Didn't like movie thrown off plane

[sam_gordon]

Were those longer flights? Over 3 hrs? I know they were putting the old Song planes on the cross country flights. I loved those planes.

Let's see...

Atlanta to Cancun (and return)
Denver to Atlanta
And one time Orlando to Atlanta.

 

[Lewisc]

The parents first asked if a different movie could be shown, at least on the screen in front of their family.

I'm not sure what this quote means.

. The flight continued without incident, while my wife and I engaged our children to divert their attention from the horrific scenes on the movie screens.

It's pretty easy to avoid looking at the screen. No reason the parents had to look at the "horrific" scenes. No mention of playing cards with the kids, reading a book, doing homework, drawing...I wonder if the "diversion" had an adverse impact on passengers in the area.

I wonder if the parents had the kids looking forward to being on a movie flight. Otherwise whatever activities the parents had planned would have solved the issue.

Assume the movie was an edited version. Chances are kids see that kind scenes during the coming abstractions before movies. Maybe that types of scenes of movies/TV they see in friends houses.

edited to add: I've always found a channel on the IFE system which shows your flight status with the map. You just have to look for it. Maybe that used to be the default program when you turned on the display.

 

[Alesia]

It's pretty easy to avoid looking at the screen. No reason the parents had to look at the "horrific" scenes. No mention of playing cards with the kids, reading a book, doing homework, drawing...I wonder if the "diversion" had an adverse impact on passengers in the area.

Following that logic, one can only assume that you would be fine with the airline showing porn on the overhead screens. After all, It's easy for anyone to avoid looking at the screen if they don't want to see it. And any parent worth their salt can keep their child from seeing it.

If you're going to have young children on a plane, it's unwise to show a movie that most reasonable people would find unsuitable for small children. Period.

The only real reason to divert a flight is if the passengers were causing a security risk - this family wasn't. We know that because the FBI determined that they were not a security risk. The logical conclusion is that the pilot is a jerk and cost the airline twenty grand and caused a lot of people unnecessary stress because he was annoyed.

And, by the way, why did the flight attendants even bother the pilot with this at all? They could have walked to the front of the plane, pretended to ask the pilot, came back and offered a very sweet, "I'm so sorry, but the pilot says that there's nothing we can do," given the kids some pilot wings, and been done with it. It's not a perfect solution for the customer, but it probably would have mollified them. When you work in any customer service related field, you're going to have to deal with ridiculously annoying people sometimes - it's just part of the job.

 

[Lewisc]

Following that logic, one can only assume that you would be fine with the airline showing porn on the overhead screens. After all, It's easy for anyone to avoid looking at the screen if they don't want to see it. And any parent worth their salt can keep their child from seeing it.

If you're going to have young children on a plane, it's unwise to show a movie that most reasonable people would find unsuitable for small children. Period.

The only real reason to divert a flight is if the passengers were causing a security risk - this family wasn't. We know that because the FBI determined that they were not a security risk. The logical conclusion is that the pilot is a jerk and cost the airline twenty grand and caused a lot of people unnecessary stress because he was annoyed.

And, by the way, why did the flight attendants even bother the pilot with this at all? They could have walked to the front of the plane, pretended to ask the pilot, came back and offered a very sweet, "I'm so sorry, but the pilot says that there's nothing we can do," given the kids some pilot wings, and been done with it. It's not a perfect solution for the customer, but it probably would have mollified them. When you work in any customer service related field, you're going to have to deal with ridiculously annoying people sometimes - it's just part of the job.

Kids good news. We booked a movie flight.... Sorry that movie is so bad I don't want to glance at that screen, even for a second. I asked the bad people running the airline to show a different movie but they said NO. See the people around us agree the movie is bad but they still won't shut off the movie. Don't look at that screen.

Without sound prepared parents shouldn't have an issue, even if the movie was "porn". That wasn't the case. I have no issue if the airline is showing a movie which was edited to meet broadcast television standards. I think that's a reasonable basis. The basis isn't a movie every passenger would enjoy watching. The basis isn't even a movie every parent thinks their child, regardless of age, should watch. I understand some parents would prefer their kids not watch those movies. They need to be prepared. My memory is parts of Skyfall might not be appropriate for very young kids. I assume most, but maybe not all, of those scenes were edited out.

