Top Stories
You can't tell what a show or movie will be like based on title alone. Sure, "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 15: The New Blood" probably won't make it through your parent filters, but what about those shows with confusing names? You know, the ones you hear in the back of your mind and don't even give a second thought to the mind-melting it's about to inflict on your child? Well, it happens, and we're all here for it.
Reddit user, u/Sylvizard, wanted to hear the saddest screenings you've had when they asked:
Parents of Reddit, when was your worst case of not checking a show before showing it to your kids?
Maybe Skip The First 15 Minutes For Younger Viewers...
Giphy
Shazam. For my 11 year old autistic son who is a big fan of superheroes. Everyone kept talk about how heartwarming and family oriented it was. I thought I was in the clear... until... a woman was incinerated and her flesh melted off and turned to charcoal dust... and then we were introduced to 7 demons which represented the 7 deadly sins. One of the demons bit the head off a man in a boardroom.
My son freaked the ever loving freak out.
You Grow And You Learn. Hopefully.
My Dad to me and my brother to see Wayne's World in the theater. I was 10, my brother was maybe 14.
Upon rewatch as an adult I actually understood the jokes. Not really appropriate for a 10 year old, IMO.
Edited to add: My husband totally thought it was fine to let the 5 year old and 3 year old watch Raiders of the Lost Ark, because "it's not that scary!" I then had to remind him of the part where THE NAZI DUDE'S FACE MELTS OFF.
And Then They Remade It!?
When I was a kid, it was Watership Down. I still remember the horror. Cute bunnies on the cover, but an absolute bloodbath filled with disturbing imagery awaits.
As a parent myself, YouTube! You really never know what you're getting on YouTube. There's plenty of great content for kids, but they're always just a few clicks away from a Holocaust documentary or true crime footage.
When You Can't Trust Anyone
I checked, but the response was misleading. A South American friend highly recommended this art film; the title was "Black God, White Devil". I asked if it were suitable for young children. She said that it was totally suitable; no problem. So I took my wife and kids, aged 5 and 6.
Just as they were preparing to hack a baby to death with a machete on screen, I yelled at my wife and kids and we ran out.
"How did anyone think that was appropriate for young kids?" I wondered. Still wondering.
Come On Now, It's Just...The Devil...
I have a much younger sister and let her watch "Rosemary's Baby" with me when she was five and I was old enough that I should have known to read the plot summary beforehand.
Emilio!
I played the Mighty Ducks to a group of first graders I was subbing for.
There's quite a few bad words I had forgotten about.
Freddy's Gonna Get You...
When I was about 6 or so my mom and dad had company over and were all sitting around the kitchen table drinking coffee and talking.
My sister and I kept running around and being loud and interrupting the adults, and after many repeated warnings to be quieter my dad escorted us into the living room, assigned us each a seat, and told us to be quiet and not to get up, and that the next time we interrupted them we'd get spanked. Then he turned on the TV and left.
We preceded to see some sort of sex scene where a woman pulled out a guy's tongue and used it to tie him to his bed. Then the BBEG appeared.... It was Freddy Krueger!
NSFW: The Scene.
We cried for him and he came in mad, but then saw what was on TV and apologized lol.
But, Chimichangas?
Giphy
My kids insisted I take them to Deadpool because their friends saw it.
Being the nice why not you're only a kid once kind of dad I am, I sat through too many awkward gratuitous sex scenes and made them promise we wouldn't say anything to mom but they were cool about the whole thing.
Watching Someone Else Goof Up
I worked at a movie theatre once upon a time. I was working as an usher this particular night, so once the run of showings started, things got quiet for me.
Until some dad came storming out of a theatre with his wife and kids in tow, ranting about how he thought they were seeing a cowboy movie.
Brokeback Mountain ain't for everyone.
You REALLY Messed Up There....
Happy Tree Friends
Was hoping for this comment, thank you for traumatising your children for our entertainment.
Oh this ain't SO bad...
Blazing Saddles.
Anything by Mel Brooks! Spaceballs is also not appropriate for children. Woops.
