Didn't like movie thrown off plane

[goofy4tink]

The director did do a TV version (edit) of the movie. He assumed the airline would have some additional edits made. Does the director ever have responsibility for making an airline edit?

1. Passengers like IFE.
2. I agree tablets, smartphones, laptops...suggest WiFi and seat power may be more important then IFE for some passengers.
3. Not everyone wants to watch a G movie.
4. I don't have an issue with a PG13 movie which was at least edited to broadcast TV standards.
5. Parents complained to 2 flight attendants, purser and wanted to escalate the issue to the pilot. At some point you have to accept NO as the answer.
6. Some people shouldn't fly.

United says most movies are edited. It's not clear if this movie was edited. Makes all the difference.

Finding it hard to disagree with anything here!!! Man, how nice would it be to have power at my seat, with WiFi!! I don't use my laptop simply because of the battery capacity. If I could plug in, I would be thrilled!!!

Some people just seem to feel that if they argue enough, loudly and long enough, someone will finally give them what they want, just to shut them up. We've all seen it. Was it the right choice for inflight entertainment? No. But to land the plane and inconvenience all those people? Yeah, I don't think so. We still haven't heard if the movie was, in fact, edited. Or to what extent.

 

[goofy4tink]

He acted in it, but he certainly isn't playing Madea.


Little kids can see through the gap between seats better than adults can, sometimes. I'm amazed at what my son can see in front of us. Depending on exact seat configuration, a kid could totally see a screen (and what's worse is when you THINK they can't because YOU can't, and find out later that they can...when they start asking questions).


I hope that this causes airlines to be a bit more careful in their movie selection. Interesting that the director didn't do an airline cut, and even he would have had a problem with it playing on a plane.

Sure they can see through the seats. But in all reality?? If mom and dad are giving them something interesting to do, they just aren't going to all that trouble. At least my child never did. And it does take a fair amount of work to sit, peak through that crack and actually figure out what it going on. The vast majority of kids just aren't going to go to all that trouble.

 

[sam_gordon]

The director did do a TV version (edit) of the movie. He assumed the airline would have some additional edits made. Does the director ever have responsibility for making an airline edit?

1. Passengers like IFE.
2. I agree tablets, smartphones, laptops...suggest WiFi and seat power may be more important then IFE for some passengers.
3. Not everyone wants to watch a G movie.
4. I don't have an issue with a PG13 movie which was at least edited to broadcast TV standards.
5. Parents complained to 2 flight attendants, purser and wanted to escalate the issue to the pilot. At some point you have to accept NO as the answer.
6. Some people shouldn't fly.

United says most movies are edited. It's not clear if this movie was edited. Makes all the difference.

So it's ok to say "Not everyone wants to watch a G movie" but not ok if someone doesn't want to watch a PG13 movie?

And, as I mentioned before, there are some shows that air on "broadcast TV" that I wouldn't want my younger kids watching... Family Guy comes immediately to mind, as does Revolution. I don't watch much broadcast TV, so I'm sure there are other shows that also aren't appropriate for kids <10.

As far as "when to accept 'no'", I think when you've taken it as high as you can. I don't see trying to get an answer from the pilot (isn't he in charge of everything that happens in flight?) as a big problem. Now, if the family was rude or insulting, that's different, but we don't have any information they were.

 

[goofy4tink]

So it's ok to say "Not everyone wants to watch a G movie" but not ok if someone doesn't want to watch a PG13 movie?

And, as I mentioned before, there are some shows that air on "broadcast TV" that I wouldn't want my younger kids watching... Family Guy comes immediately to mind, as does Revolution. I don't watch much broadcast TV, so I'm sure there are other shows that also aren't appropriate for kids <10.

As far as "when to accept 'no'", I think when you've taken it as high as you can. I don't see trying to get an answer from the pilot (isn't he in charge of everything that happens in flight?) as a big problem. Now, if the family was rude or insulting, that's different, but we don't have any information they were.

Okay...just for the sake of discussion. What do you suggest? Perhaps you would have everyone watch something that you deem okay for your family? Or, perhaps we should do away with IFE altogether. What happens to someone that has their iPad and they are watching something R rated. But you can see it through the crack in the seats, so even though they are in front of you, your child may still be able to see it. Does that person now have to shut it down? Or the person across the aisle? What if they are watching something you would rather your child not see, but that child can, in fact, see from his/her seat. Or sitting at the gate. The situations can go on and on.

