Actor calls 13-year-old girls "whores" at Universal Hollywood, according to cell phone video

You remind me of a young boy I once knew. His name was Tyler, and he had difficulty letting things go, too.

Either they are truly concerned or its just a PR move. I would lean toward the latter. But as Halloween is over its probably difficult to know. And by the time next year rolls around, how many people will even remember? And given that I doubt this was the first time occurrence but rather the first one that went public, seems unlikely we will know if it happens again next season or at some point in the future.

But the park's response is what I would have expected.

B'ster B said:

But she says Universal officials reported that their own staff confirmed what the performer said and were just as concerned.

I said concerned, not distraught.

You do realize that the 'she' in that sentence is the attorney for the girls, right?

The attorney for the complainants said the park was 'concerned'

If you think this is any more than 'do the right thing' theater, then you are a much less jaded man than I.

Jaded. Realistic. Fine line there.

I was trying to be nice and use words that put the burden on me.

Calling him naive felt like the wrong thing to do.

I think I said naïve at some point in this thread. Though at 13 pages, I can't remember. Could have been the Ark thread which had parallel issues to this thread.

Why does this have to be difficult? All I said was that the park was concerned. Jeff came in, added a story, and I commented that the park was concerned. It's pretty simple. Whether it's a PR move or not, I just made a simple comment.

There is a difference between saying you are concerned and actually being concerned. Particularly in a business that depends on public relations. I don't think that pointing that difference out is necessarily being difficult. Just a discussion on a discussion board.

GoBucks89, I was just saying that the Park said they were concerned. The difficulty I was having was being berated for echoing what the article said, PR move or not. And your last sentence is the point I was making. A discussion on a discussion board.

I'm just pointing out (for the sake of clarity in the discussion) that the park never said in that article that they were concerned - the attorney for the girls said they said it.

The park's official response is about as "yeah, whatever" as you can get and still be remotely professional. At no time does anyone from universal say anything officially about being 'concerned'

And if you watch the video, it sort of sums up the problem exactly at the end:

As for future visits, the girls say they will be happy to return to Horror Night - one that is family friendly.

Roxy Fisher (one of the girls) says, "We both love scary things, but not that kind of scary."

They're mad that the event didn't meet the 'family friendly' sensibility and because they got in to something they didn't like, they expect universal to change it.

Blech.

---

And actually if you watch the cell phone video in that clip, one of the girls is whining, "I'm not twelve!" before the actor drops the whore comment in their direction.

Which if I had to guess, means that the actor was getting on them about looking young and when they protested indicating they weren't that young, she went harder at them - based on them protesting that they weren't little kids.

That coupled with Allred's smug sense of morality makes me more annoyed by the resolution than the complaint.

I think the lawyer sideshow sucks, and I don't understand why it's used to justify the incident any more than it is used to draw attention to it.

Given the absolute stance you have taken in this thread, I can see that. But given that many people have not taken an absolute stance, I think the lawyer sideshow is relevant. The sideshow happened because the mothers here (and judging from how they reacted in the little press conference with the cameras and microphones in front of them, I think the girls as well) wanted the sideshow. There were other approaches they could have taken which did not involve the lawyer sideshow. That they didn't take those approaches is relevant.

It also wouldn't surprise me if there was some type of monetary settlement here.

Lord Gonchar said:

They're mad that the event didn't meet the 'family friendly' sensibility and because they got in to something they didn't like, they expect universal to change it.

I'll second that. I find it hard to believe that someone said to themselves, "Family friendly haunt.... well, look, Universal has the Walking Dead, that's probably okay!"

Slithernoggin, I really did chuckle a little out loud at that.

I don't even know what the girls are talking about in terms of going back to a more family-friendly Horror Night. Do they actually mean to return to Universal for another year? Did they just really misword that? Or do they think Universal's seriously going to dumb down their haunts because someone got called a bad name?

Whatever. This is all Obama's fault. ;)

I'm sure there's a high-level meeting of Uni Hollywood execs going on this very minute....

"Look, these 13-year-olds, with their aggravated mothers who have Allred on speed-dial, will come back next year if we just make HHN family friendly!"

Coming from a 14-year old of the opposite gender of course (so take this with a grain of salt), I personally feel that the situation was taken out of hand by the parents. I know from experience that there are much worse things going on around my high school, and quite frankly as others have mentioned, the two girls were not supposed to be at such an event geared towards adults. The actor herself, didn't seem to mean it personally, rather as part of the act. Maybe it was a bit uncalled for, but the big deal with the lawyers that the parents made was IMO completely unneeded. True, the guest service wasn't top notch, but the situation could have been handled in a more private way.

The park is going to say whatever it has to clear thier name without meaning any of it. Don't count on HHN to have a family friendly night and if they want one. GO to Disney.

They knew what they was getting into when they went into this one haunt. I am sure that they have seen the movie since it has been on one of the movie channels and out on Dvd. They just choose to ignore the warnings and went anyway.

GoBucks89 said:

I think the lawyer sideshow is relevant.

Not only do I think it's relevant, I think it's THE story.

Without the posturing and drama this is a non-event.

Although I really hate this lawyer getting into it, She got the desired results. All the family kept saying that they wanted was an apology from park management. They apparently could not get it when they asked to speak to management themselves, so they got the stupid lawyer.

It wouldn't have even been a big news story if management had done their job and spoke with the family, heard their concerns, and apologized. Thats what a manager taking care of guest service is supposed to do; hear concerns and apologize, and try to make it right.

Most people here are interested in weather or not the actress was right or wrong to have said this to the little girls, but my biggest problem with all of this is management's foul up. This particular customer concern somehow fell through the cracks. It should have been diffused before it reached the absurd level of media attention and high-profile, self-serving lawyers.

As the actual events occurred, I'm not sure it's fair to blame management: the problem there seems to have been a front line employee. It seems to me that management didn't even know about the issue at the time since that employee acted as a barrier to management. Given the limited attempts by the mother(s) to contact park management (two phone calls and one contact via the website), senior management may not have known about this until the press conference.

As for the lawyer.... I'm not sure I'd call Gloria Allred a high profile lawyer, these days. She's apparently been doing a Judge Judy knock-off since 2011, We The People with Gloria Allred, one of the three lowest rated such shows. High profile lawyers, I think, don't have to do low rated tv shows.