Slashdot Mirror
Voices From The Movie Line
For centuries, technology was of little interest to anyone outside its own developers and users. These days, technology seems to be pushing the country towards a cultural and moral meltdown. Technnics aren't simply a source of wonder and surprise, but of fear, resentment and widespread puzzlement.
The flashpoint of much of this unease -- perhaps a metaphor for it -- is the place where kids, culture and technology converge -- the Net, the Web, music, TV and, lately, movie theaters.
Pop culture been much more than entertainment for kids ever since rock and roll. One of the few enduring legacies of the Boomers was to elevate popular culture to a central place in American life. That evolution has only deepened. For kids today, culture is a primary recreation, but movies, TV shows and music are also something else -- a universal language and common interest, almost a shared ideology.
Many people define themselves by the shows, CDs, Websites, computers and movies they like. Culture isn't just something that's fun for the young, but more and more something that defines who they are. Liking "South Park" isn't just an expression of what's fun. It's a statement of individual identity. Technology has heated up this process by delivering more culture in faster, more graphic, more explicit and less censorable forms.
That's why the growing tendency to blame techno-driven culture for violence and other social problems is so pressing an issue for kids, who have no political voice or spokespeople, and who are presumed to have no rights beyond those which parents and politicians grant them. In fact, morality and the young has become a cheap, sure-fire political issue all over the country.
The massacre in Atlanta this week tragically underscores the irrationality of America's approach to violence, kids and culture. Would the killings have been prevented if the killer had been kept out of violent movies? Should adult access to e-trading sites now be restricted? Outrageous responses like that would never be considered for adults. They shouldn't be for kids either.
The giant conglomerates that control much of American pop culture are happy to go along with these prevailing winds, yet seem strangely ignorant of the technologies they are acquiring and developing and the ways in which so-called "children" use it. This is going to prove a monumental mistake.
The music industry, greedily confusing freedom and piracy, has driven an entire generation towards the now entrenched habit of acquiring music for free. The movie industry and the theater chains are now embracing this generation-alienating philosophy in their embrace of faux morality. They adopt the pretense that kids will be safer if they see only violence, but not sex . But by pandering to so-called moral guardians, adopting useless and quixotic rating systems, imposing ticket booth interrogations of kids and parents, the people running Hollywood seem not to grasp the growing power of the young to access and control their own cultural lives, and make their own choices about what they watch or see, thanks mostly to technology.
Earlier this week, I received more than 1,000 e-mail messages (second only to the "Hellmouth" series) in response to a two-part series called "Ticket Booth Tyranny," which talked about the sudden post-Columbine ticket booth harassment of teenagers trying to see movies with profane language or sexual imagery.
The movie industry may be mollifying some fuddled parents and scoring some points with the moral guardians in Congress, but if the e-mail I got is any indication, this is one of the most profoundly short-sighted trade-offs in entertainment industry history.
These messages were angry. They saw clearly through the posturing and pretense. They spoke directly to the lunacy that occurs when corporatism, technology, politics, morality and culture get tangled up with one another.
"I'm 17," wrote Sean, who's entering the University of Michigan in a few weeks. "I'll be eighteen in September. I drove last weekend with my date to see 'Eyes Wide Shut.' They carded me, and wouldn't let me in. The chain decided that they were enforcing an '18-year-old only' policy for this movie. It was humiliating. All summer I've worked as a counselor helping retarded kids, but I can't see Nicole Kidman's butt? I've got a DVD player, of course, and will see this movie soon enough. But I'm never going back to that theater. I might not go back to any theater."
Matthew works for a multiplex in Maryland. He's also 17. "I'll turn away sometimes 10 or 20 people a night, not because I can, but because my job is on the line. Before we obtained 'South Park & American Pie,' anyone who would sell tickets, or usher, had to sign a paper stating that they would enforce the regulations or face dismissal if underage people got in under their watch. The policy posted at the box office states that anyone that looks underage to the ticket seller is to be carded. Again, sometimes people are carded walking into the movie by an usher. One night, an usher kicked 30 people out. First night of 'American Pie,' the theater did over $1,000 in refunds to underage kids."
It's hard to be rational about this idiocy. "American Pie" is an often hilarious spoof of teenaged sexuality that features four horny high school kids plotting to get laid. Without exception, the four are thoughtful, sensitive and good-hearted, both to their friends and their girlfriends.
There is nothing even remotely as vulgar or disturbing in this movie as much of what's on any local newscast almost every single night. Or a score of cable channels or accessible websites. "American Pie" could safely be shown in high school classrooms as a guide to sensitivity in sexual relations. The idea that a 16-year-old kid could see this movie and turn violent or otherwise be morally damaged is amazing in the 20th century, sure to be remembered for monumental advances in technology.
Matthew said he's also instructed to make sure that "children" under the age of 17 are accompanied by their parents into any "R" rated movie. "I think along the same lines you stated in your article - if the parent wants the kid to see the film, and they're there buying the tickets at the box office, the kids should be let into the film. That is the ratings system in action - advising parents, instead of forcing moral values on their kids."
Matthew and many of his fellow usher e-mailers made it clear that they have no desire to be in charge of enforcing and defining moral values for other people.
At least a dozen other ushers wrote in to say vigilance varies according to:
- Whether the manager's on duty or nearby. - - Whether the ushers know the kids trying to get in. - - Whether the usher is about to quit for another, better-paying job and doesn't care who gets in. - - Whether the usher is in a good mood or not. - - Whether the lines are long. - - The gender and attractiveness of the ticket-buyer. - - The pressure from the parent company. -Several of the ushers wrote in to suggest seeing restricted movies close to Labor Day when many movie chain workers are about to go back to high school or college and don't care if they get fired or not. Employers are also desperate for help, and less likely to toss benevolent workers out.
Jon Winters messaged to say he and his wife recently built a home theater in their house. "We prefer to wait until movies come out on DVD and watch them in the comfort of our home." He and his wife went to see "Eyes Wide Shut" but wished they'd waited to see the movie at home. The projector was out of focus, and the sound from an adjacent screening room was bleeding through the walls.
"In the future we will wait for the DVD no matter how badly we want to see the movie. At least I can control the technical merits of my home theater."
Jon's message is significant. Among other things, the Net and other digital technologies offer precisely that kind of choice and control. His sentiments were repeated by hundreds of other people restless about their movie-going experiences even without being hassled at the ticket booth. Jon said he's building a home theater. The best high definition projectors will function as computer monitors, he said. "My friends freak when I pull up GNOME on my 72" HD projector. I can surf the Web and check e-mail during TV commercials. Lots of fun."
Almost as much as getting booted out of a movie theater because you haven't passed some arbitrary biological morality benchmark.
Many other e-mailers said they were also eager to find alternatives to theater going. They cited crying babies, people talking, high prices, out-of-focus projectors (this generation is especially used to clarity in images), sound "bleed-thru;" high prices for bad snacks; the absence of "Pause" buttons, and the movie industry's self-imposed censorship ratings.
Movie theater operators may have much bigger problems to worry about than the oral sex discussions in "American Pie."
"This ratings bullshit is the last straw for me," wrote JimB. "I am going DVD. These people are so gutless. I have the right to see what I want. I don't believe for one micro-second they are worried about my morality or well-being. They are just trying to keep the religious crazies off their back. I'm old enough to be a camp counselor, but I can't watch a friggin' movie like American Pie. I've given these a-holes countless dollars over the last few years. No more." JimB is 16.
Many of the messages had this familiar themse: the Net and the Web provide an alternative to moralistic restrictions like those going on in movie theaters. And adults are clueless when it comes to the nature of kids lives during this time of technological change. "I've been seeing violence and sex all my life," wrote Don from Portland, Oregon. "I remember seeing the LA Freeway shootings, and cable shows and magazines and radio and all sorts of other stuff. Do they think by keeping us out of movies that we will not be exposed to stuff like this. Some of the stuff I've seen is graphic, but I can't say it's hurt me. I'm a straight A student and looking forward to college. I've never broken any laws. These people are just outrageous." Like many of the others, he was saving for a DVD player.
Adam, who's also 16, was denied permission to see three movies last weekend "South Park," "American Pie," and "Eyes Wide Shut," even though his parents said it was fine for him to go and sent him a note to that affect, which included a number for the theater to call if necessary.
He was escorted from the lobby.
A middle-aged couple offered to take him and his friends into "South Park" but backed out when the theater manager said they had to stay inside with them for the entire movie.
Adam said he and his friends were furious. "And I can turn on HBO anytime late at night and see people having sex. Just how is South Park supposed to hurt me? Or American Pie? I want to study film when I go to college. Are these movies supposed to damage me? Undo my parents teachings? Turn me into a murderer? I ama a kid who actually likes going to Church! I don't need moral lessons from ushers. Are they supposed to keep some kid from grabbing a machine gun and shooting me in school? Or keep me from doing that? Don't these yahoos know that I can stuff on TV or online that's a million times more violent or sexy than this anytime I want. Screw these theaters. As soon as I get the money for a DVD player, I'll get what I want on the Net and I'll never go back. I don't have to spend that money for overpriced popcorn and humiliation."
Cathy wrote that her father listens to Howard Stern every morning when he drives her to school. "He says stuff all the time that is sexual and vulgar. He talks about women's vaginas. I can listen to him but I can't go see 'American Pie'?"
In fact, the restrictions on "American Pie" in particular -- a movie directly about the lives of many of the kids forbidden to see it -- had hundreds of e-mailers in a fury.
MReynolds messaged that he believes the current epidemic of ticket booth moralizing is part of a larger pattern. "There seems to be a large segment of the population that welcomes regulation of everything from cryptography, to television, to the Internet. And almost all these campaigns to regulate our freedoms (I consider the ability to encrypt my porn a freedom) are encapsulated behind the banner of 'we must save the children from these evil things!'"
MR may be more correct than he even knows. Technological historians like Langdon Winner have written about the outbreaks of moral outrage that often accompany periods of great advances in technology -- the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, the development of the Net and the Web.
They are, he says, almost akin to religious upheavals.
"The writers who have isolated technology as an issue have repeatedly stressed that what is involved is not merely a problem of values or faith," he writes in Autonomous Technology, "but, more importantly, a problem in our understanding of things. There is, they assert, something wrong in the way we view technology and man's relationship to it."
There sure is. Thus most Americans blame technology for teenaged violence, even though there is little to link the two, and violent crime among younger Americans has been dropping sharply for years despite enormous increases in the availability of techno-driven pop culture, violence and sexual imagery.
The Internet has altered the very context in which kids, morality and technology interact. It makes censoring the cultural lives of the young, or bovine symbolic gestures like the theater operators are now making, ludicrous. They young don't become more moral, just more cynical.
Technologically-inspired ratings systems, V-Chips and filtering programs don't work. They can't raise moral children, or get lazy and irresponsible parents where they want to be -- off the hook.
Thousands of people voicing support???
Hmm, funny, but most of the reponses I saw seemed to indicate that you had completely lost it.
Go away Katz
Fourth post
Attention, please. The National Slashdot Service is issuing a JonKatz alert effective immediately!
Slashdot Service radar has positively identified a JonKatz article. Radar signature was verified by the following phrase:
"For centuries, technology was of little interest to anyone outside its own developers and users...."
This statement has been verified as an unproven assertion, possibly meaningless in nature.
The National Slashdot Service also has received reports of highly windy prose coupled with dubious assertions and questionable assumptions.
Readers are advised to take cover immediately. Please, please stay clear of this area. Resist the urge to post.
This concludes this Slashdot Service warning. I promise this is the last time I'll use this joke. We now return you to your regular site.
You saw the *e-mails*, which is what Katz refers to? Wow. All I saw was the postings to /. How did you get to see the mail? What magic powers do you have?
Hmmm, he gets thousands of messages from kids upset that they cannot break the law, but hundreds of publicly posted messages here decrying his lawbreaking antics as socially irresponsible and childish are conveniently overlooked?
What else can we conclude, but that Katz doesn't read Slashdot!?
I used to like Katz, but he's gone off the deep end.
I'd post a message for the man, but why bother? He won't ever read it.
Rob might though. Hey Malda! Time for another "Dump Katz" poll. My vote has changed since the last one.
(Might I suggest those who feel the same as I post a "Me Too!" comment? Perhaps we can get Rob's attention.)
Many people define themselves by the shows, CDs, Websites, computers and movies they like. Culture isn't just something that's fun for the young, but more and more something that defines who they are. Liking "South Park" isn't just an expression of what's fun. It's a statement of individual identity.
"our miserable individuality is screwed to the back of our cars in the form of personalized license plates", Alfie Kohn
--
Michael Chisari (Forgot my password)
dominion@beyondtheweb.com
What's next, carded to purchase an "r" rated movie?
you damn poser!!
Funny how Katz publishes examples - written by children - that support his purile opinion, but yet chooses to ignore hundreds of publicly posted comments - most of which I saw were from adults - that did not.
John Katz is dead wrong on this issue, and his stubborn refusal to admit it is just as wrong.
Jon, you just don't get it, do you?
It doesn't matter how many thousands of emails you got from CHILDREN. They are still children. They are still the responsibility of their parents. They are NOT adults nor have the achieved the maturity necessary for the decisions on what is good or bad for them.
You want an example? Teenage males are the worst drivers according to insurance records. They make stupid decisions. Even when they've been trained on the correct actions (read safe).
Of course they are going to support your position that they have more freedom. Big deal. They can support you all you want but they don't have any authority.
Look to your example letters. What does helping retarded children have to do with watching erotica (Kidman's butt)?
Get a clue.
So the kids who are turned out by the theaters get ticked and vow never to return. Many adults hate the theatre's service, and also decide not to go back.
Um... so?
Sounds like capitalism in action to me. People don't like one product/service, so they use another. I just don't see a story here.
Katz is getting lazy, I guess.
Jon, I agree that the new hyperactive ratings enforcement is moronic and backwards, but how can you write a series of articles that treats the issue with such importance? Nobody's being forced off a lunch counter or made to give up their bus seat. I simply cannot muster much outrage about a 12-year-old's inability to see titties. Give it a rest.
The movie rating system is A Good Thing, and requiring parents to actually sit with their kids in the movie if they wish them to be allowed to watch it is an Even Better Thing.
One would hope that DVD stores would not sell R rated movies to minors.
that cannot be summarized and printed on a bumpersticker.
*FREE PORN FOR MINORS* J.Katz
Regardless of what people think of DrKatz, I think most people agree with him. I was able to work in a position that required me to screen for aviation terrorism, granted me free access to/fro U.S. Customs areas, and required me to pass many background checks, and I'm not allowed to drink a beer.
Age restrictions are useless. Really. Think about it. How many teenage males HAVEN'T gotten ahold of pornography by the time they turned 18?
Your whole article seems to infer that children are the same as adults and have the same capacity for understanding as adults and so should be able to see whatever adults do. This is not the case, younger people are much more influenced by what they see. They also have less experience to be able to process what they see and put it in prospective. I am old enough to know that I didn't really know what was good for me when I was a kid, but young enough to remember what it was like.
The unfortunate part is that everybody matures at a different rate but society has to impose an age that you can see these movies. It's easy to say the parents should have the final say, but in this era of absentee parents that is not always the answer. I don't want to see my access, as an adult, to these kinds of movies to be restricted but at the same time I don't want to see kids seeing material that they aren't ready to absorb.
On a side note, for some DVD might not be the answer because if I remember correctly many places that sell/rent movies like Wal-Mart and Blockbuster only stock certian versions of the product, thus imposing their morality on you.
After the MASSIVE outpouring of disagreement to posted here after Katz's last article on this topic, I was expecting his next to be a frank admission that he'd gotten it all wrong.
Suprise! Expected too much of him, I guess. Instead, we get treated to the blindingly obvious observation that underaged kiddies don't like it when they get kicked out of movies, and have it paraded in front of us as vindication.
Horseshit. The man has either lost it, or he's so full of his own messiah complex that he's ignoring common sense and the Slashdot readership.
Either way, he sucks. Toss the bum out!
Not everyone lives in the US
I honestly think most kids would benefit from not seeing the crap in the theaters right now. They would be better off going for a walk, hanging out at a coffee house, or reading the newspaper.
Nah, if they can't get into the movies they usually just go home and screw.
Reduce the abortion rate! Let the kids see the movies!
It's a little fuzzy as to what he means, especially since a lot of retailers (amazon, reel, etc) sell DVDs online.
You must still be asleep. If "censorship" cuts children off from "some aspect of human experience", and you don't want to do that, then porn must be okay.
Isn't sex an aspect of human experience?
Do you have children?
Maybe little girls?
:)
Don't worry, I'll make sure they have access to all aspects of human experience.
After all, it isn't your decision as a parent as to what you consider your children ready for, is it?
Why don't you try posting again when you've gained some experience with raising children?
Has anyone considered that "children" become adults, and adults that have made a few bad decisions (or seen a few bad movies) are better prepared to make good decisions in the future?
I know, instead of letting our children grow up, we'll legislate their every move into the ground, because we know what's best. And every parent must realize that they have to make all of the decisions for their child, or who knows WHAT might happen? They might learn how to decide on their own.
