Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

The Hunger Games

39 replies

amarone · 06/04/2012 19:41

AIBU not to take my DS10 to see it? Just feel uneasy about the whole concept of the story line.
Sorry if this has been done before, but tried searching MN but couldn't find anything about the actual film, just the books.

OP posts:
rhondajean · 06/04/2012 23:28

Took dd1 who is twelve this afternoon. They are her favourite books.

I wouldn't take dd2 who is seven. It's not the violence, as it's actually the themes that are quite disturbing.

I'd say it's on a par with lord of the flies.

It is definitely not an 18. And I do think that you should introduce difficult themes to your children, but tbh I think breaking dawn part one was less of a 12 than this.

givemushypeasachance · 07/04/2012 00:38

The Dark Knight was a 12A and I would say that had considerably more scare moments and violence, though both films don't show that much blood or gore. Yes maybe if there was less "camera shake" it could be an 18, but there is camera shake and you see very little. Fine your imagination fills in but that doesn't make it warrant a higher rating imho.

Like some other posters have said it's the concepts and themes that may be difficult to handle depending on you/your DC's sensitivity to such things. Yes there is the much-talked-up "kids killing other kids", but it's in the context of the government demanding a sacrificial tribute of teenagers from the enslaved districts - and forcing the teenagers to compete for the twisted glory of being the one victor, as well as forcing everyone else to watch the whole thing as supposed entertainment. That's the actually twisted part. The fact that many people in the Capitol find it genuinely entertaining and look past the deaths of children is one of the harder ideas to get your head around, and may be something that quite disturbs younger children.

Lord knows what they'll make of book three!

Latara · 07/04/2012 09:29

After reading the book there's no way i would want to see the film - and i'm 35 (!) But.. i get depressed too easily & any films like that just play on my mind right now. When i'm well i can watch war or horror films with no problems. TBH i found the book harrowing (yes, i know, it's teenage fiction!).
Basically as a parent you (should) know what your child can cope with watching - some are too sensitive for films like this; some wouldn't be bothered at all.

In my view it's inappropriate for children under age 11 to watch films like The Hunger Games - i just don't think that younger children have the emotional maturity to understand the themes, which would make it a pointless experience.
Re: blurring the violence - my honest view is that violent death in films & dramas should be shown realistically or not at all. Or you get kids watching violent acts but not seeing the true consequences of those actions - which doesn't IMO teach them the hard truth about life.

eandemum · 07/04/2012 11:18

I would only take my ds 13 to see it after he had read the first book!
The book people are doing the trilogy for £4.99
Have read all 3 and they are great they are definitely the most popular books in my school library!
But I wouldn't take a 10 year old if you do you'll be taking 13 year olds to 15 films and then complaining re: what are are seeing.

MsWeatherwax · 07/04/2012 11:33

Too young in my opinion though the books are more upsetting than the film.

bettybat · 07/04/2012 15:26

Surely you should go by the rating, and your own individual child?

From the BBFC classification:

The ?12A? category exists only for cinema films. No one younger than 12 may see a ?12A? film in a cinema unless accompanied by an adult, and films classified ?12A? are not recommended for a child below 12. An adult may take a younger child if, in their judgement, the film is suitable for that particular child. In such circumstances, responsibility for allowing a child under 12 to view lies with the accompanying adult.

It's clearly saying it is the responsibility of the adult to judge whether their own individual child would be suitable to view it or not. It also clearly says that despite children under 12 being allowed if accompanied with an adult, it recommends no child under twelve should go in.

So you're child is 10 - of course you're not unreasonable not to take your child to view it.

To the person who complained - the option was there for you to decide not to go. There's been a few threads on this film, with parents of children of varying ages saying it was too much, or it was fine. So clearly it's down to your own judgement, hence the "A" part of the rating.

igggi · 07/04/2012 16:01

Kaloobear I remember that book too - I saw it in a shop recently and still sent chills down my spine (and not in a good way!)

ll31 · 07/04/2012 18:09

agree with above poster re you have to make up your own mind - my 12 yr old loved it, had read books wants to see it again. Think people should realise that there seems to be a very wide variety in films that are rated 12a - which is probably fine given there's also a very wide variety of children!

talkingnonsense · 07/04/2012 21:38

I took my 11 and 12 yr old ds's but Only because they have both read the books. In fact I felt the film did not spend enough time on the disturbing political implications that were clear in the book and made it all a bit too straightforward. Would not take an under 12 unless they had read the book.

OldGreyWiffleTest · 07/04/2012 22:54

Please will someone tell me WHY they would even introduce the concept of children killing children to immature brains? I am absolutely gobsmacked that any of you would even THINK of taking children this young to see such a film!

Goolash · 07/04/2012 23:46

I will take my nearly 11 year old, he will get something from it. He's not interested in gore but would cope and be interested in the ideas. He really wants to see it and I have no problem with how he'll react.

I've taken my 7 year old to 12 a films before but this won't be one of them. As lI31 said there's a wIde range of 12a.

startail · 08/04/2012 01:40

No way am I going to see it, I loth Lord of the Flies and this sounds equally bleak and unrelenting.
DD2 (11) isn't going either.

DD1 (14) has read it, says she enjoyed it, but the death of a particular character upset her. She says I'm not to read it. DD1 is a perceptive soul I'm not going to.

She hasn't asked to see the film and I have no intention of encouraging her to.

I'll be glad when it's yesterday's craze, it gives me the creeps.

shebear · 10/07/2012 14:36

The trilogy is on Kindle for £2.50.

liability · 10/07/2012 14:44

I took DD who is 8, she loved it, but she likes Buffy too.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread