Sign in to follow this  
prometheus59650

Really, why shouldn't kids have a playground IN the theater?

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, prometheus59650 said:

Remind me to NEVER see ANYTHING in a Cinepolis theatre chain. 

I don't care if I'm seeing a anniversary screening of "The Apple Dumpling Gang Rides Again", I refuse to try to listen to a movie where kids are literally jumping, yelling and playing right in FRONT of the f--#ing movie.   What is the point?? 

It's like having a slumber party on an airport tarmac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God forbid you or your kids sit quietly for two hours and focus on a movie.

And they'll go home and wonder why on earth their kid only has a .00023 second attention span.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks like a theater right out of my own cabinet of "things that are nothing but complete and utter horror for me".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

That's like a book reading lounge right in the middle of a dance club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a uniquely American concept called the drive-in movie; they peaked in the 1950s through the '70s and then faded as theatre technology became more sophisticated (Dolby, THX, digital, etc) and drive-ins fell out of vogue.  Now there's only a few dozen or so across the US (there are two within a 20 mile radius of me, and they're more novelties at this point).  

The idea was that you brought the whole family for the price of one car.  And if the adults wanted to focus on the movie, there was usually a chintzy little playground underneath the screen for the kids to play.  Sound for the movie itself came via a tinny, crappy speaker you hung on your car's driver side window (or via your car stereo later on).   I only attended a handful of movies this way, and even as a youngster I hated it.  Maybe it was the non-native part of me that couldn't wrap my brain around the concept, but to me it was about as entertaining as being stuck in traffic while a movie played on a highway billboard.  2 or more hours stuck in a car (!).  I didn't get it.  Maybe because I was too young to date then, and didn't quite understand the idea of taking one's paramour to the drive-in to make out.  Oh well... Hey, I was a kid.   Sue me.

Even then, I much preferred going to the cinema precisely because you were enveloped by the film; you could lose yourself in this alternate reality bombarding your senses for 2 hours (or 4, back in the days of double-features).  There was no playground, or other distractions.  I went to the theatre for the MOVIE, and nothing else.

This theatre chain's idea sounds like the worst of both ideas; a state of the art theatre/projection system combined with the distraction and noise of a drive-in playground.   I don't see how kids going to a movie this way could ever learn to value the art of moviemaking.  It's like putting a kids' jumper and a hot dog stand right in the middle of the Louvre or the Museum of Modern Art. Movies, even the ones for kids, are an art form; they deserve some respect (unless they're Michael Bay films, of course...then the idea of a built in playground is wholly justified. :giggle: ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mr.Picard said:

This looks like a theater right out of my own cabinet of "things that are nothing but complete and utter horror for me".

Heck, I cringe every time little kids come into a theater, I'm in. In fairness, 80% of the time it's been fine, but I stiffen in my seat all the same.

 

4 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

There is a uniquely American concept called the drive-in movie; they peaked in the 1950s through the '70s and then faded as theatre technology became more sophisticated (Dolby, THX, digital, etc) and drive-ins fell out of vogue.  Now there's only a few dozen or so across the US (there are two within a 20 mile radius of me, and they're more novelties at this point).  

The idea was that you brought the whole family for the price of one car.  And if the adults wanted to focus on the movie, there was usually a chintzy little playground underneath the screen for the kids to play.  Sound for the movie itself came via a tinny, crappy speaker you hung on your car's driver side window (or via your car stereo later on).   I only attended a handful of movies this way, and even as a youngster I hated it.  Maybe it was the non-native part of me that couldn't wrap my brain around the concept, but to me it was about as entertaining as being stuck in traffic while a movie played on a highway billboard.  2 or more hours stuck in a car (!).  I didn't get it.  Maybe because I was too young to date then, and didn't quite understand the idea of taking one's paramour to the drive-in to make out.  Oh well... Hey, I was a kid.   Sue me.

Even then, I much preferred going to the cinema precisely because you were enveloped by the film; you could lose yourself in this alternate reality bombarding your senses for 2 hours (or 4, back in the days of double-features).  There was no playground, or other distractions.  I went to the theatre for the MOVIE, and nothing else.

