to think that no, actually, SS wont be interested that DS(3) watched Hellboy?

[Hellboy]

DS (3) loves proper 'boy' films like Spiderman, Transformers, Batman, Starwars etc. He recently watched Hellboy at MILs and apparantly loved it. Ive bought it for him and he has watched it a few times (Ive vetted it and there is one scene that I think might be a bit too grisly for him so I fast forward past this bit). Apart from this one scene to me its no different to Spiderman and all the other 'hero' type films and there is no swearing (apart from a few craps)

My friend (whose DS also watches Spiderman, Batman etc) has said that if DS goes into nursery going on about Hellboy, then they will call SS as its a sign that we are letting him watch inappropriate films as its a horror film (its classed as a PG-13, Spiderman is a 12 so to me there isnt much difference)

I take my lead from DS, and I do think there may be a time when he will be more aware of what goes on in these films (eg. the idea that there is a hell, baddies that want to hurt us etc) so when that time comes I will of course take the lead from him again. But for now he loves the action bits, we have a right laugh together when we watch them and tbh its nice to not have to watch endless Chris and Pui (and we do turn it into a learning experience - what colour is Hellboy, how many baddies can you see etc )

I dont want to start the age old debate of age limits for films etc, we are just talking about the usual films that most of the kids at his nursery have seen. My friend just thinks that me letting DS watch Hellboy is an invite to get SS involved

So, is she being ridiculous and hypocritical? Or am I being too laid back about what SS would get involved in?

I have to disagree with the idea of a 3 year old watching such films (DD aged 4 would too - she can't even watch Beauty and the Beast these days as the beast is so scary!). My mum used to let me watch/exposed me to horror films when I was no more than 5 (I still remember them being very gruesome vampire films with dismemberment involved). Whilst I appreciate that such films are quite different from Hellboy, I do think that the guidance on whether a film is appropriate for children should be considered carefully by parents.

So what about things like Grimms Fairy Tales? Both violent and horrifying! Or Time Bandits - a classic children's film in which the main character little boy's parents are killed? Or another children's classic like The Princess Bride where a man is tortured to death then brought back to life? There are countless examples I can think of, in fact.

X post with yours saying that you were pleased he liked the film. You shouldn't be using your DS as a companion. Part of parenting is having to watch television that you would rather not.

Could he not make do with scooby doo etc?

Panda- are the films, not books that you are thinking of marketed for three year olds?

Im not completely led by him, if I was he'd sit about all day watching film after film if he had his way. I might stick one of them on maybe once or twice a week or if hes ill and just wants to sit and be quiet. And Birds I smiled a bit at your companion comment - its not like that at all, I was just a bit pleased that he liked it because I like it, thats all. Believe it or not the one time we watched Scooby Doo he asked me to turn it off because he didnt like the cartoon ghost in it

As I said, Im a bit bemused at why Indiana Jones is only a PG and Transformers and such like is a 12. That right there is why I dont take much notice of age ratings.

I think anyone who thinks children aren't affected by watching films that are far too old for them are completely deluded, regardless of wether they like them or not.

If a nanny or a CM let a child watch something inappropriate they would be more than likely facing the sack.

Valium - and rightly so, its not up to a CM or a nanny to decide whats suitable for a child that they are charged with looking after.

I can see your posts now OP in a couple of years "AIBU to let my 8 yr old play COD?"

As others have said SS wouldn't be interested in an issue this minor, however, it is important that you think about how far you'd let ignoring film ratings go. I've seen parents start with 'oh this 12 rated film isn't soo bad for my 3 yo' to 'oh this 15 rated war game isn't soo bad for my 5 yo... he understands that it is only make believe' It's a very slippery slope! Trust your own judgement to a certain extent, but remember the ratings are put there for a reason.

Most of my son's class watched Chucky in reception/year 1. DS was left feeling very left out in the playground. Peer pressure meant he was one of the ONLY 2 or 3 that didn't get to see Chucky. We all have free access to information, I chose differently for my child than the majority of the parents on that one.

