To let my 7 and almost 9 year old dd's watch this?

[justalittlelemondrizzle]

We're working through the Harry Potter films which they're loving so far. As am I. Next up is The Deathly Hallows p1. I haven't seen these ones but I hear they're much more grown up and dark than the others.
Would you reccommend I let the dd's watch this with me tonight or are they too young?

Odd attitude for a teacher

How is it odd?

They'll be absolutely fine, some bits are a bit dark/scary but it won't do them any harm! They'll love the films of they've enjoyed the others!

My dd is 8. The only one she finds scary is Deathly Hallows Part1.

In some ways, Deathly Hallows 2 is the least scary film as it's all just fighting rather than suspense of any kind.

"'d let them. If they love HP not watching it would be torture! You can always fast forward anything that looks like it will really upset them. Can't think of anything tbh.

Odd. They're 7 and 9. The movie is a 12. Clearly the 7 YO is way off the age rating which indicates that the expert body which classifies movies feels that it contains inappropriate content for that age group.

There are scenes of death, violence, intense emotional issues. Lots of bodies covered in blood, werewolves with blood on their faces after eating humans, a well known character having his throat slit, swearing "bitch", "bloody hell" (although to be fair "bloody hell is Ron's catchphrase) etc.

Therefore "odd" is a word I'd use about a teacher saying "if they love HP it would be torture". As others have said, delayed gratification is a useful life skill. It will not harm them at all to wait and is likely to considerably increase their enjoyment once they really are ready to view it. Watching at age 7 could be very upsetting for them.

It does get a bit 'steamy' in places.
But apart from that I think if they liked the ones after 1&2 then they should be OK.

Atticus: The 12 certificate is advisory for home watching. I have already said that I would fast forward any parts I thought might really distress them, but I don't think most of what you have mentioned would really distress most children. It's fantasy and most children have the intellectual capacity to understand that. Most have also heard mild expletives like 'bloody hell' and if they haven't, there is no harm in it.

I honestly don't see what my job has to do with my right to exercise my own judgement about what my own children watch.

You brought up the job

And the issue with the swearing is that by normalising it you encourage its use.

Because in that job I speak to lots of young people about what they watch and how they respond to it. That doesn't make it relevant in terms of how I should respond to the prospect of my own kids watching a film with a rating higher than their actual age. It's as if you believe teachers should share your conservative views because we are somehow meant to be all the same. We're people like everyone else!

Loving the fact that I have "conservative views" because I don't like to hear children swearing..

Atticus: I don't agree with that at all. I have never heard a child say 'bloody hell' - mainly because they know it's archaic language used by the elderly

I have, however, heard 11 year olds liberally calling each other 'cunts' in the playground. They're not getting that from Ron Weasley!

No, you have conservative views about films. Obviously.

No, my almost 7 year old hasn't read any of the books yet either as I don't think they are suitable yet. I'm aiming to let him start reading the first ones around 9, and first films at 11+.
I think there are so many other books and films more suitable for a 7 year old, what's the rush?

NFW would I have let my 7 and 9yos watch 12s.

Why the unholy rush to subject children to media inappropriate for their age? I see it again and again on here and elsewhere.

I'm also not convinced that a lot of the content of the books won't have gone over the head of the younger one.

TBH if you think the word bloody is "archaic" and you hear 11 year old children using the C word in the playground then you live in a different world to me. The children at my DS's school would be in detention for using that language.

I dont actually think the language is that bad in HP. DS2 has said "bloody" though and had a big telling off for it.

And as I said in my first post we let DS2 watch DH Part 1. We then realised though that Part 2 should wait a while because it's very dark and potentially upsetting. Everyone makes their own choices and your choices for your own children are your own business - my point was that your comments about nothing upsetting being included in the film given the context of the OP's question relating to a 7YO were odd, particularly since you made the point that you're a teacher.

Atticus: I don't agree with that at all. I have never heard a child say 'bloody hell' - mainly because they know it's archaic language used by the elderly

I agree with the posters who have said if they aren't old enough for the books they're not old enough for the films.

And for those of us who started when JK Rowling did, we all had to wait for each edition to be written.

It won't hurt to wait till they're older. What's the point if most will go over their heads?

Atticus: There are many different worlds out there. But of course I give them detention. The point isn't how I deal with it. The point is that youngish children already know much worse language than the language they are going to find in Harry Potter. It is still a choice to be made by parents, but as a teacher I am confident in saying I have no doubt most have heard the word 'bitch' by 7 and 9. Some will have heard 'bloody'. I doubt they will use it.

Yes they asked this morning on the way to school if we could watch it tonight but then immediately said a few of their friends aren't allowed to watch it yet but others in their classes have and informed me there was lots of swearing apparently. They haven't been phased by the others at all. I fell asleep watching the last one and I woke up to find them glued to the screen in awe I get the impression the younger one doesn't get a lot of what's going on. I don't know whether that is a good or bad thing.

I don't thin there is actually much swearing OP. Its the violence and emotionally distressing scenes with that particular film. In part 1 there is a weird "sex scene" with Harry and Hermione kissing in the nude but you don't see anything as such.

YABU

• it is 12 for a reason
• you haven't seen it yet to make an informed judgement
• the films are much better if you have read the books first
• why waste a film of a child who 'doesn't get a lot of what's going on' - show them a more age appropriate one instead

Rule for HP in my house is you have to read the book first, then you know what the scary bits will be and how they turn out, and you get the joy of seeing it all come to life.

My sensitive DS couldn't cope with the second one at 8. A year on and he still refuses to watch the movies or read the books!

My DD is 12 and won't watch after the third one as she found the books scary. She made her own call.

They'll be fine, after all they are for children despite what many adults seem to believe.

My 'sensitive' child - More like a child that has been wrapped up in cotton wool and bubble wrap their whole life by their helicopter parent who convinces the world is all sunshine and rainbows!

Film certificates are there for legal reasons, and selling films, not viewing them privately at home.