This theatre chain's idea sounds like the worst of both ideas; a state of the art theatre/projection system combined with the distraction and noise of a drive-in playground.   I don't see how kids going to a movie this way could ever learn to value the art of moviemaking.  It's like putting a kids' jumper and a hot dog stand right in the middle of the Louvre or the Museum of Modern Art. Movies, even the ones for kids, are an art form; they deserve some respect (unless they're Michael Bay films, of course...then the idea of a built in playground is wholly justified. :giggle: ).

I saw a few back in the day at one (Star Wars and that old Richard Thomas bit Battle Beyond the Stars) It was fun for a different experience, but I prefer a theater myself for all the above. There's something special about being in that dark room and being swept away by your new favorite movie.

I don't begin to comprehend who this is for other than parents. I mean, it makes infinitely more sense to play "Logan" in the theater above than something like "Finding Dory."

Could this be for the kid? How? He's not going to watch the movie. All he's going to do is want to play with the other kids. If he does sit for the movie, it'll be for 10 minutes until something cool happens at the bounce house on his left.

It's for parents to have a movie and not pay for a sitter. Set the kids loose, sit down, have your movie.

It's an abysmal idea either way, but I don't see how this is for kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, prometheus59650 said:

Heck, I cringe every time little kids come into a theater, I'm in. In fairness, 80% of the time it's been fine, but I stiffen in my seat all the same.

I cringe every time I see little kids in general. lol But it's particularly horrible in a movie theater I'd imagine. (It's been over a decade since I last set foot into one.) I mean I'd just want to watch my movie in peace, not have kids jump around and run around and scream and ugh, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

I cringe every time I see little kids in general. lol But it's particularly horrible in a movie theater I'd imagine. (It's been over a decade since I last set foot into one.) I mean I'd just want to watch my movie in peace, not have kids jump around and run around and scream and ugh, no.

I don't like kids. I mean, I don't hate them. I like interacting with them when they're someone else's and they'll be elsewhere in an hour. Most of the time in a theater it's okay. I really don't expect a kid to be 100% quiet in a two hour film. What I do expect is a modicum of parenting. If your kid says (pretty quietly) that they have to go to the bathroom, you don't keep telling the kid to wait until he has to beg because dad is into the movie.

And if your kid is just in a bad mood and won't be mollified, you get up and take him out. Chill him out out of the room, or you take him home, plain and simple. If you know your kid can't sit for two hours, stay home or pay a sitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, prometheus59650 said:

I don't like kids. I mean, I don't hate them. I like interacting with them when they're someone else's and they'll be elsewhere in an hour. Most of the time in a theater it's okay. I really don't expect a kid to be 100% quiet in a two hour film. What I do expect is a modicum of parenting. If your kid says (pretty quietly) that they have to go to the bathroom, you don't keep telling the kid to wait until he has to beg because dad is into the movie.

And if your kid is just in a bad mood and won't be mollified, you get up and take him out. Chill him out out of the room, or you take him home, plain and simple. If you know your kid can't sit for two hours, stay home or pay a sitter.

Agreed.

I don't like kids at all, and I stay away from them at all costs. They make me very uncomfortable, especially when they're in screaming mode or hugging mode or any kind of mode other than "fast asleep". One big reason why I don't go to movie theaters anymore is other people, and this includes kids, naturally. I'd love to go and see a movie like Finding Dory or something but definitely NOT in a movie theater because it'll be filled with kids and yeeeeech, no. NO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

I love kids but kids should be taught the values of their society. One of the values is that you have to be able to sit reasonably still and quiet when in you are in public. My children learned young. I helped that my wife was a teacher and had a look that could peel paint off the wall when the children misbehaved. 

This looks like heaven to a parent who has absolutely no control over their children either because they can't say no or they have absolutely no parenting skills. There are some parents who don't realize that if you never make your kids cry you're not doing it right. Can I have a tenth candy bar? No. The 5 year old kid that demands the $25 toy that will be in the back of their closet 30 seconds after getting home will be the one that demands the $500 gadget that will be in the back of the closet 30 seconds after get home when they are 15 years old. That kid will be the one that goes off to college and has to call mom and dad every time they can't get along with their roommate or get a low grade on a test so mommy and daddy can come in and complain and save the day. End rant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, scenario said:

I love kids but kids should be taught the values of their society. One of the values is that you have to be able to sit reasonably still and quiet when in you are in public. My children learned young. I helped that my wife was a teacher and had a look that could peel paint off the wall when the children misbehaved. 

