Philly officials may ban kids from later PG films
12-08-04, 01:50 AM
#1
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
Philly officials may ban kids from later PG films
Philly officials may ban kids from later PG films
Children under 6 at films past 7 p.m. could cost parents, theaters
By Athena D. Merritt
Philadelphia Business Journal
Updated: 11:28 a.m. ET Dec. 6, 2004
Scroll through area movie listings and the "SpongeBob SquarePants Movie" and "The Incredibles" are among movies offered in Philadelphia theaters after 7 p.m.
But bringing a child under 6 to those PG-rated movies could result in a fine to the adult and the theater, if a proposed bill is passed by City Council.
The bill, introduced by City Councilman James Kenney seeks to ban adults from bringing children under 6 to a movie after 7 p.m. unless it is G-rated.
"This is a concern [Kenney] has had for years. It's legislation he thinks is appropriate -- it's not out of line with other legislation we do to facilitate the quality of life for residents of the city," said John Hawkins, a spokesman from Kenney's office.
An adult who brings a child to a movie with a rating other than G after p.m. would be fined up to $50; the theater would be fined up to $300.
"I think anybody who went to see 'Spiderman' at 9 at night and had a screaming baby next to them can appreciate why this bill should be looked at," Hawkins said.
Councilman Rick Mariano, who co-sponsored the bill along with Councilman Frank DiCicco, agreed.
"I think it's a common sense idea that should've been coming a long time ago, especially when it's a [PG] movie," Mariano said.
But the decision is one some theater chains argue should be left up to parents.
"From our point of view we have not experienced any problems or issues in regards to young children being in our theaters after 7 p.m.," Dick Westerling, vice president of marketing for Regal Entertainment, said.
Regal, which operates 6,242 screens in 560 locations in 40 states, has enlisted the aid of the National Association of Theatre Owners. Regal, whose theaters include Regal Cinemas, United Artists Theatres and Edwards Theatres, runs about 18 percent of all indoor screens in the nation.
"Many times families might attend a PG film, such as 'Shrek 2' or 'The Incredibles' in the evening. I would consider it a healthy and wholesome family experience," Westerling said.
Wow, this seems a bit extreme but hell, I'm for it!
Children under 6 at films past 7 p.m. could cost parents, theaters
By Athena D. Merritt
Philadelphia Business Journal
Updated: 11:28 a.m. ET Dec. 6, 2004
Scroll through area movie listings and the "SpongeBob SquarePants Movie" and "The Incredibles" are among movies offered in Philadelphia theaters after 7 p.m.
But bringing a child under 6 to those PG-rated movies could result in a fine to the adult and the theater, if a proposed bill is passed by City Council.
The bill, introduced by City Councilman James Kenney seeks to ban adults from bringing children under 6 to a movie after 7 p.m. unless it is G-rated.
"This is a concern [Kenney] has had for years. It's legislation he thinks is appropriate -- it's not out of line with other legislation we do to facilitate the quality of life for residents of the city," said John Hawkins, a spokesman from Kenney's office.
An adult who brings a child to a movie with a rating other than G after p.m. would be fined up to $50; the theater would be fined up to $300.
"I think anybody who went to see 'Spiderman' at 9 at night and had a screaming baby next to them can appreciate why this bill should be looked at," Hawkins said.
Councilman Rick Mariano, who co-sponsored the bill along with Councilman Frank DiCicco, agreed.
"I think it's a common sense idea that should've been coming a long time ago, especially when it's a [PG] movie," Mariano said.
But the decision is one some theater chains argue should be left up to parents.
"From our point of view we have not experienced any problems or issues in regards to young children being in our theaters after 7 p.m.," Dick Westerling, vice president of marketing for Regal Entertainment, said.
Regal, which operates 6,242 screens in 560 locations in 40 states, has enlisted the aid of the National Association of Theatre Owners. Regal, whose theaters include Regal Cinemas, United Artists Theatres and Edwards Theatres, runs about 18 percent of all indoor screens in the nation.
"Many times families might attend a PG film, such as 'Shrek 2' or 'The Incredibles' in the evening. I would consider it a healthy and wholesome family experience," Westerling said.
Wow, this seems a bit extreme but hell, I'm for it!
12-08-04, 03:27 AM
#3
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I think this is a scare tactic. Says to the theaters, "if you don't set your own standards and fix your problems, we're going to step in and do it ourselves, whether you like it or not".
I work in a movie theater, and we've been trying to get that idea put in effect for a while. Almost worked until we got a very ugly-minded general manager. No curfew, and worse - she says we can't stop people bringing kids under six into R-rated shows, which was our long-standing policy.
