Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Classic Cinemas' new R-rated policy for kids

This is topic Classic Cinemas' new R-rated policy for kids 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=002572

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 02-17-2012, 07:53 PM:

I get newsletters from the local chain called Classic Cinemas. The following arrived today:

"To help foster a distraction-free environment Classic Cinemas will adopt two new policies for R-rated movies starting Friday, March 2nd, 2012:

- Children under the age of 6 will no longer be permitted to R-rated features at any time even when accompanied by a parent or guardian.
- We will require the applicable general admission ticket for ages 6-11 to all R-rated features. By eliminating the discounted child ticket we hope to further encourage a mature movie-going atmosphere for films that are geared to an older audience.

We struggled with this decision as our intent is not to dictate family values or determine what is appropriate for children. However, enough children become bored during R-rated features and subsequently disrupt fellow guests that we felt this change was necessary. We hope you see this as a small but positive step toward achieving a more enjoyable movie-going experience.

As always, we appreciate your support, cooperation and feedback."

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-17-2012, 09:26 PM:

Classic Cinemas [thumbsup]

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 02-18-2012, 02:16 PM:

I wish we could do this.

I still wonder what the parents are thinking when they take little kids into the R movies...

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 02-18-2012, 02:44 PM:

What are they thinking?

I want to see this movie. If I bring the kids with me I don't have find a babysitter, and it's cheaper than paying the babysitter anyway even if I could find one.

Posted by Tom Wienholt (Member # 1510) on 02-18-2012, 02:56 PM:

Simple solution...no one under 17 in R-rated movies at all. This solves the problem of parents lying about their child's age if, for example, you have a no one under 6 or 10 or whatever rule. If you don't have an ID, you don't get in.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-18-2012, 03:45 PM:

I think the R-rating needs to be revisited. I would change the age to 15. That's when most kids get into high school and let's face it, by that time every kid has heard (and probably uses) every curse word in the book and they've all played violent video games, so they're little psyches aren't harmed by violence. There's not all that much sex in movies these days (there's probably more on TV), so that's not a big concern, plus half of them are having sex already anyway.

Since every theater gets to enforce the rating as it sees fit, we do it this way: If you are in high school you can get in without your parents. If you're not, then you need Mom or Dad or a responsible adult to accompany you.

This solution works way better because this way, a whole group of kids becomes "eligible" to get in at the same time -- a group of high school friends doesn't have to deal with one kid "not being old enough." This would work easily in any size town...just check school ID cards, rather than drivers licenses. No ID = no admittance.

We adopted this policy because in over 30 years in the business, I can count on one hand the number of times a parent of a 15- or 16-year-old has refused them permission to get in the show. In 99.9% of cases, the parent says "no" for a second, then the kid launches the "everybody else has seen it and it's not THAT bad" routine, after which the parent says "Oh, all RIGHT" and gives permission. So we're just saving time (for us), hassle (for the parents) and embarrassment (for the kid).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-19-2012, 12:56 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
so they're little psyches aren't harmed by violence

I can't believe I did that. It should be "their" little psyches, obviously. Goes to show what a lack of sleep will do. (Long night on Friday)

Posted by Steven Stroud (Member # 6775) on 02-21-2012, 01:39 AM:

quote: Frank Cox
What are they thinking?

I want to see this movie. If I bring the kids with me I don't have find a babysitter, and it's cheaper than paying the babysitter anyway even if I could find one.

it's easier to turn away a family of four with a small child than having to eat crow with a whole auditorium of folks who were upset that the crying toddler ruined their night out.

Our R policy dictates that children under 5 are NOT allowed into any R feature.

Now, if I get a family looking to enjoy the newest R movie but they have a small child with them... I don't just turn them away with my sympathies... as the guy who runs the building I can also tell them that I will allow them to see any of out PG13 or under films at a discounted price... or maybe I offer them a free popcorn. It's obscenely easy to turn this into a positive situation... something where the young family knows they can bring their children and still have a good night out.

Posted by Michael Putlack (Member # 6523) on 02-21-2012, 01:49 PM:

I once had a guest CALL THE POLICE when they saw someone underage in an R movie. The cops walked into the theatre, and then into the auditorium without even asking for a manger or telling any employee why they were there or what they were doing and pulled the 14ish year old girl out of the movie.

He parents, who were sitting directly behind her in the crowded showing, stormed out of the auditorium to yell and berate both the woman and the police officers. It was incredible. Luckily the family wasn't upset with us.

Looking back on it, I should have called the police department to discuss with them how we would like them to handle the next situation like this and how we would like to be involved and how that isn't, in fact, against any law for anyone to see an R rated movie, but I figured it would never happen again anyways, and it hasn't.

I should probably put this in the stupid customers thread too...

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-21-2012, 03:28 PM:

Both the woman and the police DESERVED to be yelled at and berated.

Did you give the family passes to come back and see the movie?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-21-2012, 10:34 PM:

Something I learned in life -- it's never a good idea to yell at the police.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-22-2012, 11:50 AM:

So true [Wink]

Posted by Michael Putlack (Member # 6523) on 02-22-2012, 02:01 PM:

We apologized and offered the family passes but they declined and understood that we didn't have anything to do with what had happened.

