Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

To not take a 4 year old to see the Hobbit

101 replies

Loveweekends10 · 16/12/2012 00:43

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?

OP posts:

bruffin · 16/12/2012 15:04

I wrote on here last new year about a tiny child that was sneaked into an 18 which had a sadistic revenge scene and a pretty bad rape scene, and someone still came on the thread saying there was nothing wrong with that.
I don't like the 12a rating, there is a lot that is unsuitable for young ones and there seems to be more bad language being allowed.

SpecialAgentKat · 16/12/2012 15:04

Now though, it is just pointless. People take their children because so many 12As are films they want to see and justify it that their child is exceptionally mature - which they may well be but that doesn't mean it is O.K for them to watch gory movies at such a young age. It also doesn't mean that parents who don't allow it all have fragile and immature children.

Perfectly said tiggytape!

LucieMay · 16/12/2012 15:08

Actually none of the 12a films ds has seen- dark knight, Spiderman and James bond- are ones I would want to see myself. None are my taste. We went purely for ds!

kickassangel · 16/12/2012 15:09

I think it's fine to have an advisory rating rather than a strict enforcement. There are some parents who take their kids but that is their choice and they get to live with the consequences. It just stuns me that this book has been turned into 9 hours of movie. I also think that younger children will struggle to follow the plot as it jumps around in time and setting so could easily confuse them.

Whatistodaysname · 16/12/2012 15:11

absolutely no way for a 4 year old, my 4 year old informed me yesterday he doesnt want to watch the princess and the frog again because he is scared of the shadow man!

Its a lot more violent than Lord of the Rings was.

Sirzy · 16/12/2012 15:17

I agree 12a is to blurry, it's either 12 or it's not. Either way if a film is rated 12a I can't see how anyone can consider it suitable for a 4 year old. If it was a 10 year old then I can see parental judgement coming into it but younger than that is madness.

SpecialAgentKat · 16/12/2012 15:18

Going to the flickers is a real treat for DH and I, I mean lets face it, it isn't cheap! Plus with young kids etc, getting a night out just the two of us is our own little Holy Grail!

I do have to deal with the consequences of a child being there because a parent couldn't be arsed arranging babysitting. Bored children in movie theatres + lax parents = Ruining the experience for everyone else.

But I'm a grinch and complain about whining children and parents too engrossed in the movie to pay attention to the kid moaning, kicking chairs, wandering around etc.

Result = Selfish parent and bored child are booted out = DH and I get enjoy our rare treat + Bored kid is happy they are no longer stuck in watching a film they're too young to comprehend.

Everybody wins! (I'm a silver lining grinch )

Cozy9 · 16/12/2012 15:22

I can't believe the Dark Knight was a 12a! I thought it was an 18!

difficultpickle · 16/12/2012 15:23

I think there is a big difference watching a film on the tv at home and seeing it on the big screen in the cinema plus of course the loudness that you don't get on your home tv.

Ds wants to go and see it. I don't understand how they have made three films out of one very straightforward book. It seems overkill to me and I'm not sure I'd have the patience to sit through it. Ds is a mature 8 year old who has seen some of the old James Bond films (at school, of all places) but the old ones seem to be more cartoon violence than the modern ones. If you read the BBFC guidance for the Hobbit it doesn't seem particularly gory or gruesome. I reckon some episodes of Dr Who are scarier.

As for dcs seeing films that aren't purely children's films, I don't see the issue at all. There are plenty of adults whose behaviour in cinemas make my teeth itch (talking, playing on their phones etc).

Original poster

Loveweekends10 · 16/12/2012 15:30

Actually I found the reality of watching a young child in distress whilst she was being forced to watch a violent movie far more distressing than what was on the screen.
Thank you selfish mum for that experience.
I guessed she was 4 because I have had two girls myself and have also a lot of experience in childcare. If she was 5 or 3 i don't think that makes much difference to be honest. However, she may have been a mythical dwarf and not 4 at all but 14 in which case it was quite ironic!

OP posts:

Hobbitation · 16/12/2012 15:35

I think the length of the film would make it unsuitable for DD2, more than anything else. DD1 (7.5) has watched LOTR films, all Harry Potters on DVD, and I've read the book to her though I appreciate seeing it on the big screen is a different affair. So DH and I are seeing it first, and if we think it's ok for DD, we'll take her.

Hobbitation · 16/12/2012 15:40

It is a children's book by the way, a teacher recommended it to me when I was 7, though I couldn't get into it and only read it as an adult in the end.

I know a film is different but I think some 12As may be ok for 7/8 year olds. Yes, some parents are stupid but most know their own kids better than anyone.

Mintberry · 16/12/2012 16:14

Depends on the child, and it sounds like the mum made a bad judgement, but perhaps she thought it would be more child friendly since The Hobbit book was aimed at a younger audience. Though I wouldn't take any young children to The Hobbit because it's a film I would actually want to watch, not be in and out for loo breaks, listening to a whispered running commentary in my ear the whole time.

legalalien · 16/12/2012 16:22

Popped on to report back.

