Why is my 13yo considered an adult for a movie?

[Aurora]

This is nothing new, but I can't stand it that I have to shell out $3 more for my 13-year-old daughter to see a movie because she's no longer considered a "child."

I can see theme parks charging more 'cause a 13-year-old basically can ride everything, but in a movie theater she doesn't take up any more room in her seat, she can't see R-rated movies, she can't drive to the theater, and she can't get a job to pay for her own ticket. So on what planet is she an adult????

:mad:

[crazypoohbear]

The planet of
"we can make more money if we charge kids as adults":(

[swampfox28]

Hey, I LOVE Disney, but at DL and WDW a kid is an "adult" at 10 - that's always blown my mind, too!

[bicker]

I think folks get caught up in labels used in pricing. Would you really feel better if they had a "regular" price and a price for "young children"? Does the words, alone, make the difference for you? I think the reality is that few people engage in the kind of preciseness that would relabel all pricing in such terms as "regular" and "young children", and I also believe that few people really care so much about the words that meticulous and precise attention to the most accurate wording will make the difference for them.

What most people care about is how much money they're actually going to be paying.

And pricing is something I know quite a bit about. The objective, as I've said here before, is to price things based on value. The reality is that a 13 year old can enjoy the movies that they can see as much as, and in many cases better, than adults. The discounted pricing for young children isn't even solely a matter of their having a less capability to enjoy the movie, but rather also a reflection of price sensitivity: Parents of young children are often less able to afford to pay full price.

[BMan62]

I don't know if this will answer your question, but here are the movie ratings explanations direct from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA):


A G-rated motion picture contains nothing in theme, language, nudity, sex, violence or other matters that, in the view of the Rating Board, would offend parents whose younger children view the motion picture. The G rating is not a “certificate of approval,” nor does it signify a “children’s” motion picture. Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated motion pictures. Depictions of violence are minimal. No nudity, sex scenes or drug use are present in the motion picture.

A PG-rated motion picture should be investigated by parents before they let their younger children attend. The PG rating indicates, in the view of the Rating Board, that parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, and parents should make that decision.

The more mature themes in some PG-rated motion pictures may call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity and some depictions of violence or brief nudity. But these elements are not deemed so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated motion picture.

A PG-13 rating is a sterner warning by the Rating Board to parents to determine whether their children under age 13 should view the motion picture, as some material might not be suited for them. A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority, the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous.

An R-rated motion picture, in the view of the Rating Board, contains some adult material. An R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements, so that parents are counseled to take this rating very seriously. Children under 17 are not allowed to attend R-rated motion pictures unaccompanied by a parent or adult guardian. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about R-rated motion pictures in determining their suitability for their children. Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures.

An NC-17 rated motion picture is one that, in the view of the Rating Board, most parents would consider patently too adult for their children 17 and under. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not mean “obscene” or “pornographic” in the common or legal meaning of those words, and should not be construed as a negative judgment in any sense. The rating simply signals that the content is appropriate only for an adult audience. An NC-17 rating can be based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element that most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children.

[DisneyOtaku]

I know it stinks, but I almost have to wonder if it is because at night, you would not BELIEVE how many parents drop off their pre-teens and just walk away. The kids usually stay around at least an hour AFTER their movie ends, and a handful of them (of course) make trouble for the rest of them.

I have no idea if that's what affects the price, but I know that's why the theater I worked at has made it company policy that anyone under the age of 16 at the theater without a parent or a guardian (the 18 yr old friend does not count) must leave the property at 10:30. If not, they will not hesitate to have the police on duty escort you to the office where we will call parents to pick them up (you have NO idea how many kids get in trouble with this--mostly because they didn't tell their parents where they were going and/or lied to them).

[Aurora]

you really feel better if they had a "regular" price and a price for "young children"? Does the words, alone, make the difference for you?

No they don't. You misunderstand. Because the adult prices are $3 more than a child price, and they consider her an adult at age 13, that is what I object to. I don't care if they call anyone over 13 a spotted quail; if they charged $3 more for it, I'd object.


The discounted pricing for young children isn't even solely a matter of their having a less capability to enjoy the movie, but rather also a reflection of price sensitivity: Parents of young children are often less able to afford to pay full price.

That's exactly my point: I'm still paying for her ticket, and let me tell you, after paying for her for everything for the last 13 years (again, because she's not old enough to have a job), I have less of an ability to pay for her ticket than I did when she was 5!!!!

Tell you what, we're already going to far fewer movies than we did when she was 5, and when my other kids reach the age of 13, we'll be lucky if we can shell out for the matinees.

