I went to see the Avengers last weekend. It was opening night and the movie was fantastic. The only problem was the never-ending cries of the babies that seemed to echo throughout the room, their high-pitched screams bouncing off the walls like sirens. I couldn't even tell how many of them there were (my best guess was three), but my goodness, it was horrible. The parents wouldn't even take their kids out of the room for the first hour, and then, when one of them did leave, quiet their baby, and then bring it back in, the kid started crying again. Of course he is going to keep crying, you dope. You're making him suffer through a crazy loud superhero movie with monsters, alien invasions, and massive explosions. Who in their right mind would think a baby could sit through that?
AMC started a policy (not yet in place at all theaters, but in many, still) known as something like "no kids under six after six", which basically means what it says, although this only applies to rated-R films. The Avengers was PG-13.
I'd like to gauge everyone's thoughts on this. Do you all feel like it is inconsiderate to bring an infant into a theater full of people on opening night? Should it be completely against the rules?
I spoke with a few people at work who brought their babies into movies all the time, and they all said the same thing. "My baby is a good baby. He/She doesn't cry in movies, ever!" This seems to be the most common response. Even when their kids end up crying in a movie, they say something like, "Oh, he was just tired. That never happens." If it never happens, then what was that?
Honestly, there are too many reasons to not do this. For starters, you're bringing an infant into a theater filled with bacteria and disease. Second, your kid's hearing is still underdeveloped and you can seriously damage his ears (which is probably why the baby is crying). Third, come on, other people don't want to hear that crap. Don't be that person.
I'm just saying.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Based on my experience with a group of teenagers at the movies last night, I could make a decent argument for abolishing teenagers' right to be in the movies entirely also. They were much worse behaved than any children I've ever been around.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Two parents and a baby were kicked out of the midnight showing of Avengers where my best friend went to see it. What a baby was doing at a MIDNIGHT showing of AVENGERS is beyond me, but there it was. And out they went. I've never heard of an usher being that no-nonsense about it either, and the audience cheered when they were tossed.
It seems like parents these days are a lot more inconsiderate than when I was a kid. When I was a baby and I was making a fuss in public, my parents yanked me out of whatever public place I was in and took me out of there for the sake of the other patrons. Now people just let their kids scream, or at the restaurant I worked at, let them run wild, or used a DVD player to babysit them in the middle of the restaurant!
People these days. Ugh.
Steve - I apologize. I talk during movies, and my best friend is constantly hiding beneath the seats because I laugh so loud I often attract the attention of the whole theater. I'm just so jolly.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
These kids were doing way more than talking. They were screaming at the screen. Shaking seats. Jumping up and down in their seats. Talking on phones. Etc.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well that's just obnoxious.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I don't understand why people will drop the money to go to the movies just to behave like heathens.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Hmmm... maybe it's just because I don't get to go to very many adult movies anymore, but the few I have seen generally don't have any infants in the audience.
Matinee showings of the kids movies sometimes have babies, and sometimes the babies are a little more annoying than I'd like. But, I figure if I'm going to a kids movie at 3 in the afternoon, there are probably going to be families, and those families are going to have children that do not yet understand movie theater protocol. Unless the situation is REALLY bad, it really doesn't bother me.
I don't know why anyone would want to take their infant to a midnight showing of something like the Avengers though. If you're having to bounce around a screaming child, it can't be much fun!
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Lyrhawn, do you talk loudly or whisper to the friends seated around you?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Whisper to my friends seated around me.
Except during Snakes on a Plane. Everyone yells during that.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Obviously.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I don't understand why people will drop the money to go to the movies just to behave like heathens.
Because when you don't give a toss about other's enjoyment of the movie, it's fun to just do whatever you want with your friends, make noise, whoot, w/e.
We do it all the time, albiet in theaters where we are literally the only ones there. As best as you are able, never go to theaters where that crap is allowed to happen.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
It's entirely different if you're the only people in the theater or if it's a movie which is so laughably horrible the whole audience is participating.
Edit:
Example. Yelling during the movie The Ides of March is unacceptable. Yelling during the movie Van Helsing, however, is the only redeeming factor of the movie.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Hmmm... maybe it's just because I don't get to go to very many adult movies anymore, but the few I have seen generally don't have any infants in the audience.
Matinee showings of the kids movies sometimes have babies, and sometimes the babies are a little more annoying than I'd like. But, I figure if I'm going to a kids movie at 3 in the afternoon, there are probably going to be families, and those families are going to have children that do not yet understand movie theater protocol. Unless the situation is REALLY bad, it really doesn't bother me.
I don't know why anyone would want to take their infant to a midnight showing of something like the Avengers though. If you're having to bounce around a screaming child, it can't be much fun!
As someone who works with infants and children, it's my guess that if you're taking your infant to a midnight showing, you might have the kind of sleep schedule where you would ALREADY have been bouncing a screaming baby between 12-3 am, so you figure, why not do it in front of a movie.
That said, I agree that there should be some basic decorum, including taking any child out who is disruptive to others. I have never taken a child younger than 3 to a movie at all, because I just don't think it's an ideal situation for them.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Should babies be banned from movie theaters?"
Nope, they should be caramelized and dipped in chocolate... ...unless you're talking about real babies. In which case, their daddies should be caramelized and dipped in chocolate.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Sitting here at my computer, making sure my 2 week old really is sleeping before I go back that way myself at 2am.
