few parents leave with little ones who are too scared. But one of the reviews I saw of Christmas Carol put it the right way - "it is a ghost story after all".

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-15-2009, 11:50 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
"it is a ghost story after all"

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Give that man a prize!

[Wink]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-16-2009, 05:26 AM:

Could it be that parents are assuming it'll be a cute retelling since Disney 'Mickeyfied' the same story and they remember that thinking it wasn't scary so...

Just a thought.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 11-16-2009, 07:16 PM:

John, I was going to say almost the same thing - it is being advertised as DISNEY's A Christmas Carol, and Disney released two G rated versions of the story before (Mickey's & the Muppets one). That doesn't change/refute what Randy said by any means, but it's a bit more understandable as to why...

as to the original question:

quote: Mike Blakesley
So has anyone had scared kids leaving A Christmas Carol?

Yes, we've given out a decent number or readmits for this title.

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 11-16-2009, 08:36 PM:

I blame Disney's marketing for this. Every trailer I saw depicted this movie in the fun, juvenile sense. Just like Wild Things, what looked like a kids movie turned out to be much more mature than what everyone thought.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 11-17-2009, 03:08 AM:

Here's the extended classification from the BBFC in the UK

A Christmas Carol 2009

quote:
A CHRISTMAS CAROL is the IMAX 3D version of a new CGI animated re-telling of Charles Dickens’ classic tale. Starring the vocal talents of Jim Carey and Colin Firth, it was passed ‘PG’ for mild threat, scary scenes and mild language.

The BBFC Guidelines at ‘U’ state that there should be ‘occasional mild threat and menace only’ and that ‘scary sequences should be mild, brief and unlikely to cause undue anxiety to young children’. In A CHRISTMAS CAROL however there are some scenes where Scrooge appears to be in danger for longer periods than are generally acceptable at ‘U’ and others which it was thought may frighten very small children. The ‘PG’ was therefore felt to be more appropriate, where frightening scenes do not have to be as mild. One example is the appearance of Marley’s ghost, who looms over Scrooge menacingly, his lower jaw almost appearing to fall off as he lets out a miserable wail. With A CHRISTMAS CAROL such a well known story, however, and with fantasy elements a mitigating factor at ‘PG’, this scene and others similar were not considered inappropriately placed there.

With the BBFC Guidelines at ‘U’ also stating that only very mild language is acceptable, infrequent mild language including uses of ‘bugger’ and 'arse' also required the ‘PG’ certificate.

Parents really do need to check out what the film is about before they take their kids to see a film.

But that implies thay they can read words in smaller type than the title!

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-17-2009, 07:45 PM:

Similarly, under the MPAA ratings system, a PG means "Some material may not be suitable for children".

In the past 12 months there have been a handful of movies released where it was important to have that description handy for parents - including Marley & Me, Confessions of a Shopaholic, Bride Wars, New In Town, A Christmas Carol, and others.

I don't know whether to blame the MPAA or the studios for building the impression that PG means "kids movie". Maybe the MPAA needs to have a PG-A and PG-C to designate the difference between PG movies aimed at adults and those aimed at kids/families.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-17-2009, 08:46 PM:

Guess I'll just watch my favorite: The Alastair Sim version! Louis

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-17-2009, 09:09 PM:

Wow, lots of assumptions there Randy. People actually reading a BOOK?!? LOL [Wink]

I'll just say from experience with our children's matinees that you never know what is going to scare a child. Sometimes just the lights going out will do it. And lets face it, the lights out make scary movies alot scarier than watching at home (Yay for the magic of movies).

And yeah, like all of the ratings, the PG rating is useless for determining what is suitable for your child. You have to read and think and not buy into the Disney brand name, 3 things Disney is loathe for you to do. Disney is the cinematic equivalent of McDonald's -- parents expect the exact same thing everytime.

Maybe A Christmas Carol is a return to the old days when Radio City Music Hall had to change the seats after the premiere of Snow White because the kids pissed themselves. Ahhh, the good old days.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-17-2009, 09:45 PM:

quote: Justin Hamaker
Maybe the MPAA needs to have a PG-A and PG-C to designate the difference between PG movies aimed at adults and those aimed at kids/families.

The ratings aren't designed to indicate who a movie is aimed at. It's dead simple for people to find out what a movie is going to be like these days; there's simply no excuse for just looking at the rating and assuming.

It IS true that the Disney name being so prominent on this movie makes it look like a kiddie version, so they should get some heat on this in my opinion.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 11-18-2009, 04:13 AM:

The original darker "candle " artwork perhaps gave a better idea of the tone of the film.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-18-2009, 07:37 AM:

Randy, I don't see the problem.

It seems reasonable to me to take your kids to a movie that might be scary, and then leave if it is too scary for the kids. It's called pushing boundaries. There's nothing wrong with that.