Were they there with you during the movie?
If they were not, why were you there?
What gives you the right to decide what laws and policies you choose to obey? Will tomorrow you decide to not obey the laws against theft? Against murder?
If you cannot be trusted with minor responsibilities like not seeing a restricted movie, why should you be trusted with adult things?
If you find those unjaded, openminded kids, let me know. At least on the planet where I grew up, kids could be some of the most cliqueish, closedminded bastards you could possibly imagine.
How does the world expect children to become mature if they're never allowed to make their own decesions?
The people in favor of controlling what children see don't WANT them to make their own decisions. The controllers want the kids to do, think, and feel as the controllers wish them to.
They are anti-freedom. That's the whole point.
Get out, you dumb son of a bitch! Fuck off! Get out of slashdot! You are a clueless moron!
..enough to not only place limits on their behaviour, but to see those limits enforced.
Just because you *think* your rules are arbitrary doesn't mean they *are* arbitrary. When you grow up, maybe you'll understand that.
Why shouldn't they be able to see restricted movies in a theatre? Because the movies that are restricted are intended for adults, and have adult themes. Why should parents be required to stay with their children in an adult movie? Because if a parent intends to allow their child to be exposed to such material, he/she should be there to see exactly what the child is seeing, either to provide guidence after the film, or to remove the child from the film if the parent judges the experience too intense.
They are good, well-founded rules. I expect the theatres to enforce them, and I decry Katz as irresponsible and infantile for his advocating that children attempt to circumvent them.
That constructive enough for you, sonny?
Are you people forgetting what its like to be sixteen years old?
Jon is not stating that 5 and 6 year old children should be freely admitted to movies such as "South Park" or "Eyes Wide Shut." But for a 14, 15, 16, 17 year old teenager to be denied from seeing a movie which is clearly no worse than ANYTHING seen or heard in the school systems today is totally absurd.
Put yourself back in the shoes of these teenagers. Do you think your life would have been dramatically altered at sixteen years old if you had gone and seen "South Park?" Of course not. No one's moral views change simply because of one movie. It is the responsibility of the parent to teach us that killing is wrong, violence is wrong, and that what we see on television or in the movies is simply entertainment and not meant to be carried out in real life. If the parent feels the child is not mature enough to see a movie, that is the parents decision. But for a movie theater to act as a parent?
Most fifteen, sixteen, seventeen year olds have enough wisdom and maturity to handle seeing a movie with a some sex and violence. Maybe more-so than some "adults" in today's society.
It isn't the government or the movie theatre telling you what you can or cannot watch.
The movies are rated by an independant board.
The theatres abide by the recommendations of this board.
BOTH can be overridden by the simple expediance of having your parent or guardian present during the show.
Now, let's put this into "perspective", okay?
China has "censorship". You cannot get non-approved news (unless you break the law and have your radio tuned to Radio Free America). You cannot get this news even if your mommy is listening with you. You cannot get this news even if you daddy is listening with you. You cannot get this news even if both your parents AND your grandparents will sit with you and listen.
The theatre says you CAN see this movie BUT only if you can convince one of your parents or your guardian to sit with you.
Shall we try this again?
Iraq has "censorship". (yadda yadda yadda)......
Now, are we all clear on what "censorship" is?
Are we all clear on why you need your mommy to watch movies with "bad" words or "naughty" body parts showing or "adult" situations?
Yep, it might not be as funny watching American Pie with you MOTHER sitting next to you.
But if you can't deal with THAT, then you ARE too immature to deal with the MOVIE.
Grim fact.
Avoiding even worse censorship. The MPAA may be bad, but it's a goddamn lot better than what came before it. Go do some research on the Hays code, the censorship system that ruled the motion picture industry before the MPAA ratings system came along.
Oh please. My parents had no problem with allowing me to look at pornography at a very early age. I looked at a couple mags, asked them a few questions which they answered honestly, and then when the novelty wore off, I went back to playing with my legos. Since sex was talked about openly and with a matter-of-fact attitude in my family, unlike my peers, I had no strange hangups with sex when I became sexually mature. As for the implication that pornography will make kids want to have sex, I personally didn't have sex until I was twenty and I've always used birth control.
If you treat your children like they can't make rational decisions, they won't make them. If you give your children as much pro and con information as they could possibly want, openly discuss options with them, and give them insight into complex ideas, they will make rational choices and decisions. Give them more credit. They deserve it.
Katz is sooooo right this time! It's absolute tyranny to try regulating what goes into a child's mind. What are these parents thinking? NC-17 for everybody! Direct porn feeds into the brains of all children who reach puberty.
While we're at it, let's start injecting heroin directly into the eyeballs of all children 13 and older. We're denying them their civil rights of experimentation and expression if we don't.
I'm so glad Katz is rationally thinking through both sides of the issue and not just taking the easy slam on parents/politians who are trying to determine age-appropriate content for kids!
"Would the killings have been prevented if the killer had been kept out of violent movies? Should adult access to e-trading sites now be restricted? Outrageous responses like that would never be considered for adults. They shouldn't be for kids either."
I think you may be looking at this the wrong way, although I don't disagree with you. The idea is that if the killer didn't watch the violent movies AS A KID, he might have been better able to understand that violence is wrong, and wouldn't have commited the violent act today. Some people believe that exposure to violence in your youth, before a proper sense of right and wrong (and reality) has been developed, could lead to violent tendancies later in life. I do not believe that watching violent movies could affect a 'sane' person this way, and I certainly don't believe that anyone even remotely near the age of 18 needs to be babysat in this way, but it is still important to remember.
Another important thing to remember, is that people under the age of 18 are ABSOLUTELY allowed to see movies such as american pie. They must have supervision of an individual over the age of 25.
I'm trying to play devil's advocate for a moment, because I agree as well that this restriction is unnecessary, but this gives parents the right to protect their children from harmful sources. Obviously the father that listened to howard stern in front of his daughter didnt mind that she hears it, and the person that allows their children to watch pseudo-porn on HBO either allows it, or has done nothing to actively prevent their children from viewing it (means are available to restrict tv viewage.)
I'm sure you don't want a parent tagging along when you are 18 and with a group of friends, so this situation is not perfect, but the concept in general is not as hypocritical and unfair as it may seem, it is merely outdated and behind the times.
I'm 20, and can see 'r' movies on my own now (woo)
but I understand where the regulation is coming from, even if I don't believe its principles are grounded in valid fact.
Got the skin flayed off your back 'cause you didn't pick enough cotton for massa, huh?
Anyone who compares parenthood to slaveholding is either a fuckwit or a whiny, self-serving kid. But I repeat myself.
After the age of 13, any child in the united states can legally seek to be removed from their parents custody. A judge will decide if they are responsible enough to be on their own. So even if they are on their own, they still have to have someone older (Judges have to be above 25, afaik...) and hopefully wiser to help them along the way.
1.) The age at which a child may petition the court for emancipation (I assume that's what you're referring to?) varies from state to state.
2.) Judges almost NEVER grant such petitions, unless it's a famous child athlete or actor who has lots of bucks.
3.) If the emancipation is granted, the judge isn't there to "oversee" them after that. They're ADULTS from that point on, period.
I have a dream where all the kids in a major U.S. city march on the city courts and demand to be emancipated right then and there... with the firepower to back up the demand. Ah, well, just a dream.
I heard a great suggestion for how to shut up annoying people in movies yesterday. Don't shush them, just repeat everything they say.
That said, I still prefer to watch movies at home on DVD with Dolby 5.1 surround. I'm still looking for a good front projector. Any suggestions?
I know the legal discrimination involved here, but on a purely ideological level, shouldn't children have the right to think for them selves?
Children aren't going to have any rights until and unless they stand up and TAKE them. By whatever means are necessary.
Unfortunately it's a lot easier to just wait a few years and then get the rights (what few are left) at age 18.
My brother, a friend, and myself also went to see the Blair Witch Project yesterday at the Sony Galleria Cineplex at Crystal Run just outside Middletown, NY. After we bought our tickets, three teenaged girls approached us to ask if we were going to see BWP. When we answered yes, they asked if they could go inside with us. It seems they were allowed to buy tickets, but afterwards were /not/ allowed into the theatre without an adult. Sheesh. Of course, we let them enter with us.
Watch movies WITH your children.
Preview movies that may not be suitable (according to YOUR tastes and YOUR assesment of YOUR children's emotional development) for your children.
Don't let anyone like Katz demonize you for not allowing your children to watch whatever they want whenever they want to.
Haven't YOU figured it out yet? The first amendment was written to protect free speech from government control. Remember how it starts? Congress shall make no law...
The movie theatre R rating restriction is voluntarily enforced and have nothing to do with any law passed by Congress.
Blah. People need to realize that you don't have "rights" in the Constitutional sense when you are a consumer of a private product or service.
[end rant]
- Speed
Yes, you are a hypocrite.
So, because you watched R movies and didn't kill anyone, then it is okay for anyone to watch R movies?
Great logic there.
I'd bet the tobacco lobby would love to get ahold of you.
"Well, since I smoke and I don't have cancer, smoking isn't bad for you."
You know, Katz' supporters would have a better case if they could actually think about their statements.
But if they could actually think, they wouldn't be Katz supporters, would they?
You can watch any (non-X) movie at any age if your mommy will sit with you.
Just a minor point.
(of course, you can watch any X movie if mommy will rent it for you, but that's between you and your mommy [and child protective services])
I totally agree with you... I can't remember the last time I've gone to see a movie in a theater and in the 8 seats around me someone wasn't talking, or making noise, or just plain being an ass.. I've totally given up going to the movies.. I can get all the VCD's I want.. and then turn around and buy the DVD when it comes out. *I* don't need the theaters.
All I need is a good AC3 decoder.. and I'm good to go.. sad really.. I used to like going to the theaters.. but now.. I don't need the frustration..
--- DraKKon - what password..
The heavy-handed wording was intentional there. I'm glad SOMEONE appreciates irony around here. :)
The government should have no say in what you teach your children.
Do you have any daughters?
I completely agree that the current definition of "child" is completely laughable.
How old are your daughters? 13? 14? 15?
Of course, such arranged marriages were often between 30+ year old males and 12+ year old females.
Don't you think your daughters are really young women?
I fully support you position that I be allowed to have maritial relations with your 13 year old daughter.
Down with the government's mind control!!!!!
Take respnsibility for what you read and filter Katz out of your account yourself. I want to read Katz's posts. Why should you make the decision if I get to read Katz or not? Take your pro-control attitude away from me and let me do as I choose.
Very nicely detailed post. Completely wrong, but nicely detailed, none the less.
What you fail to understand is that your position is founded upon your belief that Katz is only refering to mature children or the mother of the children in his first posting.
He hasn't limited himself to these, why do you. Do you recall his "Take A Geek Kid to a Restricted Movie Day" crusade? He didn't require any maturity decisions be made. He didn't even recommend getting the parent's permission.
You see, if Katz was advocating the responsible parenting of mature young men and women, then people wouldn't have a problem.
He isn't. He's continually ranting on about the "censorship" of the theatres.
If a theatre requires your mommy or your daddy accompany you during a movie, that isn't censorship.
You'll make a lot more sense once you've overcome your comprehension handicaps. I would suggest reviewing the literature on the Soviet Union's control of the press and the state of Iraq's media. That will help you see the difference between "censorship" and "unless accompanied by parent or guardian".
Good luck.
Kids don't always see the big picture. Then again, some adults don't see the big picture either. But they learn as they grow and mature. They may not see the big picture now, but they've got to learn sometime, and right now is as good as any.
Hmmm, but it's illegal to purchase copies of nude children in "erotic" positions (no intercourse).
Now, some would argue that this is "censorship". You yourself allow your children to view pornography. Yet pornography is used to "groom" children by pedophiliacs. Obviously, the same criteria cannot be applied to each child.
Which brings us back to the ORIGINAL issue or whether children should have access to material that their parents do not wish them to.
You grant access to porn for your children.
Your children are not yet adults. You do not know the effect your parenting will have on them.
Other children might not be as capable of handling porn as your's are.
So the theatres have instituted a requirement that the parents be present during the movie. Simple. The parent's rights are not abridged. The children are supervised.
Now, if you DO support children's access to pornography without parental oversight, then you DO support pedophilia. Learn more about the crime and how it is perpetrated and you'll understand why I say that.
Wow, since you're 19, then you can rent porn without your mommy's permission (depending upon which state you live in).
Or didn't you know that?
Are you too dense to understand that the discussion is concerning individuals under the age restriction? Now, is this "censorship"? You still have access to the material, but you have to have an adult who is legally responsible for you present during the show.
As to whether I watch porn with my mommy, no. But your mom and I have been uploading alot of stuff we've made to some of the German sites.
A group of us went to South Park and got carded,
our average age is approx 27, with the oldest
begin 32 and the youngest 20 (who, BTW, looks the
oldest).
DVD's output more scan lines than most tv's (hd excluded) can handle anyway, so the pixilation that you'd see is from a crappy tv, not the DVD. Also, the picture is usually better on the DVD than the films since the film is "treated" with heat everytime the movie is played, and unlike the DVD is stored in such manner that the media's condition is highly important.
Besides, with DVD you can hit pause to get up and piss.
Obviously you are too young (and stupid) to have learned anything about our involvement.
Or is this just another of your pathetic attempts to garner attention?
Congratulations. Or as my granny used to say:
"If that's the worst you'll ever have to put up with, you should thank the Lord."
But, I don't see much in the way of perspective from Katz. I guess that comes from his lack of education or experience.
My suggestion would be for Katz to move to Africa to see what the living conditions are in other parts of the world. Then he can spend a year or two in China to find out what CENSORSHIP really is.
Anyone else remember Tiaman Square? How many of the pro-South Park populace do you think will be gunned down or imprisioned without a trial?
Get over yourself.
These are MOVIES. You'll grow out of it (or lead a really pathetic life if you don't). Turn on your TV. Eat your Taco Bell food. Realize that 40% of the world is going to sleep HUNGRY. Realize that over a million children will be dead by the end of the week because they don't have basic medical care. Tune into ER. Load those South Park videos. Stuff your fat face.
You'll never face a tank because you've snuck in to see Eyes Wide Shut.
You'll never face life imprisonment because you've posted support for Katz.
You'll never know what censorship really is.
You're too caught up in your pathetic little struggles against "Da Man" controlling the ticket booth.
What the fuck does the Holocaust have to do with children not being allowed into a movie unless accompanied by their parents?
Or are you insinuating that Jews wouldn't have been killed if they had been accompanied by their parents?
Or maybe if we had let the Nazis use derogatory statements regarding other races/religions?
Or if we had desensitized the German people to violence through movies?
You are the worst kind of slashdot moron. Do you want some perspective on the situation? Grab a Star of David armband and spend some time in the Golan heights. Please, do this for me. You won't survive and I won't have to read your worthless crap anymore. But your death might be reported on slashdot and others might finally understand what oppression really is.
a) no it's not. Congress has nothing to do with business, private or not.
b) it's not monopolized. Not all theatres enforce the MPAA rating restrictions. And not all theatres are under the same ownership. What monopoly are you talking about here?
c) your comment about self-regulation is speculatory. We can speculate all day, but it doesn't change the fact that right now your First Amendment rights do not apply to whether or not you can see a movie.
- Speed
Well, on the planet where I grow up, the worst kids can do is killing some people.
The worst an adult can do is start a whold damn war and get millions killed.
Beside, NOT ALL kids are cliqueish, closedminded people.
MY biology teacher in hight school is so closed mind that he counldn't bear the truth that he is not teaching biology at all.
Adults are no better than kids, they just have more power to deny it.
hmmm, after reading this, methinks that perhaps we should RAISE the majority age... some 21 year-olds are still not mature enough to get it (no matter how much they 'make').
so - you tell your parents to fuck themselves... i hope your kids do it to you, smartass. you'll change your mind right quick.
[not up to reproducing? GREAT! you'll be doing the human gene pool a big favor.]
Firstly, this is not a forum to say, "Jon Katz sucks". If you don't like his writing or points, reply in a way that would befit the complaints--in a well-thought out and supported argument.
I see lots of movies, mainly on video, DVD, and pay TV. I can see whatever the hell I want on these mediums, and in the the case of video and DVD, whenever I want. I don't have to go to movie theaters, but every so often I do because it's a fun thing to do with some friends when there's a movie we all want to see out. A couple years ago I was never carded going to a movie, and I was 16 then. Now I'm 18 and I get carded at every single R movie I go to and it's just ridiculous. I've been able to make informed decisions about what content I am comfortable with. Maybe this is because I had good parents who taught me to trust my moral judgement when I was very young. Seeing R-rated movies never would have, and still will not corrupt my moral judgement, for better or worse. I know there are people out there without good moral judgement, and these people will go to the same R-movies I do. The movies are not going to change their moral judgement, especially given the violence in the general consumption media nowadays.
Whoever is at blame for the recent nonsense in movie theaters is doing a huge disservice to the youth of America. What this is saying to _parents_ is that their job in teaching morality to children is to prevent them from seeing things which a room full of censors has rated innapropriate for children. Thus parents are free from any responsibility to decide for themselves what is appropriate for their children and to teach their children moral codes. Children are thus left with no other place to look for these codes then mass-consumption media like the news, which given its immense violence and sensationalism is hardly what I would consider a place to build morals.