Why was the plane diverted? We'll never know. I was hoping some of the passengers on the plane would be posting on FT. Behavior which might have caused the diversion could have been an issue include the parents trying to force the screen up, refusing to return to their seats when directed or bothering other passengers. Could the flight crew have over reacted? Also possible.

Airlines have been showing edited versions of PG13 movies for years. Watch it or ignore it. I have the opposite problem. I find the movies hard to watch, from almost half the seats viewable from a given screen. Movies aren't easy to watch even if it's a movie you want to watch. No sound. Really not an issue.

edited to add:
again United says most films are edited for airline use. We know an edited version, for broadcast, is available. It's reasonable to assume that is the version which was shown.

 

[DVCismyhappyplace]

I just find this whole thing ridiculous.

We don't know what truly was going on in the cabin as far as the level of disturbance being caused by the parents. As far as the captain diverting the plane - it's his or her ship. If he or she felt there was a "threat" in any way, they have that right. That "threat" does not always mean a physical threat. The parents were complaining to the flight attendants loud enough for other passengers to haer. You have 130± people on a plane who probably don't want to hear it for an entire flight. That is a situation that can easily deteriorate over a few hours.

I understand parents being upset at things that their children witness. However, life is not G-rated. I'm sure there were some people on that flight who were enjoying the movie. Why should someone else be inconvenienced?

Diverting the flight was probably overkill. The parents continuing to complain and ask that the movie be turned off was too.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

From February 1 to 15, 2013, the airline-edited version of Alex Cross was shown on every eastbound United Airlines flight (long enough for a movie) in North America, if the flight was operated with an aircraft equipped with shared, drop-down movie screens (rather than individual seat-back screens that can be turned off). Then, during the second half of February 2013, the airline-edited version of Alex Cross was United's eastbound movie for Hawaii flight on aircraft with drop-down screens. By the way, every United flight is classified as eastbound or westbound, even if the direction is primarily north or south.

United carries 140.4 million passengers per year (based on 2012). We could estimate the number of passengers on flights that showed Alex Cross on drop-down screens by making assumptions and doing some math. The assumptions would include what percentage of United flights in North America are long enough for a feature length movie and what percentage of the United Fleet have drop-down screens.

We can quibble about the assumptions and the results of the math, but the number is likely to be around a half million to a million passengers.

In other words, a lot of passengers were exposed to the airline-edited version of Alex Cross.

We'll never know how many passengers objected. There was only one incident that made the news. I'm not defending United. I'm just trying to add some perspective.

Here's the reaction from Rob Cohen, the director of Alex Cross:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...film-that-made-a-pilot-divert-a-plane/274745/

 

[goofy4tink]

Let's see...

Atlanta to Cancun (and return)
Denver to Atlanta
And one time Orlando to Atlanta.

Okay..some longish flights, some not so long. Interesting.

Anyway....seriously guys. Parents can decide for themselves what their children will be allowed to watch. And yes, you should be able to expect a movie on board, for general viewing, that all ages can comfortably watch. It is not up to anyone to decide for someone else what their children can watch. We don't all have to agree on what is considered okay. But we do need to use common courtesy when conflicts arise.

I have no idea why the pilot decided this was a good enough reason to divert the flight. Makes little to no sense to me. But, I wasn't there. And the airline hasn't called me, yet, to let me know how their thought process goes. I also think the parents should have taken the first no, we can't do that and gone on to engage their own kids. Perhaps the children were looking forward to a movie on the flight.
This is what I have found on UA site, regarding their inflight entertainment.

most films have been edited for
airline use. however, customer
discretion is still advised. content
guidelines are provided as a courtesy
to help our customers decide
whether to view a film.
customers Are welcome to view
their own video entertainment aboard
a United aircraft as long as they are
able to show that the programming
has an mpaa rating of“r” or less.
what do you thinK of our
programming? we’re open to
suggestions. Please send them
to play@united.comor visit
united.com/play.

