Please let this trend become more widespread - Quantum of quiet!

[don_t_ask]

Quantum of quiet: Cinema group bans children from Bond film so adults can watch it in peace.

And further on:

*Bad behaviour in cinemas prompted one cinema group, Odeon, to install CCTV cameras inside cinemas so foyer staff can monitor audiences.

They have been installed at nine cinemas, including Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester and London, and the company plans to install them in all newly built cinemas.*

My son and I recently discussed how simple it would be to install cameras cheaply with modern equipment. Maybe even a buzzer system to call the staff?

[Lust4Life]

Excellent idea I’m all for it and I expect that more people will make a point of attending cinemas with this facility.

People who use their mouths to watch films piss me off.

[Darryl_Lict]

While we’re at it, can we install Faraday cages to suppress cell phones? I’m sorry doctors, you’ll just have to wait until it comes out on DVD.

[John_DiFool]

@don_t_ask

My son and I recently discussed how simple it would be to install cameras cheaply with modern equipment. Maybe even a buzzer system to call the staff?

Heck with that-rig the seats to give an electric shock to anyone who does something obnoxious while the movie is rolling.

[Sanity_Challenged]

I really, really wish a local theater would ban all children from R-rated movies after 7:00. I would love to give parents the benefit of the doubt that they are making responsible decisions about what is appropriate for their children, but the sad truth is it just seems some parents are too lazy to give a crap and don’t want to pay a babysitter. Then I’m stuck trying to watch a movie with a couple of 5-7 year-olds bouncing around behind because they have absolutely no interest in what’s going on on the screen.

I don’t dislike kids - not by any means. But there are places and times where adults go to get away from that - you’d think a late-night R-rated movie would be a reasonable place to expect that.

[nevermore]

Yeah, this is why I don’t even go to normal movie theaters anymore. The one I go to doesn’t allow anyone under the age of 18 at all, with or without parent. AND they serve beer.

[jackdavinci]

Nah. I went to R rated movies since I was a baby and I was perfectly well behaved. Misbehavior is not unique to any demographic. I’d rather there were ushers around to take care of any annoying people rather than just random banning of certain classes of people. I find adults with cellphones or who wander in and out of the theater much more annoying than kids.

[Scissorjack]

@don_t_ask

Bad behaviour in cinemas prompted one cinema group, Odeon, to install CCTV cameras inside cinemas so foyer staff can monitor audiences.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

And building a Faraday cage or otherwise intentionally blocking cell reception is generally pretty illegal under the telecom regulations of most places. Unfortunately.

[Ms2001]

By all means, ban people who disrupt movies. But by no means should an entire class of people be banned simply because they might disrupt the movie.

If you don’t see the problem here, try replacing “children” with “black people”. Stand-up comics tell me that black people often talk loudly during movies, too. Now, in my experience, that’s no more true of them than it is of children, but if we’re going to discriminate based on stereotypes, why draw the line at age?

[SeaDragonTattoo]

If the theater simply stopped the movie each time some knucklehead’s cell rung, that behavior would stop right quick, I think. Other behaviors might be harder to modify, though, like talking with neighbors.

A short story: I went to a first-run movie with my parents about 10 years ago. My dad commented through the whole damned thing! He does the same thing with the fracking TV at home, but I didn’t expect in in a crowded movie theater. I kept shushing him through the whole thing and have since sworn never to enter a theater of any kind in his company unless we sit in separate sections! I really wanted to break his jaw.

[Scissorjack]

@Ms2001

If you don’t see the problem here, try replacing “children” with “black people”. Stand-up comics tell me that black people often talk loudly during movies, too. Now, in my experience, that’s no more true of them than it is of children, but if we’re going to discriminate based on stereotypes, why draw the line at age?

This argument is very, very silly. Forbidding children from doing something solely on the basis of their age is not the moral equivalent of forbidding black people from doing something on the solely on the basis of their skin colour. Hell, society does it all the time: the statement “children should not be allowed to drive cars” is not functionally equivalent to “black people should not be allowed to drive cars”.