I don't know why the Regal exec says there's been no problems. That's just him lying!
I work in a movie theater, and we've been trying to get that idea put in effect for a while. Almost worked until we got a very ugly-minded general manager. No curfew, and worse - she says we can't stop people bringing kids under six into R-rated shows, which was our long-standing policy.
I don't know why the Regal exec says there's been no problems. That's just him lying!
12-08-04, 03:40 AM
#4
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because if the Regal Exec says there's a problem, then that gives governments ammunition to do something about it, something that Regal doesn't want.
Of course, I haven't heard a crying baby in a movie in several years (and, until recently, I was a regular at theaters now owned by Regal Entertainment), so maybe there isn't usually a problem (the consistently noisy people I see in theaters are pre-teens/early teens).
Fining people $50 a head for taking their kids to Shrek 2 after 7pm does seem a little over-the-top to me, and would seem to me to be singling out one class that is not necessarily the problem (no legislation about $50 fines if your cell phone goes off in the theater, is there? That's often just as annoying, and often far more common, than the crying baby).
Of course, I haven't heard a crying baby in a movie in several years (and, until recently, I was a regular at theaters now owned by Regal Entertainment), so maybe there isn't usually a problem (the consistently noisy people I see in theaters are pre-teens/early teens).
Fining people $50 a head for taking their kids to Shrek 2 after 7pm does seem a little over-the-top to me, and would seem to me to be singling out one class that is not necessarily the problem (no legislation about $50 fines if your cell phone goes off in the theater, is there? That's often just as annoying, and often far more common, than the crying baby).
12-08-04, 03:53 AM
#5
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Good point about the problems, BigDan. Hadn't thought of that.
The curfew IS limiting. My suggestion was no kids after 9 on weekdays, after 7 on weekends. I think that's very fair.
The cellphones situation is iffy. Places don't want to get sued if there's an emergency call for someone. You can have all the signs and safeguards in the world, people will sue...
The curfew IS limiting. My suggestion was no kids after 9 on weekdays, after 7 on weekends. I think that's very fair.
The cellphones situation is iffy. Places don't want to get sued if there's an emergency call for someone. You can have all the signs and safeguards in the world, people will sue...
12-08-04, 04:20 AM
#6
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you know, kids are annoying lots of places. Why not just fine anyone who has a kid out in public? I mean, if you're going to do it, why not go all the way?
And you don't think the random banning of people from a movie theater will cause a lawsuit? Heck, I was in the movies the other day, and there was this Asian woman who talked through the whole thing. You think I could get my city council to ban Asian women from the movie theater at certain times? If I did get such a ban passed, you think Asian women might sue? You think the theater might sue for restraining their business?
If you single out a group for discrimination, I think you need to have verifiable confirmation that that group is a consistent problem and a problem moreso than any other group that isn't getting the discrimination. I don't think this meets that standard.
My kids are now older than six, but when they were younger, I took them to movies all the time and never had a problem (I never took them when they were babies, but a six year-old is far from a baby). When my younger son was three years-old, we went and saw Mars Attacks! and he just sat there in awe of the thing. It was his favorite movie for years.
Granted, I almost always go to the matinee, so such a rule wouldn't have impacted my taking my kids to the movies if such a rule had been in effect when my kids were under six.
But if either one of them had acted up, we'd have left. And in my many years of movie-going, that's what I've seen other parents do when their kids act up or cry. Maybe people in Philly just aren't that courteous (Philadelphia is not known for the friendliness of its residents), but that's something for theater management to address not the city government.
So, my opposition to such a thing would really be two-fold. 1. I don't like the idea of singling out a group for a ban when that group isn't necessarily the problem, and 2. I don't like the idea of the government forcing a private business to ban some of their customers.
And you don't think the random banning of people from a movie theater will cause a lawsuit? Heck, I was in the movies the other day, and there was this Asian woman who talked through the whole thing. You think I could get my city council to ban Asian women from the movie theater at certain times? If I did get such a ban passed, you think Asian women might sue? You think the theater might sue for restraining their business?
If you single out a group for discrimination, I think you need to have verifiable confirmation that that group is a consistent problem and a problem moreso than any other group that isn't getting the discrimination. I don't think this meets that standard.
My kids are now older than six, but when they were younger, I took them to movies all the time and never had a problem (I never took them when they were babies, but a six year-old is far from a baby). When my younger son was three years-old, we went and saw Mars Attacks! and he just sat there in awe of the thing. It was his favorite movie for years.
Granted, I almost always go to the matinee, so such a rule wouldn't have impacted my taking my kids to the movies if such a rule had been in effect when my kids were under six.