This looks like heaven to a parent who has absolutely no control over their children either because they can't say no or they have absolutely no parenting skills. There are some parents who don't realize that if you never make your kids cry you're not doing it right. Can I have a tenth candy bar? No. The 5 year old kid that demands the $25 toy that will be in the back of their closet 30 seconds after getting home will be the one that demands the $500 gadget that will be in the back of the closet 30 seconds after get home when they are 15 years old. That kid will be the one that goes off to college and has to call mom and dad every time they can't get along with their roommate or get a low grade on a test so mommy and daddy can come in and complain and save the day. End rant. 

Oh, I know all about women who can yell at you at the top of their lungs with just their eyes. :)

Hell, I think you have to tell your kid "No" 85% of the time as that's at least the percentage that the world is gonna do it.

I simply do not fathom seeing an 8 year-old with an iPhone. I've seen them. It stuns me. You need a phone? Maybe. I can see reasons for it, but kiddie is getting nothing but a granny flip-phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

Well, great that all the people here who have no kids are suddenly experts at parenting.

But yeah, I agree: It's important to teach your kids limits. That means they will often cry. That's normal, that happens when people with limited frustration compensation skills (and that's what kids are) are shown the natural limits of other people. But they'll learn, which means a lot of crying.

I'm the first to say anarchy and the space for being loud and questing authority is at least as important for kids, unless you want to raise a generation of Trump-loving (or Hitler-loving) empathy-illiterates who have never been taught anything else but fearing authority, so these limits shouldn't be arbitrary or at the whims of the parents -- but the limits should be the natural limits of other people's rights. The kids' rights end where the rights of other people begin. That leaves plenty of room for kids to be kids. But this also means you will not deliberately confront your kids with a situation where by their very nature, they have no choice but annoying other people -- like in a cinema, when it isn't a designated kids showing and/or your kids are old enough to sit still.

(I don't know how the situation is in America, but here in Germany, I've never actually met parents who "spoil" their kids, as in the kids are allowed to do anything they like, and get everything they want. Which is why I consider this cliché a cliché created by fascists who believe conformity and authoritarianism are desirable values in society, which for them means they are the preferable values in parenting, too. Because these kinds of people are usually the people who advance these clichés. Or they just parrot these empty anti-kid slogans from fascists who raised them. These people deserve my pity, but I won't allow such people anywhere near my kids.)

 

But back on topic: This theatre IMO is a totally absurd idiocy. As Sehlat said, it's not fair towards the ideal of valuing movies as art. And as others said, it's not fair towards the kids either, because it's for the parents, and their desire to have their cake and eat it, too.

It's pretty simple: If you want to spend time with your kids, spend time with your kids. If you want to watch a movie, then go watch a movie. Or if you want to watch a movie with your (sufficiently old) kids, then go with them and make them sit still for the duration of the movie.

But don't try to have all of that at the same time, you'll end up having none of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   
22 minutes ago, Sim said:

Well, great that all the people here who have no kids are suddenly experts at parenting.

But yeah, I agree: It's important to teach your kids limits. That means they will often cry. That's normal, that happens when people with limited frustration compensation skills (and that's what kids are) are shown the natural limits of other people. But they'll learn, which means a lot of crying.

I'm the first to say anarchy and the space for being loud and questing authority is at least as important for kids, unless you want to raise a generation of Trump-loving (or Hitler-loving) empathy-illiterates who have never been taught anything else but fearing authority, so these limits shouldn't be arbitrary or at the whims of the parents -- but the limits should be the natural limits of other people's rights. The kids' rights end where the rights of other people begin. That leaves plenty of room for kids to be kids. But this also means you will not deliberately confront your kids with a situation where by their very nature, they have no choice but annoying other people -- like in a cinema, when it isn't a designated kids showing and/or your kids are old enough to sit still.

(I don't know how the situation is in America, but here in Germany, I've never actually met parents who "spoil" their kids, as in the kids are allowed to do anything they like, and get everything they want. Which is why I consider this cliché a cliché created by fascists who believe conformity and authoritarianism are desirable values in society, which for them means they are the preferable values in parenting, too. Because these kinds of people are usually the people who advance these clichés. Or they just parrot these empty anti-kid slogans from fascists who raised them. These people deserve my pity, but I won't allow such people anywhere near my kids.)