There is also a listing of movies to be shown for the coming month.

 

[Betty Rohrer]

based on the site of this post, i am guessing that most parents would not object to The Lion King being shown. well one of my grandson's friends was not allowed to watch until 3rd grade. parents felt it was to violent for their kids. where do you draw the line. i rmember flying cross country when daughters now mothers of said grandsons, were kids and not liking the movie being shown and this was before DVD players. just had to entertain them in other ways. never got lucky to have what i would consider a child friendly movie

 

[sam_gordon]

based on the site of this post, i am guessing that most parents would not object to The Lion King being shown. well one of my grandson's friends was not allowed to watch until 3rd grade. parents felt it was to violent for their kids. where do you draw the line. i rmember flying cross country when daughters now mothers of said grandsons, were kids and not liking the movie being shown and this was before DVD players. just had to entertain them in other ways. never got lucky to have what i would consider a child friendly movie

You bring up a valid point. BUT, again I go back to airlines need to find 'appropriate' movies for ALL passengers, not something that everyone can agree on. To me, and I admit I'm saying this without seeing the movie much less the edited version, Alex Cross is not appropriate. The Lion King is rated 'G'. I feel anything 'G' rated is safe.

For me, the line is around the 'PG' and 'PG13' rating.

Would anyone here willingly watch Alex Cross (even the broadcast version) at home while kids were around and could see (even as they walk from room to room)?

 

[maxiesmom]

You bring up a valid point. BUT, again I go back to airlines need to find 'appropriate' movies for ALL passengers, not something that everyone can agree on. To me, and I admit I'm saying this without seeing the movie much less the edited version, Alex Cross is not appropriate. The Lion King is rated 'G'. I feel anything 'G' rated is safe.

For me, the line is around the 'PG' and 'PG13' rating.

Would anyone here willingly watch Alex Cross (even the broadcast version) at home while kids were around and could see (even as they walk from room to room)?

But they didn't show the broadcast version, did they? So I don't see what that has to do with anything. I don't mean that in a nasty way, but I don't see how that has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

And what you find appropriate another family may not. That is my point, there is no single movie you can know each and every person will find appropriate.

 

[sam_gordon]

But they didn't show the broadcast version, did they? So I don't see what that has to do with anything. I don't mean that in a nasty way, but I don't see how that has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

Actually we don't know what version they showed.

And what you find appropriate another family may not. That is my point, there is no single movie you can know each and every person will find appropriate.

Mary Poppins?

I think it's safe to say 95%+ of people would say a 'G' movie is appropriate for all audiences. I don't think you'd get nearly that response to a PG, much less a PG13.

 

[ParrotBill]

edited to add: I've always found a channel on the IFE system which shows your flight status with the map. You just have to look for it. Maybe that used to be the default program when you turned on the display.

On this plane, there was only one system showing one movie on all screens. Only 757s and similar equipped for long distance have individual monitors which can be controlled.

I would like to know who is responsible for Airline film edits (if it was edited) and certifying the age suitability. The airlines should take notice of the Director of this film saying it was inappropriate to show to a captive audience with children and no choice.

 

[sam_gordon]

On this plane, there was only one system showing one movie on all screens. Only 757s and similar equipped for long distance have individual monitors which can be controlled.

I would like to know who is responsible for Airline film edits (if it was edited) and certifying the age suitability. The airlines should take notice of the Director of this film saying it was inappropriate to show to a captive audience with children and no choice.

They talked about it on the Today show this morning and a producer(?) said she had been on a plane that aired the movie and she wouldn't have wanted her kids to see it (presumably the edited version).

 

[Lewisc]

Not sure if it's only an "internet fact"...some posters on flyertalk say the parents were trying to push the screen up. I find it hard to believe the pilot diverted the plane based solely on what the family said transpired.

You bring up a valid point. BUT, again I go back to airlines need to find 'appropriate' movies for ALL passengers, not something that everyone can agree on. To me, and I admit I'm saying this without seeing the movie much less the edited version, Alex Cross is not appropriate. The Lion King is rated 'G'. I feel anything 'G' rated is safe.