I can't fathom taking any child under the age of 5 to ANY movie. I took my wife to see Lorax, and a 2 - 3 year old started screaming over some of the "scary scenes".
It is rude, inconsiderate, and demonstrates despicable parenting to bring a baby to The Avengers.
We missed Hunger Games because we couldn't get a sitter for our 2 year old. We will miss all of this summer's movies because of our newborn. I will just consider it money in the bank, and sneak home my school projector when these movies are released in the fall/winter for rental.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I wish ALL theaters were like this by the way.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
My local AMC theater did a full reconstruct, they now have a full bar and restaurant with waiting staff who bring food to your seat while you watch the movie. Because of the access to alcohol some of the physical theaters have age restrictions, such as 18 and up and even some 21 and up. I understand this model can only work in a few places but I love it, I never buy the food as it is overpriced but the design of the seating is much more comfortable and appreciate the lack of children.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: My local AMC theater did a full reconstruct, they now have a full bar and restaurant with waiting staff who bring food to your seat while you watch the movie. Because of the access to alcohol some of the physical theaters have age restrictions, such as 18 and up and even some 21 and up. I understand this model can only work in a few places but I love it, I never buy the food as it is overpriced but the design of the seating is much more comfortable and appreciate the lack of children.
We have a place like that, too, called the Cinebestro. It's very nice, but with limited seating it makes it very difficult to get in to just about any movie on opening weekend. They also have a 21+ policy as well as a dress code after certain hours. You also have to pick your seats before you go in, which I've never seen before. Very interesting model.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
A dress code? how strict can you be about seeing a Batman movie.
But I would mention that the 21 and up theaters at my AMC feature motorized recliners. At most you sit next to one person, you have a little table for your food and a button to adjust the level of the recliner. It is wonderful.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
That sounds pretty nice, I must say. The dress code isn't too bad, but I have seen a few people get turned away because of it. You can't wear sleeveless shirts, for starters. That's really the only one I can think of at the moment. I think there's like six or seven rules (maybe no sandals?). It's a little extreme, I must admit. Still, if you want to see a movie and not have any kids in there with you, it's really the only option.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
We took our 2-week-old to see Mario Brothers (she's 18 now). When she fussed, I took her out. I missed half the movie, but somehow I don't think that matters ...
It was a dollar show, not a good movie, but a good chance for us to get out after having the baby.
Would I do it at a movie where tickets are $7 or more? No. Nor would I do it for a popular movie where there's likely to be a full house - or one that I want to see the whole movie. But at the time and the place, and with me taking her out when she fussed, it wasn't that bad.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I like the idea of banning babies from PG-13 and up movies, especially after a certain time. The theaters could even divide showings into "No Children" showings or "No Teenagers/Children" showings, since teenagers often trump babies when it comes to ruining a movie for everyone else.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think people under the age of 65 should be banned from movies.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
It's not just babies and teenagers, there is an increasing tendency for movie goers of all ages to be terribly disrespectful and inconsiderate of others in the theater. It's one of the reasons I've almost stopped going to movies. I'd rather wait 6 months and watch them at home than put up with the rudeness that's become accepted in the theaters. I'd be delighted if more theaters started strictly enforcing good behavior. Regardless of your age, if you're talking texting, jumping up and down or anything else that annoys other movie goers, you should be escorted out. Unless a lot of movie theaters start enforcing polite behavior, the situation is only going to get worse.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
The difference between all other annoying movie-goers and babies is that the annoyance isn't the baby's fault. It's the parents'. If a teenager annoys me, I can report them to the manager (have done so and will do so again). I suppose I should do the same with incessantly crying babies, but I really feel like the parents should figure that one out on their own.
Rabbit, I agree that people in movies are getting progressively worse. Actually, now that I think about it, I've seen some improvement in the last year, as theatres do a better job cracking down on rudeness, noisiness, and texting.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: I like the idea of banning babies from PG-13 and up movies, especially after a certain time. The theaters could even divide showings into "No Children" showings or "No Teenagers/Children" showings, since teenagers often trump babies when it comes to ruining a movie for everyone else.
Yeah, totally! This is a great idea, but you don't take it far enough. They could also divide showings up into "No Asians" and "No Whites" and "No Women" groups.
That way you wouldn't need to be bothered by other races/genders and their bad behavior distracting you from enjoying your movie.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah, that's not the same.
Posted by dandy_andi (Member # 12750) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: I like the idea of banning babies from PG-13 and up movies, especially after a certain time. The theaters could even divide showings into "No Children" showings or "No Teenagers/Children" showings, since teenagers often trump babies when it comes to ruining a movie for everyone else.
Yeah, totally! This is a great idea, but you don't take it far enough. They could also divide showings up into "No Asians" and "No Whites" and "No Women" groups.
That way you wouldn't need to be bothered by other races/genders and their bad behavior distracting you from enjoying your movie.
It's a completely different issue. Unfortunately, too many parents today refuse to leave the theater when his or her child begins making noise, or even worse (this happened to me during a recent trip to the movies), wandering the theater touching and otherwise bothering the other moviegoers. In general, I haven't seen too many adults wandering the theater touching people. I've taken to getting the snitcher box from customer service at my local Regal Cinemas. You can too, and it gets you extra points if you are a rewards member. Basically you take this box and there are buttons to push for mechanical issues, theater disturbances and if you think you see someone making a recording. You push the button and someone from theater comes in. You don't even have to identify yourself as the person holding the box.