 

But back on topic: This theatre IMO is a totally absurd idiocy. As Sehlat said, it's not fair towards the ideal of valuing movies as art. And as others said, it's not fair towards the kids either, because it's for the parents, and their desire to have their cake and eat it, too.

It's pretty simple: If you want to spend time with your kids, spend time with your kids. If you want to watch a movie, then go watch a movie. Or if you want to watch a movie with your (sufficiently old) kids, then go with them and make them sit still for the duration of the movie.

But don't try to have all of that at the same time, you'll end up having none of it.

My remarks were about certain types of parents found in America. My wife and I raised two children, 18 and 20. My wife taught children at the Kindergarten through twelfth grade during her almost 30 year career. I trained to be a teacher and substituted for about 5 years while training and looking until several chronic illnesses made it impossible. 

I've found there are three common types of parents in America.

1) Parents who want to be their children's friends and let them do anything they want. They are terrified that if they say no and their kids cry that they will scar them for life. Their children can do nothing wrong. If their kids fail in school or act up its the teachers fault. If a teacher attempts to discipline their child they call the school committee to complain and then their lawyer. 

2) Parents who want to completely control their children's lives. Their children are not allowed to make any decision on their own. They decide who their children's friends are, what clothes they wear, etc. These children are completely helpless in the real world and the parents response is that the children of today aren't like kids in the old days. 

3) Parent in the middle. They understand that there are times that children need to be taught self discipline, like at the movie theater and at a restaurant or in school. But they also understand that in order for children to learn to be independent, they must start making age appropriate decisions for themselves. They need to be allowed to fail in small ways in order to succeed in life.  Children need times of unstructured play in order to mentally grow. But not all time can be unstructured playtime. 

This movie theater is designed for type one parents who want to go to the movies but are terrified of disciplining their children. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Sim said:

Well, great that all the people here who have no kids are suddenly experts at parenting.

I have a fair amount of experience with them, but never claimed to be an expert, but I know what's wrong when I see it. Giving in to a fit just to get some peace? Doesn't work for either in the long run.

Spoiling does seem to be something of an American phenomena as Americans are uniquely overworked and overburdened. More productive than anyone else in the world, but work for less and have to concern ourselves with things like healthcare. Doesn't leave a lot of time, so a lot confuse "stuff" with loving and effective parenting.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

I would never go to a theater like that.  Drive-in's can be fun, there is a decent one near us, and they've updated the sound systems so you tune to a radio station and get the sound via your own car system.  I actually had a fun time with a double feature the time my wife and I went. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   
1 hour ago, scenario said:

My remarks were about certain types of parents found in America. My wife and I raised two children, 18 and 20. My wife taught children at the Kindergarten through twelfth grade during her almost 30 year career. I trained to be a teacher and substituted for about 5 years while training and looking until several chronic illnesses made it impossible. 

I've found there are three common types of parents in America.

1) Parents who want to be their children's friends and let them do anything they want. They are terrified that if they say no and their kids cry that they will scar them for life. Their children can do nothing wrong. If their kids fail in school or act up its the teachers fault. If a teacher attempts to discipline their child they call the school committee to complain and then their lawyer. 

2) Parents who want to completely control their children's lives. Their children are not allowed to make any decision on their own. They decide who their children's friends are, what clothes they wear, etc. These children are completely helpless in the real world and the parents response is that the children of today aren't like kids in the old days. 

3) Parent in the middle. They understand that there are times that children need to be taught self discipline, like at the movie theater and at a restaurant or in school. But they also understand that in order for children to learn to be independent, they must start making age appropriate decisions for themselves. They need to be allowed to fail in small ways in order to succeed in life.  Children need times of unstructured play in order to mentally grow. But not all time can be unstructured playtime. 

This movie theater is designed for type one parents who want to go to the movies but are terrified of disciplining their children. 

Thanks for the explanation. I wonder how much there is a cultural difference?

When I read stuff about parenting, I often found a schema about different parenting styles, which made a lot of sense when I looked through it at people in my environment, which is why I kept it as a kind of orientation:

There are 1) very permissive parents, who allow their kids to do almost anything, 2) very restrictive and authoritarian parents, who strictly limit their children, forbid a lot without offering explanations and so on, and 3) those in the middle and/or those who clearly define limits.

