digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

An Open Letter To Parents Who Bring Their Children To Violent Horor Films

filmwad.com — It ’d be one thing if they were twelve or thirteen. While the majority of children at that age are, indeed, douchebags, they at the very least understand what they are seeing, will only verbally react to certain parts of the film, and they are easily controllable by any parent with half a brain and a desire for silence. Not so with your children...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jmontes, on 10/11/2007, -4/+198I wish I thought you were exaggerating, but I've also been in the same annoying situation. It really is a form of child abuse.
    • diulei, on 10/11/2007, -0/+69Yup, been there. I've seen parents who have the balls to reprimand their toddlers for being noisy while in the front row at an R-rated movie.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+152There was a baby screaming a few years back while I was watching the re-release of...get this...The Exorcist. I tried to send a "shhhh" back there and the very mature father yelled "***** you". That is some great parenting.
    • yohnstoppable, on 10/11/2007, -3/+76"My attempts to insert footage of actress Vera Jordanova into my mental spank bank for future reference were constantly thwarted by your child’s frequent sobs and shouts; as a result, I have, at best, three seconds of Jordanova in said bank. And they aren’t even from the scene where she’s in a bikini"

      gold
    • yargthepirate, on 10/11/2007, -12/+166when I went to see Passion of the Christ, there were at least 20 children in the theater. I move that all people be required to obtain licenses before they can breed.
    • Wrathernaut, on 10/11/2007, -2/+56They may be related to the couple I unintentionally watched "Sin City" with, except the boy was about six and the baby about two.

      Perhaps the 6-year-old was given up and the 2-year old grew into this moving showing.

      I really wish the NC-17 rating would come back.
    • TheAkolyte, on 10/11/2007, -4/+28when I went to see black snake moan, there was this one woman in the theater who had 4 ***** babies right in the ***** first row.
    • HomerS1, on 10/11/2007, -26/+44yargthepirate -

      I didn't see the Passion of Christ. I had already read the book, and movies based on books never translate to the screen very well :-)
    • sarazen, on 10/11/2007, -10/+24Sigh, it is parents like this that make it hard for parents like me. While I would NEVER bring one of my little ones to that kind of film unless they were sub one and sleeping all the time, it is possible to bring a little kid to a movie AND still allow everyone to have a good time. You must know your kids, and you must be willing to walk out if they seem like they are loosing it, or just can't sit still today. Kids can be good movie people, but they have to learn how. Of course they will learn from their parents. Movie talkers raise movie talkers.
    • Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -9/+72"I didn't see the Passion of Christ. I had already read the book"

      Does he die in the movie too?
    • timpkmn89, on 10/11/2007, -5/+94@Pixelante

      No. In a twist, he teams up with the Jews and they all go kick the devil's ass. The new ending seemed sorta rushed to me though.
    • Tanishh, on 10/11/2007, -28/+3"I didn't see the Passion of Christ. I had already read the book, and movies based on books never translate to the screen very well :-)"

      Because as we all know, the LotR movies were so terrible.
    • weeeezzll, on 10/11/2007, -31/+5@ HomerS1

      The movie sucked more than the book, and the book is probably one of the worst written pieces of tripe ever...lol
    • Synchro, on 10/11/2007, -12/+9At the same time my friend's dad took us to see Conan the Barbarian when I was 9 or so. E.T. was sold out, as I recall. (Thank God) I am no worse for wear and to this day it is by far one of my favorite movies. The sweeping landscape cinemetography is what I remembered the most through the ages actually, not the gore, nakedness or whatever. Every kid is different of course, so others may have been warped.
    • bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23Synchro, there is a bit of a difference between Conan the Barbarian and Hostile 2. I saw CtB in a drive in at like six. Made me want a sword and steroids :)

      Now I'm 33, I have a sword, and fuhq roids.
    • ChrisXof, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4The 10 Best Ultra-Violent Films of All-Time
      http://digg.com/movies/The_10_Best_Ultra_Violent_Films_of_All_Time

      Oohh irony..
    • Arahka, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19Every set of parents that I've seen that will bring a toddler to a horror movie are just kids themselves, at least mentally and they're usually not making the best home environment for the kids either. More often than not it's just more of the same as home just louder and darker for the poor kid. I second the motion to make people get licenses to have children. Too bad you can't control their reproductive systems.
    • carbonetc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10I can say with total certainty that if I had seen a movie like that at that age it would have changed me forever.
    • tuckerleary, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1oh how those "horor" films ruined my life...
    • figpetus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10It is a form of child abuse, and I would leave the theater, demand my money back, and while they were getting me my refund I would call the cops. There have been more than a few cases recently ( at least in NY ) where the department of social services have taken children away from negligent parents who have been discovered at the movies.
    • Mitchl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17While I completely agree that I really don't want to see 3-4-5 y/o's in PG-13 or R rated movies-- I remember not being very pleased of a 5 y/o sitting next to me going to the bathroom a thousand times during Matrix Revolutions-- I am about sworn off of movie theaters anyway because of the teenagers from 14 on up. Yapping on cell phones and even talking at the screen, or the audience and generally acting like jackasses. I can no longer enjoy any movie with my wife shown at 7pm on a Friday or Saturday, as the crowd is just too disruptive.

      I will still go see an action flick but only the afternoon or late showings. I will go see Die Hard and Transformers, but then am probably done with the movieplex for this year. I would rather spend my money on DVDs and see it in 1080p DLP brilliance at home at an enjoyable volume with pause, rewind, and close captioning.
    • TKDWILSON, on 10/11/2007, -13/+21""""""when I went to see Passion of the Christ, there were at least 20 children in the theater. I move that all people be required to obtain licenses before they can breed.""""""""

      That is one movie that should be the exception I think. That has a lot of religious significance. It could change a child's life for the better if parents approach it correctly. Not the same with a slasher movie.

      • 0Ana, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It may have religious significance, but I highly doubt that that would mean jack to a small child - especially taking into consideration that the film isn't in a language that the kids are going to understand. I really don't think this would be any sort of exception when, as with the other movies, all the child is most likely to remember is the images of torture and death, and the horrible sounds of crying, screaming and yelling in pain. Honestly, you'd expect a child to start crying quite quickly if you sat it in a darkened room and began crying and screaming yourself, so I don't understand why anyone would think a movie theater would be any different.
    • Vagari, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12I pretty much go to _all_ matinees to avoid the idiot crowd, and save money. It's sad that parents bring little children to movies like that.