I'm just not so sure where we draw the line at what is acceptable and what isn't. I know, for instance, that my dd knew everything there was to know about the birds and the bees from the age of 8 or so. She knew all about alternative lifestyles at the age of 10. I'm not saying that what I chose for my dd is right for everyone else. In fact, there were a lot of people that felt I had given my dd way too much information at too early an age. And that there was no way she was going to be able to understand what she had heard. Wrong...she got it all perfectly! But.....I am in no way saying that everyone else should do this!!! It isn't the right choice for everyone else. Everyone needs to decide what works for them. BUT.....where is the line for imposing your wants/needs/expectations on others? Others that may not have the same wants/needs/expectations.
I'm just curious what you would do to remedy the issue sam.

 

[Alesia]

Okay...just for the sake of discussion. What do you suggest? Perhaps you would have everyone watch something that you deem okay for your family? Or, perhaps we should do away with IFE altogether. What happens to someone that has their iPad and they are watching something R rated. But you can see it through the crack in the seats, so even though they are in front of you, your child may still be able to see it. Does that person now have to shut it down? Or the person across the aisle? What if they are watching something you would rather your child not see, but that child can, in fact, see from his/her seat. Or sitting at the gate. The situations can go on and on.

I'm just not so sure where we draw the line at what is acceptable and what isn't. I know, for instance, that my dd knew everything there was to know about the birds and the bees from the age of 8 or so. She knew all about alternative lifestyles at the age of 10. I'm not saying that what I chose for my dd is right for everyone else. In fact, there were a lot of people that felt I had given my dd way too much information at too early an age. And that there was no way she was going to be able to understand what she had heard. Wrong...she got it all perfectly! But.....I am in no way saying that everyone else should do this!!! It isn't the right choice for everyone else. Everyone needs to decide what works for them. BUT.....where is the line for imposing your wants/needs/expectations on others? Others that may not have the same wants/needs/expectations.
I'm just curious what you would do to remedy the issue sam.

I think there's a pretty clear difference between the airline doing something and other passengers doing it. A passenger could wear a shirt that says "legalize gay marriage" and there really isn't much that can be done, even though there will inevitably be other passengers that will be offended. The airline, on the other hand, shouldn't make that shirt part of their flight attendants' uniforms.

There's a time and a place for everything. When you're running a business, one of your top priorities has to be doing everything you can to not offend your customers. For example: I curse like a sailor at home, and hearing other people curse doesn't bother me in the slightest. I firmly believe that words are just words. But I don't curse when I'm dealing with customers at work because I understand that it does offend some people - it's just good customer service. In fact, not offending your customers isn't even good customer service, but the minimum standard for acceptable customer service.

They should probably just do away with IFE altogether, but, failing that, they should keep it as bland and banal as possible. While a G-rated movie isn't necessarily everyone's cup of tea, it isn't likely to actually offend anyone either.

 

[Lewisc]

So it's ok to say "Not everyone wants to watch a G movie" but not ok if someone doesn't want to watch a PG13 movie?

And, as I mentioned before, there are some shows that air on "broadcast TV" that I wouldn't want my younger kids watching... Family Guy comes immediately to mind, as does Revolution. I don't watch much broadcast TV, so I'm sure there are other shows that also aren't appropriate for kids <10.

As far as "when to accept 'no'", I think when you've taken it as high as you can. I don't see trying to get an answer from the pilot (isn't he in charge of everything that happens in flight?) as a big problem. Now, if the family was rude or insulting, that's different, but we don't have any information they were.

A PG13 movie which has been edited for airline showing is probably no longer a PG13 movie.

It's OK if someone doesn't want to watch the inflight movie. Read. Listen to your iPod. Use your computer. Bring a portable DVD player. Sleep. Just don't ask airline employees to shut off the movie, to at least part of the plane.

JMO but broadcast standards is the most people have the right to expect.

I doubt a movie without sound interests people.

 

[Greysword]

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unit...light-removes-pax-because-ife-complaints.html

LOL! I was thinking, didn't we already discuss this last week? Then I remembered it was on FT!

I can't remember the movie's name but I think it was Terry Bradshaw that had a naked rear shot.

I dunno. if I had to see a shot of Terry Bradshaw's behind, I'd probably force a diversion of the aircraft, too


On a personal note, I agree with Sam on this. Standards need to be set for TV that is visible by everyone, likely in concert with the early prime-time (8PM EST) slot. This is because the audience is essentially trapped, and it is the airline's decision to subject their passengers to the movie.

To address some comments, DanielMorgan, I think "growing a pair" is a bit simplistic. Media has changed a lot in the past couple decades, and movies deemed "risque" in the late 20th Century is now considered tame by today's standards. We wouldn't have anything near today's network TV dramas allowed in the 1970s, 80s or 90s. As such, I think it is difficult to make a comparison to them.