[Magic Smiles]

Well a good solution for the movie theatres would be to do away with the "child" admission and just charge everyone the $3.00 more.

[swampfox28]

I don't agree; that would make it REALLY cost prohibitive to many people.

It's bad enough that it costs $14-$17 to take 2 adults to a movie that's not a matinee, but to double that if you add 2 kids? YIKES!

And matinees are expensive where I live (probably everywhere, I suppose); to take my 2 kids and DH to a movie it's almost $25! I don't think "more" would be better at all...

[Puppy Mom]

I think the only FAIR way to charge is one same price for EVERY person who occupies a seat.
A seat is a seat and it shouldn't matter the age of the butt that sits in it.

The idea that parents or senior citizens automatically have less resources or somehow deserve a better price is just discriminatory.

There are a LOT of two parent families with two wage earners. There are a lot of seniors who have plenty of money. There are also a lot of singles or childless couples who are worse off financially than the above groups.

We need to stop favoring one group over another.

[NotaGeek]

Movies are not a right, they are a luxury. Theaters can charge whatever they want and make the cut-off age for adults vs kid pricing whatever they like ... it boils down to your own personal budget. If you can't afford the movies, well, then you shouldn't go. Most cities still have dollar (or discount) theaters that have the same movies a few months after they leave the big theaters ... and there are always discount matinees and AMC has their $5 shows Friday-Sunday for any movie starting before noon at most locations.

[bicker]

Well a good solution for the movie theatres would be to do away with the "child" admission and just charge everyone the $3.00 more.Good point. I think folks missed the point I made earlier, that a 13 year old has the capacity to enjoy the movies they are able to see as much, if not more, than adults. In reality, most movies that 13 year olds want to see "should" be priced with 13 year olds paying full price, and adults paying less! :)

[Magic Smiles]

I don't agree; that would make it REALLY cost prohibitive to many people.

It's bad enough that it costs $14-$17 to take 2 adults to a movie that's not a matinee, but to double that if you add 2 kids? YIKES!

And matinees are expensive where I live (probably everywhere, I suppose); to take my 2 kids and DH to a movie it's almost $25! I don't think "more" would be better at all...
Well you should live where I live....double your cost and that is approx what I pay.
And as NotaGeek states, going to movies is a luxury not a right.

[Mickey'sGirl]

Yep. It's $12.50 for each of us, and $8.50 for each of our children to go to a regular movie -- That's $42 just to get in the door. However, I honestly don't know why there isn't just a set price, 'cuz a seat is a seat.

I'm not grumbling though -- it's a luxury as others have said. If I want to go for less money ($8 each -- which is still $32) I can go to a smaller local theatre and be uncomfortable. We choose to be selective about what we go to see, and then do it. Otherwise, we wait for the DVD.

[swampfox28]

I guess you guys make a good point about it being a luxury, but I wonder why it's SO expensive!

Perhaps another solution would be to have matinees be a smidgen cheaper and make evening shows have all seats same price?

I don't know if it's a good idea, but it popped into my head...

[NotaGeek]

I guess you guys make a good point about it being a luxury, but I wonder why it's SO expensive!

Perhaps another solution would be to have matinees be a smidgen cheaper and make evening shows have all seats same price?

I don't know if it's a good idea, but it popped into my head...
Hollywood has to pay for the movies -- the prices will only go up.

[mainemajor]

[QUOTE=swampfox28;1918711]I guess you guys make a good point about it being a luxury, but I wonder why it's SO expensive!

Just look at how much the actors receive for their roles. Add to that the always rising costs for making a movie.

What gets me is how much it costs for the candy, popcorn and soda at the movies.

[pink]

Movies are not a right, they are a luxury. Theaters can charge whatever they want and make the cut-off age for adults vs kid pricing whatever they like ... it boils down to your own personal budget. If you can't afford the movies, well, then you shouldn't go.

Well said.:mickey:

[DisneyOtaku]

[QUOTE=swampfox28;1918711]I guess you guys make a good point about it being a luxury, but I wonder why it's SO expensive!

Just look at how much the actors receive for their roles. Add to that the always rising costs for making a movie.

What gets me is how much it costs for the candy, popcorn and soda at the movies.

The reason snacks are so expensive is because that is pretty much the theater's ONLY source of income. At my theater, we only got to keep about 30 cents per ticket sold--rest went back to the studios.

[Seasonscraps]

I guess you guys make a good point about it being a luxury, but I wonder why it's SO expensive!

Perhaps another solution would be to have matinees be a smidgen cheaper and make evening shows have all seats same price?

I don't know if it's a good idea, but it popped into my head...

There are a couple of theaters near me that have reduced rates for afternoon movies during the week and the first show on the weekends.