There's only one per theater though, so you can't have tons of people doing it, and it doesn't always get requested by anyone. Also, your idea of a disturbance and the person holding the box's can be quite different.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Taking a baby to a movie theater is just completely foreign to me. Our kid is in bed by 8PM, no exceptions. Having him out anywhere beyond his normal bed-time just does not compute, much less a loud and flashy movie. Sleep training was one of the biggest hurdles we had to leap as parents, and a strict routine was a huge part of winning that battle.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
This discussion reminds me of a story my mom once told me. She was in a theater where a child was running up and down the walkways repeatedly. It went on for a while, until she finally grabbed the kid's wrist and snapped at him, saying, "Go sit down with your parents and be quiet!" The kid did as he was told, and rightly so. My mom is the nicest woman I know, so if a child managed to make her mad enough to snap at him like that, I can only imagine it must have been really bad.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
To be clear for JT & Dandy Andi: I was mocking the idea of a "no teenagers or children" policy, not a "no infants" policy. Infants didn't volunteer to watch the film anyway, so it really is a completely different issue.
But teenagers and kids did. And the assertion that "teenagers ruin movies" is absolutely just as stupid as "black people ruin movies." It's just a lot less offensive because being prejudiced against people based on age is generally a lot more socially acceptable than being prejudiced against, well, virtually any other group.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I agree, Dan. I don't think banning teenagers is a good idea. However, I do believe theaters should kick them out if they start acting stupid and making noise (and thankfully AMC does).
Isn't it strange, how if you go to a play or a musical, most people are quiet and don't make a lot of noise, but if you go to a movie it's not like that at all? You'd think the same rules would apply. I wonder why they don't.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: However, I do believe theaters should kick them out if they start acting stupid and making noise (and thankfully AMC does).
Yeah, this I agree with just fine.
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Isn't it strange, how if you go to a play or a musical, most people are quiet and don't make a lot of noise, but if you go to a movie it's not like that at all? You'd think the same rules would apply. I wonder why they don't.
No real idea, but the first thing that pops into my head is courtesy towards (or fear of, or whatever) the performers rather than the other audience members.
I mean, in a particularly bad performance, people do sometimes disrupt it via heckling. But in a good performance, they are courteous to the performers.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I'd also assume that maybe plays are a bit more expensive. I don't personally know, though, as I've never gone to one that I had to pay for. I went to a few in college, and those were free because the actors were students, but still people were well behaved.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah I don't think cost is much of a factor.
I think we're less likely to heckle a person than a screen. We tend to feel "equal" to the other audience members, so we treat them as such (for many of us this means courtesy, but to others it may mean something else).
Whereas live performers are experts displaying their skills. To some people that probably gives them status, maybe even creating some level of deference. If Robert Downey Jr. and others were performing Avengers live for an audience, I don't think there'd be as many disruptive teenagers.
(Again, this assumes the performers are doing well and therefore not being heckled.)
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
The people who go to plays are not the same people who are annoying in movie theaters, also there is a different thought process involved. We still treat a play with a modicum of respect that we used to, movies have lost this privilege entirely, I blame Rambo II.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I've known a couple of professors who have felt like -- more and more through the years -- they are being treated more like a television or movie screen during their lectures. Students are whispering, talking to one another, giggling, sitting up front and doing the crossword, what have you.
It strikes them as bizarre and somewhat unsettling to be essentially doing a live performance and be faced with this in the audience.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Yes. Yes they should.
Though I admit to jumping out of my seat and cheering during "The Replacements"
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I took our infant son to exactly one movie. Scott Pilgrim Vs The World. There was only one other person in the theater, and he was listening to his ipod during the movie. He also left halfway through. My son made some noise exactly once, and I had him out of the theater in under five seconds.
The shame and the realization I was being so hypocritical was unbearable. I'll never do it again. Seriously.
What's worse than babies in theaters, is when somebody has a baby that's crying, and somebody says, "Get your baby out of here" and somebody starts arguing with the first speaker with, "Leave him alone, the baby's fine!"
I know we Mormons are family friendly folks, but that's just stupid.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Isn't it strange, how if you go to a play or a musical, most people are quiet and don't make a lot of noise, but if you go to a movie it's not like that at all? You'd think the same rules would apply. I wonder why they don't.
This reminds me of an anecdote I heard form Laurence Fishburne. He was once performing on stage in Othello. A cell phone began ringing in the audience. The owner of the cell phone didn't answer it, but he didn't turn it off either. It stopped, and a minute later it started ringing again. At this point, Fishburne broke the fourth wall, turned to the audience, and said, "Can you turn off the f------ phone, please." He got a round of applause.
And AH, not to nitpick, but technically speaking, there is no movie called "Rambo II".
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It's not just babies and teenagers, there is an increasing tendency for movie goers of all ages to be terribly disrespectful and inconsiderate of others in the theater. It's one of the reasons I've almost stopped going to movies. I'd rather wait 6 months and watch them at home than put up with the rudeness that's become accepted in the theaters.
Amen.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Yes, but Morphius is a badA$$, which is why he was able to do that.
