Thought #2
I don't think it is fair to the youth of America to charge them adult prices at the movie theater. By the youth of America I mean anyone between the ages of 16 - 17, although this is a short time period it is key. Key to the development of movie knowledge. Although they are getting charged the adult price they in fact can not see adult movies. They must be 17 to see these movies, and even though you might think to your self they should have to be 17 to see these movies. They should NOT have to pay the same price as a viewer of Rated-R movies. It is key cause this turns the 16 - 17 away from seeing movies. By movie theater's changing what qualifies as an adult to over 17 they would make more money, and have an increased number of viewers. By attracting the 16 -17 year old age range.
posted by Matt Harmon @ 7:13:00 PM
9 Comments:
At October 8, 2004 at 11:28 AM,
Anonymous said…
I notice a trend...
Nikki isn't attending UCLA's film school by any chance?
Clayton
At October 8, 2004 at 11:32 AM,
Anonymous said…
I agree with you, as a mom paying for her kid to go to the movies I think its ridiculus.
At October 8, 2004 at 1:12 PM,
Anonymous said…
someone here has made the assumption that 16 to 17 year old movies (R, PG-13, PG, G) cost less to make than NC-17 movies... and should therefore be less expensive to see... and I am not sure that that is a valid assumption.
Throckmorton Winthorp Pennyworth Gildersleeve III
At October 8, 2004 at 1:13 PM,
Anonymous said…
someone here has made the assumption that 16 to 17 year old movies (R, PG-13, PG, G) cost less to make than NC-17 movies... and should therefore be less expensive to see... and I am not sure that that is a valid assumption.
Throckmorton Winthorp Pennyworth Gildersleeve III
At October 8, 2004 at 1:50 PM,
Matt Harmon said…
That assumption has not been made, 16 - 17 year old movies do not include R they are (G, PG, and PG - 13). Which is were the dilemma comes, Anyone under 17 can't see rated R movies. Yet there are charged the same price as someone who can see rated R movies which is the unfair part.
At October 8, 2004 at 2:29 PM,
Anonymous said…
Why should G, PG, PG-13 and R (cuz you can see R rated movies with an "adult") movies be less expensive than NC-17... and X for that matter?
Should a G be less expensive than PG, and PG less expensive than PG-13?
The most popular movies ever made (if $ sold is the measure) have been G, PG and PG-13)...
Throckmorton Winthorp Pennyworth Gildersleeve III
At October 9, 2004 at 1:55 AM,
Matt Harmon said…
You are not understanding this at all here is what is going on, a 16 year old is not old enough to see rated R yes I said R not NC - 17 or X, R. Get it R, and at the same time anyone over the age of 16, that is 16, 17, 18, and so on, are charged $8.50 in the case of AMC 24 in Ahwatukee, Arizona. Anyone under the age of 16, that would be 15, 14, 13, and so on, are charged the child rate, which is $5.50. My question is, since apparently you don't understand it, why if they are not allowed to see Rated R, yes I said R, movies do they pay the same price as someone who is allowed to see those movies. Shouldn't someone who the movie theater considers an adult, cost wise, be allowed to see Rated R movies. Or shouldn't someone who can't see Rated R movies not be charged the adult price, when they are still considered by the Motion Picture Association a child. What is happening here is the movie theaters and the Motion Picture Association are drawing two different lines. The movie theaters say an adult is anyone over 16, while at the same time the Motion Picture Association is saying an adult is anyone over the age of 17.
At October 9, 2004 at 1:56 AM,
Matt Harmon said…
Oh and by the way what 16 year old, or older for that matter go see a movie with an adult, and basically by adult your saying there parents.
At October 9, 2004 at 8:23 AM,
Anonymous said…
Where is random thought #3, or does Nikki take weekends off?
Clayton
Post a Comment
<< Home