Just because kids might be scared by a scary movie doesn't mean everyone should "play it safe" and only take kids to the "sure thing" movies like Enchanted (they'll love it) or Saw (they'll be scared out of their minds no question).

I suppose the studio might view it differently, etc., etc., from a financial perspective but...

--jhawk

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 11-18-2009, 11:58 AM:

Some of the older Disney films (Snow White, Fantasia, etc.) were IMO pretty darn scary for children.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-18-2009, 01:41 PM:

Sleeping Beauty is pretty scary when Maleficent turns into a dragon.

"Now you shall deal with me, O prince....and all the powers of hell!!!"

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 11-18-2009, 04:34 PM:

You're absolutely right, guys. A significant part of childhood is being traumatized by a Disney movie.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 11-18-2009, 05:36 PM:

I remember being scared shitless by Ursula when she goes nuts at the end of the Little Mermaid, one of my first visits to the cinema. I couldn't look at the screen so kept looking back in to the projector and light beam. Wish films could do that to me now!

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-20-2009, 09:40 AM:

John,

I think it is reasonable to take kids to a scary movie but I don't think it's reasonable for parents to complain when the kids do get scared.

It's up to the parents to know which movies might scare their kids and which movies probably will not. I don't think parents should have a reasonable expectation that "A Christmas Carol" in any of its incarnations will not have at least one or two scary moments in it. I don't think it's reasonable for parents to be upset if their kids get scared while watching this movie. In the event the kids get scared I don't think it's reasonable for parents to complain about it. They took the risk, knowingly or unknowingly.

When kids get scared during a movie there are several courses of action a parent can take besides complaining.

The kids could close their eyes and plug their ears till the scary part is over or the parents can take them out to the lobby and come back in when the scary part is over. A reassuring pat on the shoulder or a hug certainly helps. "It will be all right. It's just a movie." This is what my parents did with us kids when we got scared at the movies.

Parents could simply pack up the kids and leave the movie. They took the risk. That's the breaks!
In 1974, when I was 8 years old, my mother and her friend took all of us kids to see the movie "Arnold."
She didn't pay attention to the ratings and reviews and she didn't realize it was about a creepy wedding in a cemetery where a woman marries a corpse. She was horrified!
Did she complain? No. She said, "Come on, kids, we're leaving."
But me and the older kids didn't want to leave. We thought creepy movies were great! We didn't care if it was a bad movie. It was creepy and we were just totally into creepy schlock. My mom took the younger kids home and her friend begrudgingly stayed behind with all us older kids while we laughed our way through the rest of the creepy-stupid horror movie.

There were no complaints. Those who didn't like the movie just walked out. They might have commented something to the effect, "That movie stunk!" to the manager on the way out but that would be the end of it.

In an effort to capitalize on concession dollars, I can see where managers in modern multiplex theaters might be inclined to offer rain checks to people who walk out but I don't think parents who make mistakes and take their kids to the wrong movie should complain about it. It would strictly be a "customer service gesture" on the part of the management.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 11-21-2009, 06:56 PM:

Parents should make the little bastards watch the movie and learn that it really is JUST a movie and that nothing will happen to them if they experience it.

Posted by Rachel Craven (Member # 1016) on 11-27-2009, 10:40 AM:

I haven't seen it yet but my boyfriend brought his 6 y/o daughter opening week, I warned him that people are saying its a bit scary. She did very well, but... she likes 'scary' movies. He said when he was there 2 family's walked out, one with a kid that looked about his daughter's age and another family with what looked like a 2 and 3 year old.

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 11-27-2009, 08:20 PM:

Just been re-rated in NZ from PG to M (mature)

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-27-2009, 08:42 PM:

I do not know how the movie Is doing elsewhere but Reading's Consolidated Theatres here in Hawaii is only playing A CHRISTMAS CAROL in 3-D in only one of it's four Dolby 3-D houses. The other three is still playing it but only in 2-D. Regal is playing it in 3-D IMAX and Real D at the Dole Cannery and Real D at it's other two Honolulu locations.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-27-2009, 11:16 PM:

It's over $70 million right now and will probably be a $100M+ by Christmas.

I'm surprised that it's going to kick butt on THIS IS IT, I thought that'd be a $100 million movie for sure. (It'll probably be a hot DVD seller though.)

Posted by Michael Voiland (Member # 5386) on 11-29-2009, 08:45 PM:

On a side note did your print of ACC shed this purplish looking crap that's sticky in the projector?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-29-2009, 10:18 PM:

quote: Rachel Craven
He said when he was there 2 family's walked out, one with a kid that looked about his daughter's age and another family with what looked like a 2 and 3 year old.