Silly Morphius.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I pride myself on never worrying about the semantics of Sylvester Stallone movies.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I used to be a lot more sympathetic to parents whose children were crying or otherwise misbehaving in public, but in recent years it seems like its become far more common for parents to bring young children places where they simply do not belong and then expect everyone to accommodate them.
It's not just movie theaters. I see more and more babies and very young children on long overseas flights, in fancy restaurants, in theaters and concerts and in people's offices or labs at work. I know there are exceptional circumstances where these things are either necessary or can be done with minimal inconvenience to anyone but the parent. If they were only being done under those circumstances when it didn't significantly inconvenience other people -- I don't think people would be complaining. As a general rule, I think society to should try to accommodate parents whenever its practicable but it seems to me that more and more parents believe they are entitled to impose on strangers whenever it suits them.
I'm not sure whether I'm just becoming a crotchety old lady or if parents are really becoming a lot less considerate of others.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You lost me as soon as you said "long overseas flights", Rabbit.
Pray tell, what is one supposed to do with one's child while traveling? Put them up in a kennel? Or should the parents of small children have the decency to stay tied to home and hearth for a minimum of five years per child?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Rivka, I didn't say I thought children should be banned from long overseas flights. In fact, I said explicitly I thought there are circumstances where such things are either necessary or can be done with minimal inconvenience to others.
But if you've got an active two year old who you know is going to scream if they have to sit still for more than 5 minutes, choosing to take a vacation to the Greek Isles, that will require the child to sit in a packed air plane for over 12 hours, shows poor judgement. It's extremely selfish and in my experience its becoming much more common.
I don't think its at all unreasonable to expect parents of small children to adapt their travel plans to the needs and abilities of their children. Most Americans never fly overseas. 70% of Americans don't even have a passport. Limiting overseas travel hardly makes one tied to "home and hearth".
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
How do you think it's possible to travel overseas with a toddler with minimal inconvenience to others?
The only ways I can think of are pretty drastic, like drugging the kid to keep them unconscious, or chartering your own flight.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Pray tell, what is one supposed to do with one's child while traveling? Put them up in a kennel?
... hmmmmm
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
If you think babies are bad, I challenge you to go to a midnight showing of the last Twilight movie.
My father made that mistake once. My mom thought it would be fun to go, and my dad had never even heard of the book series. Not only was he the only man in the theatre, but he still doesn't really know what the movie was about, except that there are characters named Edward and Jacob. The teenage girls just kept screaming their names.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Honestly, I think there is a spectrum of movies where audience participation is part of the point (i.e. your father has nobody to blame but himself for going to a midnight showing of Twilight).
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: You lost me as soon as you said "long overseas flights", Rabbit.
Pray tell, what is one supposed to do with one's child while traveling? Put them up in a kennel? Or should the parents of small children have the decency to stay tied to home and hearth for a minimum of five years per child?
Yeah I've never really gotten this. The vast, vast majority of families I've been on planes with have been nice, really apologetic when their kids were loud, and generally fine to be with. Babies cry sometimes. Bring some earphones or something if it's that big of a deal.
If anything, the most painful thing I've had to sit through is when a baby is crying and the parent is more upset at the baby for bothering other people than they are concerned with actually seeing to the baby's needs and helping it calm down.
Don't worry about the comfort level of strangers, help your freakin' baby!
... Anyway, to be clear, that hasn't happened much, and I know that it'd be rather unfair to judge a parent too harshly for their behavior during what is undoubtedly a long, stressful trip. Still, I mind that sort of thing way more than I do a disgruntled baby and an exhausted parent trying their best.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: If you think babies are bad, I challenge you to go to a midnight showing of the last Twilight movie.
My father made that mistake once.
This is a really weird "mistake"
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, I have a hard time believing that the worst part of the last Twilight movie was somehow the audience.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I have only been to the movies a few times where there have been babies or rowdy teenagers. And while I wouldn't say I go to the theater often, neither would I say I go rarely. And the few times that people have been rowdy, one of my patented death stares has been enough to settle them down. That's mostly for teenagers though... I don't think I've ever death stared a baby. Yet.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In movies, I've been bothered by disruptive teens orders of magnitude more times than by disruptive babies.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In earnest, my previous recommendation still applies. If you have more than one really dicky experience at a theater, it is not worth your time. Get a refund, try to find what theaters in your area actually have ushers that keep people from being disruptive jerks, frequent that one instead.
'less you don't have one, in which case .. sorry.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Samp, does Century Boulder do that? I can't remember a bad experience there, but then I can't think of a movie I went to with a meaningful population of teenagers nor any babies. I'm curious if they actually police their theaters: I never did see any ushers in there outside of cleaning-up afterwards and announcing the Met broadcasts.
Hobbes Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I long for the days when I was in college and my roommate was a manager at AMC. I got in to movies for free and was able to see the employee screenings (which were always better because there were less people and no children), and if I absolutely had to watch a regular showing, my friend was only a text message away from kicking the talker/texter/baby/teenager out.
Such good times. I miss those days.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: How do you think it's possible to travel overseas with a toddler with minimal inconvenience to others?
The only ways I can think of are pretty drastic, like drugging the kid to keep them unconscious, or chartering your own flight.
I think Rabbit's talking about voluntary international travel, like for vacations. I tend to agree with her on this.
