A 2-year old is not a baby.

I agree with other posters who say butt in seat = charge for ticket.

And I saw Chronicles of Narnia and that is NOT a little kids' movie. I
am surprised you would expose little children to such a violent movie,
too! Are you kidding me???

Butt in the seat = ticket. You expect to not pay for your child for a
movie when that child will be using a seat a paying customer could
occupy? It'd be one thing if the child in question was still an
infant, and would remain in your arms, but that's ridiculous.

However, the drunk and disorderly man should've been escorted out, you
are right there.

I'm surprised you took your 2 year old child out to a violent movie
like Narnia at 10 pm on a Friday night. That movie would've gotten
out at around 12. Why would you keep your little child up that late?


You're too cheap to buy a ticket and get a babysitter.

Sorry, but a 2 year old is not a "baby" and like another poster said-
if they take up a seat you should be charged.

Personally, I congratulate AMC for charging for babies.

Bringing a young child to a movie-- particularly one with as much
violence as the Narnia films-- is like playing Russian Roulette, only
you're only pointing the gun at everyone else in the theater.

It's very nice that YOUR child didn't start crying or fussing and only
slept through the movie quietly, but other people's children are not
so easy to please.

Part of the benefit of that charge is that it deters people who ignore
the impact their children have on the rest of the world.

If your child is too young to appreciate movies, why even bring them
in the first place? Find a babysitter, and spare some quality time
with your nine-year-old, who is probably getting less attention
than his new baby sister anyway.

Sorry, but your claims are idiotic. If you're using a seat, you have
to pay for it. End of story.

As for the drunk guy, you did nothing about the situation so I fail to
see how this is the theater's fault.

Next time, spring for a sitter and grow some balls.

Same as on a plane if you want to TAKE UP A SEAT you get to pay for
it.

Now IF the baby does indeed sleep through the movie were you planning
to hold her on your lap the entire tiome so as to NOT take up a seat
that could have been used by a paying customer? Because if you do NOT
PAY FOR A SEAT YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE AN F-ING SEAT!!!!!!!!!!
What is so hard to understand about that?

Or next time I have had to much cold medication, do oyu think that *I*
should get a free seat because I will likely sleep during the movie?
And if NOT, whyat ius the difference? One sleeping patron is the same
as any other, regardless of who has more or less control over their
bowels -



And ALL of that is ASSuming that your kid actually DOES SLEEP thorugh
the ENTIRE MOVIE and does not wake up ONCE to make NOISES which will
disturb the people who actually DESERVE to be there. AKA the PAYING
customers.

If someone sits in a seat, they must pay for that seat--period.
Asleep, awake, "baby," adult, whatever. Seat = pay. There is nothing
"offensive" about it.

Also, I don't considering 10 PM to be that late for a small
child to be out, but I definitely consider past midnight, when the
movie would have actually ended, to be too late. It's a lucky thing
you paid for a seat for the child to sleep in, lest she fuss and whine
throughout the whole movie. (This is, of course, assuming that we are
talking about 10 PM, not a 10 AM naptime, which is not mentioned and
counterintuitive.)

You guys are harsh! I think she means 10 am. I take my son to the
movies at 10 am too! It's his naptime and I would rather have him
sleep than be chasing him around the movie theater.
Next time they want you to pay, talk to the manager. They shouldn't
charge until the child is old enough to understand the movie (around 3
yrs.) but they do anyway.
We have a Cinemark and they are very understanding about children, and
the first showing of the movie M-F is $5.00 a person to bring in young
families. It's nice that for once, someone can be nice to people with
kids.

I have a 29 year old friend who sleeps through most movies he pays go
see. Should he get in free too?

Okay ...

First of all I want to say, I understand where you are coming from
with the whole charging for your child thing, but as far as I'm
concerned if you are going into the theatre, they are going to charge
you..

Second of all, to all the people who keep saying that OMG 10 is soooo
late, get over yourself. Yes , 10 is late for having children out, but
for some of us that is the time we have to spend with our child. As a
single mother working as a server, I normally work anywhere between
the hours of 11 am to 9 pm...my daughter is on my schedule..thats just
how it is. She is up late, but also sleeps in later than most of you
would agree is " normal ". If my daughter went to bed early I would
never get to see her. If she was in school I would never take her out
so late and would agree that 10 is too late... however, as Tera had
posted this was a friday night...who cares??

Nothing more annoying then a child at the theater? My son and I went
to see The Strangers yesterday. There were about five adults in the
theater that were more annoying. They weren't even all from the same
group. Two of them were adult women right behind us who insisted on
giggling the whole time. Make stupid jokes about what was going on in
the movie, then giggle some more. Nobody seemed to be phased. I don't
know when that kind of behavior became acceptable.

My question is, why were you taking children to a 10:00 PM movie in
the first place? Shouldn't a two-year-old be in BED by then?

I'm sorry, but there is nothing more annoying than a baby at a movie
theater. I've got a 2 year old little girl, and I wouldn't ever dream
of taking her to a movie. Yes, she is well behaved, but still, at the
risk of being a burden to everyone else? No way.