That's the one dimension; the other dimension is care and focus on the kids, A) those who pay a lot of attention towards their kids and devote a lot of time, and B) those parents who reduce attention to a minimum and don't communicate much.

Society seems to have most problems with kids of parents who combine 1) and B) and who combine 2) and B). The latter may even border on criminally relevant neglect: Never have an open ear for the kids, never teach them to communicate, but act very authoritarian up to physical violence towards the kids. A criminal carreer is almost inevitable in these cases.

Kids of 1) A) parents may have severe problems fitting in, but at least they usually display a very high degree of empathy towards others. They may lack self-discipline and have trouble fitting in, but they have a high degree of identification with others, and they often speak up for their pears when they are treated unfairly. Whileas 1) B) kids probably match the description 1) you gave above.

2) A) is the typical "helicopter parent" attitude: The parents micromanage the kids and their lifes, press them into a certain pattern, and make their kids tools for the proxy realization of their own aspirations, dreams or shortcomings. The result are either totally conformist kids without any sense of empathy, or extreme rebellion at a certain age.

 

So of course the best course of action, according to most parenting advices you find over here, is a "democratic" style of parenting: Communication is the key, try to communicate with your kids as much as possible, include them in decisions that concern them depending on their age, but also provide very strictly enforced limits: A mutually negotiated agreement must be respected by all sides, including the kids. They have a voice, but once an agreement was found, it must be strictly enforced. And naturally, the younger the kid, the more often the final decision will be dominated by the parents, as the kids yet have to learn to tell reasonable demands from irrational ones.

That's pretty much the ideal my wife and I have in mind, too; when our little one tests our limits, she'll get a clear "no", crying and tempers notwithstanding. However, we try to communicate our reasons, even if she doesn't understand yet (how else could she learn?), and try not to be assholes about our restrictions. This includes being open to small "negotiations" for solutions both sides are comfortable with. She's supposed to see we listen to her interests, even when we decide not to give in every time -- and to learn to articulate her wishes, develop an understanding for the wishes of others, and learn negotiation skills with the goal of compromise.

 

This style also clashes with the typical pre-1970s German style of parenting (the "Nazi style", "Dark Education"), which was based on unconditional authoritarianism (the parents, teachers and grown-ups are unquestionable authorities, up to the point that even questioning their authority alone is worth of harsh punishment already; and they never have to explain, justify or legitimize this authority). There is a clear distance between parents and children (my great-grandparents had to use the equivalent to calling their parents "Sir", i.e.), debating emotions is considered a faux-pas. Some "education experts" even advized parents to break the will of their kids at age 2 or 3 with massive physical violence, for making the kid ready to "fit in".

You still find remnants of this education style in some families. IMO, you don't need to look any further if you wonder how Nazism and Holocaust was possible; knowing that this was how a majority of German kids was raised until the 1960s or so is answer enough.

1 hour ago, prometheus59650 said:

Spoiling does seem to be something of an American phenomena as Americans are uniquely overworked and overburdened. More productive than anyone else in the world, but work for less and have to concern ourselves with things like healthcare. Doesn't leave a lot of time, so a lot confuse "stuff" with loving and effective parenting.  

Yeah, I imagine that's certainly a problem in an exploitive, very anti-social society as America's, where many people can't even make a living off a normal 8h/5d job.

Now I perhaps haven't seen the kids you have seen, but it always struck me as a much worse problem when parents had too few time for their kids, than when they were too permissive. Giving in to kids' wishes alone isn't the worst problem IMO (even though a lack of limits can certainly be very annoying), but the true problems arise when this is combined with a total shortage of communication to compensate for it.

Kids who are allowed too much, but are raised with lots of genuine love and avice? Still better than kids who are allowed too much, but are left alone all the time, don't learn to communicate and what love is, and instead just get "stuff".

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sim said:

Now I perhaps haven't seen the kids you have seen, but it always struck me as a much worse problem when parents had too few time for their kids, than when they were too permissive.

Agreed. Kids need that interaction more than anything else. They need attention. You're spending the next twenty years growing another human being and then setting that loose upon everyone else. iPads don't equal that time, but, for some, it's all they think they've got. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this