[Ms2001]

@Scissorjack

This argument is very, very silly. Forbidding children from doing something solely on the basis of their age is not the moral equivalent of forbidding black people from doing something on the solely on the basis of their skin colour.

Of course it is. Both qualities are beyond the individual’s control, and neither quality has any relation to the act being forbidden. Age is no more linked to the ability to watch a movie in silence than skin color is.

We have a responsibility to judge individuals as individuals, based on their own actions, not on their age, race, gender, or any other accident of their birth.

Hell, society does it all the time: the statement “children should not be allowed to drive cars” is not functionally equivalent to “black people should not be allowed to drive cars”.

You’re right: one statement has the force of law behind it, and the other does not. Society openly tolerates ageism today, as evidenced by this thread, just as it openly tolerated sexism and racism in the not-so-distant past. That’s the functional difference. I’m not sure what that’s supposed to prove here, though.

[Snarky_Kong]

@Ms2001

Of course it is. Both qualities are beyond the individual’s control, and neither quality has any relation to the act being forbidden. Age is no more linked to the ability to watch a movie in silence than skin color is.

You cannot be serious. Have you ever met a 4 year old?

[Ms2001]

@Snarky_Kong

You cannot be serious. Have you ever met a 4 year old?

I’ve never met one who could travel to the theater and buy himself a ticket.

Not that it matters. This discrimination is targeted at teenagers, not small children; the age limit is drawn at eighteen, not five. I’ve met plenty of teenagers who could watch movies without causing a scene.

But even that is beside the point. Suppose someone produced statistics showing that noise complaints in theaters were more commonly filed against black people, or women, or Catholics, or any other group not defined by age – would you then be in favor of banning those groups from the theater too? Would any theater owners even consider it? Somehow I don’t think so.

It’s not about how accurate the generalization is, it’s about which kinds of discrimination they can still get away with. People have mostly stopped putting up with racism. They still put up with ageism (even more so in the UK than the US, it seems), so ageism continues, even though it’s fundamentally no different.

[Scissorjack]

@Ms2001

We have a responsibility to judge individuals as individuals, based on their own actions, not on their age, race, gender, or any other accident of their birth.

Right. This is why we can have sex with 10 year old girls if they are wearing halter tops and miniskirts. Honestly, can you not see the silliness of your line of reasoning?

[Ms2001]

@Scissorjack

Right. This is why we can have sex with 10 year old girls if they are wearing halter tops and miniskirts. Honestly, can you not see the silliness of your line of reasoning?

Age of consent laws are meant to protect minors from being tricked into doing something they don’t understand, based on the social and biological realities of human sexual development.

This theater policy, on the other hand, is meant to protect other customers who don’t like teenagers from having to sit in the same room as them, based on a stereotypical belief that young people can’t keep their mouths shut for two hours at a time.

Do you really not see the difference?

[Scissorjack]

@Ms2001

Age of consent laws are meant to protect minors from being tricked into doing something they don’t understand, based on the social and biological realities of human sexual development.

Your argument seems to be that we should not make generalised assumptions about the behaviour of minors based solely on their age, but to treat each case on an individual basis: to do otherwise, in your own word, is “discrimination” akin to racism. Thus a theatre excluding children because they have a perceived tendency to be noisy and restless is, according to you, “ageist”.

Of course it’s ageist. Society in its wisdom has decided that children lack the autonomous decision-making capacity, the maturity, of adults, and that certain decisions must be made for them, whether as a protection {not sending them out to sweep chimneys}, for their own benefit {sending them to school}, or the protection and benefit of society {not letting them drive}.

You seem to be arguing that this is a form of discrimination akin to racism, and that banning an individual from a theatre on the basis of his or her age is akin to banning them on the basis of his or her skin colour. To bar someone from a theatre because they are black is wrong because they are an adult human being capable of making decisions and being responsible for their behaviour: skin colour is not relevant to someone’s capacity to sit and watch a movie quietly. To bar someone from a theatre because they are five is simply recognising that five year olds as a class are likely to get bored and rowdy and piss off other patrons: their age is, by and large, relevant to their movie-watching capacity.