      On the teenager front I did successfully subdue a group of kids once with a drawn out, "Shut...the...*****...up..." But I could tell they were whiny little kids. Thinking back it could have just as easily been a bunch of jackasses who dumped their soda on my head or something. And it's not worth it getting arrested hurling them into the aisles.
    • Tarl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22Personally I don't care if I'm watching the new Incredibles movie or Saw 4. Shut your kids up or leave the theater with them.
    • ModernTenshi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I work in projection at my local theater, and we have a rule that bars any parents from bringing in a child under the age of 6 into an R rated film. I still think that's way too young to be bringing a kid into an R rated film, but hey, I just have to start the movies. I agree with other opinions stated here that some kids can sit there and be quiet, and therefore aren't a problem. For any parents who do have kids that have to go use the restroom every 30 minutes, or can't stay still, or shut up during the movie, take your kids out until they calm down, or if it comes to it, leave. I think our theater will refund your money if you say you have to leave because your kids won't settle down, and you don't want to bother others.
    • cupid311, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20i've had one of these experiences as well unfortunately. Some friends and i went to SAW 3. That movie is down right disturbing. A lady came in with her maybe 6 yr old daughter. Not only did they sit through the whole movie but afterwords the child had to wake the mother up who was completely passed out. then she stumbled out of the Theater. RIDICULOUS! I was completely disgusted and i hope that mother gets the child taken away from her. The kid needs a REAL parent.
    • nogami, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5If I ever saw this in a theatre I was in, you better bet that the cell phone I'd be holding up to my ear would be connected to children and family services on the other end, followed by the police...

      I would do my utmost to make sure the kids were taken away and the parents in for a legal world-o-hurt...
    • djAnakin, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17@ HomerS1

      Why is there always some asshat that has to say this whenever ANYONE so much as mentions "Passion.." Anyone who is a Christian SHOULD see this movie. It will only confirm your faith. It's one thing to read a few lines about how Christ suffered.. But to actually see this... is totally different.

      Even if you're not Christian.. and Jesus was just some guy, they still tortured him, when he did nothing to deserve it. It still blows my mind that there are people out there [then and now] that have the ability to do this to another human being.

      I'm aethiest. I saw it. I cried.


      And parents like the ones you guys have been describing *should* be tortured. And the cell phone talkers.
    • MusicalGenius, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8You know. I'm a very non R-rated type of guy. I don't care for them most of the time... but I thought I'd see Passion of the Christ because EVERYONE had something to say about it. I don't really care for the movie but I will NEVER forget seeing SO MANY children there and watching a Mel Gibson interview where even HE said that kids shouldn't see it and it isn't a kids movie...yet EVERYONE in the Theater was with their Children... I couldn't help but think how horrible it was.... and to even THINK about how Hostel would be..... I can't even image why a parent would.
    • HallsOfMandos, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6@TKD - take away the fact that this has its roots in religion and it basically is the prequel to the Hostel movies, nothing but senseless gore.
    • cheekdog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7@sarazen: did you even rtfa?? it isn't only about the noise....it is about what is being ingrained in those tiny, impressionable brains!!! if you can't find a sitter, DON'T GO!! if entertainment is going to be your priority, then DON'T SPAWN!!
    • Tarl, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0Sorry, what's being ingrained????

      I've seen my dose of violence on the silver screen and *gasp* TV/VCR movies growing up(wolfen, howlin, eddie murphie, countless b-list horror). Shut your kids the hell up. That is the real issue. The kids are not paying attention to the movie and don't want to watch it. Leave.

      Why some people don't get it is beyond me. If you don't understand other people hate to be interrupted during a movie don't spawn. Simple yes?
    • KingPhallus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@djanakin

      If someone watches the Passion to reaffirm their faith or in anyway strengthen it, then they're missing the entire point of what Christ's LIFE was about. You want to turn me on to Christ? Show me how he lived. I could care less how he died. If you have to guilt trip me into believing in your savior then you suck as a representitive for him. If I was Jesus I would honest to God be ashamed of that movie.

      And to whoever said that the Passion is the exception to the rule, no its not. Because it's Jesus it doesn't that some little kid will somehow be able to process the meaning any better than if it was some fictional character. If you want to take your kids to a snuff film at least wait until they're 10 or above. At least then they can understand context and have enough emotional and mental maturity to be able to handle it. Also the point about it being life changing is a joke. That same logic could be applied to any movie. Assuming the first part of this paragraph is completely off and really little kids can process and understand (as opposed to repeating what they were told, verbatim) what they're seeing then wouldn't be equally reasonable to assume that the same little kid could watch any other horror movie and possibly be inspired to write, direct, star in or do make up work for horror movies?

      Pull your heads out of your asses and focus on how the man lived. Maybe then my true christian friends wouldn't have to start the day saying, "Lord, please protect me from your followers". His death is only relevant if you believe in the mysticism of his resurrection and even that wouldn't require a snuff film.
    • djlosch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4points taken, but why the ***** write an open letter? open letters are such a stupid cliche. the likelihood of the letter's targets actually having internet, nevermind coming to that site and reading that letter is astronomically small. open letters are the new fad.
    • Sterango, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3@djanakin

      Don't worry there's no actual evidence in REAL written archived history of anyone named Jesus ever being alive anyway, and for someone that made such a stink as he supposedly did, you'd best be certain things like that would have been recorded, but, nope.
    • upsilonh24, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I work at a cinema. It's true. I've seen an idiot trying to see Hostel 2 with his toodler. His argument was: "Come on man! He won't understand!".
    • ferkranus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I remember recently seeing "Hot Fuzz"...just because it's a comedy doesn't mean it's for children! I swear, sitting right in front of us was a family with a 2 year old and a 4 year old. Come on! That movie was so voilent and not once did I even see either of the parents cover their childrens eyes!! Are you blind? Totally ruined the movie for me b/c all I could think about was what horrible parents they were and how traumatizing seeing a fence post go through a man's head would be for a baby. People are such idiots.

      Funny note: the family mentioned above was also brown - I didn't realize it was a stereotype, but do now.
    • DrStephanHeimer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@TKDWILSON

      "That is one movie that should be the exception I think. That has a lot of religious significance. "

      because we all know religious people are well adjusted rational members of society.

      /sarcasm
    • TKDWILSON, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@drstephanheimer


      We all know that atheists and agnostics are all a bunch of preteen Goths that have a problem with their parents and have become disillusioned with the church. There. Stereotypes aren't always good are they?
    • DrStephanHeimer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@TKDWILSON

      First of all I was being sarcastic in case you missed that. And since you brought up stereotypes the whole notion that religion is always good and automatically deserves respect is plain ridiculous. Being religious should not exempt anyone from critical thinking or decision making, No one should bring kids to a movie with graphic violence that is obviously intended for an older audience, the fact that one movie has an actor playing Jesus is irrelevant.
  • mspink, on 10/11/2007, -17/+15Well Written!
    • Jwoey, on 10/11/2007, -46/+14Meh, it had good points, but 'well written'?