But if either one of them had acted up, we'd have left. And in my many years of movie-going, that's what I've seen other parents do when their kids act up or cry. Maybe people in Philly just aren't that courteous (Philadelphia is not known for the friendliness of its residents), but that's something for theater management to address not the city government.
So, my opposition to such a thing would really be two-fold. 1. I don't like the idea of singling out a group for a ban when that group isn't necessarily the problem, and 2. I don't like the idea of the government forcing a private business to ban some of their customers.
12-08-04, 07:29 AM
#7
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Philly, PA
Posts: 1,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'm from Philly. Or at least the general area.
I can say that the problem is NOT kids under 6, it's kids between 12 and 20 who think it's cool to talk on cellphones and make all kinds of noise with their friends during a film. I've never been to a movie that had a crying baby in the theater. Maybe I'm just lucky. If I'm wanna bring my 4 year old nephew to see the incredibles at 8 pm, i'm gonna. He'll sit there quietly and watch the movie, or we'll leave, and he knows that's the rules when you go to the movies. In fact, I'd rather sit in a theater full of 6 year olds over a theater full of 16 year olds any day.
I can say that the problem is NOT kids under 6, it's kids between 12 and 20 who think it's cool to talk on cellphones and make all kinds of noise with their friends during a film. I've never been to a movie that had a crying baby in the theater. Maybe I'm just lucky. If I'm wanna bring my 4 year old nephew to see the incredibles at 8 pm, i'm gonna. He'll sit there quietly and watch the movie, or we'll leave, and he knows that's the rules when you go to the movies. In fact, I'd rather sit in a theater full of 6 year olds over a theater full of 16 year olds any day.
12-08-04, 08:17 AM
#9
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by BigDan
But you know, kids are annoying lots of places. Why not just fine anyone who has a kid out in public? I mean, if you're going to do it, why not go all the way?
And you don't think the random banning of people from a movie theater will cause a lawsuit? Heck, I was in the movies the other day, and there was this Asian woman who talked through the whole thing. You think I could get my city council to ban Asian women from the movie theater at certain times? If I did get such a ban passed, you think Asian women might sue? You think the theater might sue for restraining their business?
If you single out a group for discrimination, I think you need to have verifiable confirmation that that group is a consistent problem and a problem moreso than any other group that isn't getting the discrimination. I don't think this meets that standard.
And you don't think the random banning of people from a movie theater will cause a lawsuit? Heck, I was in the movies the other day, and there was this Asian woman who talked through the whole thing. You think I could get my city council to ban Asian women from the movie theater at certain times? If I did get such a ban passed, you think Asian women might sue? You think the theater might sue for restraining their business?
If you single out a group for discrimination, I think you need to have verifiable confirmation that that group is a consistent problem and a problem moreso than any other group that isn't getting the discrimination. I don't think this meets that standard.
An age rule is not discrimination. A person has to be 16 to drive and that isn't discriminating against 5-15 year olds. Lotteries have age limits. Even R rated movies have age limits if no adult is present. The no 6 before seven rule is just new.
12-08-04, 10:30 AM
#11
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by resinrats
How is banning all 6 year olds discrimination? Its not like they said that they are just banning black 6 year olds. All 6 year olds are banned. They aren't singling out any group of adults who bring the kids to fine. It is all of them. Rich, poor, black, white, if the adult (doesn't even have to be a parent) is stupid enough to bring a kid, fine time.
An age rule is not discrimination. A person has to be 16 to drive and that isn't discriminating against 5-15 year olds. Lotteries have age limits. Even R rated movies have age limits if no adult is present. The no 6 before seven rule is just new.
An age rule is not discrimination. A person has to be 16 to drive and that isn't discriminating against 5-15 year olds. Lotteries have age limits. Even R rated movies have age limits if no adult is present. The no 6 before seven rule is just new.
As far as the under 6 rule, I'm not sure how I feel. Seems like an overreaction to a fairly minor problem.
12-08-04, 10:33 AM
#12
DVD Talk God
Originally Posted by Pistol Pete
Actually banning kids under 6 is, by definition, discrimination. Every example you post above is discrimination. Not all discrimination is racial discrimination.
As far as the under 6 rule, I'm not sure how I feel. Seems like an overreaction to a fairly minor problem.
As far as the under 6 rule, I'm not sure how I feel. Seems like an overreaction to a fairly minor problem.
Discrimination?
12-08-04, 10:58 AM
#13
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Flava-Country!
Posts: 3,964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Discrimination? Oh please. Alabama, 1959 - THATS discrimination. Seprate drinking fountains is discrimination. Sitting at the back of the bus is discrimination.
