Should Broadway Have a Ratings System- Page 4

[keen on kean]

Posted: 12/26/06 at 11:37pm

Remember that the ratings system for movies has its roots in the censorship systems that grew up with Hollywood. Before the G/PG/R etc. system, censors got to review movies and pressure studios to modify or delete things that were thought objectionable. Let's not bring any shadow of that to live theater - we will end up with pablum.

[Lizzya9]

Posted: 12/26/06 at 11:51pm

When I sat REAL theater-goer I don't mean just the people that live in NYC and go to see shows everyday, although that is one of the groups in the category of a REAL theater-goer. I also mean tourists that want to see a Broadway show. Like me, for example, I live all the way in Florida and have only seen one show, when I was 14. We (not living in NYC) appreciate Broadway FAR more than those of you that live in NYC, because we don't get to see it that often, so we cherish every moment and take in every detail of all the enchantment. The people not fitting into the REAL theater-goer category are little kids that don't even know what Broadway is until their parents drag them to the theater and when they leave - though they may take something good from it - still do not fully appreciate how magical it all is and will not remember it years from now.

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 12/26/06 at 11:59pm

I loved when i saw Boy from Oz the women next to us brought her two twin boys who had to be like 8 or 9..... she threw herself on top of them during "Continetal American" and when ever there was man on man kissing.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 12:16am

Lizzy...just because you go to Broadway once in a whenever does not necessarily mean you appreciate it more than those of us who can get there more often. I see 2-3 a year in NY, plus tours and regionals galor, yet I appreciate them tremendously, savouring every moment.

[winston89]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 12:29am

I personally don't think that there should be a rating system. Only because it pisses me off when I read that someone hated how a parent brought a kid at some young age and the person writing the post didn't think that the kid was old enough to be at the theatre. I hate it when other people think how parents should raise their kids. It's up to the parents. If the parents wanna bring a six year old to a show cus they think they would sit through it and enjoy it then that's fine. I saw my first show when I was six and that's what got me into theatre. I F*CKing hate it when there are people on this forum who bitch and moan just because a parent brought a five year old to a show. If the kid stayed quit then why the hell does the age matter. In short, there should not be any sort of raiting system for a show. If a parent wants to bring there kid to a show then they have every right to buy a ticket to whatever show they wanna bring their kids to. I think there should be guidlines just letting the parents know what the show contains and let them make the final call. But it's bull**** to not let a kid in and to have a group of people do the job of parenting and not let the parents make these kinds of choices for their own kids.

End of angry rant, sorry but I HAD to get this off my chest

[Lizzya9]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 10:56am

It is all the parents' choice, why should we care what other peoples' kids are exposed to?? They're not our kids so it doesn't matter. If the child get somehow damaged from seeing an explicit show it is the parents' loss, they have all the resources they need to figure out if a show is appropriate or not. If a parent is stupid enough to take an 8 year old to Spring Awakening then it is their fault, why should we be concerned at all??

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 11:10am

"We (not living in NYC) appreciate Broadway FAR more than those of you that live in NYC, because we don't get to see it that often, so we cherish every moment and take in every detail of all the enchantment."

How dare you make such a ignorant, self-serving statement. You have absolutely no right NOR any facts to support your statement that you are more appreciative of theatre thatn anyone else. Hell, before I moved to New York, I came here about twice a year just to see shows. And I lived in Chiacago, arguable the largest theater market in the country. There are many, as you called them, real theater-goers that may not appreciate certain shows, does that mean they wasted a seat? Taste is not clear cut, balck and white. Many people only go to see shows like Cats and The Lion King for costumes because thats the only thing that's unarguably good about those shows...a person goes to a theatre, a movie, a concert for their own personal reasons, and what they get out of it is up to their tastes and standards, and who are you to define it for them?
Updated On: 12/27/06 at 11:10 AM

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 11:10am

Lizzya9 I think your being hypocritical. First you said anybody under 10 shouldn't see a show. Then you said anybody under 6 shouldn't see a show. Now you say its the parents choice. I find it strange all you care about are Disney shows(which are aimed at families and young children)and then say you don't like young children at shows.

"The people not fitting into the REAL theater-goer category are little kids that don't even know what Broadway is until their parents drag them to the theater and when they leave - though they may take something good from it - still do not fully appreciate how magical it all is and will not remember it years from now."

So what if parents are dragging their young children to show. Maybe the child will love it and it will lead to a fascination with theater. Maybe a child won't remember seeing the show but, they'll remember the excitement in the theater or maybe they'll remember a few moments in the show. I don't think there is such a thing as a "real" theatergoer.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 11:15am

Yes! Absolutely! EVERY aspect of American artistic culture should have a ratings system!! Ballets! Art exhibits! We can't be infantilized enough! MORE! MORE!! GO REACTIONARIES GO!!

I can't believe you people are taking this asinine suggestion seriously.

Updated On: 12/27/06 at 11:15 AM

[purpleprince101]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 11:23am

"We (not living in NYC) appreciate Broadway FAR more than those of you that live in NYC, because we don't get to see it that often, so we cherish every moment and take in every detail of all the enchantment."


I also find that very offensive. In fact many live in the New York Area just to be in Broadway Productions.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 12:28pm

"I also find that very offensive. In fact many live in the New York Area just to be in Broadway Productions."

Or even simply to just be able to go see them with more frequency.

[Zeitoujo]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 12:30pm

No one under 10 should be allowed in a Broadway show because under that age they cannot fully appreciate it or understand what is going on.

that is complete nonsense, i as well as many other people on this board disagree with that general statement completely! for me my passion for broadway started when i saw show after show and actually started to appreciate what each show had to offer and its themes. kids CAN understand just as much as adults if not more in certain shows and i disagree completely with that statement.

[purpleprince101]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 12:32pm

agreed Fosse76

[Sapsorrow]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 12:55pm

Lizzya9, by your logic, no one should ever do anything for children – not take them to museums, not show them movies, not read them books, not sing them songs – because they won't be able to fully appreciate the nuances of each art form. Do you remember all the details of the first movie you ever saw? Did you grasp any underlying subtext? Did you pause to marvel at the skill of the actors? I doubt it. So, following your train of thought, what was the point of you seeing that movie in the first place? Should we keep kids away from all forms of knowledge and expression until they’re old enough to "appreciate it"? And at what exact age does that nebulous ability magically manifest itself?

The first show I ever saw was a touring company of "Les Miserables" when I was four. I didn't quite understand everything, but I knew that I liked it; loved it, actually. Does the fact that much of the material was over my head exclude four-year-old me from the "real theatergoer" category? Does that mean that non-English speakers who see a show on Broadway are less entitled to a seat since they probably don't fully grasp the specifics of what's occurring onstage? Again, what constitutes this so-called "appreciation" capacity? Is it simply the fact that you're knowledgeable and enthusiastic about the subject matter or medium? No one has more of a right to theater than anyone else; that's like saying that I have more of a right to read Lewis Carroll's "Alice" books than you just because I'm a well-informed Dodgson enthusiast.

Correct me if I'm wrong Lizzya9, but I'm getting the impression that you yourself are rather young - probably no older than seventeen. If this is true, then you're also part of an age group that's often compartmentalized by the masses. There are many people who believe that teenagers generally aren't capable of truly appreciating most legitimate theater; that their reactions to things are mindless and knee-jerk and hormone-driven. Should teenagers, then, be barred from shows unless they can conclusively prove that they have a valid, intelligent, thoughtful opinion about each one? Who would be qualified to judge THAT?

Personally, I don't think children should be introduced to some of the elements seen in shows like "Rent" or "Avenue Q", and when they are it should be with much discussion and rational explanation on the part of the parent or guardian involved. But to say that kids shouldn't see shows at ALL – that introducing them to theater before they're in the double digits is a waste of time and money – is the most ludicrous and, frankly, ignorant thing I've heard in some time.

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 4:39pm

Wow Sapsorrow that was amazing.

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 3/22/11 at 7:10pm

I decided to bump this thread because recently, it has occurred to me how flawed the "rating" system for Broadway shows is. They are either "appropriate for all ages" or "only appropriate for ages 13 and up", which is so confusing, because many people interpret the latter as PG-13. It also classifies shows in a very black and white way.

A few weeks ago, my high school's band went on a trip to New York, and during their stay, they saw American Idiot. Not previously realizing its content, the band director decided to remove all 160 students from the audience halfway through the show. He said he researched online and it said it would be rated PG-13 and that he definitely disagreed with that. Ironically, the band director's family just went to see the national tour of Hair and left during intermission because of its content. Now, how someone can see Hair without realizing that it contains, among other material, full-frontal nudity, is beyond me, but the website says that the show is appropriate for ages 13 and older, even though it does mention the nudity.

Seeing this happen twice to the same clueless parent makes me wonder if a rating system is what Broadway needs. Each show tries to sell to everybody it can, so a lot of the time, shows sound a lot more appropriate for children than they actually are. I realize that there are four pages of your thoughts in this thread already, but seeing as this thread is pretty old, I'm curious what some newer posters's opinions about this are.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 3/22/11 at 7:13pm

Sounds more like the parent/teacher's laziness rather than the ratings. They're just a guide, read more about the show than just a one sentence blurb.