I adored spaceballs growing up but as a little kid i just would say "I wanna see balls". Lot of embaressment on my moms part
Roger is the best.
Well My friend told me once that his parents didn't know what American Dad was and they let him watch it downstairs while they were upstairs one time (He was About 7 years old at the time )and then about 3 days later his mom told him she was doing the dishes and he said: "Yeah you do that bitch." He didn't know what curse words were until he watched American Dad. His mom got pisssssed.
Oh God
Sausage Party.
That's the worst one possible in this situation.
Wurst?
Grisly
My parents let me watch Robocop when I was about 6.
Funny enough, it wasn't the massive gun fights, or the dude turning into toxic waste when hit by a car, or the blood, but when Robocop took off his mask thing. That freaked me out horribly and gave me nightmares.
I didn't know Robocop wasn't a family-friendly movie until about 2 years ago. I still haven't seen it, but when I was a toddler my slightly older cousins were obsessed with it.
Frank n beans, hair gel
When I was a kid, we were taken to watch Something about Mary. HAHA then quickly left to watch cats vs dogs.
I first saw parts of that movie (Something about Mary) when I was younger (around 10 y/o) and always wondered why her hair was standing up like that... only just realized a few years ago after re watching it as an adult what it was (0.0)
Twitter user @Rich_Cooper stated:
"Dear feminists. You either get equality or chivalry. You can't have both."
Dear feminists. You either get equality or chivalry. You can't have both.— Richard Cooper (@Richard Cooper) 1536083523.0
One user responded:
"I'll take equality. I don't need special treatment."
@Rich_Cooper #BenevolentSexism is still #sexism. I'll take equality. I don't need special treatment.— ☮️ Minkajane ☮️ (@☮️ Minkajane ☮️) 1537276790.0
Cooper's rhetorical question did not go over so well. Both women and men expressed their disdain for his message.
One male user observed that chivalry was irrelevant and treating everyone with kindness and respect was compulsory.
"What people care about is caring, empathic [sic], considerate, thoughtful people, NOT whether THEIR door is held for them or THEIR meal is paid for them."
"Are there gender stereotypes in het[erosexual] dating? Sure. But that's separate from being a warm, giving, caring, grounded person."
@Rich_Cooper What people care about is caring, empathic, considerate, thoughtful people, NOT whether THEIR door is… https://t.co/wlGHWRzKLi— Mark W. Wilson, MD (@Mark W. Wilson, MD) 1537276816.0
Some women got right down to the point.
@Rich_Cooper Translation: I will only be nice to you if you agree to be subservient to me— Elizabeth Noll (@Elizabeth Noll) 1537292709.0
@Rich_Cooper Gotta love when a man tells women what they can and can't have. Thanks for the heads up buddy 😉 https://t.co/gDMJscuTac— Hannah ✊ (@Hannah ✊) 1537285112.0
@Rich_Cooper Translation: I couldn’t possibly be expected to treat women as equals, show them respect, and still feel like a man.— Dom (@Dom) 1537293169.0
@Rich_Cooper We are sooooo bored with "chivalry" which stems from the courtly love period in the middle ages when w… https://t.co/wRho1a9DTz— Jeanthejust (@Jeanthejust) 1537280103.0
@Rich_Cooper Dear man. As a feminist, I open doors for men all the time. I also offer my seat to men in need on t… https://t.co/uxdwfh1kEM— My ovaries dream of puppers (@My ovaries dream of puppers) 1537502301.0
The notion of chivalry and equality are mutually exclusive and not a lot of people thought it was a major priority for feminists.
Common courtesy is not chivalry.
@Rich_Cooper Nah. That's some real childlike, oversimplified thinking. There are obviously more than these two op… https://t.co/lUqnEJhIAp— TheQuietRanger (@TheQuietRanger) 1537342901.0
@Rich_Cooper Wow, I had no idea that feminists were campaigning for chivalry, thanks for the Valuable Insight lol… https://t.co/iK62FTM9WY— Tracy Campbell the DM (Dungeon Mom) (@Tracy Campbell the DM (Dungeon Mom)) 1537294172.0
@Rich_Cooper I hold the door open for a guy walking into Starbucks behind me. Tomorrow, he might do the same for me… https://t.co/xWQEu6QHrM— Emma Scott (@Emma Scott) 1537294526.0
This user pointed out the fact that chivalry stems from a history of men outdoing other men. The concept had very little to do with women.