Parents need to take responsibility, it's that simple. Morality is not the job of government, business, or even religion. It is the job of parents, and ticket-booth morality not only gives parents an excuse not to teach morals, but also prevents them from taking absolute responsibility even if they want it.
rabiega@usc.edu
Let's start with the ability to distinguish between the individual and the statistic. In your case, you've never had an accident. But you pay high rates because other drivers younger than 25 have a high rate of accidents.
And tobacco doesn't harm anyone because I can name 10 smokers who don't have cancer.
Can to tell the difference between the individual and the statistic now? Statistics indicate how likely it is that an event will occure. Not whether it will happen to you.
To put it in the theatre's perspective, the majority of 17 year olds are mature enough to see this material without parental supervison. If your parents think you are more mature, fine, they can sit with you and watch it.
The second test of maturity is perspective and relevance. You fail miserably.
The restriction that a child may not view this material without a parent or guardian present is the SAME to you as the oppression of the black race or considering women as chattel?
I'm so glad that the black man will be able to leave the racist culture behind when he turns 18.
Let me guess. You're white, aren't you? You don't have any idea what it means to be black and discriminated against for your entire life. You'll get to see whatever movie you want to when you turn 18. But the black man has to face prejudice his ENTIRE life.
Did you know that women still only earn a fraction of what men do for EXACTLY the same work?
Isn't it good to know that when she turns 18, she'll be paid as much as a man?
The difference, which you so blythely overlook, is that the child will grow up and the restrictions will be removed, one by one. Your examples don't even BEGIN to compare.
Finally, we have the test of extremism. Can you present adaquate alternatives without deforming your position. Again, you fail.
You want to keep repeat sex offenders out of theatres. How do you propose to do this? Is the 17 year old selling tickets going to tell a violent offender that he can't buy a ticket? I hope they get hazard pay with that job.
And lastly, yes, people over the age of 60 can be legally placed in the care of their children. IF they have shown to be incapable of caring for themselves or maintaining their lives.
So, simple tests for maturity and you simply failed. But don't worry about it. You can still complain about how "Da Man" is oppressing you by not letting you view movies deemed too mature for you. Why don't you go down to Harlem and cry about how your movie rights are equivalent to the slavery of the black man for hundreds of years.
Please! And ask them to take pictures when they kick your pasty white teen age punk ass for even CONSIDERING that their generations of oppression and slavery are even COMPRABLE to you having to wait months until South Park comes out on DVD.
Like they can afford DVD players. No, no more discrimination there.
I'm so sorry you feel that your parents were a hinderance to your intellectual and ethical development.
Maybe you can explain why the majority of persons incarcerated come from single parent or no parent homes?
Why do you only stop at the 1st amendment rights for children? What about Johnny's Constitutional right to bear arms?
It may seem that your intellectual and ethical levels are advanced (to you) but your maturity level is demonstratable low. This isn't an intellectual exercise about whether SOME children are mature enough to handle advanced material. If they are, their parents are the best suited to make that determination.
If you were so intellectually advanced, then you MUST have known that you could have gotten LEGALLY separated from your parents. Then you would have had the freedom you claim wasn't granted by your parents.
Isn't it strange how one so intelligent could have missed such an obvious solution to his dillema.
Jon is really degenerating all esteem I previously had for this site. His writing is complete and utter one-side bullsiht. Inciting it is, and that is the only reason I can see for him still being allowed to post stories. Has slashdot really degenerated to the point where 'hits' matter more than 'quality'. I am not a 50 year old religous, right-wing conservative. I am an 18 year old liberal. If one looks at the current movie system rationally (rational in this case meaning considering the other point of view), the current restrictions actually make sense. Any writer, who would sink so far as to attempt to incite children further on such ridiculous issues, in my book, ranks below pond scum. I really despise having to see Jon's articles on the frontpage, and I'm almost at the point, where one more article is really going to drive me to get an account (which I really don't want to do) or go to another site. I really think we need another poll reguarding Jon's status on /.. In my opinion, Jon is no better than the microsoft propogating agents at ZDNET. His articles are filled with 'buzz words' and 'buzz issues' focused at a largerly unexperience and ignorant crowd, with the sole purpose of inciting them. And yes, I have fallen in his trap, along with the other 200 or so people who posted commens pertaining to this garbage. I'm not going to go over 'why' its garbage because to me, it's blatantly obvious and several comments posted before this, do a rather marvelous job of it.
Zack, how old are you? 15,16? Your opinion is understandable, all children always think they are right because they have some sort of psuedo-arguments in their favor. Don't worry, you aren't the only child who does this, everyone does or has, including myself. Hell, I've probably argued for more stupid things while I was a child than most others. I probably still do it today :]. Attempt for a second to view the issue from both points of view rationally. Attempt that. Just try. The reason only anonymous cowards are posting against this article is because anyone with a clear sighted mind, who has a user account, has Katz filtered out. I'm almost about to get myself a user account, so I can filter out his garbage. It is really, really sickening to see an adult attempt to incite children over ridiculous issues. Very disgusting. I'm quite amussed that very few teenagers caught his very insulting and degernating remarks reguarding teenagers blindly following hollywood and mass media. Hell, he goes as far as suggesting that the aforementioned entities are the centerpeice in teenage life today. He says they are what define a person. I'll let you figure out what that means on your own. I can only assume the more clearly thinking portion of the slashdot teenage audience has Katz filtered out too. One important thing to consider is, believe it or not, most parents are out to cursh any dreams children have of having 'fun'. I know it might come as a shock, it might even seem like a henious thought, but parents actually have 'good' intentions. Believe it or not, its true. As much as it is a cliche, they have been alive just a little bit longer than you, and have perhaps gained a little more insight on life. Of course, I rarely listen to my parents anyway, I always wind up learning the hardway myself. Trust me, the hardway sucks.
In Virginia, as in many other states, Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) certification can be obtained at age 16. Numerous Volunteer Fire Departments and Rescue Squads take advantage of this and allow volunteers age 16 and up to respond on calls and treat patients.
You're thinking, what the hell does this have to do with movie censorship?
Well, basically what this says is this:
I, as a 16 year old in Virginia, can be trusted to respond to life-or-death situations and administer emergency treatments, can witness accidents and violent acts in real life which are much more graphic than any movie I've seen to date (except, of course, training videos), but can't get into a rated R movie. I can be paged to respond to the scene of an accident where someone has been partially decapitated, with blood, etc all over, I can be called to save a person who has been shot, stabbed, or doused with gasoline and set on fire... All of which have occurred in this area. Members of the community (which includes theater owners/employees) can count on me and other 16 year olds to save them in the event of a medical crisis, but they don't seem to trust us to view movies which they think might 'harm' us.
As I said, I'm 16, and I'm currently training to become EMT-Basic certified. I find some serious backwardsness (is that a word?) and hypocricy in this situation.
I am fifteen years old. .357 (that Conyers shooting happened less than fifteen miles from my high school), he will be far less shocked, disgusted, and likely to think for himself by it, mostly because the images he likes and has adopted for himself remind him of the six degrees of seperation between drugs/guns/violence/stealing/polygamous lifestyles/etc. and coolness. Coolness is very important to "adolescents". Inumerable psychological studies show that adolescents want "acceptance" and "belonging", both of which are byproducts of being "cool" And an easy way to "belong" is to have a popular music artist or figure's name, maybe "Spice Girls" or "Leonardo DeCaprio". and being like others.
At first I was going to write "JonKatz is one of the few adults that understands parts of our society that are being toyed with right now by political factions and industry groups."
Then I realized how few kids understand these parts of society. The truth is, the reason that all of this censorship and limitation is happening is at least partially because there are some kids out there that are "poor decision makers" as teachers and juvenile court prosecuters would put it. I realize that the IQ level of most of the kids reading and replying to Slashdot is above the average (send me money for that, Rob) and our situation is in no need of correction, but think of your classmates. Situation:
Teenager w/ Date:Can I get two tickets to Eyes Wide Shut...
Ticket Salesman:I'm sorry, you're not old enough to see this movie.
At this point, the Teenager w/ Date will have a strong adverse reaction. Where should our script go from here? Is it likely to be:
Teenager w/ Date (speaking to manager): As a political statement, I, and surely others, will not tolerate, and certaintly not support, this kind of behavoir towards the youth in general, which is a population segment so diverse and complicated that it can not be controlled by poorly though out and primitive measures such as these.
Or is it going to be closer to this:
Teenager w/ Date (speaking to Ticket Salesman: I'm gonna kick your fucking ass!
There obviously is something wrong in our youth here. And I think Katz knows it. People want to "identify". They write "Korn"and "Limp Bizkit", or maybe "Austin 3:12", or perhaps, "Master P" and "Silkk tha Shocker", depending on their style of brainwashing. When people do this, they're assimilating these production's content into themselves. Let's say Johnny sees a movie like Disturbing Behavoir, or The Faculty and sees that this kid drives a '72 Mustang, something not bad in itself, he also link it with other things in the movie... like homemade drugs or guns. And it builds up to what a "cool" movie is. So when his friend, Bobby, shows his a joint or even daddy's Magnum
So what we have so far is that groups of kids are identifying themselves with poor role models' images in the media. So hold on kspett-- it is the media's fault that Bad Things happen -- that is what you're trying to say, right? Well, let me share with everyone the media products that I associate with. First, music. I listen to lots of different music, amongst which is some death metal. Like Cannibal Corpse, Vader, Cryptopsy, etc. It wouldn't suprise me much if you hadn't heard of many of these. They're pretty obscure. (Being "underground" is a much sought-after image, btw.) Common themes are: death, pain, suffering, killing, massacre, mutilation.... Very gorey... I'm also into movies. I have this fetish with old horror movies. I have a picture of Damien from The Omen in the final scene, where he's standing in front of the rows of crosses at the graveyard, in my wallet. In that movie there was decapitation, suicide, matricide, fratricide/sororicide (actually, since the sibling is in utero, you'll have to consult your political party to find out whether it's really murder or not.), strong anti-Christian themes, and lots of lots of evil in general. My two favorite directors are Quentin Tarantino and the late Stanely Kubrick. Both famous for their often disturbing imagery. And while Kubrick is so involvedin this topic, let me say a word about him. He was a genius. Sure, lots of people love A Clockwork Orange for gore and violence, but the man's directing abilities shine through in every one of his films. He was an artist. His movies were art. How many directors do you think there are that are in the position to make major motion pictures that want to create art. Lots you think? Let me tell you-- almost every movie put out today is all about success. And this is nearly garaunteed for movies that are oriented towards a teenage audience. The industry thinks we're idiots. I went and saw American Pie. And I saw something that I hadn't seen in awhile in a "teen movie". There was accurate socail commentary. The script writers understood the real pressures on teens regarding in sex and indivuality. Sure, it was graphic-- he had sex with pie!-- but it was accurate. A confused teen could learn to benefit from it. Anyway, this all should've been in a different section.
So, I should be a gun-toting Satanist hoodlum from the future who murders his mother slowly and painfully, then commits suicide in front of the US Marine Core, right? No. Want to know why?
I know better.
Do you know better? Do your children know better? I know who I am. I don't feel the need to "identify" with people and seek community with people who are just as directionless as I am? If most people were taught to think for themselves and define what characteristics their personalities will take on instead of applying pre-contructed figments of the media's fiction. Once you know how you want to live and be like, it's easy to keep the "ultra-violence" where it belongs -- on the screen. Bad "teen movies" wouldn't suceed if what was required of them was to have interesting and valid characters and plots-- not what they do now, which is supplying images. And once it was established that these movies wouldn't succeed on the basis of having drugs, violence, etc. alone, they would stop appearing. This is far more effective and desirable than trying to block the images from existence! Especially when we have the news -- Knowing about these events in detail and that they are real and actually occuring makes violence and terror far more casual and normal than putting them in obviously fictional scenarios. All the grotesque, violent, erotic, horrible movies in the world can't force their ideals on those who feel they don't need help finding principles to live by. Children need to be raised with morals and ethics. To be shown not to look to the tv and movie screen to teach them. And even then there are things before media censorship. Do you want to know why these things don't happen in say-- Germany? In Germany, the ice cream man doesn't hand out Glocks with the fudgecicles! The media is not the place to startthe crackdown! It's not even involved. And if the powers that be take away the movie theatres till I'm thirty, I've got a huge Sony projection television in my basement with Bose Acoustimass surround sound and five huge overstuffed leather chairs, not to mention a microwave and refrigerator. Oh yes, and most importantly... DVD.
Kevin Spett
Email is very welcome.
The government doesn't impose a limit on what your kids can do. The are free to go see Rated R movies, as long as you go see it with them. If you can't spend 2 hours viewing what your child enjoys every once in a while, THEN YOU ARE THE ONE SCAPEGOATING YOUR RESPONSIBILITY ON TO OTHERS. Although I have personal moral objections to abortion, I realize that since it is the woman's body, she should have a right to decide what to do with her body. However, it should be also realized, that scientifically speaking, she is murdering a baby. At the moment of conception, the human organism is rapidly developing into a self sufficient being. Yes, the child is still dependant on the mother, but how many 1 day olds are independant? I also abhor anti-abortion activists who scream 'baby killer' at pregnant. mothers. However, I also find equally intolerable pro-abortion people who attempt to ignore scientific fact and euphenize their action with a fancy term (e.g. abortion).
the reason most 18 year old don't support their younger counterparts is because they realize the foolishness in the previous comment and their own foolishness for believing it. I am 18, this is why I don't support Katz's article. My mind was set at 16 regurading this issue (while I was still a child).
Did you ever stop to think that the foundation of the establishment you base your assumption on was built by many who were very religously devout? Did you ever stop to think that 'relgious' people do think for themselves? Did you ever stop to think that religous people do not blindly follow along? Did you ever stop to think that other people have thought about the bullshit you are writing about? Have you ever actually *thought* about this? Read anythign about this? Discussed this? Or do you write as an ignorant, close-minded, fool? (e.g. a hypocite) Belive me, not everyone in the world is a moron. Believe me, many religous people actually do think for themselves. I could go on, and on, but I will not. All I can suggest is, shut the t.v. off (the internet is no better) and pickup a book, and READ IT. Reading some bullshit bulletin board is not the same as reading ab ook. TRY IT SOMETIME. IT ISNT INFECTIOUS. You will not get cancer. You will survive it. You might actually learn something if you read enough of them. You might learn gratitous insults and assumptions do not serve your purpose. You might learn, people think differently. By the way, I'm not a priest, I'm only 18.
Maturity can not be forced by a shortened life expectancy. What you are confusing with maturity is the societal taboos and strictures that guided the activities of the individuals.
A 13 year old girl in 1200 wasn't more mature than a 13 year old girl today. But she had EXACT guidelines on what was and was not proper. These guidelines were enforced by the extended family and the church.
This is where Katz is setting himself up as the final authority on what children (yours included) can or cannot watch. He has advocated taking your children to see movies you don't want them to see simply because they want to and are being oppressed by your lack of trust in their decisions.
If you want to raise your children then that doesn't affect me.
But if someone else advocates the unilateral usurption of parental authority based upon thousands of emails he gets from CHILDREN, then I have a problem.
A) Yeah _American Pie_ had all these popular jock kids in it. But come on, the movie and it's commentary were closer to real life than most are. And don't tell me you didn't laugh.
B) Leave the Jews alone.
Will tomorrow you decide to not obey the laws against theft? Against murder?
Oooh!! I think I know this one!!
Does anybody want to have a bet with me? Particularly, does the chap who posted this ludicrous piece of slippery slope drivel?
OK, we'll bet cakes and I'll give you odds.
If the under 18 slashdot reader commits murder or theft in the next 48 hours, you have to give me a bun.
But if the anarchistic little so-and-so does commit a felony, you will take delivery of a magnificent reaspberry pavlova!!
C'mon, how about it?
jsm
Uh, yeah, that was my point. e-mail. Yes. email. Not /. postings. Yes. I was pointing that out to the person that I was replying to.
Is this beyond your short grasp?
Katz, you shouldn't have picked South Park or American Pie. Folks, take the kids to Arlington Rd. At least one character in that one has the right idea...
In Tennessee, there IS a law about the 'R' rating. I didn't know that until this week, but they had a 'news story' on Fox wherein they sent a 16-year-old with a hidden camera to buy movie tickets. 2 of 6 theaters (why they only went to 6 theaters, I don't know; there are about 15 theaters in Memphis) carded and refused to sell (as is proper, seeing as she was unaccompanied) - no harrassment or any other Katzian occurrences, just a simple "Sorry you have to be 17." The other theaters didn't even blink; this alleged oppression of teenagers isn't so ubiquitous as Katz implies.
I saw "American Pie" last week (at a theater which WAS carding at the time, btw), and if Katz believes that it isn't vulgar, he really is as thoroughly out of touch as his detractors have been claiming. I hated it, but I happen to prefer movies that have some substance instead of being pointless raunch. The MPAA certainly makes some stupid decisions, but not in this case - that was most assuredly a capital-r Restricted show. If some of you out there with teenagers want them to see filth like this, that's your prerogative; take them to the movie. But don't claim that it's wrong for the default to be "If you want your kids to see this, bring them" instead of "If you DON'T want your kids to see this, stop 'em yourself" - which, given the propensity of teenagers to ignore statements of "Don't do X", would in many cases require locking them in the basement.
Those of you who think that it's morally reprehensible to restrict youths' access to intense or explicit movies: Do you also believe that the restrictions on who can enter strip clubs should be abolished? If your answer is 'no', what's the difference?
LooChin
Jon, I like your style...
:p)
To all those who don't, filter him or skip him... but don't try to censor him by banning him from this site... your tastes aren't the only ones that count, and if you think so, you've just proven much of Jon points.
Maybe Katz's not "Right" all the time, but he make ME and other ppl think...
He try to understand things and peoples and to make sense of it...
Your post about movie rating was IMHO good... Fortunately I've never been affected by this, probably because I'm not a Big Movie Buff, but I sure see some "Illogical" things going on in the North American Culture (BTW... I'm from Canada).
---
Ex: the movie The Fisher King was aired on TBS some weeks ago (yes, we can get it HERE too). Something hit me: they'd cut 2 scenes in that movie. The first when the ex-DJ's drenched in gas by two morons. I could've understood that if it weren't leaving us wondering why the guy trenchcoat would suddently and easily catch fire later... the second and more important scene they cut was the one where Robin William's (forgot the character's name) wife/gf is shot and Robin gets blood all over his face... this scene IS graphic... but it helps a lot in understanding why that character is basically NUTS...
While they air Arnold & Sylvester blasting away Zillions of "enemies" 'cause they're big BlockBusters... the only difference is that The Fisher King has BLOOD in it, for less than 5 seconds...
---
I've found that insulting that they tought that this was too graphic while almost every major network depict some graphic "real" violence on the news...
(yeah, we got those too, up here...)
I agree that there should be some limitation as to what age slice of the population could be shown this movie or that tv shows etc... but the line is hard to draw.
I've met a lot of stupid, immature 16 YO, but then, I've met a lot of stupid & immature 20-25 YO too. I know some 10 yo that could see some movie and appreciates them, while some 22 YO would be acting like monkeys in frenzy
so what age gotta do with it... nothing!
It's a question of personality/way of thinking
Another thing I'm pissed about is those "PURE" thinking pro-censorship/right-limiting peoples...
(Dunno why, but I'm thinking about the rev. Flavel in PorkyII and the FBI/NSA)
Some ppl just can't stand not being RIGHT, not being in control, not being a model, seeing others do/read/watch/say something that they don't like, and the first thing they cry is: "Bad for the childrens, Bad for the Society, Anti-Patriotic, Sinfull, should be arrested, etc..."
It's like hearing "America: Lands of the Free... as long as you think/act/speak like US"
You may find this weird, but since the Internet backbone is in great part in the US and that the US Movie Machine is the biggest/moste influential in the world, we (The rest of the world)are feeling the impact from many "bad" legistlation the US makes. (not that we can't have "bad" laws here by our own
but I digress... Gotta Save the bandwidth for others...
PS: Sorry for any typing/grammatical errors. English isn't my native language...
my 2$CAD (must be worth nearly 0.02$US)
Why? You give him no reason to shut up, as do any of the other idiots that post telling him what an idiot he is. The problem with you morons, is that you fail to give any reasoning why what he says is bad. "Its just a movie!" doesn't cut it. It may be just a movie, but by allowing them not to serve us based on our age, you are allowing them to discriminate against people.
Yes, thats right, teenagers are people too.
The problem is, you don't have any reasoning, beyond "I don't want them to hurt their virgin eyes!" I've been exposed to most everything tv has to offer, including cable. I'm not desensitized, I know that going around killing people is wrong. Because I go to see a movie that has sexual themes to it, doesn't mean I'm going to go out and kill people.
There may actually be some youth who go out and do stupid things because they see something on tv, but does that give anyone the right to punish the rest of us for it? Because 'adults' do stupid things (you know you do), does that mean that a business restricting you from certain things so that you won't do stupid things justified?
Its easy to stand up for discrimination, when you aren't one of the people being discriminated against. Shame on all of you.
Wasn't that another R rated movie? Maybe that does make a point in the discussion. There was plenty of nudity in that movie, too.
The Religious Right (note: not all religious americans, or even a majority) thinks that the prevalence of sex in movies and culture is the driving force behind everything from teen pregnancy to mass murders. However, sex and erotica are far more prevalent in Europe and Japan than they are in the U.S., and these countries have far lower rates of violent crime and teen pregnancies. Also, this attitude allows a variety of expressions of sex to be shown. Sure, there will be pornography, but there will also be adult discussions of sex, its place in society, and gender relations.
Japanese anime, for instance, is infamous for its gratuitous sexual scenes, especially when females are concerned. This is not seen as a bad thing in society, and there are plenty of anime that take a more serious tack on issues. Also, few members of the Religious Right (or anyone else) would question the sexual morality of the children and adults exposed to these images.
Jon Katz is right on this one. The movie code is meaningless, and also does not allow for differences between American Pie and Eyes Wide Shut, or take into account the social comentary and artistry of these movies. It should be downgraded to merely "advisory" status, to allow parents to make these decisions, and also to allow kids to be raised to critically look at the messages (positive and negative) that their culture is sending them.
The thing you should be afraid of is the amount of restrictions and regulations coming about in the name of 'protecting the children'. The U.S. which supposedly values individual freedoms has many special interests and groups who want nothing more than to take those freedoms away.
If people don't speak up, don't participate in their government, and ignore the things that don't affect them, then pretty soon there won't be much left to salvage. Government tries to get its claws on so many aspects of our lives that it is frightening. People need to raise their own kids; teach the proper values. If you keep asking the government to do this for you, you may get more than you bargained for.
- Speed
So, the prospect of actually getting laid is shameful?
Or is it the act of preparation for getting laid?
How about this, you see me and a cute girl at the drugstore. I'm picking up an extra large box of ribbed nobblers (name the quote). Do you feel sorry for me? Do you feel sorry for her?
Or do you wish you were me?
I think you've answered your question yourself -- at least in part. Parents are too busy because it takes two people's wages to run a household instead of one person's. The blame can be placed on the standard of living having changed over the decades between our parents' generation and ours.
There seems to a lot of readers here who disagree with this article simple because of it's author. They rant "can't he read? Last time he posted this I said that he was wrong!" Well guess what, bucko, I thought he was dead on. Christ, you aren't listening to what anyone has to say. You flame Katz for writing an article that is pro-freedom because of the group that he's writing for. These are the same people who are scared of Echlon! Make up your damn minds.
Now that that's out of the way, why don't we actually talk about this instead of flame? Okay...
People here have posted that they don't believe that children should not be allowed to see movies because they are children. This is where I start to get confused already. I watched plenty of R movies when I was young... Did they make me go out and kill people? Uhh.. lemme think... no.
Then people say that it's okay if the parents go in with them. Wait. So the fact that their parents are there change the movie somehow? Uhh.. lemme think... no. The movie is the exact same movie. How is it different if the parents BUY the tickets? wait.. that's right.. it's not.
Then you claim that the theatres can turn away whoever they want. Yeah, right. You guys would be up in arms in a second if a movie theatre decided to not let black in. Or refused to sell tickets to Jews. How is that any different from refusing a 16 year old and letting in his 17 year old friend?
The point is that this is baseless age discrimination and enforcement of someone elses morals.
I went to see American Pie last night... I didn't get carded... In the movie there were plenty of 15 year olds, a few 6 year olds, and a couple of (crying, sigh) infants. Only the infants were with parents.
I don't remember any of those kids raping anyone on the way to the parking lot...
I breath Oxygen, and I haven't killed anyone.
But ya know, that day trader breathed oxygen as well! I say we don't let any of the children breathy oxygen.
Thanks for the flame pal... You're exactly the kind of guy I was talking about. You couldn't refute anything I said so you merely attacked _me_ instead.
> Yes, you are a hypocrite.
Uh. How?
>So, because you watched R movies and didn't kill
>anyone, then it is okay for anyone to watch R
>movies?
My point is that movies don't make people go kill other people. Music doesn't make people kill other people. WWF doesn't make kids get into fights. South Park hasn't resulted in any mass sucides to get on the mother ship.
>You know, Katz' supporters would have a better
>case if they could actually think about their
>statements.
Well then bring up something about my statment, AC.
There's plenty of non-Hollywood stuff on DVD. I've got Pi and a bunch of anime titles, and there's more where that came from.
Check out DVDExpress sometime.
I was in a local theater this past weekend to see Deep Blue Sea , which was an average movie, but was also rated R. Looking around the theater I could see quite a few unaccompanied under-17 persons attending the showing. So much for the big "we honor age restriction guidelines" banner hanging out front, eh? Theaters just want your money. That's the bottom line.
Just remember, if they ever put Schindler's List back in the theaters, your kids won't be allowed to see it because it's rated R, and they're under 17. So much for learning from the past.
The US seems to be the only country in the world that has so little faith in it's citizens that those in charge feel the need to protect the citizenry from fiction, nudity, and "foul" language. The worst thing is, that American parents go right along with it, fooling themselves into believing that it's helping. Instead, all it's doing is creating a new generation of kids who will grow up to give parental control over to some other arbitrary authority figure. Parents need to teach their children about the human body and about so-called foul language, then it won't be so much more appealing as a forbidden fruit. If the worst thing an American kid does this year is see Nicole Kidman naked or hear the South Park kids cussing up a storm, this would quickly become a much better place to live.
I support teaching children never to use "u" as a substitute for "you," and never to use "4" as a substitute for "for."
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
No, corporations do not that have the right to do so. They may restrict particular people from frequenting their establishments if those people cause problems, but they may not make discriminatory class-based prohibitions. For example, I could not start a theatre that only admitted white people, even if i owned the theater and didn't feel like letting non-white people in.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well, MPAA ratings and age "guidelines" don't have the force of law behind them, but the theater owners are not free to do whatever they want either. If theaters do not follow the industry's policies, they run the risk of not being allowed to purchase movies from the studios.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Kids are the people most affected by these regulations. Kids are the people who directly experiences the effects (if any) of the movies in question. The testimony of the kids themselves is the most important and most overlooked part of this debate, and the point of the thousand E-mails is that the kids unanimously disagree with the moral guardians.
You can register, then filter Katz out yourself. If you don't do that, if you'd rather sit there and bitch, you deserve to be ignored.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
You try to make the point that the parent should be there to make the judgement call when things get 'too adult' for the kid. Your argument has the hole that the movie industry has chosen ahead of time, before the parents had any say, that movie X requires their attendence and movie Y does not. The decision to require their attendence or not is removed from the parent's control.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Movie ratings these days are *way* off the
scale these days. As are the ludicrous attempts
at censoring movies, denying people access
and more of that fun stuff.
Practical example. This weekend I went to see
SouthPark with my girlfriend and her two kids,
aged 11 and 6. We got in but only after we
created a scene. The usher and manager told *us*
what was best for *our* kids. Fuck that, they
wanted to see SouthPark, they got to see it.
Did they swear after the movie? No. Did they
pull out guns and mow down the lobby? No. Did
anything change? Not at all.
After that we decided that we wanted to see
another movie and the kids went to watch
Tarzan and my girlfriend and me went to see
the Haunting. The strange part here...
SouthPark is rated R. SouthPark is animated
and is so clearly an animation that you can't
really get around it. the Haunting is rated
PG-13, yet the images displayed in the movie
were rather disturbing, now I'm not really
in to horror movies but it sure as hell wasn't
going to do a 13 year old any good.
Moral of the story -- I'm saving for a DVD player
and the theatres can collectively decide where
they want my business to go. I know for a fact
that if I get trouble one more time I will never
ever visit a theatre again. The only reason
I do is because it's a night out, but if I have
to, I'll make it a night out at home where
I can decide what my family and me watch and
where nobody can decide what's best for my girlfriend, her kids and me. We're all perfectly
able to decide for ourselves.
(Just a sidenote -- the kids initially wanted
to see the Haunting as well, but we told them
that it was a rather scary movie and that we'd
see it first and if we thought it was okay,
we'd let them watch it next week. They're not
going to see it though, and I'm pretty glad
that it's my gf's and my decision and not some
lame ushers' or managers' decision).
There is no sig...
Is anyone surprised that the very people who are being censored are complaining? Gee, when the Nazis were killing Jews, why didn't the German soldiers complain? Maybe because they weren't next...
If a movie is rated R, there's no reason for a theater to deny people who are 17. If they do that, then they should (a) have rated the movie NC-17 or X, or (b) prepare for angry phone calls, letters, and lawsuits, and people talking about freedom of speech.
Any arguments?
Incidentally, I'm 21, I saw Eyes Wide Shut, and I thought it should have been (a) uncensored and (b) rated X for nudity and adult situations. I don't think they'd show A Clockwork Orange in theaters today either, and I don't think Southpark or American Pie are even in the same category... if Eyes Wide Shut is rated R, they should be rated PG or PG-13.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
This thread is over. You lose.
At the same time, it is not straightforward to compare "norms" from one society to another. For instance, Japanese culture and society is not the same as American culture and society. That is one reason why anime has so much gratuitous sexuality. Simply put, what is depicted is part of their culture. A number of things western society would find sexual in an anime, the Japanese would not.
Static.
I've had discussions with friends of various ages about who should and who shouldn't watch the TV serious of South Park. It is clearly not aimed at kids. The creators have clearly said so. One friend is a teacher of 8 year olds and is shocked so many of them are familiar with it. She won't let her 11 year old watch it!
Static.
When (if?) we get this right again, there will be less demand for X, R and NC-17 films. But it will take at least a generation.
Static.
Like with theatres: The larger the screen, the farther back you sit so you don't notice the fine detail imperfections. You'll hardly get the experience you might want from a movie if you stick your nose six inches awat from a 72x40" screen.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
Until recently, most cultures had specific ages or events which divided children from men, and most of those events took place at around the time of sexual maturity. Keep in mind that it was as little as 100 years ago where many marriages were made where the participants were 13 or 14 years old. In environments where the dividing line between child and adult was clear, such moronic ideals as are coming from the government nowadays would be scoffed at.
We shelter our children far more now than we ever have before. We keep them acting as kids longer, trying to hold back the inevitable tide of biological impulse... possibly because the urge to nurture isn't being outweighed by the need to have more able bodied helpers in the struggle for survival, who knows.
I also find it highly distasteful to be forced into a situation where other people make choices for me, or my family, as to what is suitable for our viewing pleasure. Your morals are not my morals, and I'll kindly thank you to keep your borderline-mind-control attitudes out of my choices of entertainment... and that of my children!
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
My 11 year old son has been begging me to go see South Park.
I say NO WAY. I saw that movie myself first. I don't mind if he hears dirty talk, swear words, etc. I know he knows every word in the book - hell, I did when I was his age, but I told him until he learns to stop using the word "fart" in inappropriate situations (ie. in front of his mother, or especially infront of MY mother), I deem that he does not have the responsibility to handle those words, and that's what being an adult is all about.
I would feel the same way if he was 17, unless he could show that he did have the ability to control his behavior.
I told him that if he could stop using the word "fart" or stop belching loudly like he does to impress his freinds, for 1 week, I'd take him to see it. His record so far is 2 days.
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Hollywood has installed a totally incompetent rating system that only Jack Valenti could love. Jack's last reform was to call X ratings NC-17. Nothing happened. Still no news.
Some day, these outraged teens and kids will look back at their outrage and wonder why. They will understand completely what motivated this "protection" that Hollywood was offering them. I hope they will see that what is happening is merely silly, not an outrage.
The truly sad part is to watch kids who are officially too young to see the movies without their parents tell other kids that they can't see it either. If the movie chains want to enforce the rules, the cineplex managers should be the ones doing the carding, not the hapless ticket sellers.
As a practical matter, I think that we as parents and as a society tend to treat teenagers as if they are younger and less mature than we ought, but it is still the responsibility of the parents to make the decisions for their kids and know when to delegate that decision-making to the kids. This is a responsibility that we cannot delegate to others. It's a responsibilty that we should not want to delegate.
At one time societies had rituals for children who were becoming teens. These could be as simple as eighth grade graduation or religious ceremonies which brought the child into an official state of (nearly) adult. Now, the big statements of growing up are the driver's license and going off to college, rituals that come far too late in adolescence to be useful.
When are kids old enough to see movies about sex, drugs, or evil behavior? Clearly, the absurd result of R ratings for movies that have a target audience that is younger than the rating "allows" in the door is no good. I'm hard pressed to think of any 15-year-old that I've met who could not handle South Park or any of the Halloweens or similar movies. Being scared is fun. Handling being scared is better. Being scared at the movies is a safe scare. Let the kids do it.
The R and totally dead, NC-17 ratings have to go. I think it needs to be replaced with an R-14 (about 80% of the R movies of today) and an A-18 (adult movies, teens allowed with parents only) rating that better reflect the desires of movie goers and still give parents a chance to help their children decide what to see. Still, if parents hadn't been willing to give up their responsibility for raising their kids, Hollywood and the chains would never have felt that they had the right to tell children (and by extension their parents) what they can see.