You should try redbox/netflix, it is MUCH cheaper than renting/going
to see a movie, and although you don't get the "theater" experiance,
you can have a family night, and the best part is, you don't have to
shell out extra cash for a sitter.

Some theater chains do require tickets for children and babies because
of the annoyance that a crying baby or talking toddler can cause to
others trying to listen to the movie. And one chain I know of does
not allow children under 5 into PG 13 or R rated films. A 2 year old
will start talking to his parents (or just to hear him/herself talk)
because he/she does not understand the film and is bored. And some
people are simply too cheap to hire babysitters, so they bring their
crying, bawling, or chattering babies/toddlers to the movie theater
with them. If I'm trying to listen to a film, a crying baby or
chattering toddler can be an annoyance. It's just as bad as someone
using a cell phone during a film. I don't blame AMC for charging
babies/toddlers for admission. And a film like "Chronicles Of Narnia"
would be too complex for a 2 year old to understand. Sure the child
may be sleeping through the film, but he/she might wake up and start
talking. And AMC does include this message during the previews:
"Please don't spoil the movie by adding your own soundtrack."
Sorry for the rant, but talking or crying babies during a movie is
one of my biggest pet peeves.

This letter is featured on Mommage. Twice.

http://planetfeedback.typepad.com/mommage/2008/05/would-you-take.html

http://planetfeedback.typepad.com/mommage/2008/05/lights-camerasl.html

I didn't post on this letter until now because up until a couple of
days ago, everyone pretty much said how I felt. But, as a read more
responses to this letter, I came away with a different feeling about
Tera and her motivations.

First, from a consumer standpoint, the theater has a right to charge a
two-year-old child; after all they're charging for seats, and it
doesn't matter if the child would be sleeping or not. And Tera
certainly had the right to refuse to pay and to leave if the charge
wasn't acceptable to her.

But from a mother standpoint, my thoughts are more personal. I have a
feeling that the nine-year-old son wanted to see the movie, and Tera
figured this is the only time she would be able to do it. Believe it
or not, babysitters are not always ready, willing, and available to
watch your brood while you cavort about town. I found this out last
week when my husband and I had plans to go to dinner, and my sitter
(my mom) "called in sick."

Also, Tera specifically chose a time when her child would be sleeping
and therefore less likely to disturb the other movie-goers. To me,
this shows consideration for the other movie patrons, not the other
way around.

I do think her decision to take the child to a 10 p.m. Friday night
showing probably wasn't the best, and I have a whole host of reasons
why I feel this way. (The drunk in the theater only highlights one of
them.) But who among us, parent or otherwise, hasn't been guilty of a
lapse in judgment at some point in their lives? And while her decision
may arguably lack common sense, it certainly isn't child abuse, as
some people suggested.

So, I came away with a different feeling than I orginally had about
Tera, and if my above surmisings are correct, then I think she did the
best she could under the circumstances. She tried to please her son
and to do it in a way that would allow her to take her daughter too.

But her daughter still had to pay for the movie.

Most theatres have a policy that any child 2yrs or older has to have a
ticket because its unusual for a 2yr old to sit in an adults lap the
entire length of the movie...no matter how quiet or good they are.

Check the age limit then question the cashier...if its 2yrs and older
then your 2yr old must have a ticket.

Also 2yr olds are not babies they are toddlers. But then my 22yr old
son will ALWAYS be my baby! So I get your wording on that part.

Ya know I think one of the points she was stating was the rudeness of
the ticket teller and I guess all you mothers are such great mothers
neve done anything worth of questioning, I think this woman had every
right to complain. RUDE people should not work in retail!!

I hope CPS gets wind of this because I'm pretty sure they would
consider bringing children that age to a movie that late at night to
be neglectfully bad parenting. Sounds like you need a few parenting
classes because you're not doing your children any favors with poor
decisions like this.

Old enough to fill the seat means you need to be buying a ticket.

nuf said.

Your children should not be out past midnight especially in a movie
theater! People choose to go to the movies at this time to escape from
annoying children. You deserved to be charged for your daughter, she
falls within the age range to be charged.

Don't take "babies", in your case, a toddler, to movies when they
should be in bed. Common sense and babysitters are wonderful things.
You would have had to pay for the movie even if you slept through it.

even if your intent was to hold your daughter, that is probably not
the case with most/all toddlers. I agree with the point that has
already been made, if your child attending the movie causes one less
seat to be available for others, then it makes sense to have to pay.


Also, it has been pointed out that AMC charges for 2-12, so
regardless of size, your child falls into that age range.

And finally, and I am not making any statement about the quality of
your parenting, isn't it too loud for her to sleep? I am careful
about what movies I take my kids to, just because I don't want them
hearing such loud noise for an extended time, I can't imagine anyone
really sleeping.

Children need structure and stability, being in a movie theater with a
drunk and an entitlement queen mother isn't good for them. You had
the option of asking for a manager then and there or not paying and
going home and putting your kids to bed properly. Babies should be
charged full price everywhere period whether a movie theater, museum
or airplane since they take up space and impact others.