Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Tuesday, February 05, 2019
Can a theme park haunt be too scary?
www.themeparkinsider.com: Are you ready for another "crazy lawsuit" story? A woman in Pennsylvania is suing a Cedar Fair theme park, claiming that a Halloween Haunt scareactor so frightened her daughter that it caused debilitating injuries.
8 comments:
Elizabeth P
said...
For this specific case I think there are multiple things to consider, and it's not just anyone's fault that this happened. Incidents and accidents do happen, and while responsibility should be taken, there are also a lot of risks that you accept by voluntarily going to a theme park who participates in Halloween events. In reading some of the comments, it seems like there is a primary general consensus that sometimes scaring goes too far, and there isn't really an effective or safe way to back out of getting scared. I especially stuck onto someone's point that someone may go into a park thinking that they will be okay, wanting to be scared, but then once scaring begins they experience high levels of unbearable fear. Having a safe way to exit a park might be beneficial for parks to consider if they want to experience less lawsuits. It also makes sense that sometimes actors want to scare someone who is already scared, it's their job and all they want is the reaction, however, in these sort of stressful situations, sometimes you can forget where you are and it becomes very real. Flight or fight will genuinely kick in, and your common reasoning is no longer useful. I think what parks really need to do is account for the changing minds of their park patrons.
I really appreciate that this article establishes both sides of the stories. Oftentimes news sources use inflammatory words to incite a reaction in you, rather than actually presenting the situation as it is. This article still uses inflammatory language, but at least they are more focused on the fact that there are a lot of moving parts that go into these law suits, and we don't have the full view. Much like this author, I disagree with both the plaintiff and the theme park here. There are many family friendly Halloween events, and I think that perhaps if there was such a risk here of personal injury, the person probably shouldn't have voluntarily put themselves in that situation. Conversely, the theme park needs to be more accessible, with a free way to note people who are not able to be scared, so those with certain disabilities aren't forced to miss out. Neither side is really correct here, because I don't think this is really a legitimate reason to be suing the theme park, instead of advocating for better practice. This strikes me as trying to make quick cash, not actually change anything.
I don’t think that any theme park haunt can be too scary, so long as the attendees are made aware of what they’re in for. I think that if a large or popular theme park (that’s not child specific) takes part in a Halloween event, then it should probably be expected that they’re going to try to do as much as they can to follow the holiday. Going to one of these places, you should know what you’re getting yourself into. As for the scare actors, I think that the parks should make sure there are very clear protocols to follow in the event that someone winds up not being able to handle what’s going on around them and panics. I don’t think that the event described in the article is particularly the fault of either side, and accidents will happen from time to time. The idea of having a “No Boo” way to mark the difference between those who come to a park to be scared verses those who just want to be there for the rides, shows, and foods I think is a fair way to not need to dull down the event, but keep some people feeling safer.
: I think this article brings up a couple of good conversation points, one being this actual subject of the article, whether the theme park was too scary or that the lawsuit was overreacting. And the other being the culture of lawsuits in America. I appreciated the discussion that was brought up concerning how easy it is for reporters to write about lawsuits, so while reading the news there are many articles that come up. And while I do think many lawsuits are ridiculous, I agree with what the article said that they do start a discussion and can make companies rethink the way they are doing something, just like in the McDonald’s example. I think that if a company knows that people are not okay with the way they are doing something and that they are causing harm and losing money because of it they will want to change their ways. And if a lawsuit is what will make a company realize that, then maybe that is what has to be done. I think in this example there are some very good arguments made about how one should expect to be scared going into something like this and about how the company should have respected her wishes. But I think the most important thing about this article is that it is facilitating a discussion about the issue of too scary Halloween attractions.
I don’t think the “No Boo” necklaces should be an uncharge, that *is* kind of ridiculous. People are already paying admission prices for a thing they don’t even want; it seems like if they don’t want to be scared, just take their money and respect that, an uncharge is exploitative. That said, that isn’t really what the lawsuit is about. In that respect, this seems pretty frivolous. Yes, the scare actors should not have continued to scare the girl after she asked them to stop; that said, it’s not clear that it was even the same scare actor. In addition, while consent is absolutely important, voluntarily entering the park is giving consent to be scared. A pretty common reflex to being scared is to say stop or to run away. That’s what people are paying for and wanting. In an environment where there *is* a specific and well advertised method for indicating that you do not want to be scared (even if it is overpriced), it seems reasonable for scare actors to try to scare people who are not implementing that system as much as possible unless they are obviously showing signs of distress, which it doesn’t sound like the girl was doing. They also didn’t hurt her; she got scared and fell. Granted that I was not there, and maybe the situation was different than I’m reading it, but the lawsuit seems pretty outrageous to me.