The sound systems in theaters is also overrated. Anyone who has seen True Lies on a 60" screen with a Dolby Digital (aka AC-3) sound system at home knows what I'm talking about. It's a whole new experience when you can hear every single bullet as the jet fighter sprays the building floor.
I can't wait until I get enough money and space to buy a home theater like some of my friends have. Once that happens, I will NEVER go to a movie theater again.
Timur Tabi
Remove "nospam_" from email address
Oh, that's right, freedom is a bad thing for corporations, but is good for individuals.
Corporate freedom is not bad, just less important than individual freedom.
Make me aerodynamic in the evening air
If you cannot be trusted with minor responsibilities like not seeing a restricted movie, why should you be trusted with adult things?
If he can't be trusted to stand up for his right not to be discriminated against based on his age, how can he be trusted to stand up for all our rights should he be drafted into our armed forces or commisioned for jury duty when he turns 18?
Because of the AARP, we can't impose special restrictions for old people. Why should it be any different for young people? You can't have it both ways.
The one comment I'd add is: enough about American Pie! What about "Coming Soon?" As the Salon article points out, this sounds like a great movie about the female side of the equation, and a movie I'd really like to see. I know I'm not the only 20-something straight guy who doesn't feel threatened by female sexuality, right? My g/f and I really enjoyed American Pie and I'd love to see Coming Soon with her, but because the hypocritical MPAA keeps trying to give it an NC-17, it probably won't be "Coming Soon" to theaters.. and that really sucks!
--
Jake
I'm with you. While reading this article I couldn't help but think he's right about the hypocrisy of theatres, but that isn't really his agenda here.
I especially like all the references to "the Net". What exactly does the internet have to do with any of this...the fact that DVD movies can be ordered online? How revolutionary!
Yes, some movie theatres are actually making an effort to enforce the ratings now. Yes, that'll probably piss people off. Yes, ramping up the enforcement because of skitterishness over school violence is silly. But none of those things present a convincing argument for abolishing the MPAA ratings system, and they're not even particularly convincing of the apparent argument that children should be let into R-rated movies. Sorry, I just don't think the right to free speech is endangered by telling a 13-year-old he can't go see someone masturbate into a pastry.
As for the argument that Mr. Winter's DVD home theatre with the GNOME interface is the harbinger of doom for the movie industry, sorry again, Jon. Last weekend was the biggest box office weekend in history in America. People are not failing to go to the movies, and it seems that those teenagers being turned away from The Blair Witch Project aren't significant enough to affect the bottom line.
I can't address the argument that liking "South Park" is a form of asserting one's individuality without collapsing into giggle fits, so I won't try.
Just rent the things. The local rental store has DVDs here. And they generally won't degrade with usage, either, other than by bad handling. Much better than tapes!
I'm definitely ready for DVD...
YAKC -- Yet Another Katz Complaint. Let's see, do we have the prerequisite reference to censorship? Yes. Letters from disgruntled teenagers? Yes. Abundant references to Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR in the comments? Yes. Reduction of religious people to blathering buffoons for thinking softcore porn isn't a fundamental right? Yes.
The more of these Voices from the whatever there are, the more that they show their true character. Is it irritating that some people were denied entrace to the movie? Certainly. Have they been denied some sort of fundamental right? No.
The response to this is totally out of proportion to the severity of the situation. Being denied or inconvenienced in viewing movies that are at best mildly entertaining soft core pornography or full of racial humor is not so great an evil that the nerd community should rally around the so called "oppressed." To other commenters, its not Nazi Germany. Get over yourselves.
Andrew Gardner
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, its too dark to read.
I liked the kid who was confusing VCDs with DVDs. VCD movies are already insanely large downloads for anyone using a modem (poor me, I guess; no good DSL or cable modems here). DVDs are what - like 4-18GB?
If he's got a computer, he should just get a DVD player for it; much cheaper, even if you have to use one of those obscure non-Linux OSes.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I could agree with you more man. My wife and I are both 23 years old and the $%^&* ticket booth attendant would not sell us tickets without ID's to the Blair Witch Project. I too was tempted to walk away. It's not like I was even *close* to the age limit.
here's a larger social problem I see it's indicative of: Way too many parents aren't taking as much interest and control in their kids' upbringing, and this vacuum gets filled by legislators, school officials, and even movie ushers having to step in and make decisions.
I hope that when my little guy is 17, I can take him to movies like these and actually talk to him about them afterward. I think that's the intent of the MPAA rating system, anyway."How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
I've read most of the series on Ticket Booth Tyranny and I think I may have a different solution to the problem. It seems to me that the effectiveness of civil disobedience has declined in the last several years, so maybe it's time for a new tactic>
Vote with your feet.
Sure, having a "Sneak a Geek Day" sounds like a nice idea, but look at what you're doing -- you're putting more money into the theatre owner's pockets. That's no way to change policy. Instead, I propose shutting down the entire movie theatre industry for a day. See how many people you can get to NOT go to a movie theatre. After all, the movie studios know that the really big money is in home video releases -- why do you think that theatre engagements keep getting shorter and shorter?
If you want to change the mind of the theatre owners, don't add to their coffers. Hit them where they live -- in the wallet.
That's just my opinion.
I want all of the power and none of the responsibility.
Yes, the theaters have the right to say "OK, you are a problem viewer and you may not visit our establishment".
They do not have the right to say "We as a corporation feel that we are better qualified to judge who the target audience of this movie is than the MPAA". The MPAA gives every movie a rating which is intended to guide parents on the content of the film.
In agreeing to show movies, the movie theaters should be following the pre-established guidelines for the film. I wouldn't be surprised to find that a letter-writing campaign to the studios informing them that your local theater chain is not allowing all of the potential customers in to see the film would generate good results.
This moral decisionmaking is being made at the corporate level for us, so bring in another corporate level to help counter the idiocy. Making movies is a business. If the studios can't get the movie out to be seen by everyone who wants to see it, then they will eventually come down on the outlets that are limiting their take on the film.
Here's a few links for you all....
And remember how to go about the advocacy, people. The studios aren't going to care if you and your brother, both 15, couldn't get in to see these movies. But they will care that theaters are shutting down legitimate 17-year-old viewers because some corporate menegement weenie thinks he has a better grasp on the morality of your children than you do.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
In a truly free market, there would be no prohibition on such behavior from a legal standpoint. Of course, people adopting such policies would advertise their stupidity, and would hopefully lose quite a lot of business, which is why I advocate repealing such laws. Bring the bigots out in the open.
The point is, however, that property rights (a concept Mr. Katz cannot grasp, apparently) overrule any alleged 'right' of a 17 year old to see a movie.
You forget to mention that the RAPES were alleged against the ADULT SECURITY GUARDS and POLICE. Ahem.
The copper bosses killed you, Joe. 'I never died', said he.
What does censorship have to do with movie ratings? People under 18 years of age are restricted from watching movies with certain ratings. Boo hoo! Will the movies be available from your viewing pleasure when you are are deemed chronologically old enough? Sure they will. Should you able to watch these movies now? No! Why? Because that's the current rule. Our society is bound by all sorts of these funky rules. We may not agree with all of them but you have to agree that they've served us pretty well so far. I do agree that some of them are dated and could be revised, however, until they're changed we're obligated to follow them.
So buckle up little camper, and obey the rules...
Zaed.I find it insulting that Katz has decided to take it upon himself to declare that theaters should no longer determine whether or not they wish to enforce voluntary policies pertaining to MPAA ratings. The managers who are attempting to establish an R policy do so to conform to what they view as community standards. And there is nothing wrong with that. It's perfectly LEGAL for them to do that, just as it is legal for stores to "refuse service" to a customer as long as it is not discriminatory.
Is being treated differently because you are younger than 18 discriminatory? Hell yes, but it is also the point at which the LAW determines whether or not you're an adult. As arbitrary as it sounds, the law says the day before you turn 18 is different than your birthday. It's not a level of maturity that's being measured. It's not knowledge or experience that's measured. It's age that determines whether or not you can vote. Why? Because the government won't spend the time or effort to measure anything else unless you make it worth their while (example: see how many teenagers are serving hard time for "adult" crimes), so should we should expect theaters to determine an individual's maturity level before allowing them to watch a movie? Hell no.
And so, a business owner tries to make it their business to act like a member of the community and puts up a policy enforcing the R rating. Well, gosh darn it. Life sucks for the kids. If they can't get an adult to watch the movie with them, then that business owner has the right to refuse service.
All I read in Katz's article is whining. "I got a note from my Mommy." Even the schools have stopped believing that line. "I'm 17 and I couldn't watch a movie. Darn that's unfair!" That's life, brat. If you haven't learned that by now, you're gonna suffer when you get out in the real world. Go watch something they'll let you see. "I'm gonna buy DVD." If you wanna protest with your dollars, Hey, feel free to do so. The usher, cashier, or manager you had to argue with and whine to when you didn't get your way will appreciate it.
It's not the theater manager's fault that the movie is rated G, PG, PG-13, R or NC-17. It's the Movie Picture Association of America (MPAA) that sets up these ratings. The manager follows the rules set down by the corporation that owns the theaters who try very hard not to get sued and upset the stockholders by following MPAA's standards. You wanna do something about it? Try fighting the MPAA instead. The manager is just trying not to get fired because some brat's parents sued his bosses for not enforcing the rules.
What really upsets me about this story are the mention of parents who aren't willing to get involved enough with their kids to go watch these movies with them. The rules say "accompanied by a parent or adult guardian." What's to explain about that? You've known the rules have been since you were kids. Stop whining because you're too embarassed to ask Mom or Dad to watch the movie with you or because they won't do it. They have their reasons. Talk to them about it. Interact with your parents instead of putting the blame on the theater.
Maybe we had it easier when us older folks were younger, but then people weren't so lawsuit-happy back then.
-S. Louie
"I may be Love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."
Interesting bit about Natural Born Killers:
A woman in Amite, Louisiana, was suing Oliver Stone along with just about everybody else involved in the production and distribution of the film -- she'd been shot during a crime spree that was supposedly inspired by the movie. The shooters were said to have watched Natural Born Killers repeatedly before setting out on their adventure. Or whatever you'd call it.
Both of the criminals -were- over 18 at the time of the crime. This case isn't even a "kids are impressionable, let's protect them" one -- according to the plaintiffs, we're all impressionable, and the defendants should have known the movie "would cause and inspire people such as the defendants to commit crimes."
Let's just lock it all up, why don't we?
Oh, forget it. I'm not really sure what I was trying to say here. It is an interesting case, though. People have tried this sort of thing before, and it generally doesn't work, but who knows what a jury in a smallish southern town will say about it?
Remember early 1970's "Here come the seventies" TV-series, where the future was dissected every week?
One episode above all marked me than all others: it said in substance "When children can dial-in a movie request, or insert a cassette, censorship becomes irrelevant".
-- ----------------------------------------------
Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!
I think it was two or three issues ago that Wired had a very interesting article on the highest of the high-end home theater gadgets, the $180,000 plus systems. The article described a system where a conventional video signal could be sent through a $ 25,000 black box that removed the scan lines and made it as gorgeous as HDTV.
I was wondering if anyone had actually seen this kind of system, and if so, if it was worthy of the hype.
D
----
Anonymous Bonehead wrote:
"You must still be asleep. If "censorship" cuts children off from "some aspect of human experience", and you don't want to do that, then porn must be okay."
I have no problem with it. If you see a problem with your kids & pornography, then by all means, don't let them access it.
Just don't try curtail ayone ELSE'S acceess.
"Isn't sex an aspect of human experience?"
Duh.
"Do you have children?
Maybe little girls?
:)
Don't worry, I'll make sure they have access to all aspects of human experience."
What is this? Religious Whacko Acceptance Month? You're saying that if John thinks porn is okay, it's okay for you to threaten his kids.
What?
"After all, it isn't your decision as a parent as to what you consider your children ready for, is it?"
That's the point, you drooling idiot. It's the PARENT'S responsibility. Theirs, and theirs ALONE. Censoring content for everyone is a result of laziness on the part of the parents - they don't want to be bothered, so they get the govenment do do it for them.
"Why don't you try posting again when you've gained some experience with raising children?"
Why don't you try posting again when you've managed to aquire a CLUE?
Is it just me, or is anyone else out there tired of of the religious whackbrains in this country trying to decide what's "morally correct" for everyone else? And their kids?
They're the ones most directly affected by it!
How many pot smokers are in favor of keeping pot illegal? How many people in favor of keeping pot illegal smoke it?
This isn't rocket science, geez.
-LjM
Woah there, Steve, didn't mean to ruffle anything, only point out that the people that are most directly affected by a particular type of prohibition are also the ones most likely to be opposed to it.
If I wish to do activity A, but there is a law prohibiting me from doing activity A, it only makes sense that I will be opposed to that law.
However, if I am in favor of the prohibition that keeps activity A illegal, I am very UNLIKELY to be someone that participates in this activity.
I didn't say anything anywhere about people that feel it should be an individual's choice - yet choose not to participate themselves (which is where you stand, it sounds like).
Sorry for not being more clear on this one...
-LjM
And they listen to Limp Bizkit. Blah. If that's not brainwashed, I don't know what is.
Yeah, CorpGovLLC are hasseling us at the ticket booth so we'll stay home, no mass get togethers. Digital home theater will allow them to track your every movement. The last thing they want today is for people to get together somewhere, unplugged and actually starting to talk to one another out of earshot of those in control. Once Hollywood starts beaming first run movies into your cave, they'll collect bit after bit of information on you. All while making more money than ever before. Modulate the signal, get jamming.
an enigma wrapped around a paradox driven by a paradigm shift
I was recently going off to see The Blair Witch Project, seeing as it was the second day of release I expected the lines to be incredibly long and possibly sold out. So, being the cunning eighteen year old lad that I am I went off at 3 that afternoon to buy tickets. Now I didn't expect any problems, me and my $9 got me two student tickets, one for me and my date later that night. But what did I find when I got to the box office? They refused to sell me two tickets since I wasn't 21. Even though I was over 17 they would only sell me one ticket. Even after pleading with the theater and using all known forms of logic they refused to relent. Not wanting to show up for my date without the tickets I was eventually able to get my parents to buy me the tickets.
The thing amazing me most of all though, was why Blair was rated anything over PG13 (although it would probably only actually scare a PG audience). The only reason I was sent through the gauntlet of this theater twice? The characters utter the "dreaded" f-word! OH MY! That I, at 18 might allow an impressionable 16 year old (hell, my date was older than me!) to hear words they use on a regular basis.
The only reason the theater chains continue these practices is because people don't complain. Until the mainstream media bothers to get around to this injustice nothing will get done.
The whole thing makes me sick to my stomach, but it IS a result of evolution. What we must do now, our risk extinction as a species, is to evolve to the next step-- enlightened self-intrest. An it harm none, do what thou wilt. Throw out this religious crap and THINK for yourselves instead of letting someone else think for you. Its not that difficult, in fact, it feels rather good (another sin?).
Peace..
-Deimos-
I've read Jon Katz's articles, and I've seen them be good, bad, horrible... and I gotta say, this last one is probably the least thought out one I've ever seen. Yes, kids are going to whine about going to movies. Yes, some adults think that the kids should be allowed to see whatever they want.
Some adults also believe that their kids can't decide what movies to watch without their permission, and HOPE that the theater will help them enforce this decision by not letting their underage kids into any movie they want to go to.
I like Jon, I've liked a lot of his articles... but this one is crazy. If he wants to post something, why can't he have someone involved in real life (read CmdrTaco or Hemos) check it out first?
After the age of 13, any child in the united states can legally seek to be removed from their parents custody. A judge will decide if they are responsible enough to be on their own. So even if they are on their own, they still have to have someone older (Judges have to be above 25, afaik...) and hopefully wiser to help them along the way.
I strongly believe in the first amendment, and I agree that free speech is good... but if you wanna argue constitutionality....
The constitution was designed by people in the 1700's. They designed it as a document to guide people that were capable of rational, common sense, thought. They didn't design it for a culture where people have no idea if stepping in front of a train is a good or bad idea, and people who think that putting their hand in a fire won't get them burned.
Let the flambe begin.
Well, my parents raised me to be "sensible, good-natured, and morally secure", and so did the parents of many of the people that I no longer consider my friends.
The same "sensible, good-natured, and morally secure" people are the ones that snuck into theaters, got people they knew to buy them alcohol, and got in street fights in the neighboring cities.
Please...
None of this is about censorship. These movies are not censored. Anyone can see them WITH AN ADULT. That's not censorship it's social responsiblity.
Katz is just using the concept of free speech and censorship to rile people up about something that really doesn't matter.
It's a MOVIE for crying out loud. You didn't get to break the rules this weekend and sneak in? BFD. Life is hard.
-Rich
What issue is that? You attack me but dont even make a point.
Are you trying to say that not being able to sneak into movies anymore is indicative of a larger social problem?
Are you trying to say that putting forth an honest attempt to sheild kids from something questionable is bad?