      "...into the particular screening of Hostel: Part II I was present for."

      Using unnecessary extra words and avoiding simplicity isn't good writing. it just makes it harder to read aloud.
    • bremma, on 10/11/2007, -6/+38I think he intentionally wrote it like that to give himself a high minded tone. I think it worked well.
    • SmokeN-DC, on 10/11/2007, -16/+5Spank Bank? did we really need to hear that part? aside from that I agree 100% but I did not need the Term "Spank Bank" added to my Vocabulary
  • LukasKaiser, on 10/11/2007, -1/+100i live near the infamous movie theater where parents took their newborn son to see alien vs. predator, fed the infant popcorn and then watched as their kid choked to death. i'm not sure if the fact that it was a horror film was to blame at all for the kid's death, but if you're dumb enough to bring the kid to alien vs predator, i guess you're dumb enough to feed em popcorn.
    • AXNJAXN, on 10/11/2007, -0/+52One time, I saw Terminator 3 in a theater (regrettably, I might add), and this guy had brought something like ten or twelve kids ranging from a two-year-old to a five-year-old. They were freaking out every time something happened onscreen. Horrible.
    • mrhahn, on 10/11/2007, -3/+61Who can blame em, T3 was terrible...
    • jaycliche, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13"Who can blame em, T3 was terrible..."

      Arnolds incredible humor doesn't impress you? He more clever then Lenny Bruce!
    • S4MF1SHER, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Talk to tha hand!
  • frenchdiggler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+92I now know I misspelled Horror in the title, please forgive me.
    • mccrusc, on 10/11/2007, -35/+3I'm assuming the "now" is a typo, but I like it better this way. It's like "I learned my lesson, and I'll never do it again." It makes your tiny error, omitting a letter, sound so much heavier.
    • idonthack, on 10/11/2007, -1/+44There can be no mercy.
    • joelito, on 10/11/2007, -20/+5the "I now know" doesn't look like a typo. But it makes you look like a non-native English speaker.
    • mccrusc, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1I'm replying days after this thing has gone cold so nobody can digg me down FTW!!!
    • mccrusc, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Noooooooooooooo!!!
  • Easty, on 10/11/2007, -1/+109Is that really how it works in America? You can take a kid to any movie as long as they're accompanied by an adult?
    Over here (UK), it's all limited by age (U, PG, 12A, 15, 18). The only concession is 12A movies, where you can bring a child under 12 if accompanied by an adult.
    I dugg it anyway - how the hell can you be THAT much of a bad parent short of actually setting your children on fire?
    • jaycliche, on 10/11/2007, -1/+25Depends on the theater and who is working the door. The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) sets the rating and then the movie houses can (legally) choose to enforce. All aforementioned are private and most theaters follow the standards but don't have to. A great movie on the topic (I think it's online) is called "This Film Is Not Yet Rated". The ratings bored is unknown and appointed by the MPAA.
    • badjoke, on 10/11/2007, -1/+30As long as the parents are present, a kid can see anything up to an R-Rated movie. NC-17 is 17+ only. Also, it can't just be an adult with the kid; it has to be a parent.
    • jaycliche, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15PS I think "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is available for free (legally) on the net.
    • Smuikas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13During my first few college years, I worked at a Consolidated Theaters theater (small local chain in north carolina). One of our policies was that after 6pm, no one under a certain age (can't remember what it was at this point - I think it was 13) was allowed into a rated R film even if their parents were present. This was exactly because of the environmental issues raised in the article (though, probably not the psychological issues). It was a ***** place to work (one of the most accurate cashiers they ever had, and after two years I was making 35 cents more per hour than I did when I started, constantly overlooked for promotions because of personal beefs management had with me - apparently they couldn't take that someone younger than them was better at customer service than them) but at least they did that.
    • jaycliche, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8"As long as the parents are present, a kid can see anything up to an R-Rated movie. NC-17 is 17+ only. Also, it can't just be an adult with the kid; it has to be a parent."

      This is only according to the rules set by the MPAA and the theaters who agree. Of course if you want distribution or your theater to be allowed to buy the movies...you better follow the bizarre and inconsistent rating system.
    • Jacob, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16The ratings are set by private industry so the government can't enforce it. Despite what one jackass movie manager told me when this girl I was with forgot her ID, their is no law in the US saying that you have to be a certain age to see a movie. (except nc-17 but that's way to complicated to get into on digg)
    • joeyjojo, on 10/11/2007, -4/+55Yea, things are messed up over here.

      Also, our rating system is pretty much based entirely on boobs. Apparently, boobs are the most horrific thing and deserve an R rating. Guns and bombs and torture? Eh...not so bad.
    • SnuKs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23Yea, why can't they make all Rated R movies NC-17 just to block all dumb parents from bringing their kids in.

      OH WAIT I FORGOT. Studios do loooove that $$$$$
    • jaycliche, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5"except nc-17"

      I don't think that is exactly true. There are separate laws about showing smut to minors but Nc-17 isn't a government standard. It may be a key to the legal recourse but it is ALL private. Nc-17 was added to separate "X" which got the rap of being only porn (which didn't used to be true) and films that are meant as legit...but will still get into few if any theaters. Again, "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is a must see if you are interested in the subject.
    • thrallie, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5I think we need the government out of ratings, let the parents decide. Also if a theater has a problem with little kids in R Rated movies, they can make a rule for their own theater. This way if many people complain, the market takes over and fixes the issue. Even a couple of posts above a person mentioned a rule for after 6PM at a particular theater.

      if we were to have competing rating companies, each theater could pick their own. And it's up to the theater to enforce it. Government should be protecting us instead of parenting our children and making sure "bad things" don't get into our "soul".
    • jaycliche, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7"Yea, why can't they make all Rated R movies NC-17 just to block all dumb parents from bringing their kids in."

