Some People Are Just Sick...

Latchy

Fysh wrote: »

It would appear that allocating individual responsibility is less fun than starting a Daily-Mail-esque campaign to demonise people based on FUD Rather than facts.

IF the kid was under age and taken to see that film, then yes, it was in all likelihood an irresponsible action and a complaint to the cinema's manager might have been in order. Similarly a complaint to the IFCO would have been an option.

At the end of the day though, we're talking about one person jumping to a conclusion about someone else's parenting without any facts to back them up. I'm reminded of this, to be honest...

We havent seen the person or the youger person /child OP was refering to .But like most people i tend to want to know what the subject film is all about and we read reviews .So the adult in question is either irresponsible or iggnorent of the contents of the movie and didnt take the time to read any reviews .

Cactus Col

I dislike the new ratings system. There are a lot of parents out there who seem to thing just because a kid is allowed into a film should mean the film is suitable for them. I thin I remember hearing several complaints on liveline from parents on liveline who brought their little bundles of light to see The Dark Knight and were shocked by the violence.

Fysh

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Hardly a fair comparison Fysh. The kid was clearly underage.

No, you thought they were clearly underage. Maybe you were right, maybe you were wrong. The choice of boards.ie as a venue to vent your disgust with the quality of parenting/standards of cinema management/IFCO ratings/the world today, however, suggests that you're less concerned about actually effecting a real change to the situation as you see it and more concerned about complaining how "some people" are "just sick" because they don't happen to share your exact perspective on an issue.

(Just to restate, I have no idea if the kid was underage or not, or whether the film should have had a child anywhere near it be they accompanied by a parent or otherwise. I just think that passing judgement of this kind, based on what you have decided the kid's age probably was rather than anything like an actual factual basis, is reprehensible and fundamentally suspect)

For the sake of this thread not going horrendously off-topic considering it's in the Film forum, would you like to see one or more of the following:

a) child-free showings in cinemas? (I've seen these advertised in a couple of cinemas in London, coupled with special "parents & young children" matinee showings of films for mature audiences)
b) changes to the IFCO ratings system to introduce lower-age equivalents of the NC-17 rating? (Eg NC-12, NC-15 for films with significant sexual or violent content which wouldn't necessarily be enough to earn an 18 or NC-17 but is nonetheless unsuitable for kids)
c) stricter enforcement of existing ratings by cinemas?

Kintarō Hattori

It's not a question of I thought the kid was underage, the kid was underage, unless he suffers from a genetic condition which makes him look younger than he is, aka Michael J. Fox. I never once mentioned the cinema management or the IFCO, merely the quality of parenting that allowed him to stay and watch that scene, so I'd appreciate your not putting word in my mouth.

Boards is a discussion forum, so I came on here to discuss what I saw.

The cinema setup as it stands is just fine, the one thing you don't have on your list there is for parents to display a little cop on in regards to what they bring their kids to see. You left that option out.

Fysh

So what you're saying is that, because of what you think in your capacity as Some Person From The Internet, all parents should show "cop on" as defined by you when choosing films for their children to watch, despite the fact that the ratings system may have defined their film of choice as being suitable for children to watch when accompanied by a parent?

What I'm trying to get at here is, the rating of the film said it was suitable for children if accompanied by their parents. It sounds like it wasn't, but that's beside the point - the point is a parent looking at films and going by the ratings would assume it was suitable material. The parent in question would have done nothing wrong by taking their child to see the film. Which means that, if you really feel this is wrong, do something about it. Write to the IFCO. Write to the papers and argue your case. Canvass local politicians about it. Do leaflet runs around your area to make more people aware of the issue. Maybe you'll change people's minds.

The approach you're taking here is "I can't be arsed changing anything or even trying to change anything, but I reserve my right to have a good old moan about how someone did something without asking my approval first", and I don't see what you expect anyone here to do about it except maybe join in with cries of "rabble rabble rabble".

Karl Hungus

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

the one thing you don't have on your list there is for parents to display a little cop on in regards to what they bring their kids to see.

Get some perspective man, there's parents out there who let their kids out drinking dutch gold at 2am every weekend. Fully assuming this a child, what kind of permanent, irreversible damage do you think the parent has inflicted upon him by letting bringing him to see this film? I just don't see the fuss here.

Kintarō Hattori

Fysh wrote: »

...if you really feel this is wrong, do something about it. Write to the IFCO. Write to the papers and argue your case. Canvass local politicians about it. Do leaflet runs around your area to make more people aware of the issue. Maybe you'll change people's minds.

The approach you're taking here is "I can't be arsed changing anything or even trying to change anything, but I reserve my right to have a good old moan about how someone did something without asking my approval first", and I don't see what you expect anyone here to do about it except maybe join in with cries of "rabble rabble rabble".

