Taking children to the movies

[Android Kaeli]

I'm not talking about children over the age of seven, maybe even six, I'm generally talking about children under the age of five in this post.

I was at the movies Sunday and saw a movie that was rated R, it wasn't scary or the like but it did have mature themes to it and some mature language to it. Something that you wouldn't want a very young child to see. But a mother brought her very young child anyways, I'm assuming the kid wasn't older then two at the most -- and I'm being rather kind to the age here.

The point isn't the fact that the kid cried, "talked" (or as well as a child that young could), or wandered around for the previews and half way through the movies. The point is that the child was clearly too young to go to a movie with a rating of R, even if said child could somehow "understand" what was happening on the screen.

I honestly believe that any child under the age of five, regardless of the time of day or not, should not be able to go to a PG-13 or R rated movie even with the parents. They are too young and can not sit still long enough to understand and grasp the concepts on the screen with a more mature setting.

What is your take on this?

[the_std]

I'll take it a step further and say that I don't believe that children under the age of five should be allowed into any movie, save those specific screenings for parents with young children. Young children, as a general rule, do not have the attention span nor the capacity to understand enough to sit through an entire feature-length film and parents who bring their children are being very discourteous to their fellow movie patrons. I understand that there are children who are exceptions, who could sit through a whole movie, but most of them couldn't, and therefore the rule should apply all across the board.

[AdminAssistant]

I understand that there are children who are exceptions, who could sit through a whole movie, but most of them couldn't, and therefore the rule should apply all across the board.

I disagree. Why should the kids who can behave be punished? My nephew is 4, and he loves going to the movies. Of course, my sister takes him to see stuff like G-Force and Transformers II that will keep his attention and are somewhat age appropriate. Yeah, he may be a bit young for Transformers but all he wanted to see was the robots and the explosions. And he really likes Bumblebee. Point is, he behaves, my sister is a good mom and makes sure that he behaves, and if he loses interest, they leave the theatre. Why should he be punished? Because other moms and dads are lazy? It's just not fair.

I do think that for R movies, no children under the age of..say, 12 or 13 should be admitted at all. Moms and Dads, if you want to see the movie that bad, hire a sitter. Or wait until it comes out on DVD.

At my theatre (this example is live theatre), no child under the age of 5 is permitted at all, except our Theatre for Youth performances. Babes in arms are expressly forbidden. However, nothing in our regular season is even remotely appropriate for young children except the TYP. I mean, would you take a young child to see Macbeth?

Oh, and if you're a grown-up who wants to see a kid's movie - wait until it's been out for a few weeks. Much less crowded.

[MaggieTheCat]

Well, I do agree that young children in a theater can be annoying as hell. But not all of them are, and I agree with AA that the good kids shouldn't get punished 'cuz of the bad kids. It would be nice if theaters had something like a "no tolerance" policy, where if little kids started crying/running around/talking and the parents didn't voluntarily leave (even if it was only just outside the theater to hush them, and then bring them back in) that the theater would ask them to leave. Of course, it would be nice if parents would just do this on their own, but we'll never have a perfect world, huh?

My brother and his girlfriend take her young daughter to movies fairly frequently. The little girl is 10 now, I think, and VERY good at being quiet when told to do so, and sitting still for a long movie. Also, they used to take her to R-rated movies even when she was younger; they would go to the late showing, and the little girl would just sleep through most of the movie. They paid for a ticket for her, even though she didn't really watch the movie, and she didn't bother anyone, AND she didn't really get influenced by anything in the movie 'cuz she didn't see most of it.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Bah, I watched things like Blade and Aliens from the age of 3 and I turned out completely Fi...

Well, not really fine by most standards, actually kind of F***ed up by most people's standards, but I'm also a major proponent of NOT blaming things like violent behavior on seeing a violent movie at a young age. That sort of thing can only, IMO, be externally caused by an overall violent environment, not exactly in short supply.

As a totally whacked out musician once said:

"...[they say that] shooting zombies in a game, which is a fantasy, is going to effect our kids. But George Bush is blowing up another country now, and that's not going to effect our kids..."

I definitely don't think those kids who are mature (not in any great way attached to age past a certain point) enough to handle it, or aren't actually exposed to it in any way deserve getting lumped in with the brat who grows into a violence junkie that goes postal at 15.

If they think their kid is mature enough, or their parenting skills/style sharp enough to make it a non-issue, then it's their right to go ahead and do it.

Anyone who makes a lot of noise or generally causes a disturbance is a separate issue. One I hold a different opinion with (kick 'em and whoever brought 'em out on strike 2).

[Flyndaran]

[QUOTE=Wingates_Hellsing;28376]Bah, I watched things like Blade and Aliens from the age of 3 and I turned out completely Fi...