I hate people. I heard about these No Boo necklaces last halloween season and P.T. Barnums adage about a sucker born a minute is never more true. People pay to go to a scary event and then pay to not be scared there? It sounds absolutely ridiculous, and it is. My family went to Six Flags event last year, because I was to chicken sh*t, and my parents are not particularly fond of constant scares either, but my mom said you can enjoy the event and are not constantly bombarded by scare-actors. This chick chose to go into a specific haunted house at an event already clearly rated PG-13 upon entry, and got scared, she got what was coming to her. This was not some toddler this was a teenager. The job title of a scare-actor is exactly that if they aren’t scaring they are not doing their job. This better die in out of court settlement, because woosifying Haunted Attraction woosifies a holiday already damaged by soccer moms afraid of the dark.
While this is an interesting article, I do not think that it contains nearly enough information. We do not know what kind of injuries were sustained, nor do we know how much the No-Boo necklaces were priced at. I do not think that there is anywhere near enough info in this lawsuit to reach any sort of judgment. If the girl fell forward and got a scratch on her face, or if she needed facial reconstruction completely changes this case, and if the No-Boo necklace was $2 or $20 also completely changes this case. Either way, I think the claim that this lawsuit is worth $150,000 is a bit ridiculous, and if you are not prepared to shell out a couple extra dollars to not be scared at a haunted house (which may I remind you is the point of a haunted house), then the blame is at least partially on you.
While I agree that if you are going into an attraction that involves people jumping out and scaring you, you should be prepared for that, I still feel bad for this girl. I also do think that the people should have listened to her when she said she didn’t want them to scare her. I can’t say I think the company should be liable for her injuries, I don’t think you can really claim that anyone involved could have expected that much harm to be caused by someone jumping out at her. I do think the “no boo” necklaces should be made much more apparent and be free of charge though, if that had been the case this whole situation may have been avoided. I think it could also be possible for places like this to have a particular window of time or a special night where there are no scare actors or if there are they just walk around and maybe come up to you creepily, but not jump scares. I think there are probably a lot of people that would enjoy the spooky atmosphere but don’t want to be startled. I also do wonder why this girl was going through this attraction if she was not going to enjoy being scared. It could be she changed her mind midway through, but I could also see her having been talked into it by her family, which is unfortunate.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/Halloween4TheReturnofMichaelMyersHauntedHouseUniversalOrlando-5ba55e7346e0fb00505dfe23.jpg)
8 comments:
For this specific case I think there are multiple things to consider, and it's not just anyone's fault that this happened. Incidents and accidents do happen, and while responsibility should be taken, there are also a lot of risks that you accept by voluntarily going to a theme park who participates in Halloween events. In reading some of the comments, it seems like there is a primary general consensus that sometimes scaring goes too far, and there isn't really an effective or safe way to back out of getting scared. I especially stuck onto someone's point that someone may go into a park thinking that they will be okay, wanting to be scared, but then once scaring begins they experience high levels of unbearable fear. Having a safe way to exit a park might be beneficial for parks to consider if they want to experience less lawsuits. It also makes sense that sometimes actors want to scare someone who is already scared, it's their job and all they want is the reaction, however, in these sort of stressful situations, sometimes you can forget where you are and it becomes very real. Flight or fight will genuinely kick in, and your common reasoning is no longer useful. I think what parks really need to do is account for the changing minds of their park patrons.
I really appreciate that this article establishes both sides of the stories. Oftentimes news sources use inflammatory words to incite a reaction in you, rather than actually presenting the situation as it is. This article still uses inflammatory language, but at least they are more focused on the fact that there are a lot of moving parts that go into these law suits, and we don't have the full view. Much like this author, I disagree with both the plaintiff and the theme park here. There are many family friendly Halloween events, and I think that perhaps if there was such a risk here of personal injury, the person probably shouldn't have voluntarily put themselves in that situation. Conversely, the theme park needs to be more accessible, with a free way to note people who are not able to be scared, so those with certain disabilities aren't forced to miss out. Neither side is really correct here, because I don't think this is really a legitimate reason to be suing the theme park, instead of advocating for better practice. This strikes me as trying to make quick cash, not actually change anything.