Ds:

Was not at any point even slightly scared, although he did say afterward that he thought a warg would be very frightening in rl, if there was such a thing.

Thought the movie seemed a lot shorter than 2.5 hours (think it's closer to 2.5 than 3, there are quite a few trailers).

There were quite a few 8-10 year old based on size (in a smallish cinema), I didn't see any smaller children. None of the ones there made any audible sounds of distress. There 's more fighting scenes than lotr but nothing that realistically gory. Mind you, we saw the 2d version.

Virgil · 16/12/2012 16:33

DS1 is nearly eight. He has literally counted down the days until the release of the hobbit since he is a massive fan of the book. But imagining something whilst you're reading and seeing the images in front of you are very very different things. He is definitely not seeing it.

Why do people feel the need to rush their children along?

FlimFlamMerrilyOnHigh · 16/12/2012 16:49

People who say, oh my DC saw whatever movie and they weren't scared so it was OK are hugely missing the point, IMO. The reason I don't want my 7-yr-old seeing violent movies is that they desensitise children to violence, they're psychologically damaging. Neighbours have taken their 9-yr-old to see James Bond and I'm just appalled by this. Why can't they let them remain children? There are lots of excellent movies that are actually aimed at children. There's no need for it.

Yes the Hobbit is a children's book, but for older children. We read it at school when I was 11 (and I loved it at that age).

LadyIsabellasHollyWreath · 16/12/2012 17:14

Just taken my DCs (8 and 10) to see it - perfectly happy with that decision although we did pick an aisle seat just in case younger DC went off the idea (or needed a wee) and needed to be whisked out by DH.

As Kermode and Mayo said, it's a relatively "soft" 12A. I wouldn't have taken either of them to see Dark Knight, Hunger Games or Woman in Black, and only took the elder one to see Skyfall. Would happily have taken either to see Avengers Assemble but they weren't that bothered.

You don't have to go and see the film yourself really - the BBFC parents' guidelines for each film give enough detail for you to decide. I think that the idea of shifting 12As to give an absolute minimum age of 8 years old and parental guidance between 8 and 12 is a good one, but the BBFC have rejected it as impractical.

TheBigJessie · 16/12/2012 17:27

Husband informs me that one of the children (at 3 and a half) got scared by an "evil bird" on a DVD of a film rated Universal while I was at work last week. Presumably wouldn't be ready for The Hobbit next year then!

LetsFaceThePresentsTheyrePants · 16/12/2012 17:29

It's not a children's film.

FWIW I m a MASSIVE fan of LOTR and thought The Hobbit was tedious and self-indugent. That's 3 hours of my life I won't get back.

Peter Jackson - I am soooo disappointed in you.

KnittingChristmas · 16/12/2012 18:03

I don't think it's the end of the world if they just dropped the A and made it 12 - so kids of 10 and 11 couldn't see it? Life's full of disappointment - they'll be able to see it when they're older.

And it's not just the stupid parents who live with the consequences of showing young children horribly violent and unsuitable films - aside from the irritation of adults in the film having their viewing interrupted, you only have to stand in any primary school playground to see kids re-enacting violent scenes from films/computer games, etc. My 4 yr old was playing with his 3 yr old brother last week and pretended to cut his throat . What moron of a parent has allowed their child to watch something involving this level of violence? Cos there is no fucking way my 4 yr old learnt it from CBeebies .

difficultpickle · 16/12/2012 19:31

I don't know how you could police a minimum aged 8 for 12A. Ds is 8 but is the size of some of the 12 year olds at his school and at worst the youngest you'd guess for him would be 10. Unfortunately there will always be irresponsible and/or selfish parents who take dcs to films that aren't age appropriate.

Doshusallie · 16/12/2012 20:01

Just taken ds1, 8 and ds2, 6 to watch the hobbit. They loved it. Yes the orcs are scary but they know it is make believe. The battle scenes are so fast it's all a blur and nothing graphic as far as I'm concerned. They loved the trolls and the big birds at the end, they laughed and jumped in all the right moments.

KnittingChristmas · 16/12/2012 20:12

bisjo, yes one posted just underneath you.

legalalien · 16/12/2012 20:13

Flimflam, I take your point but I was really just reportih back for the benefit of various posters who were asking how the hobbit compared with other films. For what it's worth, ds is not allowed any shoot em up type computer games, has 't seen any 12a films other thanblotr and harry potter etc etc. I have however let him watch the news from an early age, and he has seen a lot of computer generated and reeenacted battle scenes in documentaries, which tend to prompt difficult discussions about man's inhumanity to man, compared with an obviously fantasy film.

Out of interest, does anyone know whether there are any guidelines as to when children should be allowed to watch "adult" news?

LadyIsabellasHollyWreath · 16/12/2012 20:13

I guess the problem is that there is no available proof of age for 8 year olds, whereas you can get ID for teenagers, so it's not unreasonable to ask them to prove age for entry.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5