      Because NC-17 never gets touched by the big studios. By creating this line, it is a subtle way of censoring many "subversive" movies. Things that were "R" in the 70's would be considered NC-17 by todays standard...and again...no one would touch them. Hence so much shlock in Hollywood compared with the golden age of cinema in the 70s.
    • brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20NC-17 movies are rarely carried by theaters. The MPAA has a nice racket going on with movie ratings. They claim it's completely voluntary, but very few major theaters in the US will show a movie not submitted to the MPAA for a rating. Very few media outlets (TV stations, newspapers) will promote it. If you want a large-sized audience to see your movies at all, you HAVE to submit them to be rated. The MPAA likes to punish independent filmmakers by giving them NC-17 ratings (a death sentence). Identical scenes in films from major (member) studios will usually only warrant an R rating. Want to appeal the rating? You have to convince them they were wrong in a kangaroo court that contains representatives of the local churches (they DESPERATELY try to keep that a secret).

      It basically amounts to artistic feudalism. The MPAA is the lord and has the final say over what movies get distribution in the country. The ratings system is voluntary in the same manner "protection money" for the local mafia is voluntary.
    • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8thrallie, you need to read up on the Tragedy of the Commons.

      The reality is that your idyllic anarchy would result in everyone suffering and no markeplace adjustment, because of the social dynamics involved - for one thing, you've obviously never tried to find someone in authority to make a complaint to late night at a movie theater. It is so much easier for one irresponsible parent to spoil the experience for everyone than it is to get a corporation to change their behavior.

      Really, I wish free market fundamentalists would bother to check their dogma against reality every once and a while.
    • TheDecn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7@thrallie

      The government is already left out of the ratings system...MPAA is a private organization, not government. It is not illegal to let kids under 17 into an R rated movie. It is up to theaters to self police. Theater owners can set the policy any way they want, though I'm sure there would be repercussions via the MPAA, like possibly a theater could be cut off from receiving further film distribution or something like that.
    • bitterbug, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21I don't even know what the ratings mean here in Canada any more.

      When Se7en came out, there was a 5 year old and a two year old sitting by themselves in the row in front of me.
      I asked the five year old where his family was. His brother, who looked to be about 15 or 16 (not even old enough to get into the movie himself) was sitting a few rows back with his girlfriend. The five year old was "looking after" the younger one.

      Meanwhile when I tried to take my 14 year old stepson to see Resident Evil, the ticket jockey refused him entrance, even though as his guardian I thought it was something he could watch without being scarred for life. He may be a dumbass, but one zombie movie isn't going to shatter his psyche forever.

      So it boggles me that pre-schoolers can get into movies that teenagers can't.

      On a separate note, now that they have Movies For Mommies and other specialty screenings, I suggest that we have a Movies for Movie-watchers screening each week. No ***** cell phones, chatting, or food in rattly packaging during the movie. And kicking the seat in front of you is grounds for a beating. :)
    • jaycliche, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"I think we need the government out of ratings, let the parents decide."

      The government isn't in ratings. It's the MPAA. It's a collusion of companies. They claim they have "parents" who set the ratings...but often those "parents" have children in their 20s or 30s according to the Private Investigators who figured out who the board was. It's a shadow board in which the appeals board has two seats...one of a Protestant priest and the other of a Catholic priest. You wish it was under government regulation. Corporatism rides again!
    • jaycliche, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@rationalist

      Well put my friend.
    • samurailynn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@bitterbug

      There's actually a theater in the town I live in that doesn't allow anyone under 21 for the after 6pm showings. I think it's partly because they serve alcohol, but it makes for a great environment for movie watching. The only problem is that it's an independent theater, and they only show 2nd run movies (like, the ones that have already been out for a month or so), so if you want to see a movie as soon as it comes it, you won't get it there. However, I think that having a good experience at the movies is worth waiting a month to see them.
    • jgrossma, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The problem is that they (the MPAA and the big theater chains) have made it almost impossible for a NC-17 movie to be profitable. If these organizations would drop all the pointless restrictions on advertising (NC-17 films can't be advertised on TV or radio and many theaters won't show trailers for them regardless of the content of the actual ads) and screening (Lowes, Regal, UA, AMC, etc won't show NC-17 films) then films that are intended for an adult audience (like Hostel II) could be released as NC-17 solving the problem of small children in the theater and filmmakers wouldn't have to censor their work to get a R rating .

      Also, individual theaters can and should take action against this type of thing. If someone (no matter their age or the movie) is behaving inappropriately and disturbing other patrons they should be asked to leave.
    • norman619, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1In theUS the hollywood film industry is not regulated by the government. No rating system is mandated. The MPAA rating system is 100% voulntary. Enforcement is 100% voluntary. Much like the videogame rating system. Tho the system is pretty much enforced by all movie theaters so it's not really "voluntary."
  • EricWester, on 10/11/2007, -63/+1You spelled horror wrong.
    • fivestarsoul, on 10/11/2007, -4/+38He already said that, you LOSER!
    • s1mph0ny, on 10/11/2007, -20/+0Of course we should totally trust somebody who misspells the only topic that their article relates to.
  • zephyrTR, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9That's some good editorialism right there. Unfortunately the 'parents are to blame' argument in the "violent entertainment therefore violent children" tends to go unheralded. I would like to see this article on the front page of at least the entertainment section of Digg by dinnertime.
    • Crispin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I agree. But one further. This needs to go to the front page of Digg proper.
  • ftblstr2319, on 10/11/2007, -1/+25Violence here is like nudity over there... and vice versa
    • ilyag, on 10/11/2007, -4/+23Nudity is real. Violence is faked with red paint and rubber.
    • revenge7, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5Young kids don't know that.
    • bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17So, what's wrong with nudity? We're all born that way.
    • ilyag, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1bemenaker:

      Assuming you're an adult... when you were a child, would you have found it acceptable to walk around your home naked in front of your parents, and seeing them do the same?

      If your answer is yes, I can at least understand why you stated that opinion -- you are a naturalist. If your answer is no, then you're a hypocrite.
    • norman619, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Didn't you know? The movie industry and such agree 100% with the Mulsim view that the naked female form is evil and will rot your mind upon viewing it. I still don't get it tho. Why is it bad?
    • norman619, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@revenge7:

      So when you were a kid you were stupid enough to think you were watching a reality show and not a horror movie?! I have to blame the parents.
  • btbridges, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15i saw the most remake of the dawn of the dead while sitting next to a 7 year old girl and her 4 year old brother. they spent the first 2hrs laughing the whole time. however, when the guy shoots himself in the end, the girl started crying. all in all, i thought it was a lot of fun.
    • Typhoon2009, on 10/11/2007, -0/+25There's something creepy about kids laughing at a human's struggle to fend off zombies...
    • jaycliche, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18"There's something creepy about kids laughing at a human's struggle to fend off zombies..."