Honestly, there are quite a few great movies out there that the family can watch. In addition, I think airlines with common view screens could air movies from the AFI's Top 100 or the Oscar winners. There are a lot of great classic movies that would keep everyone's interest, and may be something you've never seen before. Playing The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, Rocky, Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, Citizen Kane, Singing in the Rain, Vertigo, King Kong, Ben Hur, the Universal monster movies with Bela Lagose, Lon Cheney, and Boris Karloff, even the Airplane series would be fun. All are great examples, and UA could call it their "classic" series. With today's technology, they could even provide a group of choices the plane could vote on.

You get the idea, though. There are great options the airlines could use for public showings. The main free radical is personal devices. If someone is watch a porn film next to (or in sight of) my kids, I would definitely demand the passenger stop or the FA's change our seats, even if it did cause a diversion. Otherwise, I would shift us around if another pax is watch a movie I found objectionable on their personal device.

 

[sam_gordon]

Okay...just for the sake of discussion. What do you suggest? Perhaps you would have everyone watch something that you deem okay for your family? Or, perhaps we should do away with IFE altogether. What happens to someone that has their iPad and they are watching something R rated. But you can see it through the crack in the seats, so even though they are in front of you, your child may still be able to see it. Does that person now have to shut it down? Or the person across the aisle? What if they are watching something you would rather your child not see, but that child can, in fact, see from his/her seat. Or sitting at the gate. The situations can go on and on.

I'm just not so sure where we draw the line at what is acceptable and what isn't. I know, for instance, that my dd knew everything there was to know about the birds and the bees from the age of 8 or so. She knew all about alternative lifestyles at the age of 10. I'm not saying that what I chose for my dd is right for everyone else. In fact, there were a lot of people that felt I had given my dd way too much information at too early an age. And that there was no way she was going to be able to understand what she had heard. Wrong...she got it all perfectly! But.....I am in no way saying that everyone else should do this!!! It isn't the right choice for everyone else. Everyone needs to decide what works for them. BUT.....where is the line for imposing your wants/needs/expectations on others? Others that may not have the same wants/needs/expectations.
I'm just curious what you would do to remedy the issue sam.

I agree... just for discussion... I agree with Alesia... the airlines can control what they put on the screens. You can't control what other passengers do.

I think Lewisc is close with "broadcast standards", but I feel it needs to be limited to what is shown before 9(?)PM. If I remember correctly, the standards get a little more lax after 9.

And with all due respect goofy, one of the children's ages was 4. The older one was 8. I've never seen 'Alex Cross', but if what I read on IMDB (even allowing for some editing) is close, I wouldn't want my 7 year old exposed to it.

In the situation presented, I...

A) Don't think the airline should have used that movie
B) During the flight, once the family complained, the decision on whether to turn off the movie (or only one screen IF that was an option) should go to a supervisor. If the family doesn't like that answer, they can ask the pilot to weigh in, but if the answer is still "the movie will be shown", then the family should do their best to distract the kids.

Would anyone here let their kids (and we're talking kids <9yo) watch this movie if it was on broadcast television (since that would be edited also)?

 

[maxiesmom]

My problem with all this is the over top reaction of the Pilot. Diverting the plane and having a mob of security and FBI waiting. They interviewed the parents for less then 5 minutes and then left.

I do think diverting the plane was a little nuts.

But I also think it is impossible to find a movie that 100% wont offend anyone. Some people are offended by witches, so that would rule out a large number of Disney movies. Some people don't like magic, so Harry Potter is now out. Some people don't like hunting, so the Fox and the Hound would be a no-go.

I don't think kids would be very interested in a movie without sound, especially an adult movie without sound. In reality it is not that hard to keep a child's attention away from a small screen. I would bet the parents just didn't want to have to expend the energy to do so. Sometimes being a parent sucks.

 

[RnbwSktles]

The airline should charge the family for the cost of the diversion. As a whole our skin is way too thin these days and the family was inconsiderate in delaying others. How lame are we now when a parent can't tell their kids it's make believe. It wasn't pornography the airline was showing.

Unless I missed something in the articles, I don't think the parent's intention was ever to delay their arrival to their destination. Even if they became angry and overreacted to the movie, I doubt they ever thought it would result in being thrown off the plane. It doesn't even sound like they were bothering the passengers seated near them.

I've love to hear from someone who was on the same flight.

 

[airplanegod]

You know what airlines should do with their overhead tv's? Instead of showing programs (No one watches the bloody thing anyway, and we all have our own devices now) they should just put on the flight map. That would make everyone happy. You can read/play games/watch your own movies and look up to see where your flight is. A win-win.

 

[sam_gordon]

I do think diverting the plane was a little nuts.

But I also think it is impossible to find a movie that 100% wont offend anyone. Some people are offended by witches, so that would rule out a large number of Disney movies. Some people don't like magic, so Harry Potter is now out. Some people don't like hunting, so the Fox and the Hound would be a no-go.

