Kids in non kid films

KathleenGrant

kunst nugget wrote: »

A moral duty? Oh, please...

That's how I feel.

kunst nugget

It's the eleventh commandment (written on the back of the second tablet) - Thou shall snitch on underage kids at thine cinema.

KathleenGrant

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's the eleventh commandment (written on the back of the second tablet) - Thou shall snitch on underage kids at thine cinema.

It's not the kid that's wrong. It's the adult bringing him and the adults that turn a blind eye. It's not like the kid was 16. The OP said himself the kid was about 8.

Tammy!

gmisk wrote: »

Them constantly talking and laughing (at nothing) then shouting MA WHATS A BLOWJOB kind of takes you out of the film....

I think the first time i heard of a blow job was from something that was said on Beavis and Butthead :pac:

I use to watch Goodfellas every morning one summer when I was around ten.

It's a different time now though and kids shouldn't be in the cinema watching movies that are not aimed for them. I don't know, I dont think I'd have said anything though but if I was it would be to the staff not to the parent.

ziedth

KathleenGrant wrote: »

I think a person has a moral duty to make a report to the staff of the cinema at least. It's up to the staff how they handle it but I wouldn't feel right unless I made my point.

Serious question, Would you Report a 16/17 year old watching an 18's film (Old film classification granted but it is easier to make my point)? If you wouldn't then where do you draw the line and even more then that what gives you the right to decide on what is morally right for the rest of us? If you feel the need to report everything what is against the "law" then that is one thing but to go out of the way to report me to staff because I want to bring my 13 year old kid to see the next Deadpool is a bit ****ty.

Worth confirming here I'm not referring to bringing a child to a film where they make a disturbance or put in or out on anyone else.

nix

KathleenGrant wrote: »

It's not the kid that's wrong. It's the adult bringing him and the adults that turn a blind eye. It's not like the kid was 16. The OP said himself the kid was about 8.

The parent yes, failing that it should be the staff to enforce the law/rules of the establishment they're working for, there's too many people then after it for someone to take charge. Everybody else is just there to watch a movie they paid and donated time for, how is one to know if its already been reported?

And at the end of the day, its just a movie, sure the kid probably shouldnt be seeing its content, but its hardly going to ruin his life or mentally scar him, he wont be able to make out the majority of whats going on and anything else he will just laugh off or turn his attention to ask questions, which by the sound of it is exactly what he done :cool:

KathleenGrant

KathleenGrant wrote: »

I think a person has a moral duty to make a report to the staff of the cinema at least. It's up to the staff how they handle it but I wouldn't feel right unless I made my point.

I wouldn’t say moral duty.

But I may say to the cinema people what in the f*** is an 8 year old doing in a Tarantino movie? If the kid was being annoying I would probably say it to the parent too.
I reckon there’s 18s film a little kid can see, science fiction, martial arts, they are probably no worse then most video games. But Tarantino is a violent mofo to the extreme and often very twisted. Stuff that can properly disturb a kid I would say.
But then again as someone said the mother could of thought it was alice in wonderland or something when she walked in. Who knows.

SoundsRight

ziedth wrote: »

Serious question, Would you Report a 16/17 year old watching an 18's film (Old film classification granted but it is easier to make my point)? If you wouldn't then where do you draw the line and even more then that what gives you the right to decide on what is morally right for the rest of us? If you feel the need to report everything what is against the "law" then that is one thing but to go out of the way to report me to staff because I want to bring my 13 year old kid to see the next Deadpool.

Worth confirming here I'm not referring to bringing a child to a film where they make a disturbance or put in or out on anyone else.

The law gives you the right.

ziedth

SoundsRight wrote: »

The law gives you the right.

Exactly why I asked the question

nix

nix wrote: »

And at the end of the day, its just a movie, sure the kid probably shouldnt be seeing its content, but its hardly going to ruin his life or mentally scar him, he wont be able to make out the majority of whats going on and anything else he will just laugh off or turn his attention to ask questions, which by the sound of it is exactly what he done :cool:

Well there’s been a bunch of cases over the last 30 years where kids have done some terrible things after watching movies. Jamie Bolger comes to mind. Train tracks and the Child’s Play Movie. At 8 years old who know what’s it’s going to do to a child’s mind.

alchemist33

My local cinema wouldnt let my 15.5 year old in to see John Wick 3 (16 cert). We had to actually go to Derry to see it where it was a 15 cert.

KathleenGrant

ziedth wrote: »

Serious question, Would you Report a 16/17 year old watching an 18's film (Old film classification granted but it is easier to make my point)? If you wouldn't then where do you draw the line and even more then that what gives you the right to decide on what is morally right for the rest of us? If you feel the need to report everything what is against the "law" then that is one thing but to go out of the way to report me to staff because I want to bring my 13 year old kid to see the next Deadpool is a bit ****ty.

Worth confirming here I'm not referring to bringing a child to a film where they make a disturbance or put in or out on anyone else.