For me, the line is around the 'PG' and 'PG13' rating.

Would anyone here willingly watch Alex Cross (even the broadcast version) at home while kids were around and could see (even as they walk from room to room)?

Drop down screens for IFE are going the way of the dinosaur. I suspect business fliers care little about the choice of movie. I don't agree with your point. The purpose of the movie is to keep customers happy. That means editing a movie so normal kids who happen to glance up at a picture on a small screen don't see something totally inappropriate. It doesn't mean showing a movie they enjoy watching or even a movie which is appropriate for them to watch. Tell me the movie is Alex Cross. I won't watch but no big deal. Tell us the airline is only showing G rated Disney movies and fliers will think the plane will be filled with kids. Business fliers might like to avoid that flight. Again the goal isn't to find a movie the entire plane wants to watch, never going to happen.

Poll business fliers. Ask if they'd rather see Alex Cross or Mary Poppins. I suspect most would vote "none of the above" or would skip the question. I have little doubt movies like Alex Cross and Skyfall would get more votes then Mary Poppins.

At home...Bogus comparison Would I put that movie on a 65" set with surround sound if young kids were walking around the house. Maybe not. Would I care if my wife or older sibling (over 21 if you insist) was watching the movie on an iPad with headphones. Not at all.

But they didn't show the broadcast version, did they? So I don't see what that has to do with anything. I don't mean that in a nasty way, but I don't see how that has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

And what you find appropriate another family may not. That is my point, there is no single movie you can know each and every person will find appropriate.

We know United shows edited versions of the majority of the movies. We know a version edited for television was available. I started this thread. For the sake of discussion we should assume an edited version was shown. Otherwise there isn't any disagreement. I don't think any poster thinks the theatrical version should have been aired on drop down screens.

On this plane, there was only one system showing one movie on all screens. Only 757s and similar equipped for long distance have individual monitors which can be controlled.

I would like to know who is responsible for Airline film edits (if it was edited) and certifying the age suitability. The airlines should take notice of the Director of this film saying it was inappropriate to show to a captive audience with children and no choice.

The question was if the "status" screens were still available at all.. I think some airlines show it after the movie is finished.

The director isn't responsible for assigning the theatrical PG13 rating.

They talked about it on the Today show this morning and a producer(?) said she had been on a plane that aired the movie and she wouldn't have wanted her kids to see it (presumably the edited version).

There isn't any upside for anyone saying the movie was OK for their kids to watch. That's not even the question. The question is if the version of the movie shown is so offensive people, not just kids, who aren't watching the movie will be harmed if the glance up at the screen.

Don't buy the headphones and make sure your kid has something else to do/watch. Problem solved.

 

[sam_gordon]

Not sure if it's only an "internet fact"...some posters on flyertalk say the parents were trying to push the screen up. I find it hard to believe the pilot diverted the plane based solely on what the family said transpired.

I agree with you. But it's hard in this day and age to believe the family was interviewed for 5 minutes on the ground and then put onto another flight if they were truly considered a threat.

Drop down screens for IFE are going the way of the dinosaur. I suspect business fliers care little about the choice of movie. I don't agree with your point. The purpose of the movie is to keep customers happy. That means editing a movie so normal kids who happen to glance up at a picture on a small screen don't see something totally inappropriate. It doesn't mean showing a movie they enjoy watching or even a movie which is appropriate for them to watch. Tell me the movie is Alex Cross. I won't watch but no big deal. Tell us the airline is only showing G rated Disney movies and fliers will think the plane will be filled with kids. Business fliers might like to avoid that flight. Again the goal isn't to find a movie the entire plane wants to watch, never going to happen.

Where did I say they should find a movie everyone wants to watch? Where did I say airlines should only be allowed to show G rated Disney movies? Where did I say the movies had to be something kids would enjoy? I said to me, the "line" is somewhere around PG/PG13. It depends on the movie. There are PG13 movies I wouldn't have a problem with my younger kids watching while there are PG movies I'd rather they avoid.