This is not.
This is not.
12-08-04, 11:02 AM
#14
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Actually El, it is discrimination. The theater, by following such guidelines, will be discriminate as to which customers they will take. Hence, discrimination.
Is it nearly as bad as the stigma that the word "discrimination" has had applied to it? Not in the least. But it still is discrimination.
Is it nearly as bad as the stigma that the word "discrimination" has had applied to it? Not in the least. But it still is discrimination.
12-08-04, 12:10 PM
#15
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Posts: 18,295
Received 372 Likes
on
266 Posts
If you refuse someone service at a restaurant because they're black, it's discrimination.
If you don't hire a qualified applicant because they're 60, it's discrimination.
If you don't hire a qualified applicant because they're a woman, it's discrimination.
If you don't let someone into a PG movie because they're 6, it's discrimination.
You can't set some insane standard like "It's not like they're unleashing dogs on people in the streets" to apply to discrimination. There are degrees to everything.
The PG rating thing is just stupid. Why not just say PG-13? That makes a bit more sense.
If you don't hire a qualified applicant because they're 60, it's discrimination.
If you don't hire a qualified applicant because they're a woman, it's discrimination.
If you don't let someone into a PG movie because they're 6, it's discrimination.
You can't set some insane standard like "It's not like they're unleashing dogs on people in the streets" to apply to discrimination. There are degrees to everything.
The PG rating thing is just stupid. Why not just say PG-13? That makes a bit more sense.
12-08-04, 01:56 PM
#16
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Phoenix AZ - West Side
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by johnglass
"I think anybody who went to see 'Spiderman' at 9 at night and had a screaming baby next to them can appreciate why this bill should be looked at," Hawkins said.
And oh how I long for the days when a screaming baby was the biggest problem in a movie theater. Can we start a ban/fine for people who kick the back of the seats? Or loud/obnoxious teenagers? Or cell phone users?
Stupid idea that will never pass. I think the poster above who said it was a "police yourself or we will" type of tactic may be right.
Also...we have one theater here in town where an usher stays in the showing of the film. That would work if adopted elsewhere as they could excort out the offending party.
12-08-04, 02:15 PM
#17
DVD Talk Godfather
Originally Posted by necros
Well I'm from Philly. Or at least the general area.
I can say that the problem is NOT kids under 6, it's kids between 12 and 20 who think it's cool to talk on cellphones and make all kinds of noise with their friends during a film. I've never been to a movie that had a crying baby in the theater. Maybe I'm just lucky. If I'm wanna bring my 4 year old nephew to see the incredibles at 8 pm, i'm gonna. He'll sit there quietly and watch the movie, or we'll leave, and he knows that's the rules when you go to the movies. In fact, I'd rather sit in a theater full of 6 year olds over a theater full of 16 year olds any day.
I can say that the problem is NOT kids under 6, it's kids between 12 and 20 who think it's cool to talk on cellphones and make all kinds of noise with their friends during a film. I've never been to a movie that had a crying baby in the theater. Maybe I'm just lucky. If I'm wanna bring my 4 year old nephew to see the incredibles at 8 pm, i'm gonna. He'll sit there quietly and watch the movie, or we'll leave, and he knows that's the rules when you go to the movies. In fact, I'd rather sit in a theater full of 6 year olds over a theater full of 16 year olds any day.
As for discrimination...
I think the problem is using the term "banning." This is just a new rule, plain and simple, it isn't discriminating in any way. If it isn't a movie the kid would be interested in get a friggin babysitter. If it is something they will sit through, tell 'em the rules and lay down the law. And go to a matinee or on the weekend.I was an opening night movie goer. Was. I went to see the Incredibles the Monday night (7:30) after opening. Pure bliss. There were maybe 15 people in there, and only a couple were kids. Definitely the way to go on all future releases.
Originally Posted by DonnachaOne
Actually El, it is discrimination. The theater, by following such guidelines, will be discriminate as to which customers they will take. Hence, discrimination.
Last edited by Michael Corvin; 12-08-04 at 02:20 PM.
12-08-04, 02:18 PM
#18
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by resinrats
An age rule is not discrimination. A person has to be 16 to drive and that isn't discriminating against 5-15 year olds. Lotteries have age limits. Even R rated movies have age limits if no adult is present. The no 6 before seven rule is just new.
The under-6 law likely doesn't meet the standard since it's singling out a group (under 6 years olds and parents of under-6 year-olds) without any sort of proof that I can see that it is a necessary ban that serves the overall public good (or really makes any difference at all). If they can prove that serves the overall public good and is the best solution to the problem, then have at it. But if it's just something that doesn't make any difference and is essentially an arbitrary discrimination, it isn't going to fly.