If the international travel is for a family emergency or something along those lines-- for example a friend of mine had to take his 2 y.o. daughter back to India for medical treatment-- then that's a different story.
I don't think giving a child benadryl to make flying an easier passage for all parties involved is "drastic."
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm always curious, those cases when parents don't seem to mind that their kid is disrupting others, is it that they just don't care or is it that they think you love their kids as much as they do? Because with both kids and dogs I've talked to a large number of people who seem to fall into category two. Like they honestly can't believe that you don't love their dog jumping on you, or find their kid screaming in the resteraunt adorable. It's quite possible they're lying to me, but I kind of doubt it. At least not conciously.
Hobbes Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: How do you think it's possible to travel overseas with a toddler with minimal inconvenience to others?
The only ways I can think of are pretty drastic, like drugging the kid to keep them unconscious, or chartering your own flight.
You will note that there was an "or" in the sentence. Some times people have legitimate compelling reasons to travel overseas with young children and when that's the case I'm highly sympathetic and willing to go out of my way to accommodate them. I think its a different issue when people are traveling for pleasure.
It's not impossible to fly with a toddler without significantly inconveniencing others. I've seen parents who've managed a long overseas flight with a toddler without significantly inconveniencing other passengers.
But that is a whole lot easier to do if there is only one toddler on the plane and that toddler has their own seat than it is if there are 20 toddlers on the plane trying to sit on their parents laps.
I don't know how often others here travel. My work requires me to travel internationally several times a year. I've averaged around two overseas trips a year for about the last 20 years and over that time I've observed more and more people traveling for pleasure on very long flights with misbehaving babies and toddlers.
It's utterly rude to expect other people to accommodate your screaming misbehaving kids for hours on end so that you can vacation on the Med or go to Disney World. And when some parents behave that rudely, it makes it just that much harder for parents who actually need to travel with kids.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It's not impossible to fly with a toddler without significantly inconveniencing others. I've seen parents who've managed a long overseas flight with a toddler without significantly inconveniencing other passengers.
If you get lucky, and they happen to behave during the trip, sure. No matter how terrible they are, all kids will sometimes act like angels, and visa-versa.
But I can think of no practical ways to guarantee you won't seriously inconvenience others. Can you?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Samp, does Century Boulder do that? I can't remember a bad experience there, but then I can't think of a movie I went to with a meaningful population of teenagers nor any babies. I'm curious if they actually police their theaters: I never did see any ushers in there outside of cleaning-up afterwards and announcing the Met broadcasts.
Hobbes
The two times I have been at a movie there where there was a disruption (including an honest to god I Will Just "Discreetly" Use My Ipad situation — really?) an usher was in prodding in like five minutes.
So they've kept a good track record. Good, because I'm not enthused with the drive to AMC 24 unless bowling and drinking is involved.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Glad to here it. I liked that theater quite a bit, and I think they did a good job making sure Indies and such were shown in Boulder even after they drove all the theaters that used to do that out of buisness.
Hobbes Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I couldn't say that Century had any hand in that. Every other theater in boulder, to a one, was essentially terminal well before the 29th street mall cinema started getting built. Most of them started doing indie movie circut just sort of as an end-of-life deal for our old cineplexes and their terrible boxy seats.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:It's not impossible to fly with a toddler without significantly inconveniencing others. I've seen parents who've managed a long overseas flight with a toddler without significantly inconveniencing other passengers.
If you get lucky, and they happen to behave during the trip, sure. No matter how terrible they are, all kids will sometimes act like angels, and visa-versa.
But I can think of no practical ways to guarantee you won't seriously inconvenience others. Can you?
Which is why I think it's rude of parents to take their very young children on a long flight unless they have a compelling reason. It's hard on the child, it's hard on the other passengers and it's hard on the cabin crew. Unless you've got a darn good reason, that's a rude and selfish thing to do.
If someone is a flying to see their mother who is lying on her deathbed and their toddler is screaming for the full flight, then they have my full sympathy. I'm willing to do anything I can to assist and accommodate. But if they chose to go on a vacation that required a really long flight with a very young child, its an entirely different story.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: But if you've got an active two year old who you know is going to scream if they have to sit still for more than 5 minutes, choosing to take a vacation to the Greek Isles, that will require the child to sit in a packed air plane for over 12 hours, shows poor judgement.
It might not be the best choice. But maybe they have family there. And maybe they just want a vacation. If they can afford it, more power to them. As for "selfish", no more than anyone else spending money on a vacation.
Most Americans are hidebound and/or don't have the extra cash to go jetting off to exotic destinations. I don't actually think either of those is a good thing.
My kids are all teenagers, so my days of toddlers on airplanes are thankfully behind me. But I remember them well. And am grateful still to those fellow passengers who tried to help when a little one was distressed, rather than shooting me dirty looks for daring to travel with a baby in tow.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: As for "selfish", no more than anyone else spending money on a vacation.
Really, No more selfish? You are really saying that doing something for your personal pleasure that causes discomfort and inconvenience to strangers and places stress on your child is "no more selfish" than doing something for your own pleasure that doesn't inconvenience or hurt any one else? I think we have a different definition of selfish.