      There are lots of creepy things in America.
    • idonthack, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3@btbridges

      I was in the middle of watching that, thanks :-(
    • bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4It's really ok, better to be let down this way, than be wasting another 45mins of your life. Really :)
  • badjoke, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22Well ranted. Everything I've wanted to shout at many parents.
    • ezkiel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I feel very guilty not saying anything to the parents; but i know I'll just get a '***** Off' from the subhuman pieces of *****.

      I'm feeling very compelled to bitch out the next parent I see with their 4 year old at some gore/horror flick.
  • zyl0x, on 10/11/2007, -2/+86Too bad the idiots who should be reading this CAN'T ***** READ.
    • billymonster49, on 10/11/2007, -16/+2yeah, i hate black people! lol
  • oscbash, on 10/11/2007, -42/+2It was funny but too bad that last paragraph reveals he's a bigot.
  • forexproject, on 10/11/2007, -1/+25This is terrible. The thing is, they should not be able to use the "Don't tell me how to raise my kids" excuse. Our kids that are their age are going to be the one's to pay for their ***** upbringing when they start projecting this violence out in school.
    • bmwboy2844, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This is exactly like the idiots who let their 10 year olds play CS:S and wonder why they turn out odd...
  • iceschade, on 10/11/2007, -24/+3Worst. Parents. Evar.

    Ought to be taken out back and raped, beaten, castrated, and shot, while their children are taken to a new, better family.

    You preach violence, you get violence.
    • bjwaggoner, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14Yeah, cause bad parenting REALLY requires sexual abuse as punishment.
    • Osceola, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Just don't let the kids watch.
  • Cojawfee, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11I am sick of parents doing this. The people sitting in front of me while seeing Grindhouse (a whole family, you can guess the race) brought a two year old. I don't know how the hell this baby kept quiet through three hours of swearing, explosions, and gore. And when I went to see 300, the theater was filled with 10 year olds.
    • joelito, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Hey, for those ten year olds that saw 300 it's the probably the closest thing to porn they've seen so far.
    • boyasunder, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Maybe I don't feel like guessing the race, Captain Prejudice. Why don' t you enlighten me so I can find out what race you think so lowly of?
    • jmontes, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13I'm guessing the human race. Damn humans screw up everything!
    • norman619, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6To be perfectly honest, if you teach your kids the difference between relaity and fantasy you shouldn't have to worry too much about them being exposed to boobies and stuff. My parents didn't take me to see R movies in a theater when I was small but at home I was allowed to watch pretty much all the R movies I wanted. Why? Cuz my parents already knew I understood movies were not real. Imagine that! I get so tired of peopel insinuating that kids who grow up watching violent movies grow up warped in some way or become violent monsters. It's 100% *****. What warps kids are bad parents not bad R rated horror movies.
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I don't know how the hell this baby kept quiet through three hours of swearing, explosions, and gore.

      But he was, so you can't complain that he was screaming and wailing, which is one of the most common complaints. THe only complaint you could possibly have is that it is irresponsible parenting.
  • bjornski, on 10/11/2007, -13/+8But it's their right to bring their kids anywhere they want.

    Right?

    I mean, it's only a movie/video-game.....

    Right?

    • Nougat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21@bjornski (#7147504)

      It's only a movie/video game to *adults.* The minds of children are not developed enough to understand that what's happening on the screen isn't real.

      Parents should not have the right to subject their children to psychological torture.
    • bjornski, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2You're making my point about things like "Manhunt 2" perfectly for me.

      Thank you.

      At what age is that cut-off?

      Should your 14-year old be allowed to play murder games? Your 12-year old? Your 10-year old?
    • Crispin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7@bjornski
      Oh please. It's not the same and you know it. The original post was about 5 and 2 year old kids watching a movie with realistic gory effects, not an adolescent playing a pixelated character in a video game.
    • bjornski, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Oh, I agree with you.

      But where is the cut-off?

      5-years old? 10? 12?
    • Crispin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Are you trying to make a point by arguing over an artificial cut off point? Every kid is going to have a different maturity level. Every game or movie is going to have a different comfort level and each parent is going to have a different reaction to what's on screen.

      I think it's pretty agreed upon here that letting a 5 year old watch an ultra-realistic torture movie is morally reprehensible. Letting a 12 year old play Manhunt 2 might require a little more thought. If you're trying to make the "all violence is BAD" argument it's not going to fly.
    • Nougat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11@bjornski (#7148235)

      How about this: the kid should A) not be forced to endure the adult entertainment against their will, at any age, and B) if they decide that they would like to take part in more mature forms of entertainment, they should be able to have a lucid discussion about the nature of the entertainment they want to engage in, in contrast to what happens in reality.

      Are there going to be some 10 year olds who can deal with horror films? Yes. Are there going to be some 12 year olds who cannot? Yes.

      In any event, I can say with the utmost certainty that the number of preschool and younger (toddler, infant) children who can safely digest and enjoy mature violent entertainment is *zero.*
    • bjornski, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Nougat and Crispin: Thanks!

      No, I'm not trying to make the "all violence is bad" argument, I was trying to prod some of you to come up with well thought out arguments for/against it.

      Nicely thought out and presented. Both of you, dugg up.

    • Nougat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@bjornski (#7153929) said:

      "Nougat and Crispin: Thanks!

      No, I'm not trying to make the "all violence is bad" argument, I was trying to prod some of you to come up with well thought out arguments for/against it.

      Nicely thought out and presented. Both of you, dugg up."

      I'm disappointed in your thinly veiled smugness. If it was your intention to have a reasoned discussion - and that is a noble and honorable intention - the world would be better served by your presenting well thought out arguments yourself.

      Instead, you've assumed the position of arbiter of what is or is not well thought out, which seems like precisely the kind of thing you were previously railing against. And then, when responses meet *your* standards, you hand out little gold stars to people, as though they are your pupils, suddenly achieving enlightenment from your tutoring.
    • bjornski, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Sometimes it's fun to play devils advocate.
  • diggydougie, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3The problem is not with the rating system. It's extremely arbitrary anyway. When I was young the R movies were anything short of actual sex, because only adults could see them. Now a 2 second flash of a female breast will give a movie an R rating. This is because they know that kids are watching anyway, so they won't go too far if it's the type of movie that kids would take an interest in.

