To not take a 4 year old to see the Hobbit

[Loveweekends10]

I went to the cinema this evening with my 13 year old to see the Hobbit. This film is a 12A. It has graphic details or Orkney heads been cut off, arms being hacked off etc.
so a lady walks in with her 4 year old. Sits down and sure enough 30 minutes lady the little girl is screaming and has to be taken out.
What was this mother thinking?

Although the DC could have been crying about something else (?), even if you just look at them as guidelines, there's no grey area about a 12A being suitable for a 4 YO.

My 6 year old (well very nearly 7) is going tomorrow. I am very confident he will be fine with it, to be honest he would probably have been fine at the to end of 4' although. Probably wouldn't have taken him at that age. Children vary greatly in what they can handle at that kind of age.

Isn't it almost 3 hours long?

For that fact alone I wouldn't take a child under 10.

There is no way on earth I will be taking my youngest dd (7) to watch it. It's too violent.

Depends on the child I, know my child.

Of course you know your DC Spatsky, but have you seen the film?

Just realised I wrote Orkneys heads! It's Orks of course!

How do you know your 6 y o is ok watching that kind of violence unless you have already shown them violence? And why would you?

I briefly considered taking my 6 year old just because I'm such a Tolkien fan, but quick look at the reviews and length of the film means its not appropriate.
Definitely not suitable for age 4.
There's a good reason why it's not pg or U classification

I saw it the other day, no way would I take my 4yr old (and he's quite, Er, au fait with lots of films)

I'm not sure I'd take a 4 yr

I'm not sure I'd take a 4 yr old to a PG! I'm really sensitive to what kids should see at a young age, probably a bit overprotective in this way.

I have just been to see it. Long boring violent and unrelenting in its tedium. Even if a child is fine with violence the endless sweeping music and never making a shot last 5 seconds when they could drag it out to 20 means that very few young children will cope with this.

Totally inappropriate viewing for a 6 yr old regardless if whether you "know your child" or not.

Why are some parents so hellbent nowadays on exposing their kids to things they're not remotely ready for .

Children in cinemas make my teeth itch. REEEEEEEAL pet peeve! (Unless of course it's a kids film!)

Don't even get me started on babies in cinemas...

Movie times just for parents exist, cuntish mums and dads!!

Oh, and why do people take their child to see films like The Dark Knight Rises then complain diddums is having nightmares and how dare they make it so scary, blah blah blah.

Ratings are there for a reason. No idea why people don't respect them. Yes I do it's because they're selfish cunts who feel entitled to see the movie THEY want to and can't get/don't bother to try and get a babysitter

*Breathes and reels nostrils in.

The Hobbit is totally inappropriate to take any child under 8 according to Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo on their Radio 5 film prog. And then only if the child was particularly mature.

I too am firmly on the side of keeping very young children away from boring scary inappropriate films/tv for as long as possible. Also consider the other cinema goers who wants to be absorbed in a film only to have to cope with yelling distressed children.

Plus, who wants to feel the wrath of an enraged fanboy on his special --67th- viewing of the film?

-Imagines a photo of me and DTS going viral with evil caption...

This is from the Wittertainment Code of Conduct

Your five-year old does not want to come to see the latest 12A certificate: you are using the cinema as a babysitter. Your child's moaning, whinging and crying is your fault and a profound annoyance to everyone else. Your interrupted sleep caused by your child's nightmares is also your fault and serves you right

The fault does lie largely with with the parents but the 12A cert is a nonsense and needs abolishing.

The film industry needs to take some responsibility and accept that certificates need to be stricter because there are many parents out there who are simply too dumb to understand that films like Dark Knight, Skyfall, etc are totally inappropriate for primary aged kids. If the cert was 12 then problem solved.

I don't know whether or not the content is unsuitable, but doesnt the film go on forever? I can hardly sit through a film that long and I'm 34, not 4.

I'll be taking six year old ds, nearly 7. He's seen three 12a's at the cinema last year and behaved impeccably and enjoyed them all. He understands it's different to a child's film when he can get away with fidgeting and chatter. It totally depends on the child.

I'm taking 8 year old ds this afternoon. He will be fine, having already watched all the lotr movies - he loves them. I did think for a while about the length of the movie, but as he's more than capable of watching two premiership football games back to back I'm cautiously optimistic.

I wouldn't take him to a James bond movie though.

I thought the 12A was a great idea, when it was a 12 rating it meant lots of 10 and 11yo were missing out on Transformers, Spiderman and the like, too many people are taking it as a green light to take their 4 year olds in though.

I'm taking my 11yo to see The Hobbit but I wouldn't take my 8yo yet (despite all her begging) I'll have to watch it before I decide if she will be ok with it.

Took out 8&20 year olds yesterday and they loved it, though DD (8) had to hide under her coat a few times.

Too violent for 4yo, but each parent knows their child the best.