I don’t think that any theme park haunt can be too scary, so long as the attendees are made aware of what they’re in for. I think that if a large or popular theme park (that’s not child specific) takes part in a Halloween event, then it should probably be expected that they’re going to try to do as much as they can to follow the holiday. Going to one of these places, you should know what you’re getting yourself into. As for the scare actors, I think that the parks should make sure there are very clear protocols to follow in the event that someone winds up not being able to handle what’s going on around them and panics. I don’t think that the event described in the article is particularly the fault of either side, and accidents will happen from time to time. The idea of having a “No Boo” way to mark the difference between those who come to a park to be scared verses those who just want to be there for the rides, shows, and foods I think is a fair way to not need to dull down the event, but keep some people feeling safer.
: I think this article brings up a couple of good conversation points, one being this actual subject of the article, whether the theme park was too scary or that the lawsuit was overreacting. And the other being the culture of lawsuits in America. I appreciated the discussion that was brought up concerning how easy it is for reporters to write about lawsuits, so while reading the news there are many articles that come up. And while I do think many lawsuits are ridiculous, I agree with what the article said that they do start a discussion and can make companies rethink the way they are doing something, just like in the McDonald’s example. I think that if a company knows that people are not okay with the way they are doing something and that they are causing harm and losing money because of it they will want to change their ways. And if a lawsuit is what will make a company realize that, then maybe that is what has to be done. I think in this example there are some very good arguments made about how one should expect to be scared going into something like this and about how the company should have respected her wishes. But I think the most important thing about this article is that it is facilitating a discussion about the issue of too scary Halloween attractions.
I don’t think the “No Boo” necklaces should be an uncharge, that *is* kind of ridiculous. People are already paying admission prices for a thing they don’t even want; it seems like if they don’t want to be scared, just take their money and respect that, an uncharge is exploitative. That said, that isn’t really what the lawsuit is about. In that respect, this seems pretty frivolous. Yes, the scare actors should not have continued to scare the girl after she asked them to stop; that said, it’s not clear that it was even the same scare actor. In addition, while consent is absolutely important, voluntarily entering the park is giving consent to be scared. A pretty common reflex to being scared is to say stop or to run away. That’s what people are paying for and wanting. In an environment where there *is* a specific and well advertised method for indicating that you do not want to be scared (even if it is overpriced), it seems reasonable for scare actors to try to scare people who are not implementing that system as much as possible unless they are obviously showing signs of distress, which it doesn’t sound like the girl was doing. They also didn’t hurt her; she got scared and fell. Granted that I was not there, and maybe the situation was different than I’m reading it, but the lawsuit seems pretty outrageous to me.
I hate people. I heard about these No Boo necklaces last halloween season and P.T. Barnums adage about a sucker born a minute is never more true. People pay to go to a scary event and then pay to not be scared there? It sounds absolutely ridiculous, and it is. My family went to Six Flags event last year, because I was to chicken sh*t, and my parents are not particularly fond of constant scares either, but my mom said you can enjoy the event and are not constantly bombarded by scare-actors. This chick chose to go into a specific haunted house at an event already clearly rated PG-13 upon entry, and got scared, she got what was coming to her. This was not some toddler this was a teenager. The job title of a scare-actor is exactly that if they aren’t scaring they are not doing their job. This better die in out of court settlement, because woosifying Haunted Attraction woosifies a holiday already damaged by soccer moms afraid of the dark.
While this is an interesting article, I do not think that it contains nearly enough information. We do not know what kind of injuries were sustained, nor do we know how much the No-Boo necklaces were priced at. I do not think that there is anywhere near enough info in this lawsuit to reach any sort of judgment. If the girl fell forward and got a scratch on her face, or if she needed facial reconstruction completely changes this case, and if the No-Boo necklace was $2 or $20 also completely changes this case. Either way, I think the claim that this lawsuit is worth $150,000 is a bit ridiculous, and if you are not prepared to shell out a couple extra dollars to not be scared at a haunted house (which may I remind you is the point of a haunted house), then the blame is at least partially on you.
While I agree that if you are going into an attraction that involves people jumping out and scaring you, you should be prepared for that, I still feel bad for this girl. I also do think that the people should have listened to her when she said she didn’t want them to scare her. I can’t say I think the company should be liable for her injuries, I don’t think you can really claim that anyone involved could have expected that much harm to be caused by someone jumping out at her. I do think the “no boo” necklaces should be made much more apparent and be free of charge though, if that had been the case this whole situation may have been avoided. I think it could also be possible for places like this to have a particular window of time or a special night where there are no scare actors or if there are they just walk around and maybe come up to you creepily, but not jump scares. I think there are probably a lot of people that would enjoy the spooky atmosphere but don’t want to be startled. I also do wonder why this girl was going through this attraction if she was not going to enjoy being scared. It could be she changed her mind midway through, but I could also see her having been talked into it by her family, which is unfortunate.
Post a Comment