And for your information, I'm one of the people who tries to help people traveling with children not one shooting dirty looks. It's because I've helped a lot of people traveling with kids that I know that a lot of them are traveling strictly for pleasure and a fair number of them are doing it before the child turns two so they don't have to pay for seat for the kid.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Any change in routine will cause most children distress. Sometimes a parent decides that is worthwhile, whether the change is a vacation or a visit to the doctor.
I'm so glad you reserve your dirty looks for online.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
This amuses me, as far as things to disagree with on a fundamental moral level. Does your right to enjoy a peaceful flight trump other's right to travel with their family for pleasure? Or vice versa?
I don't think it's much more selfish to decide to bring a kid on vacation than to demand that parents give up long distance vacations for 5 years after the birth of each child.
[ May 14, 2012, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:a fair number of them are doing it before the child turns two so they don't have to pay for seat for the kid.
Sounds like your beef should be with the airline for actively encouraging people to do so.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think the whole phenomenon of people getting really upset with crying babies because the noise is annoying really baffles me.
Imagine an adult crying on a plane. Sobbing loudly, even. How many people do you think would shoot the adult a dirty look, and wish they'd just shut up? That sounds like a reprehensible response to me.
A crying baby is a little human being who is deeply unhappy. Show some freaking compassion and sympathy.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I see them as entirely different. First of all, we're biologically predisposed to not be able to block out the sound of a crying infant. It demands our attention as few things can.
Secondly, babies cry for all sorts of reasons, and are just as likely as not to be hysterically laughing within a few minutes.
I don't think it's even possible for babies to be "deeply unhappy".
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Secondly, babies cry for all sorts of reasons, and are just as likely as not to be hysterically laughing within a few minutes.
I have also laughed hysterically a few minutes after crying. I don't think that invalidated the fact that I had been unhappy previously.
Is it my use of the word "deeply" that you object to? In hindsight that looks like it could mean, say "depressed," which isn't what I intended.
I mean, you agree babies can be unhappy, right? What about, I don't know, "really" unhappy? Same objection?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think babies can be unhappy, but I don't think it was a fair claim to make that Rabbit "doesn't care". Her point was that parents shouldn't be bringing a baby to an environment where it is likely (at some point during the flight) to become unhappy, and then cause other people annoyance.
I don't think those other people are *entitled* to not have to deal with the baby, but I don't think it's fair to paint them as unsympathetic to the baby itself.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Any change in routine will cause most children distress. Sometimes a parent decides that is worthwhile, whether the change is a vacation or a visit to the doctor.
There is a big difference between cause your distressing your child distress for the child's benefit (i.e. visit to the doctor) and distressing your child for your own pleasure. Any parent who thinks a luxury vacation in an exotic local is going to benefit a baby or toddler, is lying to themselves.
quote:I'm so glad you reserve your dirty looks for online. [/qb]
Unlike you rivka, I haven't shot a dirty look directly at any one on this forum. I've made some very general statements that I consider it rude for parents to subject a plane load of strangers to hours on end of their child misbehaving so that they can enjoy a luxury holiday. Unless you took your screaming toddler on a holiday trip to the Greek Isles, what reason do you have to think I was shooting dirty looks at you?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Any parent who thinks a luxury vacation in an exotic local is going to benefit a baby or toddler, is lying to themselves.
Directly or indirectly? The first, probably not. The second? Absolutely. Family bonding time that helps a parent relax is unquestionably a benefit for a child of any age.
As for dirty looks, I have no idea why you think wide-beam is better than aiming at a specific individual. And I have been restraining myself quite a bit when it comes to you, so give me a break.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Speaking as somebody who doesn't have kids, seems to me parents can often be sensitive to what they perceive as an attack on their parenting ability, even if no attack was intended. It can be a minefield of a topic.
But for what it's worth (which is, in fairness, very little), I don't think either of you are actually trying to shoot dirty looks at each other, you're just voicing your opinions on the subject at hand. Disagreement doesn't have to consist of "dirty looks," does it?
Come on, guys... Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
SHUT UP DAN! NO ONE IS TALKING TO YOU, YOU STUPID, STUPID FACE!
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
But seriously, babies are evil.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: SHUT UP DAN! NO ONE IS TALKING TO YOU, YOU STUPID, STUPID FACE!
Can't argue with that logic.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Any parent who thinks a luxury vacation in an exotic local is going to benefit a baby or toddler, is lying to themselves.
Directly or indirectly? The first, probably not. The second? Absolutely. Family bonding time that helps a parent relax is unquestionably a benefit for a child of any age.
I'm sure there are parents who think that a night at the movies or an evening at a fancy restaurant that helps them relax is a benefit to their children. What do you see as a the difference?
I know people who've left their young children with a baby sitter (usual a friend of family member) while they traveled and people who can't find anyone to baby sit for even a few hours. What's different about taking an overseas vacation, purely for pleasure, that makes it different in your eyes than going to a movie or nice restaurant?
quote:As for dirty looks, I have no idea why you think wide-beam is better than aiming at a specific individual. And I have been restraining myself quite a bit when it comes to you, so give me a break.
Oh, it's so nice of you to let me know that the insults you've thrown and not nearly as bad as the ones you would like to throw.
I'll give you a break when you give me one and stop taking things personally that were never intended as such.
I've said I thought there were reasons that would justify taking a long overseas flight with a baby and ones that did not. I have not given a detailed list of the cases I think are justified. You have chosen to presume without cause that I put you in the latter category. You can choose to be insulted by whatever you want but you have no right to get self-righteous about it.