Obviously the teachers/dinner ladies etc knew. No there wasn't a "mass SS investigation" as a result. If parents rountinely let 4/5 year olds watch 18 films like Chucky then I think your friend is over reacting somewhat. Having said that I do think films are classified for a reason, to help parents select viewing material that is suitable for young children as adverse effects for not using a bit of sense are now well documented.

I guess it's like diet, if you choose to feed your children nought but sugary cereals, and turkey twizzlers be prepared to deal with the consequences. It's a similar thing with vaccinations - we all weigh up the info and make a choice. Like wise if you choose to let your child watch stuff clearly marked as only being suitable for a much later stage of development then be prepared to deal with the consequences of your choice.

I hate all the nanny state and finger pointing that goes on nowadays that happens re parenting. Do what you feel is best, just ensure your choices are informed ones.

They are both PG rated. Which means it is up to the parents to decide whether their 3 year old can watch it.

I think the OP is getting an unneccessarily hard time. She has already said that there are sections of the film that she fast-fowards and nothing she has said indicates that she is making her child watch these films because she doesn't want to watch cartoons. And given that her DS has said he doesn't like watching certain things his opinion obviously matters.

My siblings, cousins and I all watched all the films I've referenced from a young age and we are all very well balanced, non-aggressive adults :)

I have the inidiana jones films and the one with the face being melted is a 12.

He's a baby, though,it shouldn't matter to you whether he likes what you like, he is still developing his personality.

Different when they are teenagers, it is nice that i can spend mutually enjoyable time with each of my girls, all very different, whilst they were younger i would have been happy as long as they were enjoying something, it didn't matter what i liked.

I didn't toatally disagree because my youngest has always liked horror and supernatural stuff, but i was quite choosy until she was over 10, then slowly chose what she could watch and ignored age ratings.

The rating is based on lots of factors and how children process and make sence of what they see.

Growing up i was very badly effected by seeing the bombing of Japan,there was no need for me to see that, so young and that is the point, there is no need to expose young children to these things.

Your children are not your own social experiment.

Laurie faces melt in both Raiders and the Last Crusade. Raiders was made way before the 12 certificate was introduced and according to [[www.amazon.co.uk/Indiana-Jones-Trilogy-DVD-Box/dp/B00009ZWAB/ref=sr_1_3?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1331037315&sr=1-3] Amazon] all films are PG

Birds surely watching 100s of 1000s of REAL people being wiped out by a nuclear bomb is slightly different from watching a film about comic book characters?

Valium - no way COD is mine, no-one touches that game in this house except me

Laurie Raiders of the Lost Ark is a PG

www.pbbfc.co.uk/filmDetail.asp?filmID=928

I use this website to guide which films I take my DC to see but if I'm not sure I check them first.

Just got really confused by PandaNot - I thought I had somehow inadvertantly namechanged!

Its a film-get over it. I watched plenty of hammer horrors and tales of the unexpected when I was still at primary school-I have not grown up to be rosemary west. Some people on here need to watch the news more if they think this warrants ss attention ffs.

Social experiment? Im not, like, documenting this or anything you know It really is just a 3 year old enjoying a few superhero films with some scenes being skipped past, nothing less, nothing more.

I do get people saying that the ratings are there for a reason, but I hate to sound like a stuck record but when Indiana Jones is rated a PG and Transformers is a 12, there is obviously no consistency.

I wonder if Transformers is a 12 to protect younger children from Megan Fox's truly dreadful acting.

Thanks for the support Pandas

TBH I do wish he liked most of the cartoons, being such a child myself .

PandaWatch I thought the same thing earlier when I saw you post on another thread!

I doubt SS would be even faintly interested .. but I do think it's actually kind of sad that there aren't better things to do with a wee 3 year old boy than watch films with scenes including (if I recall correctly, and I'm sure I do, having seen it about 5 times ) a Nazi war criminal who has cut off his own lips and eyes.

I mean sure you can skip past that bit, but all the same. Call me naive but aren't 3 year olds supposed to be grubbing about in the garden with worms/doing potato printing/building forts out of tables and tablecloths

There isn't any consistency at all, especially it seems with films released before the 12A came in to force. And even now I know that some 12A will be fine for my ds 8 but others would scare the living daylights out of him (and me!). I always check 12A films before he goes.