I'm not saying it's the worst discrimination we've ever seen. Not by a long shot, but it's still a form of discrimination. And one that is mostly arbitrary since babies are likely not anywhere near the worst problem a moviegoer faces.
12-08-04, 02:19 PM
#19
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: New Jersey, where the state motto should be Leave No Tree Standing
Posts: 2,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Matthew Chmiel
Change that 6 to 16 and change that PG into G/PG/PG-13/R and then we'll be in business. 
They had (not sure if they still do) a policy that banned children under 6 at all times (they didn't play G-rated films) and children under 16 had to be accompanied by adults at all times, no matter what the film was rated, nor when the show started.
I loved seeing films there, a very pleasant experience.
12-08-04, 02:24 PM
#20
DVD Talk Godfather
I'd just like to point out that a lot of theaters are offering parent showings just for this reason. You can bring your baby and children and not worry about offending anyone.
12-08-04, 02:27 PM
#21
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Michael Corvin
100%. I can't remember ever having a crying baby in a theater.
As for discrimination... I think the problem is using the term "banning." This is just a new rule, plain and simple, it isn't discriminating in any way. If it isn't a movie the kid would be interested in get a friggin babysitter. If it is something they will sit through, tell 'em the rules and lay down the law. And go to a matinee or on the weekend..
As for discrimination...
I think the problem is using the term "banning." This is just a new rule, plain and simple, it isn't discriminating in any way. If it isn't a movie the kid would be interested in get a friggin babysitter. If it is something they will sit through, tell 'em the rules and lay down the law. And go to a matinee or on the weekend..It is a banning (there's a fine if you bring the kids, even if they're completely quiet the entire time) and it is discrimination (it's a singling out a specific group. It's not a "there's a $50 fine if you disturb the other patrons" that would hit everyone equally. It's this group of people cannot go to the movies). The definition of discrimination is: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit. Picking out a certain age group to keep out of the theater regardless of their behavior is, by definition, discrimination. (And, for the record, 'ban' means: A prohibition imposed by law or official decree, which is what this would be. So you object to using accurate terms because it sounds bad despite being accurate).
If you want a guarantee of a completely quiet room to watch movies in, just stay home rather than trying to use the heavy hand of the law to get the people you don't like out of the theater (especially those that, in my experience, aren't even the problem).
Last edited by BigDan; 12-08-04 at 02:34 PM.
12-08-04, 02:32 PM
#22
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RevLiver
They had (not sure if they still do) a policy that banned children under 6 at all times (they didn't play G-rated films) and children under 16 had to be accompanied by adults at all times, no matter what the film was rated, nor when the show started.
12-08-04, 02:33 PM
#23
DVD Talk Legend
I've always thought 13 and under shouldn't be allowed into a show that would let out after 10pm. And 13-17 shouldn't be allowed to a showing that lets out after 11pm without a parent since that would put them out past curfew *(depending on your city). I don't think that's quite as strict and it would solve alot of problems. Parents aren't being responsible by taking their toddler to an R movie that starts after 11pm - they're fucking up the child's sleep schedule, fucking up the child by exposing him to some R movie (maybe)... and it's fucking up my enjoyment of the movie because a fussy child can't sit still cuz he's cranky up past bedtime and hopped up on milk duds.
12-08-04, 03:12 PM
#24
DVD Talk Godfather
Originally Posted by Trigger
I've always thought 13 and under shouldn't be allowed into a show that would let out after 10pm. And 13-17 shouldn't be allowed to a showing that lets out after 11pm without a parent since that would put them out past curfew *(depending on your city). I don't think that's quite as strict and it would solve alot of problems. Parents aren't being responsible by taking their toddler to an R movie that starts after 11pm - they're fucking up the child's sleep schedule, fucking up the child by exposing him to some R movie (maybe)... and it's fucking up my enjoyment of the movie because a fussy child can't sit still cuz he's cranky up past bedtime and hopped up on milk duds.
12-08-04, 03:16 PM
#25
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope people realize that the R rated rules about 17 year olds are not laws and are not enforcable by the government. I just take issue with government making such a rule. Who the hell asked them to regulate movie theaters? I would argue it's just like the smoking ban, except in this case no one can even argue a health risk. The theater owners get to decide what happens on their property, not some lawmaker. At least that's how it should be. This is just a beyond stupid issue for any lawmaker to be wasting their time speaking about. I can't even believe anyone could support a law like this...who would enforce it anyway? We going to have cops checking tickets after 6 to make sure it was a G rated movie?