A 5 or 6 year old is certainly old enough to learn the difference between real and make-believe but a 2 or 3 year old is barely old enough to sit still through an entire movie, let alone know that it's "only a movie." It was a mistake to bring them to the movie and expect them to sit still through the whole thing.

I find it somewhat entertaining that a 6 year old girl likes scary movies. [Smile]

I assume that, by scary, you mean "Kid-Scary." I'd be way surprised if a kid that young liked real scary movies like "Halloween." (Either the originals or the remake.)

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-30-2009, 06:18 AM:

Randy, ask anyone who works at the box office when a horror movie like Saw or Halloween opens up, and they will tell you there are parents who bring younger kids to those movies - sometimes as young as toddler age. When I warn them of the graphic nature of the movie, they almost always respond "It's ok, they like that stuff".

More often than not, I know it's more about the parent not wanting to pay for a sitter, but the fact they would even take the kids is surprising.

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 11-30-2009, 12:00 PM:

My wife and I went on a rare date night on Wednesday when her family was in town for the holiday and watched our son for us. We went to dinner then to see Christmas Carol and my wife leaned over and told me she thought it was entirely too scary for children. I had just been thinking the same thing and agreed with her.

I like the old version with George C. Scott as Scrooge. That version still has some bit of scariness to it (nothing like this new version) and tells the story well. I think most people (as we do) think that anything in cartoon form and made by Disney was made specifically for children, especially if it is only rated PG. I saw the trailers and they were shown in a more comical light. I think they went way overboard in the horror factor in this film and could have dialed it back quite a bit. I'm glad my kid wasn't old enough or I would have probably taken him to see it and been really pissed off after he was scared out of his mind. Our neighbor told us they plan to take their young daughter and we warned them not to. Most of the scary parts were gratuitous and were not necessary in telling the story anyways. I have never seen the Ghost of Christmas Present die and rot away in any other version and it still made sense. What was their point?

I'm also not surprised that a lot of the people chiming in thinking it's the parents fault do not have kids themselves. I used to think most parents were stupid in they way they went about raising their children until I had one. For instance, the first time he had a meltdown in a public place I finally realized I was one of those parents I had silently judged for my whole life. I used to think I would never let my kid act that way but now I see it happens to every parent at some point unless you are just really lucky. We went to the mall this past Friday and my son was fussing about something and my wife noticed a lot of people looking at us with judgemental eyes. I figure they also don't have kids or understand. I really don't care what they think and maybe one day they will get the same lesson I did. You REALLY don't understand until you have your own children. My older siblings used to tell me that all the time and it annoyed the piss out of me. After I had my kid I realized they were right.

Again, I think there is a general assumption that if it's a cartoon and made by Disney, then it is probably okay for your kid to watch. It wasn't rated PG-13 or something that would make a flag go up in my mind. I would normally not think twice about letting a kid watch anything rated PG or below. Unfortunately, our society is obsessed with pushing the envelope of what can be done next that is more shocking or indecent than the last thing. I guess I need to now add the MPAA to my long list of companies/people/groups to be suspicious of.

BTW: Did anyone else find Jim Carrey's voice of the Ghost of Christmas Past extremely annoying like I did?

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-30-2009, 03:34 PM:

Well said, Joshua.

In my opinion there are far too many overly judgemental pricks on this forum. Glad you've pointed out the basic life lesson: "It's easier said than done." Or you could just beat your child severely, with a belt, regardless of location, whenever he acts out. Then it's problem solved! [Eek!]

BTW, what theatre do you work at? I'm surprised I haven't run into you up in a booth somewhere. . .

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-30-2009, 08:16 PM:

quote: Karl Borowski
In my opinion there are far too many overly judgemental pricks on this forum.

Sure, there are some of those, no doubt. But you seem to have a chip on your shoulder every single time you post. You think people are stalking you on the site. So perhaps, just maybe, the problem lies with you... at least somewhat? Grow up, don't get so much in a huff over every little thing, and go back to the GameFAQs forum until you do.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-30-2009, 09:41 PM:

Karl got me to thinking....maybe they have the right idea...those species that eat their young.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-01-2009, 04:56 PM:

so it scarred the "dickens" out of them:)

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-01-2009, 04:59 PM:

Gordon = Hahahahaha...too funny! [beer]

Posted by Paul J. Neuhaus (Member # 3205) on 12-21-2009, 01:55 PM:

quote: Jeremy Jorgenson
John, I was going to say almost the same thing - it is being advertised as DISNEY's A Christmas Carol, and Disney released two G rated versions of the story before (Mickey's & the Muppets one).

I agree. You really have to be careful these days with what you think a "Disney" movie is. I grew up with the Mickey and Pluto version as did many of the parents of these kids. I think that must be what they are thinking when they go and buy the tickets. Good story + fun when they were a kid + Disney = must be ok for kids right?