Poll business fliers. Ask if they'd rather see Alex Cross or Mary Poppins. I suspect most would vote "none of the above" or would skip the question. I have little doubt movies like Alex Cross and Skyfall would get more votes then Mary Poppins.

I don't know what you're trying to prove here. I'm sure adults would rather watch more "adult" oriented movies. So? Heck, I'd rather watch PG13 movies too. That doesn't mean I watch the movies when/where my kids are exposed to them.

At home...Bogus comparison Would I put that movie on a 65" set with surround sound if young kids were walking around the house. Maybe not. Would I care if my wife or older sibling (over 21 if you insist) was watching the movie on an iPad with headphones. Not at all.

MY comparison is bogus, but equating watching a movie on a 7" personal screen is valid?

There isn't any upside for anyone saying the movie was OK for their kids to watch. That's not even the question. The question is if the version of the movie shown is so offensive people, not just kids, who aren't watching the movie will be harmed if the glance up at the screen.

Oh, BS. There are plenty of people who would be willing to say "the movie wasn't as bad as others made it out to be". Funny, we haven't heard ONE person make that claim.

Don't buy the headphones and make sure your kid has something else to do/watch. Problem solved.

So, by using that argument, R rated (if not higher) movies should be allowed on the screens. Got it.

 

[Lewisc]

I agree with you. But it's hard in this day and age to believe the family was interviewed for 5 minutes on the ground and then put onto another flight if they were truly considered a threat.

The witnesses were already in the air. The family appeared calm. The fact that they weren't arrested doesn't mean anything, either way. Either the family "understated"their behavior or the crew over reacted. Parent asked if one screen could be raised and was told it wasn't possible. Later the story was they wouldn't. Sounds plausible to beleive the posters who said the family tried to raise the screen.[/QUOTE]

Where did I say they should find a movie everyone wants to watch? Where did I say airlines should only be allowed to show G rated Disney movies? Where did I say the movies had to be something kids would enjoy? I said to me, the "line" is somewhere around PG/PG13. It depends on the movie. There are PG13 movies I wouldn't have a problem with my younger kids watching while there are PG movies I'd rather they avoid.
[/QUOTE]

You said they need to find "appropriate" movies for all ages. That suggests a movie which is appropriate for young kids to watch. That suggests a movie rated G, or edited to be G.

My line is a movie which meets broadcast standards.. Maybe you don't want your kid watching it but glancing at the screen or seeing a few seconds while you channel surf shouldn't be an issue.

I don't know what you're trying to prove here. I'm sure adults would rather watch more "adult" oriented movies. So? Heck, I'd rather watch PG13 movies too. That doesn't mean I watch the movies when/where my kids are exposed to them.

MY comparison is bogus, but equating watching a movie on a 7" personal screen is valid?

A small screen and no sound. That's going to hold a kids attention? Would you rather I said a 12" TV set on a nightstand? Without sound people don't watch movies.

Oh, BS. There are plenty of people who would be willing to say "the movie wasn't as bad as others made it out to be". Funny, we haven't heard ONE person make that claim.

So, by using that argument, R rated (if not higher) movies should be allowed on the screens. Got it.

The question is if a movie has one or more scenes so graphic that reasonable parents would have an issue if a their kid even got a glance. Movie is edited to broadcast standards, or lower. You could get a similar glance via channel surfing. Good enough for me.

I don't care if the movie is suitable for kids to watch. The issue is if the real "bad" scenes have been cut so a glance at the screen isn't a big issue for most people.

 

[sam_gordon]

You said they need to find "appropriate" movies for all ages. That suggests a movie which is appropriate for young kids to watch. That suggests a movie rated G, or edited to be G.

It might SUGGEST that to you, except I came right back and said, "to me, the line is around PG/PG13, and should be decided on a movie by movie basis." Anything G rated is automatically 'ok'.

A small screen and no sound. That's going to hold a kids attention? Would you rather I said a 12" TV set on a nightstand? Without sound people don't watch movies.