[ May 14, 2012, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
*nods sagely* Yes, children are the primary reason long overseas flights are unpleasant. If only families would stay home (unless, of course, absolutely necessary as dictated by those who find children irritating) and leave the world for adults! Plane rides would be the next thing to Nirvana!
More seriously, meh. Rabbit thinks it would be selfish for me to take my kid on a vacation if it involves my kid potentially irritating strangers.
I think it's selfish of her to want her travel on public transport unencumbered by select groups of other travelers.
I'd say we're even.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think I agree with Liz, rivka, and Rabbit.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Oh, it's so nice of you to let me know that the insults you've thrown and not nearly as bad as the ones you would like to throw.
I don't believe I have insulted you a single time during this conversation. I have, in fact, refrained from saying things that I suspect you would find insulting.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I see them as entirely different. First of all, we're biologically predisposed to not be able to block out the sound of a crying infant. It demands our attention as few things can.
Not to mention, crying babies are the proverbial Pavlov's bell for Mormons!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
So, for a second I thought you were trying to say that Mormon's are nurturing caring folk who respond instantly to crying babies, and Pavlov's association with salivating dogs was just an unfortunate coincidence.
But then I remembered. Mormons. Eating babies. Right. Haha?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: SHUT UP DAN! NO ONE IS TALKING TO YOU, YOU STUPID, STUPID FACE!
Can't argue with that logic.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So, for a second I thought you were trying to say that Mormon's are nurturing caring folk who respond instantly to crying babies, and Pavlov's association with salivating dogs was just an unfortunate coincidence.
But then I remembered. Mormons. Eating babies. Right. Haha?
I leave it to you to ascertain my meaning.
Baby burgers, I could really go for one.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
I understand crying babies are pretty much the price of continuing the human race. I dislike hearing it as much as the next person, but I'll deal. It's when parents bring toddlers or older children on planes and don't control them--let them run up and down the aisles unsupervised, say--that the death glare creeps onto my face.
My most frustrating flight experience was when a couple traveling with a four year old got assigned two seats at the back of the plane and one seat at the front--and promptly dumped their four year old in the single seat next to me and went to sit at the back by themselves. They did not visit her the entire five hour flight.
She was a perfectly nice four year old, but after five hours of giving her food (they hadn't packed any snacks for her), explaining airplane bathrooms to her, helping her get her coloring books out of overhead baggage, and playing endless rounds of Go Fish to keep her entertained, I was pretty much ready to march back to her parents and demand babysitting money.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:My most frustrating flight experience was when a couple traveling with a four year old got assigned two seats at the back of the plane and one seat at the front--and promptly dumped their four year old in the single seat next to me and went to sit at the back by themselves. They did not visit her the entire five hour flight.
Erf. That's terrible.
quote:it would be selfish for me to take my kid on a vacation if it involves my kid potentially irritating strangers.
It depends entirely on how much foresight you give to the situation. Do you have a seat next to the child? Snacks or toys or something to entertain them? Supplies to keep them comfortable? Are you cognizant of the comfort of other passengers? If your child is verbal, have you prepared them for the long flight?
That said, no one should feel entitled to flights devoid of noise or (reasonable) interaction with other passengers. I don't think that privilege is built into the cost of the ticket. Some personal responsibility for one's comfort is in order, especially if one is a normal, capable adult. Bring earplugs.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
ambyr, I'm really shocked the airline allowed that. Most airlines will not allow a child under 5 to travel unless they are accompanied by an adult and they will force other passengers to move if its necessary to keep a parent and young child together. I strongly suspect the airline assigned the child a seat next to one of the parents and the flight crew simply wasn't aware that the child wasn't yours.
I think in that situation you should have complained to the cabin crew and not because you objected to sitting next to a child. Leaving your 4 year old child unattended for 5 hours is negligent. If that happened somewhere other than an airplane, say they' dropped the 4 year old off at a public library by herself for 5 hours, it would warrant a call to child protective services.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I couldn't say that Century had any hand in that. Every other theater in boulder, to a one, was essentially terminal well before the 29th street mall cinema started getting built. Most of them started doing indie movie circut just sort of as an end-of-life deal for our old cineplexes and their terrible boxy seats.
There were a couple of niche theaters still going when it opened. And mostly the niche was indies. I agree just about everything was on a decline but nonetheless, I'd say Century was the death knell for several of them.
quote:I think in that situation you should have complained to the cabin crew and not because you objected to sitting next to a child. Leaving your 4 year old child unattended for 5 hours is negligent. If that happened somewhere other than an airplane, say they' dropped the 4 year old off at a public library by herself for 5 hours, it would warrant a call to child protective services.
Good gosh yes. Especially since it was just luck you were you. If you were me, despite your best intentions, you would've been totaly unable to help them deal with the rigors of flight as a 4 year old.
Hobbes Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Almost every time I've seen a kid causing problems in a situation like this, the parents were doing everything they could to calm the kid down and mitigate the bother they were causing.