    I vote for full disclosure but not restriction. Let the parents decide what's best for the kids. It they're bad parents then that's their business, not mine.
    • zyl0x, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8It's going to become your business when the next generation of children all grow up to be ultra-violent sociopaths.
    • nova912, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Until their kids go psycho and kill/injure you or your kids.
    • bidness, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6If anything the U.S. movie rating system as gotten weaker, most of the PG-13 movies would be rated R years ago. Actually I find that the rating system has gotten less of a rating for "content" but a rating for the "target" audience. G = Kids, PG = Family, PG-13 = Family to Teenage+, R = Older Teen to Adult. So even it has nudity (Titanic) the target audience was Family so it was rated PG-13, and other movies are rated R because some adults won't watch PG movies. Thats what I think.
    • norman619, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5@zyl0x:
      "It's going to become your business when the next generation of children all grow up to be ultra-violent sociopaths."

      LOL!!! My lord how ignorant are you? So watching R rated horror movies turns kids into horrible people? Where's you evidence besides opinion pieces? My parents let us (2 brothers and 4 sisters) watch pretty much any movie we wanted to at home up to R. We understood movies were not real. Mom and Dad made sure we could tell the difference between reality and a freaking movie. Between reality and a cartoon. Oh yeah we grew up watching ultra violent anime and playing videogames. And we grew up in the middle of the gangbanger territory in the 80's. We saw our share of REAL violence as well. :-) By your argument we should have grown up into criminals. Guess what? None of us have ever had problems with the law. None of us had behaviour problems. We all grew up into normal rational successful adults. Thinking like yours is the reason many of the head-stuck-in-ass laws exist.

      Parents determine how the kids turn out. Don't give a kid attention, boundries, and proper punishment and yeah you will raise a little monster even w/o the aide of hollywood or the game industry. Like it or not parents screw up kids not a freaking movie or videogame.
  • asspants, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5hey, that was me. you got a problem with my doo-rag?
  • MaximumPig, on 10/11/2007, -8/+12 words for the poster and anyone else facing this problem: pepper spray
  • jayhawk88, on 10/11/2007, -23/+1Shocking, but I would guess stuff like this is not as bad a problem as parents bringing their under-6 kids to films like Spiderman or Pirates. Wife and I saw Spiderman 3 the week after release and there were at least a dozen kids in there under 6. Not as bad as kids in a horror file I realize but like I say, I would guess it's much more prevelant, and I would say could be just as damaging to the kids, especially considering they probably got a Venom toy in their Happy Meal or whatever.
    • zyl0x, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22Did you just compare Hostel to Spiderman??
  • Nougat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+35I have a one year old and a four year old. We can't take them to a G rated movie, and we've got to be careful about any movies we watch at home.

    My four year old understands that things that happen in cartoons aren't real - he doesn't have the same ability when it's live action. He gets freaked out by the live action Power Rangers shows, and he *loves* Power Ranger toys.

    My one (almost two) year old probably wouldn't care what was going on on the screen, but has absolutely no patience for being forced to stay in one place for two hours while awake.

    Beyond that, both of them are in bed by 8PM, otherwise they're horrible devils the next day.

    Those parents are screwing up their kids. I'm disappointed that the theater didn't prevent them from bringing the kids in; if I was working at the theater, and had the authority to do so, I wouldn't have let them in. This is in the case that they bought tickets for the horror flick, and didn't buy tickets for something mild, then just go into the horror flick.
    • joeyjojo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19When our our oldest was 3 we took him to see the Pooh's Heffalump movie. THAT scared him. I'm all for getting kids ready for the real world, but I completely agree...pre-teen in a HORROR movie should just be plain banned. We don't trust kids to drink until they are 21, we don't trust them to have sex until they are 18, we don't trust them to drive unless they're 16, but we're fine letting them in graphic horror movies when they're 5? yeesh.
    • SenorCardgage74, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Wow, that Power Rangers thing is still goin on?
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"We don't trust kids to drink until they are 21, we don't trust them to have sex until they are 18, we don't trust them to drive unless they're 16"

      You're right about the horror movies, but don't use stupid examples to prove your point. I mean, I love "we don't allow them to have sex until they're 18". If anything, that invalidates your argument, so I would suggest you not use it. The driving age is probably fair, and the drinking age is probably a little high, but the AOC is 16 in most places, and judging by all the statutory rape cases, some teens are having sex under the AOC.
  • DirtyBrowncoat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13"Spank bank." I'll have to remember that term. Too funny.
  • PamalaLauren, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13I saw Hannibal and down in the front row was a woman with two kids, one couldn't have been over 3 and the other was in a infant carrier! Are people that damn stupid? I don't even take my own child (1 year old) to any movies. The only movie she will be going to (in a week) is a morning movie that's specially made for mothers to take children to. We're seeing Flicka. She's already seen it because I got it on DVD but I want to see it on the big screen and it's free to go to. Anyhow I couldn't imagine taking her to a horror movie. And I see parents doing it all the damn time. Why are people that dumb?
    • bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4self centered and couldn't care less
  • zomgwaffles, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12This is why they need to issue periodical aptitude tests for people to participate in activities such as driving and going to the movies. If you have the intelligence of an animal then you should be treated like one.
  • dick122, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Bittorrent’s a godsend for parents - Dora the Explorer in the kids’ room, naughty stuff in mommy and daddy’s room. I’m not necessarily confessing to anything here. I’m just saying my kids think theaters only show sarcastic Ogres, talking Donkeys and dancing penguins.
    • joshbattin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1i read ogres as orgies....gods i need sleep
  • PGvildys, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22I saw Grindhouse and two seats away was an 8 or something year old with their parent. At one point they were scared and tried to grab the parents arm, who then said, "what're you doing? Get back in your seat".

    During Deathproof, after the horrific car accident deaths, he asked, "Are they really dead?" I don't think the kid could differentiate from fiction (the movie) and real life.

    It was horrible :P Heck, y father went to see Jurassic Park before he let me or my brother see it, as he had heard on the news that it was quite scary. Luckily he let us see it (I loved dinosaurs as a kid) but at *least* he checked it out first.
    • potterboy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I used to ask my dad that when I was little. Sometimes its hard to tell if their dead or just hurt.
    • weareallzombies, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6You too, huh? When I went on a Sunday morning showing I was shocked to see a dad sit down with his 7 and 5 year old sons. I was wondering if maybe they had walked into the wrong theater, since "Meet The Robinsons" was playing the next one over. Nope, afraid not -- dad was chuckling it up and having a blast and the kids were ***** screaming their heads off. Brilliant.
  • hfisher, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20I went and saw The Cell when that pile of crap came out. 5 kids sitting behind me ages 5-10 there mother yelling at them the whole time. Of course i got up called her a crack whore breeder and left, havent been to the movies since.
  • kardonn, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I think she is a slacker mom
  • ManHammer, on 10/11/2007, -11/+9I do wha I want! I can bring my kids to a movie - I don't care! I do wha I want! I do wha I want!!

