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?

I went yesterday with three 12 yr old boys. There was a small child in front of us with an adult I presumed was his mother. He didn't like it and kept asking to go to the toilet. I have no idea why she stayed til the end, as she missed at least a third of the film and disturbed everyone around them in the process.

Having seen it, I wouldn't have taken any of mine before the ages of 9/10.

YANBU. Although unlike LOTR I always thought of the Hobbit as a children's book. I read it age 9. 3 hours is a long time for a child to despite the violence, the fan girl in me loves it though as apparently they're delving right into the story and a few others, Aragorn's quest etc.

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

You've said it'd be too violent for a 4 YO, but that it's OK for some parents to decide that their 4 YO wouldn't be affected by seeing violence at such a young age.

Nobody can say that.

If violence affects even adults, the negative affect it can have on children can be life long.

That's why some children need protecting from their parents.

I saw it last night and no way on earth would I take dd (8). As people have said, it's incredibly fucking long for a start. And there is a huge amount of violence.

There's no reason on earth why she can't watch the DVD in a few years time. The film will still be there!

Agreed Agent, some parents haven't got the sense they're born with. The amount of children at DS's school (he's 8) that have computer with full internet access, are allowed to watch family guy and 18 rated films and allowed on Xbox Live COD with no chat restrictions is awful.

How bad was it Googly? DS loves the book and plays the Warhammer Game version with his friends. It is worse than LOTR?

I thought it was more violent than lord of the rings personally as the Orks are there throughout the film and if its not the Orks it's the Goblins and that was just long stretches of hacking and killing.

I'm taking my 8yr old dd. She's particularly mature. She loves all the Lotr's films, vampires, werewolves. She has seen a few 12a films in the cinema. The only one we didn't take her too was 'The Woman in Black' quite rightly. She's fine with a bit of gore....relishes it in fact.

My DH is in the film industry though, and she's visited a few sets ever since she was young. I think she's always understood its not real.

My DS though (5) is sulking because he's not coming. There's no way he'll sit through it.

So no OP, yanbu to be amazed by a 4 yr old being there.

How do you know the child was four exactly?

The 12A rating is a bit bizarre anyway. Its basically the same as PG, I don't really get it.

"know their children but hardly any of them see the film first, vet it and then take their kids along "

We did this with the Avengers and Xmen First Class. We decided against DS seeing Xmen due to the Nazi scene with the mother being shot. Costs a fortune though.

Dh and 10y DD are going to see it on Tuesday as part of their day off together, whilst I am at work.
She has seen other 12A rated films, mainly the HP films.
I believe she will be fine with this. If she wasn't DH would bring her out, but it is unlikely I feel.

I would usually only take over sevens to see a PG and over elevens to see a 12A.

Having said that, I'm planning on taking DS1 (12) and DS2 (10y9m) to see The Hobbit in early January.

I suppose it depends on your own view of films. As someone who enjoys genuinely gory and violent 18 rated films, 12a seem neither to me. James bond in particular was very tame and it's always seemed far more of a kid's series.

Not suitable. My 7 year old DD will not be seeing it.

Fuck me. I had no idea people took such young DCs to films like this.

No way would I say this kind of thing is suitable for under 10s.

I dont agree with 12A at all and like pp think it should be abolished. Yes it feels unfair when you have to miss out on a film because you just fall short of the age restriction but thats tough really, its no different to being just short of 15 or 18, you just need to wait, the film isnt going anywhere and will be available on dvd when they are older, the restrictions are there for a reason like all resticted products.

Haven't seen the film yet. However, if it bears a close relation to the book (which I deeply loved as a child), I'm guessing not suitable for a four year old!

I think 12A would be better changed to a 10 rating rather than making it a free for all.

Wait a minute, lots do you saying not for under 10's ect.

My son was 8 when he read the book. There is nothing wrong with that, he knows it's a story. Orks are fictional creatures, so when they are being chopped up he doesn't mind.

We went to see the film yesterday with his younger brother (8) and they loved it.

Yes but a film is obviously more graphic than a story ohMyGlob

In the Hunger Games they had to tone down the Cornucopia bloodbath and the deaths of some of the tributes.

The thing about fictional text, is:
a) it's sometimes a lot easier to mentally skip past things you're not ready for, and;
b) the level of description.

For example, here's a line from from of my favourite children's stories when I was young.

"And then the dragon ate the naughty prince all up". Fairly standard, I think. Now, think about all the bits that are left out of that line. If it was an adult horror novel about mythical creatures eating people alive, there'd be a lot more, erm, description about being eaten alive.

Now, imagine the scene, being shown visually, and the level of detail. The equivalent of the children's book would be more of a funny cartoon. The naughty prince would be swallowed in a big, comical gulp with no gore or screams. Then the friendly dragon would give a big burp.

The 18 plus version would have screams, rending and tearing, and close up special effects of the teeth coming towards him, etc.

A 12A film would be somewhere in between.

I loved the Hobbit before 12, but there were lots of things that then I would not have been able to watch in too realistic detail.

I'm planning on taking 9yo DD who read the book when she was 7 and is a huge fan. She's been really excited about the film ever since we heard it was being made. She's seen a few 12A films and been fine with them. Nothing but nothing would make me think it was a good idea to take 5yo DS1 though. There's not a hope he'd sit through such a long film, the violence would be distressing for him, and he just wouldn't understand the story. So YANBU.

Actually my DD finds it easier to watch the films than to read the books. She'd watched all the Harry Potter films long before she could bring herself to read the books. It just depends on the child IMO.

I agree totally with tiggytape.

My 9 year old DS2 has watched LOTR, but at home, with us warning him about particulary scary or gory things coming up. Different from watching "cold" at the cinema, in that more intense environment

OP YANBU

I have seen the Hobbit, BTW