My emotional reaction is largely twofold -- sympathy for the struggling parents, and relief that I'm not the only one who has kids who sometimes act out in public. Annoyance at what the kid does is usually a distant third behind those two.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
mph, that has not been my experience. Not only on flights but in other situations. When I worked retail, parents would basically drop their kids off near the toys while they shopped. These were toys for sale that the parents didn't buy. Parents would assume that I would take their 3 and 4 year old to the bathroom in our stockroom. "Go with the nice lady". These were often children who needed help cleaning themselves. I would put my foot down at this for my own protection and just because I never stopped being appalled. Parents gave every impression of being quite put out that a perfect stranger wouldn't be delighted to wipe their kid's bottom and offended that I thought they were nuts for sending their kid off to a backroom with someone they didn't know.
I have every sympathy for a parent who, when they have to be in public with their kids, are doing their best. I every sympathy for kids whose parents are teaching them that it is perfectly okay to inconvenience strangers.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think the difference between a fussy child at a movie or restaurant and a fussy child on a plane is the purpose of the activity. A fussy child at a movie disrupts the purpose -- seeing the movie -- so the other patrons are actually deprived of something they are there for. The purpose of a fancy restaurant dinner might include a quiet/relaxing evening out. The purpose of an airline flight is not recreation or relaxation (although the purpose of the trip might be, the flight itself is not) and the other passengers aren't being deprived of what they are paying for (transportation) no matter how irritating they might find their fellow travelers.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I strongly suspect the airline assigned the child a seat next to one of the parents and the flight crew simply wasn't aware that the child wasn't yours.
The flight crew probably wasn't aware, but I have no trouble believing that the airline would assign seats with no regard to the age of the child. We've had our kids assigned seats alone, including when they were under age 2. When we brought it to the attention of the gate agents, they told us to wait until after boarding and the flight attendants would help us ask passengers to trade seats. So far no one has ever objected to trading so that a parent can be with each child. I've also traded seats when flying alone so that other parents are seated with their kids.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:That said, no one should feel entitled to flights devoid of noise or (reasonable) interaction with other passengers. I don't think that privilege is built into the cost of the ticket. Some personal responsibility for one's comfort is in order, especially if one is a normal, capable adult. Bring earplugs.
I agree but I also think that everyone on a plane or in any other public place has a an obligation to show reasonable consideration for others. That's what we call "good manners" . People are entitled to a certain level of curtesy from other passengers on a plane and other customers in a move theater or restaurant. Children aren't always capable of behaving appropriately which is why they don't belong in some places.
I agree that people should be willing to accommodate children to some degree but there are limits to what is acceptable for a parent to expect from strangers. It's simply rude of parents to force other people to listen to hours of their screaming child unless there is some mitigating circumstance.
If you think a crying baby is no big deal, you probably aren't thinking about the same kind of thing I'm thinking about. Before my most recent trip, I probably would have agreed. I had to fly from Trinidad to London on business right after Carnival which is peak tourist season here. It was an over night flight with a duration of 10 hours. There were several families with young children on the plane who were returning from vacations in the Caribbean. On the row behind me there was a family with a toddler who did not have his own seat. In the middle of the flight, this kid had a full blown temper tantrum. He screamed without stopping for well over an hour. This was not a little baby crying. The kid had some real lung power and he screamed loud enough to cause a domino effect as other kids on the plane woke up and started to cry. I had earplugs and noise reducing headphones, it was still torture. As Porter noted earlier, we are biological programmed to respond to a crying child. It's one of the most difficult things to ignore.
And I absolutely do not blame the child. It was the middle of the night and he was in a strange place, restrained on his mother's lap unable to either lie down or get up and move around. He had and sunburn and he'd very likely spent the last two weeks being hauled around like a hand bag. He had every reason to scream.
I do, however, blame the parents. They should have expected the kid would have a melt down under those circumstances. It was extremely inconsiderate of them to bring a toddler on a Caribbean vacation that required taking a 10 hour overnight flight. I can imagine circumstances that would justify it, but given the details of this particular situation the probability of any mitigating circumstances is extremely low.
Posted by Steve_G (Member # 10101) on :
My wife and I took our first baby to the theater exactly once. We learned our lesson and never did it again.
Locally the Regal theater has daytime showings of their popular movies for moms with babies. I think the ticket price is minimal if not free.
Encouraging moms with babies to attend these movies by making it free so that they won't be tempted to bring their baby during prime time makes perfect sense. It also garners good will to moms who will at some point no longer be tied to a baby, and will be able to rejoin the normal movie-goers baby free.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I think the difference between a fussy child at a movie or restaurant and a fussy child on a plane is the purpose of the activity. A fussy child at a movie disrupts the purpose -- seeing the movie -- so the other patrons are actually deprived of something they are there for. The purpose of a fancy restaurant dinner might include a quiet/relaxing evening out. The purpose of an airline flight is not recreation or relaxation (although the purpose of the trip might be, the flight itself is not) and the other passengers aren't being deprived of what they are paying for (transportation) no matter how irritating they might find their fellow travelers.
While this is true, it's also true that if I'm seated next to a crying child in a movie theater, I can get up and walk out. On a plane, I'm completely trapped.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: While this is true, it's also true that if I'm seated next to a crying child in a movie theater, I can get up and walk out. On a plane, I'm completely trapped.
Those emergency exits aren't that hard to open.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QB] I talk during movies
Please don't do that.
I sush people all the time, and I hate doing it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can't make any promises.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I haven't been to Avengers yet. Nor the Carribean. I deserve medals or something.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If we're giving out medals for not seeing movies, I should have a caseful.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)