Well, not really fine by most standards, actually kind of F***ed up by most people's standards, but I'm also a major proponent of NOT blaming things like violent behavior on seeing a violent movie at a young age. That sort of thing can only, IMO, be externally caused by an overall violent environment, not exactly in short supply.
...QUOTE]

Movies are a part of environment. What is a nice diversion for adults has real effects on children. They react to movie violence in the same way as winessing real violence right in front of them.

I say that if a theater wants to ban small children, then I have no problem. It's their business and they can ban nearly anyone they darn well want.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Movies are a part of environment. What is a nice diversion for adults has real effects on children. They react to movie violence in the same way as winessing real violence right in front of them.

I say that if a theater wants to ban small children, then I have no problem. It's their business and they can ban nearly anyone they darn well want.

I respectfully disagree, as there is such a thing as children able to differentiate fantasy with reality. Such a child is perfectly able to see a violent movie as nothing other than what it is, make-believe that has little or no bearing on their life and world.

I value a parent's right to, upon judging that their child has this capacity, take their children wherever they want so long as any 'repercussions' aren't passed off to the theater and not their own choice.

And while I respect a businesses right to conduct business however they please, I am against banning something without a good enough reason. (to cover my ass, not being good enough IMO, just like 'we don't like them' isn't a good enough reason to ban black people)

[Rapscallion]

Good enough reason for me in the case of small children - they can disturb other patrons. I'd be all for a curfew on youngsters - say below five-years-old and you don't get in to see a movie that starts after 8pm or so, but the problem then becomes that society relies on organisations to do the parenting. Still, someone's got to show the parents where the boundaries are.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

I respectfully disagree, as there is such a thing as children able to differentiate fantasy with reality. Such a child is perfectly able to see a violent movie as nothing other than what it is, make-believe that has little or no bearing on their life and world.I value a parent's right to, upon judging that their child has this capacity, take their children wherever they want so long as any 'repercussions' aren't passed off to the theater and not their own choice.

Disagree with all the scientific studies you want. It doesn't change the facts.
Parents chose to have kids. They shouldn't get special priviledges because of it.

And while I respect a businesses right to conduct business however they please, I am against banning something without a good enough reason. (to cover my ass, not being good enough IMO, just like 'we don't like them' isn't a good enough reason to ban black people)

Children are not a protected minority. I don't want whining babies next to me, and I would happily pay a little extra to make sure it doesn't happen.
Not all teens are destructive, but many areas still have curfews.
Insurance premiums depend on statistics, so there is precedent.
People without children should have places devoid of screaming foul smelling rugrats. Also, every parent thinks thier children are angels. It's simply easier to ban them outright.

[MannersMakethMan]

I'd be against a blanket ban just on age. In fact, I'm against most sorts of curfews for penalising those who don't do any thing wrong.

I know under fives who can go out and enjoy a film quietly, and if you've been at work all day, you mayn't be able to get to a showing before 8 by the time you've finished a commute. It's not fair to deny an enjoyable evening out to these people. Admittedly, these are a minority of cases, but there are decent people who just want to spend some time with their children that doesn't need too much energy.

I also know 10 year olds who I wouldn't dream of taking to the cinema at all, evening or otherwise. Nobody would get through without a disturbance, and they'd need sorting out.

The answer is to know your kid and know the film. Unfortunately, that's asking a bit much of some folk, and it's a job that the cinema didn't ought to have to do. That said, they'll have to, and I agree with MaggieTheCat - there should be a no tolerance ppolicy that applies to everyone - child or not.

[kibbles]

I think if a child is well behaved and a parent knows what type of movie a child can handle, then a parent should be able to bring their child to a movie without being judged. If people don't want their own children seeing a specific type of movie fine; but, every parent has different rules when it comes to movies/tv shows should be able to do so without people judging.

[AdminAssistant]

I watched a lot of 'grownup' TV and movies when I was little. We only had one TV for a long time, with only four or five channels, so there weren't a lot of options. My sister and I watched MacGuyver, Matlock, Clint Eastwood westerns, you name it. And when they thought it was getting too much for us, they sent us to our rooms. I turned out fine, mostly. Might explain my love for Quentin Tarantino movies.

But when we went to the cinema/movie theatre, it was all family friendly.

[BroomJockey]

Disagree with all the scientific studies you want. It doesn't change the facts.

The fact that every single study linking violent media to violent behaviour at BEST only implies correlation, and doesn't come close to proving causation changes your "facts." The closest they've come was one study that noted that after playing a violent game for a few hours, teens had a slightly higher aggressive response immediately after. Which was also true for the teens who'd been playing a competitive non-violent game.

[Rapscallion]

Is it the case that violent games create violent behaviour, or is it more that violent games are sought by people with a tendency towards violence? I suspect there's quite a bit of the latter.

Rapscallion

[BroomJockey]

I suspect there's quite a bit of the latter.

Rapscallion

That's my position, as well.