You're way way off the point. As the film was 15A then the father was within his right to think that he could bring along his son BUT, in the build up to that scene he should have realised 'Wait a second, maybe this isn't the most suitable thing for young Tommy to watch'.

However you make an interesting point about writing to the IFCO, I may just do that.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Get some perspective man, there's parents out there who let their kids out drinking dutch gold at 2am every weekend. Fully assuming this a child, what kind of permanent, irreversible damage do you think the parent has inflicted upon him by letting bringing him to see this film? I just don't see the fuss here.

Karl karl karl, I have all the perspective in the world thanks. Yes of course there are far worse things being commited by kids/parents as we speak. Do you think it's acceptable for a young kid to witness a

gang rape where one woman was so brutally assaulted that it lead to her death?

Karl Hungus

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Do you think it's acceptable for a young kid to witness a

gang rape where one woman was so brutally assaulted that it lead to her death?

You mean like watching Last House on the Left when I was 14? No, completely unacceptable.

Thaedydal

Thaedydal wrote: »

Did you make a complaint to the duty manager ?

What can the duty manager do though? The movie was a 15A, which means the kid was perfectly acceptable for being there with the adult over 18. If anything, they should have made a complaint to the adult.

It's amazing how many parents get furious when we tell them that their 15 year old kid can't go into the 18's movie with them. Even after you explain that you, as the employee, could get in some serious trouble.

Mitch Connor

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Here you imply that I have decided what is and is not fit to be shown.


.

You called the dad sick for allowing his kid to watch the scene which you clearly felt was not suitable to be shown to a child of the age you have assigned to them. If that doesn't mean you do not think it was fit for the rating given...

Mitch Connor

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

You're way way off the point. As the film was 15A then the father was within his right to think that he could bring along his son BUT, in the build up to that scene he should have realised 'Wait a second, maybe this isn't the most suitable thing for young Tommy to watch'.

However you make an interesting point about writing to the IFCO, I may just do that.



Karl karl karl, I have all the perspective in the world thanks. Yes of course there are far worse things being commited by kids/parents as we speak. Do you think it's acceptable for a young kid to witness a

gang rape where one woman was so brutally assaulted that it lead to her death?

you see hardly anything given the light and about 3 punches.

lottodrink

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I'm just back from Cineworld where myself and the missus watched Blindness with Julianne Moore. While people were shuffling in we noticed a young kid and an older man (presumably his father).

The movie was progressing nicely when we got to:

The scene where the people of Ward One were debating whether or not to send the women to Ward Three so the men there could rape them for food in return.

This particular scene had a few minutes build up so the adult with the kid would have known what was coming and really should have made a hasty exit.

The scene where the women filed into the ward and were raped was pretty brutal. There was one part where one of the males was vicously beating one of the women to the point where he ended up killing her.

I have to say we were both surprised that he didn't take the young lad (11-13) and leave the screen. So should I not be surprised? I know myself if we had kids I wouldn't be happy to have them watch a scene like this so young.

What would you have done if you were there with your kid(s).

How do you know the child was only 11-13?? He coulda been a young looking 17 year old for all ya know. My niece is only 8 and loves horror films (The Ring, The Excorcist), I watched horrors(IT, Freddy) when I was a kid as well... It's not a big deal!!

Just realised how to read the spoilers there... Yeah maybe they shouldnt be allowed to see scenes like that, By the sounds of it the film should have been 18's....

abouttobebanned

Some people are just sick? A bit melodramatic no?

lottodrink

Just a tad yeah lol

Kintarō Hattori

lottodrink wrote: »

How do you know the child was only 11-13?? He coulda been a young looking 17 year old for all ya know. My niece is only 8 and loves horror films (The Ring, The Excorcist), I watched horrors(IT, Freddy) when I was a kid as well... It's not a big deal!!

Just realised how to read the spoilers there... Yeah maybe they shouldnt be allowed to see scenes like that, By the sounds of it the film should have been 18's....

It wasn't the fact that the movie was a horror that was the problem, it was that one scene, which you seem to agree wasn't suitable for a minor.

Dudess

"Sick" is way too extreme Kintaro. But yeah, I haven't seen the film, but if it was a very violent, graphic rape and beating... well that's on another level to Nightmare On Elm Street, Child's Play etc. Those are fantasies, escapism... this is a bit too much gritty realism, not the same as your run-of-the-mill horror film.

lottodrink

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

It wasn't the fact that the movie was a horror that was the problem, it was that one scene, which you seem to agree wasn't suitable for a minor.

Yeah I agree, I only figured out how to read the spoiler thing after I replied... New to this ya know.

Nevyn

Some people are idiots.
Some parents are idiots.

Kintarō Hattori

Dudess wrote: »

"Sick" is way too extreme Kintaro.

You're right there dudess (as other posters have been also). I just couldn't think of something appropriate at the time, title changed.