And we're not talking about watching a movie. We're talking about kids glancing up and seeing inappropriate scenes. If those scenes have been edited out, fine. Haven't heard anything other than "the movie has been edited".

The question is if a movie has one or more scenes so graphic that reasonable parents would have an issue if a their kid even got a glance. Movie is edited to broadcast standards, or lower. You could get a similar glance via channel surfing. Good enough for me.

But as has been brought up before, "broadcast standards" vary on time of day. Is it suitable to be on TV at 8pm? Or is it suitable to be on TV at 10pm? You have noticed the more "risque" shows air at 10pm (or is it 9?). You think there's a reason for that?

The issue is if the real "bad" scenes have been cut so a glance at the screen isn't a big issue for most people.

Agreed, 100%! However, we don't know whether they have or not. Did the parents complain after viewing part of the movie? Did they complain after reading about the movie on IMDB? Did they complain after reading about the movie in the in flight magazine?

 

[C&G'sMama]

Drive, then you can control what your kids watch. And I have two children and we're very conservative when it comes to the movies they can watch. Kids aren't the only ones on the plane and we can't expect everyone to sterilize their world.

And BTW, we drive, not because of the movies.

 

[goofy4tink]

Parents have different standards. I have no issue at all with nudity. I do have an issue with gratuitous violence. So, by my standards, there are going to be some parents that are going to be outraged by something I have no issue with. While, I will be outraged by something that someone else may find to be fine.
Just the way it is. When we went to college, to see dd perform for the first time, my dh was horrified to find his little girl, sitting on a stage, in a teddy, making 'bedroom noises'..if you catch my drift. The young man seated close to her, was in boxer shorts, making appropriate response noises. It was, well...out there. Dh wanted to run away. When I told another parent about this, he told me that there is no way he would have allowed his dd to continue doing theatre there...that what we had seen had gone quite over the edge into tasteless-ness and she should have been removed from the program. Needless to say she is still in the program and we are (well I am, dh not so much) looking forward to seeing her in Avenue Q at the end of the month. Obviously, different strokes for different folks. Not everyone is going to agree on what's appropriate.

I am going to assume that the movie in question did have an airline edit. Was it enough to appease families? No idea. It may be time to stop showing movies at all. Do away with those stupid 'group screens'. They're miserable to watch anyway!!! Put in power at the seats which will in turn allow people to bring their own entertainment. No need to worry about battery life that way. I would do that in a heartbeat if I didn't have to worry about my battery running down. And no, I refuse to buy an extra battery just for flying!!!

 

[sam_gordon]

Parents have different standards. I have no issue at all with nudity. I do have an issue with gratuitous violence. So, by my standards, there are going to be some parents that are going to be outraged by something I have no issue with. While, I will be outraged by something that someone else may find to be fine.
Just the way it is. When we went to college, to see dd perform for the first time, my dh was horrified to find his little girl, sitting on a stage, in a teddy, making 'bedroom noises'..if you catch my drift. The young man seated close to her, was in boxer shorts, making appropriate response noises. It was, well...out there. Dh wanted to run away. When I told another parent about this, he told me that there is no way he would have allowed his dd to continue doing theatre there...that what we had seen had gone quite over the edge into tasteless-ness and she should have been removed from the program. Needless to say she is still in the program and we are (well I am, dh not so much) looking forward to seeing her in Avenue Q at the end of the month. Obviously, different strokes for different folks. Not everyone is going to agree on what's appropriate.

"It"? I understand your DH wanting to leave. However, I would not have made the comment the other parent did. By the time kids are in college, they can make their own decisions (with rare exception). However, if that show was in high school, different story.

I am going to assume that the movie in question did have an airline edit. Was it enough to appease families? No idea. It may be time to stop showing movies at all. Do away with those stupid 'group screens'. They're miserable to watch anyway!!! Put in power at the seats which will in turn allow people to bring their own entertainment. No need to worry about battery life that way. I would do that in a heartbeat if I didn't have to worry about my battery running down. And no, I refuse to buy an extra battery just for flying!!!

I can get behind that!