I didn't say 16/17 was ok but if a kid looked 16/17 I wouldn't presume they were that age. At 8 there is no doubt the child is under age. I didn't say anything was morally right for everyone. I said I would feel it was morally wrong of me not to make a point to a person allowing an 8 yr old to see an 18's film. You follow your own moral code and if you don't feel the same way I do, fine.

SoundsRight

ziedth wrote: »

Exactly why I asked the question

Why do you feel the need to ask whether or not the law applies to you?

nix

Deleted User wrote: »

Well there’s been a bunch of cases over the last 30 years where kids have done some terrible things after watching movies. Jamie Bolger comes to mind. Train tracks and the Child’s Play Movie. At 8 years old who know what’s it’s going to do to a child’s mind.

Yeah eh, one of the dads rented the movie a few weeks prior but no evidence any of the boys had seen it or any evidence at all that linked it to the movie other than the movie was violent. Its all just bull**** rumours and assumptions, no clear cut evidence.

Video games are the cause of mass shootings these days also :rolleyes:

ziedth

SoundsRight wrote: »

Why do you feel the need to ask whether or not the law applies to you?

Your missing the point but i'll answer anyway. Because I choose to not abide by that law. Personally, I feel I can judge correctly what my kids can and can't see. For Example, Never in a million years would I take either of my kids to see a QT movie when they were 8 but to round back around to my example I would let him watch Deadpool when he is 13. As far as I am concerned it doesn't harm anyone, cost anyone any money.

If we arrive to see Deadpool and the cinema won't let him see it then that is certainly their right and we'll go see something else. However, If he "gets in" and we are happily watching Deadpool away and you go outside and tell management that he is inside watching it then frankly your a knob and I don't really think anyone who would do that in my example is upholding the law or acting in the best interest of anybody.

But hey, Each to their own.

Guy:Incognito

SoundsRight wrote: »

Call it what you like, .

Theres a massive difference between a sex scene and a rape scene.

Guy:Incognito

gmisk wrote: »

I don't think I do to be honest, why should it fall to me specifically in a busy cinema?

Its that kind of "someone else will do something" attitude that sees crowds standing by while someone gets attacked.

Guy:Incognito

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Bringing kids to films with adult content is probably at the parents discretion. .

If theres an A after the age it is. If its 16 or 18 theres no discretion.

SoundsRight

ziedth wrote: »

Your missing the point but i'll answer anyway. Because I choose to not abide by that law. Personally, I feel I can judge correctly what my kids can and can't see. For Example, Never in a million years would I take either of my kids to see a QT movie when they were 8 but to round back around to my example I would let him watch Deadpool when he is 13. As far as I am concerned it doesn't harm anyone, cost anyone any money.

If we arrive to see Deadpool and the cinema won't let him see it then that is certainly their right and we'll go see something else. However, If he "gets in" and we are happily watching Deadpool away and you go outside and tell management that he is inside watching it then frankly your a knob and I don't really think anyone who would do that in my example is upholding the law or acting in the best interest of anybody.

But hey, Each to their own.

It's not 'their right' to refuse your child into the screening; it's against the law.

I imagine the dodgy priests and teachers back in the day used the same logic when they were picking which child to groom.

Ash.J.Williams

kunst nugget wrote: »

You don't like them seeing you getting turned on?

Other way around

gmisk

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Its that kind of "someone else will do something" attitude that sees crowds standing by while someone gets attacked.

Er it was an underage kid at a film....let's not go overboard.

Anyway I reported it to odeon they seem to be taking it pretty seriously

IAMAMORON

SoundsRight wrote: »

It's not 'their right' to refuse your child into the screening; it's against the law.

I imagine the dodgy priests and teachers back in the day used the same logic when they were picking which child to groom.

Massively off topic. Very contrived tripe.

SoundsRight

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Massively off topic. Very contrived tripe.

The topic is child safeguarding. Should we ignore children viewing inappropriate images? Some here seem to think it's ok. One wonders what else they deem acceptable for underage children.

ScrubsfanChris

Dravokivich

ziedth wrote: »

Your missing the point but i'll answer anyway. Because I choose to not abide by that law. Personally, I feel I can judge correctly what my kids can and can't see. For Example, Never in a million years would I take either of my kids to see a QT movie when they were 8 but to round back around to my example I would let him watch Deadpool when he is 13. As far as I am concerned it doesn't harm anyone, cost anyone any money.

If we arrive to see Deadpool and the cinema won't let him see it then that is certainly their right and we'll go see something else. However, If he "gets in" and we are happily watching Deadpool away and you go outside and tell management that he is inside watching it then frankly your a knob and I don't really think anyone who would do that in my example is upholding the law or acting in the best interest of anybody.

But hey, Each to their own.

You can allow your kids to drink at home, the shop still cant sell them alcohol. It's the same thing with age rated movies. A ticket should never have been given for that kid. And I say this as someone with a 5 year old kid who loved venom and is eagerly waiting for the next one. He also loved Deadpool.

Optimalprimerib

If the kid was being irritating during the film, distracting you, yeah fair enough, say something but if not, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. It's not your problem or concern.