Actually. Wait. You're right. It is indicative of a larger problem. It is indicative of all the whiners who weild vast teams of lawyers on some quest for personal freedom when all they are really doing is wasting time and money. It's indicative of kids who think they're entitled to things just because they think they should have them. It's indicative of all the spoiled little brats who ruin it for everyone else.
If you're trying to say that this is a symptom of kids being treated unfairly, you're right. Kids are treated unfairly. So are adults. So is everyone. If you're going to fight unfair treatment you have to pick your battles, and a stupid movie that no one will even remember in a few years just doesn't seem like a very good one to me. There's too many other bad things going on to make this much of a deal over a movie that is legal in all 50 states for people over 17.
-Rich
First of all, many of these theaters are not allowing any people under the age of 18 in PERIOD. Not with an adult, not with a parent, not at all
Boo Hoo. It's a movie. Get on with life. These kids will see it sooner or later, one way or another if they really want to.
The only form of censorship which is even remotely defendable is that of the parent.
I cant agree with that more. I hope every single kid who got kicked out gets their parents to rent it for them if they really want to see it (when it comes out of course)
The only thing I'm saying is we're not talking about burning books or anything here. If you dont like the theater's policy dont go. If yout dont want the rule around, write the MPAA. Just dont try to pass this off as some horrible injustice to the kids of today, they have way bigger problems.
-Rich
Either you've got a really novel notion of what constitutes deranged or you've never been out of your American hole.
Japan is numero uno for child porn because Japanese males have an unrestrained passion for naked pictures of pubescent girls. They show up most often in the states as 'Lolitas.' The practice is winked at in Japan, but is common and public, available at every newsstand. Does it surprise you coming from a country that is still 100 years behind in it's valuation of women?
Re: Puritanical Beliefs. I swear, you and Katz have been smoking the same DOPE. Read Ian Buruma's `Wages of Guilt' for starters if you want an inside take on the screwed up social cesspool that is modern Japan. I think both of you (and a large number of the flubber-mouthed anti-establishment knitwits on Slashdot) need to learn that Puritans and 'Puritanical beliefs' (in it's popular usage) are not the same thing. The racket about the persisting influence of 'Puritanism' gets really old, because most of the fools stupid enough to incautiously lambaste it only know of it from having seen 'The Crucible', written in 1953 as a thinly veiled jab at McCarthy's 'witchhunt' for communists.
Change Gears: Scandinavia? You've got to be kidding me! Consider: it is legal to own or produce child porn...just as long as you don't sell it. This is healthy?
BTW Scandinavian countries, while having differing attitudes on sex, consider lots of things that are taken for granted by Americans to be pure horrors. And they're not of one mind about the issue: Sweden on the conservative side and Denmark on the liberal side with the other countries more or less conservative based on the issue. Consider what IS prohibited: Gay or Lesbian couples adopting children and most forms of drugs. Consider what is HEAVILY REGULATED: Alcohol and nicotine cannot be advertised, are HEAVILY taxed, and are severely restricted concerning the places where they may used or purchased.
Since the subject of your post was movie ratings consider this: ALL Scandinavian countries have movie ratings systems. They work somewhat differently than the American system in the type of content they seek to screen (mostly the Uber-Violence that characterizes Hollywood today) from children. But a significant fact is here if you can stomach it: AGE is still the benchmark, and it is the STATE who makes the decisions.
CiXeL, I don't think the porn you downloaded (and are apparently still downloading) has made you 'mentally deranged.' Morally deranged, yes. And mentally stupid, if you think humans have become smart enough to not do things to themselves or others that are harmful. Laws decided on by the community for the community's own good are the cornerstone of self government and hence democracy. Like a man says, "It ain't perfect, but it's better than everything else." In keeping with wildman Katz' loopy anarchism, you're supporting a principle of thought that isn't a system. It's chaos, and no basis for governance.
Yeah, I can imagine you're pissed at me right now for sounding off on you. Maybe if you slowed down long enuf du korekt UR spellign you might have to consider the content of your thoughts before you inflict them on the rest of us.
webwalker
flames > dev/null
I am really, really old. Born in (gasp! wheeze!) the Kennedy Administration. When I was sixteenish I was denied legal entry to see 'Serpico' and was really pissed about it. Same with 'Last Tango in Paris' (wow....butter!) the year before, and others, more than I care to remember. Point is, I survived to see them, and many others; I also swore that I would support kids who want to see movies of their choice when I got 'old.' So, here I am, agreeing with the overall Katzian theme that the kids are alright, BUT must we really devote so much bandwidth to this? Yes, I know that I am contributing to the problem rite now, but....gosh!
ps: 'affect' should have been 'effect'.....just to show I was paying attention
I drink to make other people more interesting
Bottom line - it's not the theater's decision what our children see. It's the parents' decision. As Katz says, violent crime among young people has been dropping, not rising. Who decided that movies have anything to do with this? Why is it OK to see graphic violence on cable or the internet but teenagers can't see movies that are about people their age, such as American Pie?
Your point about mature children makes no sense - it's nobody's decision but the parents' whether a child is mature enough to see a movie with some sexual humor and a little nudity. Katz is definitely advocating responsible parenting - what he's NOT advocating is the hands-off parenting that's all too common, letting internet filtering software and MPAA ratings have the final say in what their children see.
What are the theaters attempting to gain by this censorship? Why is it evil for american kids to watch a movie that might be just a little violent? I saw "Blair Witch Project" last night, and I found it extremely entertaining. Even though it had an R rating, and I'm 15, it wasn't anything I couldn't handle. Why don't they allow parents to make the decisions for their children, and not put it up to the theaters, who are ran by huge companies that are always afraid of being sued?
-- There's only one replacement for displacement.....
Here is the very first sentance of Katz's post, as you obviously have trouble with the English language I have emphasied the relevant part
"Columns last week on Ticket Booth Tyranny drew well over a thousand e-mail messages, mostly from kids (including many of those ushers) enraged at theater chain restrictions, posturing and hypocrisy, and scrambling to buy DVD's and build home theaters.
"
I think American Pie is a bad example to use here, because the crappiness of the movie gets in the way of a more important point. Remember, these restrictions prevent kids from seeing any R-rated movie by themselves.
Any R-rated movie.
What does that include? An awful lot. I pulled some videos from my shelf and came up with a short list of thoughtful and well-made movies that earned an R rating:
The point is that while these movies are not exactly children's fare, neither are they slasherfests, pornos or aimless sex comedies. None of them use violence, sex or language to be gratuitous; without exception they are thoughtful, well-crafted and provoking.
The problem is not that kids are being prevented from seeing crappy movies. The problem is that almost no films worth seeing receive a rating less than an R. Any movie which is sufficiently mature to be interesting winds up getting an R rating. A policy which refuses to allow children under 17 to see movies like these (is it really 18 now?) is a policy which declares children only fit for pabulum. I'm not surprised that kids resent being treated this way.
Here he goes again! For someone who claimed he's on the verge of joining the libertarians, Katz doesn't have clue as to what liberty even means.
If the government were passing laws telling who theaters could and could not admit, then he would have a valid point. But theaters are privately owned businesses. If they don't want to admit children to certain movies, then that is their business. Freedom is not about one group of people telling another group how to conduct their day-to-day affairs.
If you feel so strongly about this, why don't you just go open up your own theatre? It's certainly much more productive than whining.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The phrase "good journalist", to me, implies that we're comparing him with other journalists. By that standard, he is indeed a "good journalist".
Of course, that doesn't make him a good writer. Just less lousy than a lot of people who pass for journalists in the rest of the media. (Off-topic: Am I the only one who finds the phrase "New Media" to be absurdly pretentious? Of course, that's partly an argument against Katz, also...)
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Arrgh, sorry the formatting sucks. Forgot I was in HTML mode.
As soon as this article appeared, I thought "Great merciful crap, he's at it again, time to filter JonKatz"... but then I read it. Surprisingly free of the usual grammatical/spelling errors, this article was also written in a much more rational tone than some of your previous work. Of course, I might think this just because I completely agree with you or because I haven't slept enough lately. ;) The cheap trick of using "innocent children" as a ploy to pass censorship legislation is as disgusting as it is unAmerican. It's not just in the Linux community that information wants to be free; more info = better choices not just in operating systems but in all aspects of our lives. Arbitrarily preventing children from watching movies is not going to have any positive effect - all it does is try and cut people off from some aspect of human experience. No one is born with morals - they must be learned, by seeing what goes on in the world and being taught, and deciding for yourself, what's right and what's wrong. Two relevant urls: _The Parking Lot is Full_ on 'protecting' children Salon article on teens using the internet to make informed decisions about sex
A Clockwork Orange was rereleased either last year or the year before. Tragically, it got very little notice.
The only place around me that showed it was the theater that plays, virtually exclusively, art films that have no popular interest. Unfortunately, that particular theater is not exactly in a nice part of the city, so i generally wait for video release.
BTW it was reviewed by the MPAA and the rating WAS bumped up to an NC-17 for the rerelease.
#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}
F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
Katz, this is really stupid. You're trying to defend kids' inalienable rights to see crappy movies?
I honestly think most kids would benefit from not seeing the crap in the theaters right now. They would be better off going for a walk, hanging out at a coffee house, or reading the newspaper.
You're protesting the petty abuses of middle management, when the real damage is being done on a much grander scale. Are people really better off for seeing Eyes Wide Shut? Should people be complaining about being left out of the entertainment complex?
"Oh damn, I didn't see some trite piece of cinematic crap that I'd have to pay $10 for, which is approximately the price of a book. Bloody hell!"
Instead of sneaking in, how about not seeing movies at all? That would really show the big guys what's up. And think about it: if only a minority of kids saw the crap on screen these days, politicians couldn't attack violent/profane/sexual movies as the cause of all teenage instability.
Kids! Unite! See only independent movies at independent movie theaters! Fight the man!
-- I can't think of anything witty to put here. Sorry.
...to let whoever they feel like in, and should be able to keep out whoever they want for whatever reason they want. What's the problem with this? Oh, that's right, freedom is a bad thing for corporations, but is good for individuals.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Here, they are going the other way around more or less. They lifted the restrictive way they had earlier on movies, and allowed for a larger freedom for what people could go to, especially if they were in the company of an adult. If people want to take their kids of 13 to see a movie rated 15, they are perfectly well allowed to. Also, beyond 15, the next age-limit is 18. This is restricted to a very few movies, where the contents are strong and graphic. Movies like Saving private Ryan.
They go by that movies should be shown in their whole, uncut versions, and rather be set at the right kind of age-limit. This is a policy I agree with, since it does not in any way diminish the movie-goers experience.
I simply don't think all movies are suited for everyone, but one should be liberal with the restriction of movies. I don't think American Pie will have a higher than 15 years limit here, since it is not graphically violent and gory, playing on your emotions, like the above mentioned SPR.
Neither do I belive South Park will. These movies are not damaging in any way, and like many other, I never could understand this thing about not seeing nudeness and sex for american youths, while it is perfectly okey to see log 10^10 people die in ultraviolent ways. After all, nudeness and sex is normal, while senseless killing isn't.
Just my 0.02$ worth
It seems like all this new Tech is being a scapegoat for violence. What about Books? I've read some more horribly violent things than i've ever seen on TV or in the movies, even, gosh, in SCHOOL (ie All Quiet on the Western Front)! It's pretty damn hipocritical to have someone read something with imagery worse than what is visible on screen.
I think people are missing his point. His key example was a mother who even though she had no objection to her children seeing the movie had the right to decide taken away from her by the theater. What that is, is people right being arbitrarily taken away at whim because of basically powerful lobbying groups. If people could get read what he is saying, although a bit verbosely is, this is not a singular event and nothing prevents other rights from being taken away virtually by these powerful lobbying groups. Unfortunatlly we really don't live in a free country are rights are seemingly control not by the constitution but by the powerful and even worse in many times a whimsical fashion. In the end it is the non powerful people (read: us) suffer and have to deal with this. What, just because in this instance it is children it is not as important? In most cases these children are going to see these movies with the full permission of their guardians who are in the end who are responsible for them, mainly since they realize that what they are seeing in the movies, well is nothing new to them, any parents that believe otherwise should open their eyes. Yeah children are going to be upset, this is arbitrary and silly if if you bothered to read what many of them wrote they made pretty damn mature points, but it seems so many of you just want to see them as whinning children. It is sad that people wish delegate their rights to whatever powerful lobbying groups wish to control them. This is supposedly a country for the people by the people but in reality it is a country of many controlled by the few. If none of you can see that was mainly his point then you are sadly blind to the world around you. Instead of seeing his point, people have choosen to take the common media presentation of this subject, that the people that are complaining are children that are just upset they can't see the movies, this is a capatilistic free soceity and if you don't like it don't go to the movies and of course since the movie business is not going out of business from people not going then these people complaining are radicals or bratty kids. How can argue with that logic? But this is not simply a text book capatilistic or even a free soceity so the basic premise is already false. For more information read Noam Chomsky , although he does not really talk about issues like this he does talk about how the US soceity really works.
Yes, "Passing the buck" is the parenting style of the 90's, isn't it?
On the other hand, some parents have faith in their ability to raise their children to be sensible, good-natured, and morally secure, and able to grow intellectually as a mentally balanced individual. (Mine did.) They HOPE that other people, including movie theaters, will help them enforce this decision by letting their children do what they have allowed them to do.
Regards,
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
I went to see the blair witch project yesterday, and I got carded! I mean, it wasn't even scary, and I've seen potty mouths worse than the people in the movie who wouldn't be able to go see it alone. I'm tempted to walk away from any ticket counter that asks for my id and wait for the dvd. I got more pissed and violent at the ticket counter than I did at the movie. It was boring enough to sedate me into a waking sleep :) I love your work, jonkatz. keep it up!
Shameless plug! -- http://blairewitch.com
I haven't seen this point elsewhere, what about the theatre turning away someone *legally* of age (17) with an arbitrary policy of "nobody under the age of 18 can see Eyes Wide Shut."
How can that be legal?
Jon
So what penalties are involved in breaking it? Does anyone have a link to the actual edict?
+&x
Shut up!! Shut up!!
You have a point. A limited, but valid, point. As always, when applying a generality to a population, there are people caught under a broad stroke of generality that really don't belong there. In this case, you make a claim that the e-mails Katz recieved from kids (16-17 year old kids) should be discounted because they are not adults on the basis that adults always see the whole picture when kids do not. First off, in my experiance with adults, the statement that they all see the whole picture is absolutly absurd. I'm sure we can all think of examples of adults that haven't a clue. I'm also sure that we can all think of some kids (again, talking the 16-17 year old range, right before they make the magic jump to 18) who really handle themselves well and are mature as any normal adult. (I do conceed that on average, adults have experienced more and are much more mature. Just don't blanket the entire group - either one)
Unfortunatly, parenting has been shifted off of the parents shoulders, and this movie junk is just another symptom of that. For instance, the high school I graduated from felt that kids were not being taught to be community minded by their parents, hence they required each student to perform 80 hours of "volunteer" work to graduate. Last I checked, schools taught academics and parents taught social lifestyle and morality. This is changing, and now movie theatres are trying to teach morality also. And my word is something lost in the generality from parent-child to institution-children. Reminds me of an aformentioned generality.
Anyway, this post is long enough.
Penrif - An 18 year old college Junior whos 4th grade teacher wanted to be his parent and hold him back because he wasn't social enough and thought he should be with kids his own age.
(I know my mother won't read this, but thank you mom for standing up to her!)
"Censorship" is technically the wrong word. However, "your mommy" shouldn't be required to sit with you for a movie she doesn't want to see if she gives permission. Theaters imposing age limits penalizes many parents out there because a few can't keep their kids in control and want someone else to do it for them.
Katz!?!?! "a good journalist"?!?!? Don't make me laugh. I actually am someone who agrees with Katz sometimes (although, not this time) and generally find that what he says has some merit. But he is most definately not a good journalist. Have you even taken the time to read what he writes? His writing style is dismal.
I couldn't tell if you were experimenting with poor-man's cryogenics or looking for the orange sherbet.
Exactly, mostly kids. As an adult, you should know that kids don't always see the whole picture. You, however should be able to.
What? You're telling me that unjaded, openminded kids are more narrowminded than some ancient, money grubbing, political minded, business man/politician, who is so set in their ways and fears change to the point that they feel they have to strangle anything new or different? Whatever.
Besides, no one sees "the whole picture". Everyone has their own point of view.
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
And I suppose your prose is a much better candidate for public consumption? Anyway, who are you to judge another's writing skills anyway?
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
Wow, hypocrisy in a single line: The National Slashdot Service also has received reports of highly windy prose coupled with dubious assertions and questionable assumptions.
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
Um, are you advocating pedofelia here?
>Do you have children?
>Maybe little girls?
>Don't worry, I'll make sure they have access to
>all aspects of human experience
The tone of your response suggests that you missed the entire point here. Pedofelia is a crime, it is illegal. Pornography is not. My kids can see porno if they like, but I'll have made damn sure that (by the time they're old enough to be curious about that kind of thing) I've taught them enough to know what is and isn't appropriate.