Honestly, you can’t have it both ways: if you’re arguing that minors ought to have the equivalent legal capacity of adults {“We have a responsibility to judge individuals as individuals, based on their own actions, not on their age, race, gender or any other accident of their birth”}, then you can’t on the other hand argue that age of consent laws are “to protect minors being tricked into doing something they don’t understand”.

Surely by your first argument a child ought to be able to make the individual decision to consent to sex themselves: fortunately, society recognises that both children and society itself do need protection in certain circumstances, and that protection is a direct consequence of a child’s age.

Since when is age an “accident of birth” anyway?

[Ms2001]

@Scissorjack

Your argument seems to be that we should not make generalised assumptions about the behaviour of minors based solely on their age, but to treat each case on an individual basis: to do otherwise, in your own word, is “discrimination” akin to racism. Thus a theatre excluding children because they have a perceived tendency to be noisy and restless is, according to you, “ageist”.

Of course it’s ageist. Society in its wisdom has decided that children lack the autonomous decision-making capacity, the maturity, of adults, and that certain decisions must be made for them, whether as a protection {not sending them out to sweep chimneys}, for their own benefit {sending them to school}, or the protection and benefit of society {not letting them drive}.

Banning minors from the theater has nothing to do with their decision-making capacity. Read the article: they’re banning minors because some people think minors are too rowdy or play with their mobile phones too much.

This isn’t some invisible, inscrutable quality like “maturity” or critical thinking skills. You can see and hear whether someone is being disruptive in a theater, and kick them out if they are. There’s no need to act with prejudice.

As for society and its wisdom, it wasn’t long ago that society agreed certain decisions “must” be made for women and black people, too – society was wrong. Pointing out that age discrimination extends beyond the theater doesn’t prove anything. But that’s beside the point, because this policy isn’t about making decisions on anyone’s behalf, it’s about keeping unwanted people out of sight.

To bar someone from a theatre because they are five is simply recognising that five year olds as a class are likely to get bored and rowdy and piss off other patrons: their age is, by and large, relevant to their movie-watching capacity.

Again, the age limit in question is eighteen. The policy is directed at teenagers who come to the theater to watch a James Bond movie (which is rated for ages 12 and up anyway), not parents who bring howling toddlers.

Surely by your first argument a child ought to be able to make the individual decision to consent to sex themselves: fortunately, society recognises that both children and society itself do need protection in certain circumstances, and that protection is a direct consequence of a child’s age.

Once again, this has nothing to do with a theater’s policy to ban minors. The policy is there to keep teenagers away from adult patrons who don’t like their presence, not to protect them from anything.

If you want to point out the discrimination in age of consent laws, or any other age-based laws, don’t expect to find any disagreement from me. Age limits are almost always a poor and unjust substitute for some other quality that the law is really trying to measure. But I don’t think this is the right thread or forum for that.

Since when is age an “accident of birth” anyway?

What else could it be? A person’s age is out of his control and determined at the moment of conception, just like skin color or gender.

[AllWalker]

Mr2001, are you opposed to all forms of ageism in this context? Or would you see a ban along the lines of no under 16 year olds allowed in M/R rated movies after, say, 7pm as accceptable?

Because yes, there are adult jerks out there. Yes, there are disruptive idiots who talk on their phones/to each other, loudly. But IME bad cinema experiences come from kids (ie early to mid teens) in adult-centric movies at night. Adults don’t throw popcorn as much as children, and the adult-centric nature of the movie and the late time slot is like a signal to them to fuck around.

FWIW, I was a very well behaved cinema goer as a teenager. But I would not have felt discriminated against by any restrictions - in fact, I was surprised by their absence. Any restrictions on times meant that I would have gone in the afternoon or before lunch. What would be the big deal?

[Bill_Door]

@Scissorjack

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

And building a Faraday cage or otherwise intentionally blocking cell reception is generally pretty illegal under the telecom regulations of most places. Unfortunately.

I’m going to ask for a cite on this. While jamming cellular telephone reception using transmitted RF is illegal, I’m unaware of any regulation that would prevent passive blocking like a Faraday shield. Surely the theater is under no obligation to ensure its structure is transparent to radio frequencies?