to be confused why children cannot go for 35 minutes without food

[PrincessScrumpy]

I left dtds at home with dh and took dd1 for a treat to the theatre - Charlie and Lola. She loved it and each side if the interval was about 35mins. From start to finish, the 2 families in front of us passed sweets up and down the row. I just don't get it - the theatre isn't the cinema with popcorn, but I understand some dc may need the odd chocolate button as a bribe, but my dd sat and watched the show, then had ice cream in the interval. tbh I think the kids infront would have been fine without food but their mothers insisted on them having it. I just think it's unnecessary and bad etiquette but I'm probably a grumpy old woman.

I went to see Prometheus and all the bloody adults had brought in their own food in crinkly plastic bags and were crinkling away all through it. Tossers. YANBU.

disruptive? You're right I also find Charlie and Lola hard to follow.

This is beginning to remind me of Tub o' mash

i dont think seeing Charlie and Lola is something different than going to the cinema.

Of course it is. Its downright rude to the performers to be disruptive.

Then the complaint is about the noise they were making not eating. They could still have been noisey without the sweets.

A certain amount of noise is only to be expected at a children's show. It's not as if they were running around screaming.

I'm sure even in the 60s/70s, people would have eaten snacks at the cinema or theatre.

Different matter if it was the RSC - it will be in 20 years time when those same child go to RSC and buy sweets as that is the norm they will have doen it all their lives

It was Charlie and Lola not King Lear! I'm sure you didn't miss too many plot twists while this family selfishly enjoyed themselves by enjoying some treats

YABU

we were on holiday last year went to see Harry potter and these women got their picnic out I turned round when i heard Eleanor do you want pizza elanors friend had her tin foiled sandwhiches and pizza on her lap

halcyondays - no it was to smoky

YAsoNBU!!!

People have forgotten that there is an etiquette involved with going to the theatre - whatever you're going to see - and if you don't follow it/teach it to your children then at what stage are they going to begin?

As for the "I bet you're fun at parties" comment on the previous page: the theatre is not a party. They are very different things. The theatre is also different to the cinema.

Just because it's a kids show, I still expect dd to behave well. The kids in front were behaving, it was the parents that seemed so scared they would misbehave that they felt chocolate would bribe them to behave.

No of course dd didn't eat her ice cream in the car park, she ate it during the interval when it didn't affect others.

Maybe I have high expectations of behaviour, but then I have a dd who I'm always proud to take out so I'll keep those high expectations.

Nell Gwynn wouldnt have met Charles II if no one ate in theatres.

Just saying.

leaving this thread theatre etiquitte

The talking/rustling would get on my nerves. I think only complete silence is acceptable at the theatre. I am an unashamed scoffer of sweets and popcorn at the cinema (although I do it quietly and don't share ), but I think eating at the theatre is different somehow; there are real people, putting in all that effort, and I think it's a bit disrespectful to sit and stuff your face as you watch.

Having said that, I've never been to a kids' theatre show and wouldn't mind betting that the etiquette is different. But high levels of noise are surely unacceptable in any kind of theatre show ... ?

we would ave finished the sweets in the first five minutes.

this really isn't a matter of 'need' is it? this is a theatre-associated sugar fest.

Baffled by comments that sweets aren't food - erm, perhaps this is why the country is obese... they do contain calories and go in your mouth, they aren't drinks and therefore I have to conclude, they are food.

Good for you that your dd always behaves so perfectly. You say they were behaving but maybe that was because they were having the sweets which might have been to stop them being fidgeting and much more disruptive.

Oh FFS! So now because of one bag of sweets at a childrens show, a person will then grow up to order a chinese banquet to be delivered during the first act of Hamlet at the RSC?! :o:o

etiquette for a kids show???? god give me strength. It is just posh panto for gods sake.

Yabu and miserable

Why do you assume the parents were terrified that their kids would misbehave? Maybe they just wanted to give their perfectly well-behaved kids a treat.

My kids are always well behaved when we're out. They often eat sweets when we're out. Those two things aren't mutualy exclusive you know

Lighten up fgs

Your title implies that the children couldnt go without food for half an hour. I and many others took that to mean sandwiches or a meal of somesort. I dont count sweets as food in that they are not given for any nutritonal value, but as an occasional treat.

Your title was misleading and tbh you are beginning to sound a bit up your own arse about the whole thing.

For goodness sake, give me strength! All that's going on in the world, and that's all you can moan about?