I don't know about you, but when I was at that curious age (~12), I flipped through porn with my friends and some of it we liked, and other stuff we found repulsive because of its degrading or disgusting nature. And guess what we did? Instead of growing up to be immoral, we simple didn't look at what we didn't like.
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
Don't tell me how to raise my kids! How many times to I have to scream this at the legislature, the schools, the companies?! If you like the rules, then YOU inforce them. YOU stay with your damn kid. YOU instill a sense of responsibility in him/her, so that he/she doesn't go to movies that you ask him/her not to. Do these things YOURSELF, don't foist them on others, ya lazy bum.
Grrr...
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
I couldn't have put it better myself! Parents seems to raise their children less and less.
I wonder who's fault that is? No sarcasm meant, I really am curious. You can't just say that parents are lazy, because I know some well meaning parents that arn't raising their kids the way they wanted to because they're so busy. And they're not busy making millions either, they're busy just getting by.
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
Maybe you didn't stop to think about it, but the theatre issue is a symptom of a much larger problem with the raising of our children. This discussion brings light to that issue, and is therefore beneficial.
Of course, maybe you just didn't stop to think at all.
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
Arg! Caught in an infinit if/else loop! Stack ... overflowing ... must ... reset ... brain!
:)
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
That is the issue I was addressing. I suppose I should have spelled it out for our BUDDY though. Anyway, he can read my rant on rules further down the list if he wants to know my opinion.
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
Just for comparison; I take it that the ratings are just recommendations in the USA?
It's just that here in the UK, films are rated U, PG, 12, 15 or 18, and the ones that are ages, it is actually illegal to sell to anyone below that age.
For the last 2 years Nevada has had a law on the books that says no one under the age of eighteen buy, rent, or view anime. All unrated "cartoons" A.K.A Anime, is to conciderd effectively the same as PORN according to "Nevada Revised Satute 201.2595 & 201.265". It's a misdemeanor for someone to even SHOW Anime to a minor. Therefore for Anime there's a legal double standard. You have to show I.D. at the counter when you even buy or rent Pokemon or Dragonball Z! How can this possibly be misconstrued as being PORN? This stuff's been on american T.V. for years! All this includes VHS tapes, Laser Discs, and yes even your stupid DVD's(acursed DVD's, Don't you people realize... one tenth of my LD's video picture quality for about three fourths of the price... AARRRGGG!!!).
/.(I waana see how many of you acually read this;)
Check this out! here's the link to N.R.S. Chapter 201 "EXHIBITION AND SALE OF OBSCENE MATERAL TO MINORS" "http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/CH_201.html"
I'm not kidding, they almost shut down the anime club here at CCSN this spring, It's insane(or asinine).
If any of you know anything about law This should be conciderd legal precident! and all of you know EXACTLY what that could mean!
And if your curious, here's the link to CCSN's Meijin Kenryoku Anime Club. AS far as I know, the only anime club in the ENTIRE state of nevada.
"http://members.tripod.com/~mazoku/mk.html"
If you decide to visit please sign our guest book
and say you came from
"The city will NOT be responseable for any deaths caused by bacteral poisoning, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED"
Why is it, I wonder, that Katz seems totally unable to at least articulate his opponents' viewpoints? Not just the theaters and studios, but the common man? After all, wouldn't that be the best way to refute them?
Wait, I forgot, that only works if your viewpoint is logical...
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
I've read through some of the comments here and I can't bring myself to think the main demographic here is beings under 18 (most likely 15).
These are the rules. I follow them, they inforce them, you whine when you don't get your own way. You probably blame the cop for giving you a traffic ticket or your teacher for giving you an "F" on that last paper on the Moon.
Whenever I wanted to see an "R" movie, my parents went with me -- National Lampoons movies and Coming to America. For a class we watched an "R" rated movie -- we needed to get a letter signed by our parents before we could watch it in the classroom. There was no getting away from this.
Of course, I learned to **RESPECT** (gasp) the rule rather than rebel against it. I didn't agree with it, but I followed it because I didn't see the need to rebel. I mean, who needed to see it on first release. I could see it sooner or later. Now you whine that you have to wait six months before cable has it. Too bloody bad. I didn't have the luxury of cable, so I had to wait before a superstation had cut the thunder out of it.
The absolute worst (ratings wise) movie I was allowed to see was the (X or NC-17 rated) movie "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover." Watching this movie I came back repulsed and knew why it had such a rating. Would you like your child to see someone getting feces rubbed all over their body. Or perhaps the imagery of canniballism would do better? Both are in this movie. Today, it bothers me no more, but as a teenager, it confused the heck out of me.
I just can not understand why the big hulabaloo over such a petty topic. Maybe it's that I'm "old fashioned," but I am prepared to be an integral part of my child's life. There are rules and no matter what those are the rules. They may be man-made and considered unfair, but believe it or not they're there for a reason.
You may think you are mature enough to watch those images on the screen, but you're not the general population. The whole United States is a prude when it comes to the discussion of that dirty word (sex) and when it comes down to it, parents, the MPAA and everyone shudder about it. Maybe we need a mentality that of Europe and South America where it's open to the point short of showing it on television (sorry if I'm wrong about this point, please forgive and correct, not flame).
Kids need to face that they're kids. You cannot sign a legal document, you cannot vote, you cannot drink or smoke (*opens a can of worms*). What makes you so damn special that the rules should be broken for *you*. Heck with you, I'm better than you are. Rules should be broken for me! Who are you?
It's just a movie. You're just a kid. Deal with it. Grow. Move on. Stop whining. Life isn't fair. Maybe if you stop whining you'll stop looking immature and people will take you seriously.
-m
I want to be president of the world, but we all have our little disappointments.
This is one of the most stupid and offensive comments I've seen on /. (including the "First Post" gibberers in the sample).
The only non-medicinal drug I've ever consumed is caffeine, and I'm in favor of ending the War on Some Drugs before it destroys what's left of the Constitution.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
[Note: I just saw American Pie today. After the movie, I felt a sense of hope for my disused-since-birth love life -- for a millisecond.]
I still can't see why the hell "American Pie" has something to do with the Columbine killings. It's obvious that question has no answer, but the idiotic politicians (and the multiplex managers) have this done to a T. [mumbling: damn PHB's...]
The kind of jerks who are happened to be portrayed in American Pie (The Sherman kid and that Stiffler character), being the typical crap that I might have faced in my Hellmouth days (and would've been shot in an alternative universe), got their just desserts (no pun intended). They lost, and the four kids (even the Finch kid -- kinda reminds me of myself) finally got the chance to do what they wanted to do without killing any of the jerks in revenge.
[Note: when I get back to college, I am going to face a few of those aforementioned turds again. I have to face a pathological liar of a girl who asked me out on a date (and "forgets" that she has a bf), and a Jewish yenta-type who calls me every name on the book. As ED-209 [from the movie Robocop] would say, "I am authorized to use physical force."]
[Regarding the Atlanta killings with that Mark Barton freak:]
Well, day trading sounds like a messy proposition to me. I guess folks in companies really hate it when investors put in money, only to see it taken away a few seconds later. It's not like it's making a movie about a few guys in a learning experience as they try to get laid.
Even worse, the killer [Mark Barton] killed his family because of this idiotic idea to make money. As opposed to the Hellmouth situations [leading to the Columbine incident], Mark did this day-trading-to-killing-everybody stuff all on his own, and blamed everybody else "that greedily sought his destruction." or something. One strike for "mature, responsible adults" out there who do day trading as an extreme sport.
[Regarding the alternative of setting up home theater stuff than going to the multiplex:]
How much is a DVD-ROM drive and the video decoding stuff costs anyways? I can't wait to see "Saving Private Ryan" in my home office. The violence can be unsettling (duh), but we know what's it for, right [being that the movie takes place in WWII]? Should I wait for Plextor to make any SCSI DVD-ROM stuff first?
- Seeing a restricted movie constituted a violation of another person's right of life, liberty, and property;
- The restriction of the movie were not based upon the seemingly arbitrary age of 17 and the whim of a bunch of known idiots such as those found in the MPAA;
- You could somehow convince me that there is something magical about "laws" and "policies" that makes it "bad" to violate them regardless of how idiotic they are.
So in other words I consider your point invalid. Of course, this is to be expected as I am the sort of person who thinks that it is the civic duty of all citizens to violate an unjust law or policy, while my guess is that you are the sort of person who thinks every law and policy should be obeyed no matter how onerous. I shall spare you the typical reference to Nazi Germany as an example of bad law.I'll conclude with a sound bite. The only valid laws and policies are those which protect the life, liberty, and property of the people. All others deserve to be violated.
-- $SIGNATURE
A better one would be something like:
How many 18yrolds are in favour of keeping the tobacco age restriction in place?
Or alcohol even... You'd get good arguments for both sides from kids.
Hey, your virulent hatred of Katz has caused you to add 3 comments to his total. Wow. You know, some people might consider the fact that Slashdot columns with large numbers of comments will cause more people to read them (snowball effect), but not you. Nope, I'm sure he's quaking in his boots reading your intelligent, well thought out criticisms of his writing.
Why hasn't this been moderated down?
Oh, I read you comments about Japan in an earlier post. You can guess what I think of you.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Censorware Article
This article proves that when pushed to the wall, into a position where children will not see the things they object to, conservatives (that's a small c, I mean people who favor the status quo from 10-20 yrs ago, whatever their political affiliation) are still interested in censoring those things. I think they sincerely think that these things are worse for children than adults... but that's only because they think these things are bad for everyone and ought not to exist at all.
If theaters lose money over this, expect the majority movies to be moderated down to PG-13. After all an unfortunate side effect of this new technological age is that the affluent can always see the directors cut on their DVD players and digital TV while the working poor can probably only get the "Blockbuster Version" of the movies. Which creates a side effect that the elitists in our government are probably happy about, unrestricted access to culture may become a province of the upper class in this society while the working class are all treated as children.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Incidentally I'm 29 years old, I can see whatever I want. So much for the "everyone against this stupid edict is under 18" theory I've been hearing. I just hate seeing hypocrisy practiced on such a large scale.
Won't somebody please think of the children...-- Mrs. Lovejoy, The Simpsons
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
This isn't actually a law. There was a law proposed by Henry Hyde but it went down to defeat. This is actually a proclamation, something like when in a monarchy the king says to do something and the people have to do it. An edict passed down from on high, which the people's representatives didn't vote on.
Probably the most chilling thing about the way Washington works these days is that they can use threats to make things happen that wouldn't (probably...) ever become law if they were subject to something as untidy as a vote...
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
How easy is it, then, for a private movie theatre owner to make admittance decisions of his/her own? From what I've read, the MPAA rating does not have force of law, so what then prevents a theatre owner from deciding to pack his/her own house with underage kids jonesing for a look at American Pie?
We know Blockbuster and the mega-theatres pander to the pro-censorship crowd because it's profitable to them. But it would also be profitable to let every high-school kid with $6.50 into your theatre to see American Pie, would it not? Simple supply and demand.
There's a reason why: Sustained community protest is hard to resist over time, and the religious right knows that. If they write enough letters to the right people, stand outside your theatre with pickets, get media exposure, and start scaring politicians, they'll win. So they do that, and they succeed at rates disproportionate to their actual numbers. The problem with that is that the movie theatre can't stay afloat if it doesn't cater to large numbers of people.
Nothing's gonna change until the people on the other side of the issue (kids or not) start taking up the fight themselves. Technology is one form of protest, but it's not as effective unless the word gets out. My buying a DVD player is not going to affect your range of choices until you know you can do it yourself -- the best way to make sure you know that is to tell you.
People who believe this is wrong need to get their message out, as well, and make it mainstream to think of the issue in those terms.
_____
The antidote to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech.
What I don't understand is how you make this great logical leap from seeing a R movie when 15 to commiting theft and murder. And its not a minor's responibility to not see a movie, its his/her parents responsibilty to decide whether or not said child can see movie. Have you ever seen an R rated movie before you were 17? Or a PG-13 before you were 13, or even a *gasp* PG any time before say, age 10?
That would be more constructive than whining about a good journalist just because you disagree with him.
I'm a gnu world man.
Some of us actually want everyone to have first ammendment rights.
I'm a gnu world man.
...until long after WW2. Obviously this restriction of religious and intellectual freedoms isn't nearly so appalling, but don't you think you should at least consult those it affects -- those under 17?
I'm a gnu world man.
Have any of you actually considered the children's interests? For fuck's sake! I'm sure that all of the authoratarian control freaks of parents want to decide what content their children can see. But hasn't anyone considered what the children themselves want? I know the legal discrimination involved here, but on a purely ideological level, shouldn't children have the right to think for them selves? Is deciding what content they can see "good parenting"? Do any of you actually think that they will be better at making their own decisions as an adult, when they aren't even allowed to see, let alone judge questionable material as children?
Before you reply by simply attacking my character (as some of you did last time I posted this argument), I'll explain my situation. I am a twenty one years old, I earn 80k a year, and I own my own house. I've learned to thrive by educating myself and pursuing my goals. I'm perfectly capable of seeing whatever I want legally. But I'm still young enough to actually remember what it was like when I couldn't. I had every intellectual capability of many who could, but I was censored constantly... and there wasn't a damned (legal) thing to do about it either. It's kind of easy to oppress a class of people who can't vote, isn't it?
I feel that the greatest hinderance I ever encountered in my intellectual and ethical development was controlling parental interference. It's bad enough that they can tell you what you must do, or see (i.e. their church, their political views, etc...) But the ability to decide what a child cannot see, read or learn is despicable. I really can't trust someone who advocates giving parents more power! Yes, I think that parents should be active in raising their children. They should be teachers, role, models, and when needed counselors, or confidants. I even agree that punishment is a necessary part of raising a child. However, I don't think that a parent should ever forbid a child from anything the first ammendment would protect for an adult. Why do I say this? Am I a terrible anarchist for believing in free thought, free speech, and freedom from other's (even one's own parents') religions? It's because I remember.
I say tell your parents to go fuck themselves if they decide that they should control what you can see, read, or think. Ditto if they pompously "decide" which religion you believe. Tell them to go watch Dead Poet's Society.
I'm a gnu world man.
If a competitor offered the movies without censorship, then capitalism might work.
I'm a gnu world man.
especially when it's self-regulated only to keep the government from doing the same.
I'm a gnu world man.
But it's not as easy as you think. Getting legally separated for 'intellectual freedom' reasons is a very, very difficult process.
As for 'handling advanced material', I feel experience is a better determinant than age. Learning is impeded when material is censored from the would be reader/viewer.
Who are you to judge my maturity based on one post you disagree with? I don't think it's that mature to make such an extemporanious judgement.
I'm a gnu world man.
By censoring minors, you diminish their ability to learn to think for themselves. They might even grow up to discard some of their parents' religious and political views!
:)
I don't really feel that the second ammendment is appropriate, as it was intended to be a protection from an oppressive government. It's doubtful that a militia of children would have the economic or logistic ability to defend themselves without support from any adult citizens. I hope you can see the difference.
What! You judge my genes based on one political view you can't stomach!? That doesn't seem to rational to me. As for pesky kids(or more likely teenagers), yeah, I'd deserve it.
I'm a gnu world man.
I didn't know that. United Artists, AMC, and MANN all seem to. What chains don't? I'm very curious about that. If there are a fair number that don't, then this whole discussion and series of articles has been a bit of a waste. Consumer choice could easily drive a change.
I'm a gnu world man.
I'm not sure I prefere your attacks on my maturity and intelligence, but I guess it's the price I pay for posting an unpopular view. My other reply addressed the bit about getting legal separation. As for my intelligence... I learned calculus at the age of 13, was accepted into a university the same semester, scored 35 on my ACT at 14, and have now learned French and Mandarin. To what use have you put your intelligence to? The writing of caustic insults? Judging people's maturity based upon a single view that differs from your own?
You might want to observe that in my earlier post I said that I felt parents were very important as teachers, role-models, confidants, and as dispensers of discipline.
I'm not trying to piss you off here, I'm just saying to go easy on the flames. You disagree with my view... that's fine. In fact I like to see salient attacks against my arguments; after all discourse itself is a great tool for learning. Just don't attack me.
I'm a gnu world man.
Actually, all I was getting at is that most people don't worry too much about a freedom being infringed upon, unless it is their own... even when the situation is much uglier than any in this country.
I'm a gnu world man.
One thing that you don't really focus on is that people gain all of these rights at the age of 18. But actually that is more of a reason for the legal system to apply high scrutiny.
Historically, high scrutiny has been applied only for groups which have demonstrated very little ability to change the system legally. For example, women who had limited success in bettering their political situation earned medium scrutiny. Racism, which took a war to deal with garnered high scrutiny, as do immigrants. Children, like racial minorities or immigrants once were, have very, very little legal power to change things. Even worse is that they have very limited incentive! Why go to all of the trouble when you will turn 18 by the time any progress is made anyways?
This is very definately an issue of power. Those with it usually (people such as Katz excepted) fight to maintain it. This is exactly why James Madison opposed a direct democracy, as a tyranny of the masses is difficult to avoid. Fortunately Americans heeded him, and we have power distributed enough to at least check this sort of behaviour. Our judicial system has been effective (though painfully slow) in initiating changes when such tyrannies occur.