"Chivalry is a medieval concept of men dressing to impress other men. It has little to do with equality."
"Some men were on top, other men were beneath them. Historically, women were rarely invited into the process."
@Rich_Cooper @kent_imig Chivalry is a medieval concept of men dressing to impress other men. It has little to do wi… https://t.co/m8YPUkaUzm— Mark Findlay (@Mark Findlay) 1537257080.0
Neil Bradley described the outdated concept of chivalry as one that implies men being superior to women in a September 8, 2017, article for Medium publications.
"Examples: opening the door for a woman, paying for a woman's meal, gesturing for a woman to go first. The justification is either that women are not physically as strong (to open the door), able to provide (pay for their own meal), or are more deserving of compassion than men (allowing women to go first)."
Bradley also added that he wants to treat others the way he wants to be treated and asked if that approach should be motivated by chivalry or equality.
"If the genders are to be considered equal and treated equally, how a man treats a woman will essentially be the same as how a man treats a man."
"The obligation to open the door, pay for the meal, and let women go first vanishes. Men do not do this to other men, therefore why do it for women?"
His final take was that the two concepts can't co-exist. Either one is chivalrous or treats everyone as equals.
At the end of the day, people were happy to show chivalry the door.
@seanrmccauley @DoverCook @ShappiKhorsandi @Rich_Cooper @MarkFindlay26 @kent_imig Nobody needs chivalry. Equality a… https://t.co/isq5Fo84iU— John Dougherty (@John Dougherty) 1537357843.0
H/T - GettyImages, Twitter, Indy100, Medium
Hundreds of artists have signed a letter threatening a boycott if SiriusXM's parent company, Liberty Media, doesn't back down from opposing the Music Modernization Act.
The act, which was expected to pass through Congress, streamlines royalty payments in the new age of digital technology, but it seems SiriusXM is objecting to a small section that would have the satellite radio company paying royalties on recordings dating before 1972.
That's a whole lot of songs and a whole lot of money the company is hoping to skip out on paying, but not if stars like Paul McCartney, P!nk, Stevie Nicks, Sia, Carly Simon, Gloria Estefan, Mick Fleetwood, Don Henley, Max Martin, and Katy Perry can help it.
The letter read, in part:
I'm writing you with grave concern about SiriusXM's opposition to the Music Modernization Act (Classics Act included).
We are all aware of your company's objections and trepidation but let me say that this is an opportunity for SiriusXM to take a leadership position. As you are aware, 415 Representatives and 76 Senators have already cosponsored the MMA along with industry consensus. It's SiriusXM vs all of us. We can either fight to the bitter end or celebrate this victory together. Rather than watch bad press and ill will pile up against SiriusXM, why not come out supporting the most consequential music legislation in 109 years? We do not want to fight and boycott your company but we will as we have other opponents. Stand with us! Be brave and take credit for being the heroes who helped the MMA become historic law! Momentum is building against SiriusXM and you still have an opportunity to come out on the right side of history. We look forward to your endorsement but the fire is burning and only you can put this out.
SiriusXM resoponded with a letter of their own:
Over the past several weeks, we have been the subject of some stinging attacks from the music community and artists regarding our views on the Music Modernization Act. Contrary to new reports and letters, this is really not about a SiriusXM victory, but implementing some simple, reasonable and straightforward amendments to MMA. There is nothing in our "asks" that gut the MMA or kills the Act. So let's talk about the substance of the amendments we propose, because we truly do not understand the objections or why these concepts have incited such a holy war.ontrary to the accusations, SiriusXM has proposed three simple amendments to the MMA.
