Is it wrong to let my kids 7 and 4 watch Harry Potter?

[Cuppacoffeeinthebigtime]

Watched the first film tonight. 7 year old insisted he was fine with it. 4 year old looked a bit horrified at some parts and had to sit on my lap but begged me not to turn it off. They are now asking to watch the other Potter films but I am thinking after the first 3 films, they would be unsuitable no?

I remember watching a superman film as a 7 year old child where I seem to remember people being turned into robots and it absolutely terrified me and played on my mind for years and that was probably much milder than the Harry Potter films.

[Spero]

I let my then 4 year old watch the first Harry Potter on DVD when we were stuck in a caravan in a rainy Welsh holiday park and the tv was broken.

She was utterly traumatised and for 2 years would not go to the toilet alone in case Voldemort came out.

I think they can be actually quite brutal ... but if your 4 year old seems fine with it, why not. If he can cope with the first one he should be ok.

[RobotHamster]

I think OK for the 7yo, but wouldn't let the 4yo watch I don't think. There are some pretty scary bits in them.

[lilivonshtupp]

I'm all for not paying too much heed to the certification of films, but I really really do think that some Harry Potter stuff is just pushing it too far for 4 (and 7) YOs.

My DD (who loves things like The Avengers, even Indiana Jones) is 10 and still hasn't been able to watch the last 2 HP movies.

Personally, I wouldn't want a situation like Spero describes. I think sometimes we push kids too hard on what they 'can' and 'should' cope with on screen.

[FirstOfficerDouglasRichardson]

I let my 5 year old watch the original Jurassic Park. He loved it and wasn't scared at all.

[Spero]

O yes, if I could have my time again I would insist that we go to bed early. I had forgotten quite how nasty it was in parts. Definitely no good for my 4 year old, and I suspect most others.

[Denimwithdenim00]

Totally depends on the individual child.

Generally I would think 4 was far too young for potter. 7 probably ok for the first 3 but they get scarier after that.

Kids often want to watch stuff and so you think it's ok and not scaring them and later it transpires they were fucking terrified and won't sleep or go anywhere alone.

Yes you ds now 25 after Jurassic park.

[DrinkDraculaaa]

I wouldn't allow it myself to be honest, especially the prisoner of azkaban, that one scared me let alone a 4 year old!

[Starbrite00]

Yes. I wouldn't let them at that age.
I wouldn't let my 9 yr old watch it, I think its a bit freaky in parts.
I would say its suited to age 11/12.

[FadedRed]

My Dc's were the Harry Potter generation - grew up with the books at the approx. the same age as the characters, so could understand the emotional age of the characters whilst still young enough to really enjoy the 'magic' (not believe it was real but young enough to wish it was iyswim). So answering your question I would say that at 4 for definite and 7 possibly too young to understand the stories, especially the later books and miss the brilliant experience that the series would give them if they were introduced to them when they are a bit older, maybe 9 or 10 yo. I also think they are a bit scary for 4yo and maybe for 7, especially from book 4 when characters start to die.

[Cuppacoffeeinthebigtime]

I try not to pay attention to the rating either but worried I had gone too far with Potter. My friend was shocked because I had let them watch The Goonies because it is rated 12 - but they absolutely loved it and I know I was much younger than 12 when I fell in love with it all those years ago.

[meglet]

it depends on the child. me and 8yo ds have read and watched the first 3 HP's. He's ok with them, possibly because he knows how they end. I thought the PoA film wasn't as spooky as the book, unless it was heavily edited for afternoon tv.

I think you have to decide what suits your child best. mine would be more scared of jurassic park and scary doctor who gives them the wobbles. but they enjoy HP, possibly because it also has so much humour in it.

[littlepeas]

It depends on how sensitive the child is. I know someone, who is very sensible when it comes to her dc, who has let her 6 year old watch all 7 films. She judged it based on his personality and is happy with her choice. Personally, I am going to wait for the time being, I would prefer my dc to read the books first if we can manage it, though I appreciate this will be difficult to pull off!

[timtam23]

My kids are 7 & 5 & I would say they are too young for Harry Potter, both books and films. I'm sure when older they will love the series but at the moment it's too scary for them. DS1 tends to havehave disturbed sleep & night terrors after watching anything even slightly unsettling so definitely no HP for him just yet!

[Purplepoodle]

Goonies is only rated 12 because of hanging scene at the start - it's often on normal tv during the day so we recorded as bbc or itv cut unsuitable bits out.

[Purplepoodle]

Wasn't the 1st HP on tv during the day too?

[Iloveonionchutney]

It does depend on the child, my 4yr old dd has watched the first three and she loves them, I won't let her watch the others though.

[Fatmomma99]

I'm a great believer in using the film certs as a guide and you knowing your DCs.

With regards to HP (which MADE my DD's childhood) I would say do the books first (although the films are excellent, the books are better!) and only after they can deal with ''hearing' should you let them watch.

I would also say that only books 1 and 2 are suitable for well-adjusted under 10s (my foster daughter, who was loving HP, asked me to stop reading book 3 to her because it was too scary. She was 10).

Let them set the pace, but I would say there's a change after book 2 (because Cedric dies in book 3)

[totallybewildered]

I think it is important to use the age limits. They are there for a reason. A lot of children exposed to films to old for them end up with behaviour problems.

I also think Harry Potter is too much for young children.

[DorothyL]

Cedric dies in book 4.

My children all watched the films between the ages of seven and 10 and were fine.

[Kelly1814]

YABU unreasonable with the 4 year old. This films scare me and I'm a grown woman! Not even sure it's good for the 7 year old, TBH.

[BertrandRussell]

Why on earth do people ignore film classifications?

[NRomanoff]

It depends on the child. Both mine watched the first one before 4 years. Neither traumatised.

[Toadinthehole]

I wouldn't let my 7 year old watch any of them. She tends to get nightmares easily. I can think of various parts of the first film that would trigger them - the forest scene, and the scene where Quirrell burns up for example.

From Goblet of Fire onwards the films get much darker and I'd be a bit nervous about my 10 year old watching them, to be honest. No way would I let any 7 year old watch that one.

[NRomanoff]

I ignore classifications if I watch a film first. I know my kids and what thy can cope with. I watched avengers assemble, I knew that dd would be terrified of the incredible hulk, so she only watched it recently. Other films I know she will be fine with. I would say the classifications are not made with all children in mind, I know my children and it hasn't been an issue yet.

I don't take them to the cinema to see films out of their classification and I never let visiting kids watch these films unless I know their parents have already let them see that particular movie. Even then I double check with the parents

[Starlightbright1]

Yes I think 4 is too young. They don't fully comprehend the difference between real life and fiction...At 7 I wrote to Jim'll fix it to meet the muppets.

My ds at 7 watched first couple but not any further.