The difficulty with children is that they are clearly dependant (at least at very young ages), and so they cannot have all of the freedoms an adult might typically garner. However, some rights, such as protected speech, freedom to choose a religion, due process, and the right to peacfully gather are vital for any thinking person who is past the age of physical and sexual maturity.
Interestingly enough, there is no constitutional mention of decreased rights (in the bill of rights) for minors, except for voting. I'm pretty sure that the control to restrict these rights is not something many parents would willingly give up. Perhaps the internet has pushed this issue to the forfront today, much as television was a catalyst for bringing attention to the rights of racial minorities 40 years ago?
I'm a gnu world man.
They have the ability to make judgements... but they are less inundated with what their particular society expects those decisions to be. I think you are an arrogant and foolish person indeed, to think that you should be able to decide who can and cannot think for himself/herself.
I'm a gnu world man.
He's one of the few people out there who truly supports freedom. I'm sorry it's so hard for some of you to stomach.
I'm a gnu world man.
They're nearly all anonymous cowards. Appropriate, hmm?
I'm a gnu world man.
I agree with Katz here, kids in japan and scandinavia can take sex on tv and those whole countries arent deranged. This movie code crap is based on puritannical beliefs that now towards the end of the 20th century are being obliterated by new technologies that disseminate control. Besides by doing this movie companies will only lose more money as people download tons of VCDs or better, ASFs which are far smaller in size and more reasonable a download over a 56k. Back in the BBS days I downloaded lots of porn (even the icky nasty stuff for shock value) and I'm not mentally deranged. BBSer's back in the 80's grew up with access to that sort of stuff and they're your classic geeks. We've had a generation grow up on this stuff and few consequences so we check out ok. I think the fact that they edited Eyes Wide Shut at all was rediculous, pisses me off. If anything sex on telivision and discussions about sex stop violent sexual crimes because the knowledge isnt repressed. Censorship is going to die a very bloody death I'm afraid.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
i'm not sure i'd go so far as to use the H word. But why is this article on /. ?
:-)
It must be a slow news month
from the FAQ: "Why didn't you post my story?
On a normal day, we can get 150-200 article submissions. Typically we post 8 to 12 of them. Also, Since we post the first submission (unless we screw up- it happens occasionally) yours may have just been 2nd. Or 37th. Or else we posted it a few weeks ago and you're late. Or we may not just have found your article interesting enough. Either way, we've gotta reject 10 times more then we post, so please understand.
Exactly, mostly kids. As an adult, you should know that kids don't always see the whole picture. You, however should be able to.
Adults like you certainly don't see the whole picture either. Who are you to say no if some parent wants their 14 year old to be able to see R rated movies. Surely you admit that they will anyway when it arrives on VHS or DVD. Why shouldn't they be able to see it in a theater? Why should their parents have to be with them? They might not be when they bring home the same movie on video. As an adult, if you try to place arbitrary (little regard to actual "dangerous" content or maturity of viewer) rules on a teenager, you are more likely to incite him/her to rebel, rather then obey. If they are determined to do something, they will do it, with or without your approval. Sure kids don't know everything, and they certainly don't see the whole picture, but neither do adults. I find your point particuarly worthless, say something constructive.
Spyky
Go John Katz!
I thought this was a damn good article, almost as well done as the last two. Its not just a bunch of children trying to see "grown up" movies, its blocking people's right to information. If the majority of the people feel that people should be kept from seeing movies based on how mature they are, maybe the theaters should be required to give a written exam to everyone who wants to see a movie. I've been an "adult" for several years now and I throw a fit whenever I get carded. Its the idea that these people want to restrict me from doing something just because I might not meet some random standard that some old farts who have no idea what the world is like set up to protect the children that parents should be spending time teaching values to rather then sitting them in front of the TV to learn everything on their own. How does the world expect children to become mature if they're never allowed to make their own decesions?
Home theater is the way to go. My wife refuses to go to a movie theater since we got our home theater. The last one we went to was Eyes Wide Shut opening night. The bitch behind us would not shut up ("Nicole would look so much better in a choker", "What imagery..." at the mask on the pillow scene, "Great way to start the movie!!!" at the first nude scene, "I'm so happy to asked me out", other inane comments, etc), we had to shhh her at least 6 time but they never stuck. She was so bad her date was even getting embarrased (she was middle-aged and I think drunk). This has been happening more and more to us when we go. I really want to see Blair Witch but am afraid it will be ruined by some asshole setting behind us.
So to all you kids who can't get into movies - it sucks anyways because there are too many jerks out there to make it enjoyable. Of course it would be nice if you had the choice....
Go with DVD and a dish. Ask for them for Christmas. And if you do have to go to the movies, give a shhh! to the people behind you for me.
Let's look at the fundamentals of what's going on in the U.S. right now:
It's not OK for kids to watch South Park, Eyes Wide Shut & American Pie because such movies may 'twist' them and make them become anti-social (and what is meant by anti-social? Being non-conformative?).
BUT...
It's perfectly OK for kids to have ready access to guns, even though a small few might use them to kill people.
You can't have the 1st OR the 2nd amendments.
God, here he goes, flogging the "oppressed children" horse into the ground again.
KATZ - WHY DON'T YOU SEE WHAT A HYPOCRITE YOU ARE?
More importantly, why doesn't Slashdot? The people Katz purportedly despises, the cynical politicians who use "our children" as an excuse to pass their pet legislation, don't have a thing on Jonathan Katz.
This man has the power to POST his OWN messages on Slashdot indiscriminately. This is a power almost none of the loyal and enthusiastic readers of Slashdot possess. And how does he use this power? Why, to whip us all into a frenzy over the children of course!
I've said it before: Jon Katz clearly is using Slashdot for credibility. He sees what all of us see: that Slashdot is going to break into the big time very very soon now. And what would gratify his ego more than to be "Slashdot's JonKatz", spokesman for geeks everywhere, widely sought after for his sage opinions.
If I read another post whimpering about the poor children from Katz, I will filter him. But damn, I do wish that Slashdot had a more equitable means of deciding which posts are worthy of making it onto the board. Slashdot space is a valuable and limited resource. I for one do not want it wasted on self-aggradizement in the name of "the children".
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Please let's have another vote, Rob.
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Of course Katz won't try to orchestrate a boycott. He'd have to announce it to the broader media for it to be effective, but nobody would pay the least attention to him. He'd be revealed as ineffective the nation over.
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
You appear to have a somewhat wild impression of me, friend. Regardless, please don't flock to Katz simply because you loathe me. The man enjoys a power none of us enjoy - namely the power to dictate what is news on Slashdot - and he seems to have done very little to merit it. He is using us, plain and simple. Of course I'm upset.
I believe the post hasn't been moderated down because, unlike the Japan post which apparently you misinterpreted (it was tongue-in-cheek), this one has a point people can agree with.
-konstant (who doesn't hate you OR the Japanese)
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Yada yada yada...
OK, he's done. Let's bash some Christians!
God damn, they gonna moderate me down for this one...
Oh well.
____
ZZ
The problem lies in the insane ratings system, not in the fact that the system is being carried out.
Focus, you must focus...
____
ZZ
Incidentally, if my comment didn't make it clear, I though Katz's article barely scratched the surface of the issue. (Which is why I elaborated with my own drivel.) I know where he's coming from, but his arguments are obvious, and mostly moot.
I tend to agree with most people here in that Katz material isn't really all that noteworthy, and probably not worth the space he's given.
"Old man yells at systemd"
"any (non-X)" is exactly the point. My annoyance comes with the fact that there are more people out there who allow their kids to watch violent films but not films with genetalia. But your kid is gunna have sex someday (well, hopefully) anyhow, so whats the big deal? "Wide Eyes Shut" had to be altered to avoid an X rating. But "The Matrix"? Unscathed. I'll tell you right now I'd rather show my young kid Wide Eyes Shut over The Matrix any day. We judge our art on how it looks - not what it means. This is what bothers me.
SirSlud
"Old man yells at systemd"
The recent talks on censorship have simply gone to show how we've become a lowest common denominator society.
/doesn't/ want something will almost invariably win over the (generally larger) group that /does/ want something. This is the lowest common denominator - we seem to be pulling back art, media, culture as fast as we can find slices of the population that have a problem with it.
/need/ censorship because an artist should create his work with a clear intention to present his or her values. The thing many people can't grasp is that you can support positive moral views by presenting subversive ones. It is up to the consumer to distinguish what is being presented in a 'dont do this' light and what is not. I firmly believe (I'm 21) that kids are able to do this if their parents havn't twisted their minds already with the "monkey see, monkey do" and "see no evil, hear no evil" mentality.
a) We'll gladly deny millions of kids the responsibility of enjoying a movie to ensure that a handful don't use it as a source of twisted inspiration and do anything bad with it.
b) Making something available to the public is far harder than making something unavailable. Ie, the group that
If you buy into the law of conservation of badness, you can suggest that censoring an experience will cause 10 children to go out and do it themselves out of curiosity, while making the experience avaiable will cause 10 different children to go out and do it themselves out of imitation. To put it more simply, some kids start smoking cause someone lets them try it, others start cause their parents pretented like smoking didn't exist.
Those in favour of censorship are often some of the most hypocritical of the bunch. Ei, a group of judges that would coil in horror when called to judge upon their own private interests.
The other thing that irks me is the complete lack of focus on the responsibility of the artist. To get right to the point we shouldn't
SirSlud
"Old man yells at systemd"
Columns last week on Ticket Booth Tyranny drew well over a thousand e-mail
messages, mostly from kids (including many of those ushers) enraged at theater chain
restrictions, posturing and hypocrisy, and scrambling to buy DVD's and build home
theaters. The entertainment industry seems not to grasp the strong message that digital technologies
give kids lots of choices. They can't wait to make them.
Exactly, mostly kids. As an adult, you should know that kids don't always see the whole picture. You, however should be able to.
I find this whole issue terrifying.
As frightening as the Blair Witch Project is, the film's horror pales in comparison to the terror I feel when viewing the furvor with which people oppose 16 year olds viewing such movies.
I know this may sound melodramatic or trite. Back in my own school days, I asked a history teacher how it was possible for entire nations could lapse into totalitarianism-- how such huge public support for the abolishment of individual rights could ever take place. I never really got a good answer.
The last few years have seen events which are, to me, chilling. As the internet offers children never before seen freedoms of speech, virtual assembly, and religion, the backlash against adolescent freedom is astounding. Politicans are clammoring for laws requiring filtering software in libraries. TVs are govermentally required to have filtering chips to screen programming. I am scared to be an american when most people think the world vision in Orwell's 1984 is disturbing simply because the main characters were over the age of 18.
I find it terrifying to turn on CNN and watch how eager people are to develop and implement censorship, to deny 16 yr olds their inalienable human right to free speech, free listening, and free thought. Even on slashdot, freethinking opensource-advocating forum that it is, you don't have too read too many comments before finding someone vehemently arguing for the disenfrachisement and continued oppression of a 16 yr old who wants to see southpark.
I wasn't in Russa when Stalin came to power, I wasn't in Germany in the 30s, and I missed out on Mao's rise to the top. So I have to wonder. Is this how it starts? Is what we are seeing now the mechanism which makes people argue for the reduction of their own freedom? Is this fundamentally the same phenomenon that, when hugely magnified, fuels the creation of a totalitarian state?
Of course, I'm optimistic. I'm not concerned that we're on the brink of a slippery slope to totalitarism. The US goverment is a robust system which is designed to check, balance, and limit goverment power. It has withstood world wars, mcarthyism, and it will withstand this. I don't think the technology exists to censor; Rather, the technology exists to for the first time truly free everyone from censorship.
-----
"A struggle against the poisoning of the soul must begin. Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth...Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political, and cultural idea."
-Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"
(a weak and inconclusive point, but I couldn't resist)
I don't think the Movie industry is going to be shaking in it's boots over a few irate kids going out and buying DVD players. Since they are going to be purchasing or at least renting the movies anyway. And once they buy the DVD player and sound system they will go right out and buy some DVDs. They probably will buy a bunch that they normally would never have owned just so they could make there home theater system "worth the $". And since independant stuff doesn't appear on DVD the kids will be permenantly hooked on hollywoods media barrage of (mostly) shit.
>:)
I'm almost completely certain his post was satirical...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Home theater can get pretty good.. but it can never be quite the same as going out to see a movie. :-)
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Unfortunately Katz ranting about movie theater tyranny isn't going to do much unless there is an official statement from a group that represents a large number of us.
Somebody needs to make a website that allows registration of individuals who wish to participate in a boycott. Then shoot off a press release to the major papers.
I think getting the movies on DVD is NOT a good idea. I think skipping the movies altogethor would send a SCREAMING message. Hit them in the pocket books... that's ALL the entertainment industry really understands.
Also... don't forget to vote! (if you can) If you can't then do political work for candidates who will give you the right to vote.
Guys, using (abusing) the system is the BEST way to get what you want.
Teach a man to dish and he will gossip for life.
That's right! Tickets booths BREED violence, not the movies!! haha. Perhaps we should outlaw ticket booths!
Teach a man to dish and he will gossip for life.
When I was a teenager they didn't enforce the "no one under 17 admitted rule" and it was the parents who decided if their kid could go watch it or not. I don't know why they suddenly decided that my generation was so terrible that enforcing that rule is going to really change anything and make the world a better place. Besides, once kids reach the age of 15-16 years old, watching a dirty movie isn't going to suddenly make them axe murderers. Any kids that are going to try to set farts on fire (or whatever :) by that age would probably try to do it anyways, without the help from a movie. It shouldn't be the movie theater's job (or government's) to try to teach values to kids or shield them from Bad Things. It should be the parent who decides if the kid is mature enough to watch a rated R (or PG-13, or NC-17 -- which these days seems to have little difference from rated R) movie...
:)
And, you can't really compare a theater experience to a home theater/DVD experience. Most theaters use actual film, whereas DVD is digital, so the bigger the image gets, the more pixellated it'll be. Until we get some HD-TV, the theater experience will always be superior. There's also fewer distractions in the theater (even with the babies and kids) so I tend to enjoy the movie there more because I'm able to concentrate on it 100% rather than having to answer the phone, stop halfway through to move laundry, etc. When I get really comfortable on the couch at home, I'll usually fall asleep during a movie whereas it's hard to get that comfortable in the theater.
Universal freedom of speech has never been a popular concept within the structure of political, religious or corporate power. Our current concept of universal freedom of speech was not even the goal of the original US Constitution. When the document was drafted and approved, only wealthy White Christian males had freedom of speech. Africans, Asians, The Indigenous (Indians), Women, Children, non-Christian, all were excluded from the right of free speech.
So now as our political, religious and corporate leaders attempt to convince us that they only have the best interests of our children in mind, remember this fact. - In spite of the great increase in accessibility of "violent" and "sexually explicit" media to kids, the rate of teen pregnancy is falling! And school violence is declining! Check the facts for your self.
Technology is finally giving universal freedom of speech to those of us not included the first time around. And a lot of powerful people are attempting to take that freedom away (using the protection of our innocent children as a very potent argument). Let us not sit back and silently give that freedom away.
The fact that no two snowflakes are identical should tell you something important about God's will.
get parents of the hook. blame everything else but themselves for their kids. this is 100% true and this is one of the main points of the article.
once again - "southpark. the movie" tried to prove the same point.
in addition, i find a parallel to renessainse and industrial revolution quite amusing and interesting.
...sie sind nicht grün
Kids are idiots incapable of making decisions. That is what we adults are for. Experience shows us this. Kids don't look both ways and are hit by trucks, they kill fellow students at school, and they play Sega and watch crappy movies instead of reading books and reciting poetry in coffee shops. Idiots. I don't even see why this is a ruckus, parents OWN children, why should children have any choices. They should be silent unless spoken too, they should do things because we the wise, "say so". We need not justify our actions, that we would be beneath our stature. Until of course they turn 18 and become mature and logical, when they start making intelligent decisions (but not yet about alcohol that takes 3 more years). Once the reach adulthood no pressure (violent, sex, pimples) can corrupt them, not access to drugs and guns and Porn, at 18 they can handle it. After all when was the last time you saw an adult say or do something stupid? In the late 1800's Laws we implemented protecting child from abuse. The laws applied in court were original written to prevent cruelty to animals. I think this entire debate makes the point that ignorance and stupidity are not exclusively the realm of the young.
Thank you for making that statement so eloquent. Lord knows I couldn't have done it. Blaming such things as movies (among others) for immorality in children is simply symptomatic of the curent social epedemic. I know far too many people who have come from broken/unbroken homes where physical and sexual abuse occured. Children are supposed to be,"normal", and moral coming from situations like this? Its simply easier to blame social groups, in essence, outside forces for a reason why shootings such as the one at columbine occur. Morality in and of itself can't be for everyone. Morality is for each person to discover themselves. Institutions are not able teach this to each individual student. There is far more wieght to what a parent says (im speaking from experience) than what an often distant teacher or counselor says. Thank you for pointing that out Penrif...