Posted by Steven Stroud (Member # 6775) on 02-23-2012, 02:51 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I think the R-rating needs to be revisited. I would change the age to 15. That's when most kids get into high school and let's face it, by that time every kid has heard (and probably uses) every curse word in the book and they've all played violent video games, so they're little psyches aren't harmed by violence. There's not all that much sex in movies these days (there's probably more on TV), so that's not a big concern, plus half of them are having sex already anyway.

Here's how I look at it. The R rating WAS once a way to dictate morality and decency to the masses, but today it is more of a way to allow adults to have a good night out at the theater without worrying about a gaggle of stupid kids ruining the experience.

I am not the arbiter of morality. It is not my job to make sure the innocent young minds of my communitie's youth are free from the horrible imagery our industry enables. If that were the case, I would have made the entire Twilight series and every Nic Cage movie since Honeymoon in Vegas rated R.

All I want to do is make sure the people who pay $9 to sit in my building and watch a movie can do so without having to worry about obnoxious kids or crying babies. Yeah, some slip through the cracks every so often, but it makes it that much easier to prevent if I can just turn them away at the door.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 02-23-2012, 04:21 AM:

Here's how I look at it...

Each parent has the right to decide for themselves how they want to raise their children. If they want their little 15 year old to see an R-rated movie, that's their choice. But if they come to my theatre, they have to follow my rules. And my rules are simple. Anyone under the age of 17 wishing to attend an R-rated movie must be accompanied by a parent or adult guardian over the age of 21.

The MPAA rating system exists so there are not a thousand individual community ratings boards forcing their individual will on anyone doing business in their community.

Think I'm BSing you? Do your homework. Learn more about the Dallas Motion Picture Classification Board, and the BS filmmakers had to deal with to get their movies shown in this one township. (Here is a good place to start checking out the madness). Imagine this, for every city in the United States. A different set of rules. A different set of tastes. A different moviegoing experience for people seeing a movie in New York City than for people in Newark, because the ratings board of one town might object to something the other city's ratings board doesn't object. Filmmakers forced to make dozens or even hundreds of slightly different versions of their movies, to appease each individual ratings board.

No thanks.

The MPAA and its rating system is the evil I know and can accept.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-23-2012, 08:43 AM:

quote:
The R rating WAS once a way to dictate morality and decency to the masses,

Jeez, I hope you're being snarky. The Hayes board may have pretended to be a way to dictate morality, but (as Edward suggests) the Ratings system was specifically set up to protect the studios from having to fight legal battles in every jurisdiction in the US. I'm old enough to have run films in Maryland which had to be approved by the Board of Censors, which was one little old broad who had been there forever, and who lasted into the late 70's or early 80's despite the ratings.

And who in their right mind would take dictates on morality from the lobbying arm of the motion picture industry?

If you read what the MPAA says about their ratings you will see they are only meant to be guide for Parents as to the suitability of the film for THEIR children. The Ratings are a suggestion and you can take it or leave it.

I'm not really sure why the MPAA or NATO thinks theater operators should be in the business of "enforcing" suggestions from lobbying organizations, but the theatre operators are free to ignore them. If they choose to enforce them, just remember, they aren't "the Law."

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-23-2012, 11:09 AM:

Except in some communities, where the MPAA guidelines have indeed been codified into local laws.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-23-2012, 11:39 AM:

If they have then they are violating copyright. The MPAA forbids them to be codified. The locals tried it here once and the MPAA's lawyers and lobbyists were all over them.

Do you know of a community that has actually codified the ratings?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-23-2012, 06:01 PM:

We need a new rating: "NB-03"

...for "No Babies Under 3." It would be applied to every movie over 60 minutes long that isn't rated G.

And if I had my way, that rating WOULD be codified!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-23-2012, 10:10 PM:

Obviously the MPAA could introduce a "NP" rating for No Phones. But that would end up being applied to ALL movies.

40 years ago the MPAA movie ratings system was more relevant, more effective and more effective as a marketing tool. I remember a joke from the Welcome Back Kotter TV series where one of the students summed up the ratings system as "G: good, PG: pretty good, R: really good!"

The content in Hollywood movies hasn't really pushed the boundaries of sex and violence in perhaps 20 years -not that it should either. Now the objectionable content in Hollywood movies is pretty tame compared to what can be seen on premium cable TV series. And the Internet has lots of explicit (read: real) sex and violence available for anyone to see if they click onto the right web sites. So many people watched beheading videos on the Internet that it probably encouraged the psychopaths responsible in places like Iraq and Mexico to murder many more people in the same horrific manner.

In an odd sort of way the movie theater could possibly be seen as a relatively clean sanctuary from a home with more harmful entertainment.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 02-23-2012, 10:39 PM:

G=Guns, PG=Plenty of Guns, PG-13=More than 12 guns

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-24-2012, 09:11 AM:

If the MPAA could come up with a Brain Dead rating, I might be willing to play along.

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 02-24-2012, 02:58 PM:

The company I used to work for does this. I think it's brilliant. Often times parents bring their children with them because the idea of a discounted admission is cheaper than the idea of paying a babysitter. If parents begin to realize they're going to have to pay the same for their seven year old to come as they do themselves, the perceived value may not be there.

Not only that if a parent thinks their child is adult enough to handle the content of a certain film, then they should pay the adult price.