    **FYI-thats a Cartman thing before you digg me down
  • MisterFlaut, on 10/11/2007, -5/+18When I was 5, it was explained to me that horror movies, or any movie for that matter, is 100% fake and make believe.

    I was allowed to watch horror. Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm St, Halloween.

    I didn't grow up psychotic. It all depends on the kid.

    I also wasn't an obnoxious screaming child. It has nothing to do with horror films as much as it is "quit bringing your stupid obnoxious kids to movies".
    • trer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16No one is talking about banning horror movies. We're talking about how wrong it is to bring toddlers to violent horror movies clearly rated R.
    • Okari, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10Exactly, it depends on the kid. By the time I was 5 I was a huge horror fan. They did scare the ***** out of me, but I still kept watching. I knew that going out and killing someone with a machete or anything else was wrong. And today I'm not a murderer, I'm a geek on Digg.
    • EricAnderton, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13I see your point, but this was about a screening of "Hostel II". "Nightmare on Elm Street" might as well be "Sesame Street" by comparison.
    • pirloui, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@ericanderton indeed, and I'l 28, and don't wish to watch it myself. (Apreciating the psychological approach to "scary" movies asia has.) But I guess there start to be a real difference between "scary" and "gruesome" movies..
  • Girlwho, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Luckily, the theater near my house doesn't allow small children into R-rated films after 6:00, regardless of ***** American rules that you can bring your kids in with you. Although I love horror movies as an adult, I think I owe my current sanity to my parents' censorship of the films I watched as a child. My Developmental Psychology professor would be appalled at the prospect of exposing a child to something as sick as violent horror during their most impressionable years.
  • SnuKs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15I swear in some of these multi screened mega theaters, they should convert a screen or two [like they do with imax] into a 21 & up showing. Serve some beer like they do at ballparks and have better seats and i'm sure you'll have a hit!

    Imagine.. 300, with a cold beer in your hand and no bratty kids whinning! Awesome!
    • EricAnderton, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I wish! FWIW, there are some places like this, but they're few and far between. The Arglinton Cinema and Drafthouse (Washington DC) is a prime example, but they mostly run old favorites and indie flicks instead of the mainstream (read: new) stuff. The place is a total dive, but a great time - and they do have scheudled events explicitly *for* parents and their kids so this concept can clearly cut both ways by catering to everyone in turn.

      See my post further down; I really couldn't agree more.

    • dbr_onix, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Wouldn't serving beer just replace one loud group of humans (children) with another (drunk people)..?
  • TheDecn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13I've had more than one movie-going experience ruined by parents like this. Unfortunately, it was impossible for me to ignore the horribly incompetent and damaging parenting going on right in front of me for the sake of enjoying the movie. I guess a good way to call attention to this problem would have been for me to walk out and ask the manager for my money back. After all, the film was ruined for me anyway. Maybe if enough of us do this, theaters will start refusing entry to these idiots and helping do some good for these poor kids.
  • drburgos, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6Here is my two cents: I don't give a crap how you raise your kids, but don't waste my 10 bucks at the movie theatre or I'll come and kick your face in.
    • WileEPeyote, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Ah yes, another truly selfish human being...so sad...
    • zadadka, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6....which begs the question : What horrors were you shown as a kid for you to think that way ?
  • fotd42, on 10/11/2007, -0/+24Went and saw Constantine (free screener passes, wouldn't pay a cent to see that pile again) and me and my buddy sat down behind this woman with a ***** infant in a car seat next to her. Nevermind that the theater actually allowed this to go down, but she brought a baby to a movie with all manner of blood, violence, and scariness. A ***** baby. So, like clockwork, the kid starts screaming it's head off 2 minutes into the movie, she (like the moron she really was) tried to keep the kid calm/ignore the screaming so she could enjoy Keanu Reeves' latest thriller. After about 5 minutes she gave up her futile efforts and packed up to leave. As she left I whispered "thank you" and she responded by staring at me for what felt like a minute then shouting "shove it!". At least she was kind enough to keep things civil in front of her child. I mean seriously, what the ***** is wrong with these people? I understand that when you have a kid you have to give up part of your social life but you know what? The minute you knew you were pregnant (or your wife/girlfriend/mistress knew) you signed an invisible pact forfeiting said social life. Next time get a ***** babysitter.
    • SnuKs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Hahah oh man. I feel you. Everytime this happens there is NO WAY for me to ignore it. Whatever distraction it is, it becomes my main focus. But yea.. some people are mental like that. I feel sorry for thier kids. I'd imagine their parenting skills are just as good as their social skills. "Shove it!!" huh? I woulda came back with, "So where's the dad?" and just sit back and watch the sparks fly!
    • bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Hell, I'm that way about cell phones, I have no problems shouting out to turn your fuhqing cell phone off. When I saw Saving Private Ryan the second time in the theater a group of kids next to me kept talking, (this was like the third night it was out, so it was packed and most people hadn't seen it) I yelled at them to shut up and watch the movie, they might learn something important. They actually did (other audience members backed me), and soon as they started watching it, they actually shut up and got entranced in the movie.
  • rmeddy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+24These are the kind of parents that Jack Thompson loves to not blame.
  • brittack, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3This is garbage. I was raised with horror movies and I turned out quite alright. It's not the movie that's the problem, it's the parent that doesn't explain to the child that what they are watching isn't real.
    • qmeister, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Hey Numnutz (@brittack). You can't explain to a 4 year old or 1 year old what is going on. 8 Yes, but not those young, impressionable ages. I don't think your response would be the same if you actually had kids....maybe you shouldn't have any.

      These parents should be relieved of their parenting duties immediately. Seriously, this is abuse.

      Very well written post...maybe a little heavy on the f-bomb, but exactly how I feel about parents who shouldn't be parents.
    • WileEPeyote, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5You know, this reminds me of something that happened with my 3 year old a few days ago...

      3YR old swinging heavy toy around by a tiny piece of frayed string...
      ME: Honey, stop doing that. The string will break and it could hurt someone or break something...
      3YR OLD: Don't worry daddy, it won't broken anything. I do it all the time.
      String breaks and toy flies into back of 1 year old's head who immediately begins crying.