First, SiriusXM has asked that the CLASSICS Act recognize that it has already licensed all of the pre-1972 works it uses. This amendment would ensure that artists – the people who are supposed to be at the heart of the MMA – receive 50% of the monies under those existing licenses. Is that unfair? Just today, Neil Diamond wrote in the LA Times that: "I receive a small amount of songwriting royalties, but no royalties as the recording artist." How can that happen? To date, SiriusXM has paid nearly $250 million dollars in pre-'72 royalties to the record labels. We want to make sure that a fair share of the monies we have paid, and will pay, under these licenses gets to performers. Without this provision, artists may never see any of the money SiriusXM paid, and will pay, for the use of pre-1972 works. Artists not getting paid hurts our business!
Second, Sirius XM thinks that the fair standard to use in rate setting proceedings is the standard that Congress chose in 1995 and confirmed again in 1998 – which is called the 801(b) standard. However, we are willing to move the "willing buyer/willing seller" standard contained in the MMA. In exchange, we have asked for the same concession that the MMA grants to other digital music services, but we were left out of — simply that the rates that were set last year for five years now apply for ten years. We thought this was a fair compromise when we read the "new" MMA that was released this weekend by the Senate, and are willing to live by that compromise.
Third, SiriusXM is asking the simple question: "Why are we changing the rate court evidence standard for musical compositions in this legislation so that it gives another advantage to broadcasters over satellite radio and streaming services?" There is no policy rationale for this change to tilt the playing field further in their favor, and frankly no one has been able to explain it to us. It is only fair that we debate why the change to Section 114(i) is in the MMA.
Did you all catch that? It sounds like lawyer speak for "we don't really want to say where we stand."
It seems all the letters were for naught. The Music Modernization Act passed in the U.S. Senate.
The #MusicModernizationAct has been passed by the U.S. Senate! 🎶 Along with our members across the country, we're e… https://t.co/52yNhtV4zk— Recording Academy / GRAMMYs (@Recording Academy / GRAMMYs) 1537318533.0
@kayhanley @SIRIUSXM Hi @kayhanley, I absolutely support the #MusicModernizationAct. I signed on as a cosponsor ear… https://t.co/j4JHXpLBxI— Elizabeth Warren (@Elizabeth Warren) 1537225190.0
People said this was impossible. Some even worked hard to make it impossible, even telling outright lies about wh… https://t.co/iMTlwJLWVw— Future of Music Coalition (@Future of Music Coalition) 1537309844.0
We're thrilled to share that the Senate has unanimously voted to pass the #MusicModernizationAct, an historic miles… https://t.co/Uuy2Yp8zCw— ASCAP (@ASCAP) 1537311517.0
It was time to celebrate and dance in the streets.
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP Grateful. That says it all. Grateful past language for the sweet souls who worked so hard to mak… https://t.co/JSeUNCwFSd— Paul Williams (@Paul Williams) 1537319434.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams YES!!!! Songwriters are dancing everywhere!— James Grey (@James Grey) 1537315642.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Thank you for helping us all organize to get this done #MusicModernizationAct— Tangent Recording (@Tangent Recording) 1537311639.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Greatness Is What Greatness Does....And This Is Great.— Eddie C Person Jr (@Eddie C Person Jr) 1537365270.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams #Love it!— CKGTHEDON (@CKGTHEDON) 1537315443.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Fantastic News! Thank You U.S. Senate ~> Pass it House Of Representatives ~> Sig… https://t.co/tukiZ8Ryug— MarkAlexanderCarroll (@MarkAlexanderCarroll) 1537321589.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Simply amazing hard work pays off.— PedroBarr (@PedroBarr) 1537320953.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams Thank all of you for your tireless efforts and work.Protecting what is important… https://t.co/goFps7yu2V— Roney Hooks (@Roney Hooks) 1537317136.0
@ASCAP @Beth_ASCAP @IMPaulWilliams I am so thankful for this wonderful change. We songwriters deserve it!— J.R. FOWLER (@J.R. FOWLER) 1537322119.0
As the saying goes, honest pay for honest work.