Going to the movies is so expensive because making movies is so expensive - the studios need to recover that cost. And operating a movie theater has to be expensive - the amount real estate, maintenance, etc must cost a fortune.

It has to be a movie I am dying to see to go to the theater - 2 tickets, plus 2 sodas is close to $35 around here. I'd rather add a $20 to that and go to dinner.

[Magic Smiles]

Hollywood has to pay for the movies -- the prices will only go up.
Maybe Angelina and Brad should take a pay cut:mickey:

[bicker]

As wealthy as they are, why take a pay cut? Just stop working. Maybe we movie-goers should start taking some personal responsibility, and stop watching movies that have stars we know in them -- just watch movies that feature unknowns, who don't get paid much.

[DisneyOtaku]

As wealthy as they are, why take a pay cut? Just stop working. Maybe we movie-goers should start taking some personal responsibility, and stop watching movies that have stars we know in them -- just watch movies that feature unknowns, who don't get paid much.

I know for me, though, I don't see movies because who is in them, but because I think the movie is going to be good. If there's a fantastic looking movie that's going out and has all unknowns, sure, I'll be there! But if it doesn't appeal to me, I'm not going to see it.

Ex.: I love Johnny Deep, but I didn't see Sweeny Todd. Not my type of film, and just seeing him wasn't worth it.

[NotaGeek]

As wealthy as they are, why take a pay cut? Just stop working. Maybe we movie-goers should start taking some personal responsibility, and stop watching movies that have stars we know in them -- just watch movies that feature unknowns, who don't get paid much.
It's a vicious circle ... no production company would foot the bill for a $300 million film with nobody stars. Big stars have names that pull in more viewers, and better directors and better scripts ...

[thrillme]

My wacky thought is that many 13 year olds are "developing" into young men and women. Some of my son's friends already have moustaches starting. If they push the age out too much further...you wouldn't be able to tell them from some young looking 17/18 year olds.

Regardless. I just bump the system (sorta) and I either go at matinee where everybody pays kids price, I buy discount tickets from base or a couple of local eateries (sometimes these are LESS than kids price), or I donate blood for freebies :D (FYI...I donate REGARDLESS of whether or not I get freebies...it's just a nice bonus sometimes).

[HeyMrsL!ItsThisGuy!]

you'd love me aurora,

i work at a movie theater and as long as your nice about it i'll give you a child's ticket if you have a kid younger than 16.

its the people who get physically angry at me who are not so lucky.

[Closet Disney Fan]

ya i bet people would definitely enjoy to receive the kids price for a teenager who is 16. It is simple as said before, its a privledge to go to the movies, so they are entitled to charge whatever they feel. This same debate can be said for kid's meals at restaurants. For example, a kids menu may say no one older than 12 years old may order when in reality a 14 year old may not be able to eat the amount given in adult meal, but are still forced to pay the extra amount. So as long as the free market exists, the same problems will always exist and you are forced to deal with the consequences even if that is the extra 3 dollars.

[dmosher]

In the end the additional prices base don age is pretty much beacuase of supply and demand. Children ages 13-16 see more movies that anyone else. Yes, really. Rated G->R, this age bracket is what movies are catered to (generally) and where studios try to aim. If the film is on the edge of PG-13, the studio will edit it down or dumb it back slightly just to get it into that slot so more tickets can be sold. Having worked in the industry for many years I can tell you this is very frustrating, but it is true. Once a movie fits into this slot, the studios can increase the price for the "print" that is sent out to theaters, which in turn have to increase the price of the thicket to cover their end. In the end almost every major theater has had to increase their projectors and screens to accommodate the new technology (HD/Digital and 3D) and unfortunately the ticket holder has to eventually convert those prices. It is hard for us to do, but it is the price we pay for being able to see UP in 3D.

Also based on what someone else had said about studios increasing prices to make a lot of money, this is not true actually. In the end most studios break even on films in the theater, if they are lucky. All of the additional income they make is off of DVD, international sales and product tie-ins (toys, t-shirts, etc).
Just thought you might want to know.
:pipes:
D

[Georgesgirl1]

It is frustrating to pay an adult price for a 13 year old, but look into theaters in your area that may have a student discount. I know some theaters have this and some don't, but the student discount usually ends up being somewhere between the adult and child price. Also see if you have any dollar theaters near you. We have one that charges $1.50 per person most nights and $.50 on Tuesdays. DH and I canboth get in and buy the largest popcorn and Coke to share for $11! Quite a steal considering I went to see Harry Potter and spent $10 on a matinee ticket! Of course they show older movies that have been out for several months. I hope these ideas allow your family to continue to go to the movies without breaking the bank!