      I guess what I am saying is that just because you turned out ok (and since I don't know you I will have to take your word for it), doesn't mean the majority of children would. I would also like to mention that the horror films you saw when you were a child were probably not anything like the horror films that come out now...
  • ryanknapper, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19"Oh, and did you have to be minorities? As a minority myself, I find it irritating that your blatant lack of intelligence perpetuates old stereotypes regarding the way brown people are said to act in movie theaters."
    Yay! As a White Dude™ I always look at white idiots and think, 'You are why people expect me to be a bigoted, inbred, homophobic imbecile. They judge based on the imbecile they expect rather than the imbecile I am.'
    • DreKor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Yeah, I hate when that happens to me.
    • krishenn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Dugg for "They judge based on the imbecile they expect rather than the imbecile I am." - :-)
    • arenas46, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Dugg for the trademark
  • MattB123, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11"Yea, things are messed up over here.

    Also, our rating system is pretty much based entirely on boobs. Apparently, boobs are the most horrific thing and deserve an R rating. Guns and bombs and torture? Eh...not so bad."

    Exactly! WTF!?!? So a baby uses boobs for their sole source of nourishment for the first year or two. Then suddenly, this very same life-giving organ becomes dirty, evil, and bad. Much worse and mentally scarring than say, murder, torture, and rape (in which case sex seems to be ok as long as it's violent and a good setup to kill someone else for revenge). You can turn on the TV almost any time of day and catch some gratuitous violence. It's a crazy crazy time and place we're living in.

    I say bring on the boobs! C'mon, let's see 'em to heal our children!
  • duhduhduh, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0OMFG I haven't read anything that funny in a long time. Thank You!
  • tnvwboy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7If the theater is going to allow very young kids into very adult movies (with or without parents) just get up and go demand your money back from the manager. When he/she asks why explain. Nothing talks more than $$. If that happens enough pretty soon enforcement will happen. At least we can hope. In the meantime, thank god for DVDs, wide screen display and surround sound at home.
  • jab46, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Well written and haven't we all been there? I really don't understand how an adult can think it is OK to bring a small child into a movie (any movie). Children can not pay attention or sit still long enough to watch(enjoy) a movie not to mention what it does for the other paying movie goers! Isn't that why VCRs (several years ago) and DVDs were invented? So parents and small children can enjoy movies at home? When my kids were small that is what we did. People are so rude, stupid, and selfish these days.
  • topcad, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I know a couple of sci-fi plots where the entire country is sterile and you have to pass a test in order to get a license to have kids. I am really starting to think that's not a bad idea.
    • Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Hm, when you need a license to have kids, doesn't it mean the place is OVERpopulated?

      I mean, if we had a low enough birth rate, they'd pass a law to have us *****' like bunnies on Viagra. If mankind becomes extinct, who's gonna fork it out for pork?

  • psiege, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Question: "What do we do with idiotic, irresponsible, neglectful parents?"
    Answer: "Give social darwinism a little push, Child Abuse = Death Penalty!"

    Problem solved...
  • EricAnderton, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Having seen some parents drag their 4 and 7 year olds to a showing of Saw III, I'm glad that someone with some web-presence had the spine to say something about garbage like this.

    What the real WTF here is: why didn't the people the ticket both and/or the people tearing tickets at the gate refuse these people service? Clearly the theatre knew that the parents were bringing infants and toddlers to a very violent movie. I'm not suggesting that the theare censor certain activities, but instead, have the guts to realize that their inaction would upset other patrons, let alone those poor kids. All it would take is a theatre manager saying "go abuse your kids somewhere else" and give 'em a refund. Problem solved.

    Would there be backlash? You bet - it'd be on the 6PM news in most towns in the US. But if I heard that a theatre near me actually refused to admit lazy parents like this into anything more adult than a PG film, I'd go out of my way to bring them my business. I'd like to think others would too.

    That said, the outrcy over issues like this is heading fast toward a wonderful business opportunity: 18+ admission movie theatres. No noisy & obnoxious teens, no gummy-bears stuck on the screen, no wailing babies, just adults (possibly beer served at the concession stand), their spouses/dates and a good time. Please, for the love of bob, someone do this already.
  • Yondelldude, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Appalling, absoutely appalling. I've had the good fortune enough not to find myself in a suitiation quite that bad because I usually go out and see the late showings of R rated movies. But apparently I was one of those kids once, my parents took me out when I was 2 months old to see Terminator 2 and I'm not all that screwed up. They've made up for it a thousandfold by strictly limiting my intake of violence afterwords.
  • Scopitone, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3This is why we need breeding licenses.
    • Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5We need more than a breeding license. We need to find a way to make men sterile as kids. And they are only able to become unsterile after them and there wife have proof of steady income, intellegents, moral fiber etc.
      • Pikachelsea, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, I guess you just failed the "intellegents" test. No kids for you.
    • Cause_of_death, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3But then too many people would fail "there" "intellegents" test...
    • Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2hehe and that is why I dont plan on breeding and it cost a lot of money. And im selfish.
  • keegan3d, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3YES YES YES YES YES

    I cannot even image what this does to children, I was in 28 weeks later and through out the film heard the sounds of an infant. Not only was it distracting, it made me sick to my stomach to think of what this child was hearing and trying to comprehend. I think this can totally ***** up a kid at a time when development is soo important.

    Thank you for writing this.
  • Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12I do not care what you guys think. But do not blame the parents for this. This is not the parents fault for being ignorant and stupid. It is hollywoods fault for making horror films. We all know parents cant actually be held responsible for parenting. That would actually make sense. This is america people we dont believe in things that make sense. Obviously this is the fault of an industry that has been preying on kids sense the 1900's. They must be punished.
    • psiege, on 10/11/2007, -15/+1You're a freaking moron! Don't blame the parents! What the F*@& is wrong with you? This is exactly what's wrong with our country, "people are so fragile and can't possibly be held responsible for their actions." This is a load of *****. If we'd start holding people accountable, this kind of thing would happen less often.
    • Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10I figured you got the sarcasm in my post without putting the sarcasm/ sign on it. But next time I will just put it there in case people dont get it. I figured the over the top 'they must be punished" was going to seal the sarcasm deal but it didnt.
    • psiege, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6You have to realize, this is DIGG. Some of the people on here are seriously whacked out and would probably agree with your "supposed" sarcastic statement wholeheartedly! I think you'll understand my point.
    • Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4You are right and I do agree sometimes people do rwrite things and I cannot tell if they are being truthfull or sarcastic.
    • EricAnderton, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1deleted.
  • Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Whan I was a kid, I couldn't go to see a movie like Hostel 2. I'll be damned if I will stand a freakin' toddler being able to do this today. Hell no: grow up, graduate, join the Army, then you can *****' go to any *****' movie you *****' want.

    'Til then, ***** you.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 125 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.