I don't know that finding an "inoffensive" movie should be the goal. However, finding one that is appropriate for ALL audiences should be.

I don't think kids would be very interested in a movie without sound, especially an adult movie without sound. In reality it is not that hard to keep a child's attention away from a small screen. I would bet the parents just didn't want to have to expend the energy to do so. Sometimes being a parent sucks.

I wouldn't expect a kid to sit and watch a movie if they couldn't hear it. But to be able to distract them for 100 minutes? I don't think that's realistic. I think they would at least glance at the movie from time to time (and knowing my luck, it would be at the WRONG time).

Would you watch the edited movie in your house while your kids were there with you?

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Do you have a link? Were you on the plane? Your version doesn't even match the version offered by the family. The family said they asked two flight attendants, then spoke to the purser then finally asked if the pilot had the authority to fold up a screen.


It was the article on Yahoo.....and as I said they talked to a number of attendants (and yes the purser is a attendant )later and asked.......when they were refused they dropped the matter.......this WAS FROM THE FAMILY!

It was not until later that the the passengers were told the plane diverted.

AKK

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I don't know that finding an "inoffensive" movie should be the goal. However, finding one that is appropriate for ALL audiences should be.

This!

AKK

 

[goofy4tink]

I agree... just for discussion... I agree with Alesia... the airlines can control what they put on the screens. You can't control what other passengers do.

I think Lewisc is close with "broadcast standards", but I feel it needs to be limited to what is shown before 9(?)PM. If I remember correctly, the standards get a little more lax after 9.

And with all due respect goofy, one of the children's ages was 4. The older one was 8. I've never seen 'Alex Cross', but if what I read on IMDB (even allowing for some editing) is close, I wouldn't want my 7 year old exposed to it.

In the situation presented, I...

A) Don't think the airline should have used that movie
B) During the flight, once the family complained, the decision on whether to turn off the movie (or only one screen IF that was an option) should go to a supervisor. If the family doesn't like that answer, they can ask the pilot to weigh in, but if the answer is still "the movie will be shown", then the family should do their best to distract the kids.

Would anyone here let their kids (and we're talking kids <9yo) watch this movie if it was on broadcast television (since that would be edited also)?

No, I wouldn't find it appropriate for those under 13. I'm not familiar with the movie, but I am familiar with the books, and they would be too violent for most young people...that would include anyone under 13. If you can't get into the movie theater, by yourself, then it's not a movie that should be shown where those under 13 would be present.

You know what airlines should do with their overhead tv's? Instead of showing programs (No one watches the bloody thing anyway, and we all have our own devices now) they should just put on the flight map. That would make everyone happy. You can read/play games/watch your own movies and look up to see where your flight is. A win-win.

Now there's an idea I can get behind!!! I'm always switching back and forth on JB trying to see where we are!!

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I do think diverting the plane was a little nuts.

But I also think it is impossible to find a movie that 100% wont offend anyone. Some people are offended by witches, so that would rule out a large number of Disney movies. Some people don't like magic, so Harry Potter is now out. Some people don't like hunting, so the Fox and the Hound would be a no-go.

I don't think kids would be very interested in a movie without sound, especially an adult movie without sound. In reality it is not that hard to keep a child's attention away from a small screen. I would bet the parents just didn't want to have to expend the energy to do so. Sometimes being a parent sucks.

Hi Maxiesmom,

I basically agree with everything you said!

From what I read, the family asked and was told it was not possible to shut down the screens!........end of story

The crazy part is why divert the plane. Lets be frank here, with todays security officials from TSA and the FBI there and then only interviewing the family for 5 minutes......you know there was nothing wrong with the family and the security officials were likely wondering why the pilot diverted the plane themselves.


AKK

 

[maxiesmom]

I just want to say, I love it when I'm on an aircraft that shows the location of the airplane! But I haven't seen it in a while, doesn't any airline do that anymore?

 

[goofy4tink]

I just want to say, I love it when I'm on an aircraft that shows the location of the airplane! But I haven't seen it in a while, doesn't any airline do that anymore?

Jetblue does. It's on their little in seat tv screens. I love watching it.

 

[sam_gordon]

I just want to say, I love it when I'm on an aircraft that shows the location of the airplane! But I haven't seen it in a while, doesn't any airline do that anymore?

The last three flights I took with Delta that had the personal seat back screens had the map.

I'm also lucky with Delta, I can use my personal GPS device. I like that it shows the "fastest" speed as 596MPH!

 

[goofy4tink]

The last three flights I took with Delta that had the personal seat back screens had the map.

I'm also lucky with Delta, I can use my personal GPS device. I like that it shows the "fastest" speed as 596MPH!

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.