AIBU to find it annoying that so many unsuitable films are marketed at children?

[redpickle]

My DS is 5 and keeps going on and on about the last Star Wars - The Force Awakens. He's asked to watch it so many times in the last year but it's really not suitable (12 rating). Yet, toys, lunch boxes, games etc for these films (Spider-Man is another one) all aimed at his age.

Not expecting anything to change but just wondered if it's just me? His Christmas list is full of this stuff - should I avoid the merchandise? Or hope it bridges the gap until he's old enough to watch it?

[IamalsoSpartacus]

I had a look at one of those american 'parent guides' for Terminator. The only problem most of the reviewers had was the brief appearance of bouncing breasts. Punk getting his heart ripped out and the Terminator murdering about 30 people in various degrees of bloodiness - no problem! Just cover your kids eyes for the nude lady!

When I was at school kids watched The Exorcist and The Omen for a dare but I was too much of a wuss.

I'd still argue there's a difference between kids watching 'unsuitable' films for a dare and films being actively marketed at them, though.

[Nataleejah]

That doesn't sound like particularly decent, responsible parenting, Nataleejah. The reason you think all these things are fine is because you were desensitised to the violence as a small child.

20-30 years ago lots of things were normal what today isn't socially acceptable, e.g. playing outside all day long unsupervised. More freedom, less mollycodling.
You may call me 'desensitized', but i am not scared of actors, their make-up, or special effects. Not real = nothing to fear. Plenty of things in RL to worry about. Getting worked up over a film rating is such a first world problem really.

[bruffin]

I was talking about 12a

[8misskitty8]

I remember there was a big hooha when mrs.doubtfire came out in the cinema. It got a 12 certificate yet Jurassic park got a pg for the cinema.

[8misskitty8]

bruffin the 12 certification was introduced in 1988/89 for Tim burton batman in the cinema. There was no video 12 certificate then so it was a 15 on video.

[Chopstick17]

YANBU stick with your gut instinct. Others will do differently but you have to be true to yourself, your son will not be harmed by not watching it. Steer him towards other more suitable things.

[VikingVolva]

I think that the younger age ratings translate as:

U - everyone, utterly inoffensive
PG - likely to be fine for everyone, certainly once KS2 age, but check if you have a sensitive child
12 (12A in cinema) - suitable for secondary age children, but younger ones can be admitted.

Why shouldn't films be made for secondary school age pupils? And have related merchandising?

It's not as if there's a shortage of other stuff for other age groups.

[bruffin]

Ritacudrington
12a was introduced for Spiderman not Batman. I remember as ds was young at the time and there was a big furore about it. We didnt take ds and went by ourselves.
I dont mind adult humour goes right over childrens heads.
My dc loved the Simpson but there were two different levels which spoke to adults and children differently.

[PhilODox]

That doesn't sound like particularly decent, responsible parenting, Nataleejah. The reason you think all these things are fine is because you were desensitised to the violence as a small child.
The Marvel comics were not written for children, they were written for adults. They have dark themes, violence and sex, and 'damagrd' people as heroes (and anti-heroes).
There's nothing wrong with that, btw, fantasy is healthy, and allows us to explore things that would not be acceptable I'm rl, but it just isn't appropriate for small children.

The PG/12A thing is difficult. In the past, things that past the censors and got PG would not now. But that's up to us to be responsible parents and not show children things they're not yet ready for. Grease, for example, had a whole storyline about Rizzo's pregnancy scare, but people seem to think it's a kids film. Back to the future is a good example. We bought the boxed sed cheaply, because we thought the children would enjoy it. We watched it first to vet it, and were shocked at the language deemed suitable (lots of crap, shit, can't think what else) and the attempted rape scene. I don't really want my 5yo walking round saying Holy Shit, it's just not okay.

And yes, my eldest (Y6) has friends that were taken to see Jurassic World and Spectre, and some were taken out crying, others were fine, but I know from seeing them myself that my DD is not ready for them.
Desensitising children to violence is harmful, and can lead then to make poor decisions or use unacceptable levels of violence themselves. Why would parents think it's a badge of honour that their child isn't scared or horrified by someone having their eyes put out, or by playing call of duty or whatever?

[Nataleejah]

I remember watching Terminator aged about 8 or 9. Every other kid of my age also watched it, alongside with other films of similar genre. I also loved westerns and martial arts films very much. I only wasn't allowed to watch MMA tournaments because my mother thought its "unladylike"
But then all this stuff was on cable/satellite tv, or pirated VHS. So much for foreign ratings as nobody really paid attention.
However, i don't remember anyone being traumatised or complaining about having nightmares.
I would be seriously worried if a 10+ kid started having nightmares from something as innocent as Star Wars.

As for merchandise, its a different thing. my 12yo DS has quite outgrown character underwear and lunchboxes. They are appealing to quite younger kids.

[IamalsoSpartacus]

"In 70's and 80's for example, the typical action/adventure/fantasy films were always meant to be watched by youngsters. "

I'm not sure about this - weren't most 80s action films 18s? Things like Terminator, Predator and Max Max 2 (though I think 3 was a 15)

[Eolian]

I seriously don't get this. So you make a film that's aimed at, I dunno, 10 or 11 year-olds. But you shouldn't be allowed to sell merchandise like lunch boxes because as well as the 10 / 11 year-olds having them, 4 year-olds might want them too? That's ridiculous. Let your child watch the film or not, it's your choice and your responsibility. Kids always want things that are too old for them, and they always will, whatever film companies do!

[CombineBananaFister]

oh, and as others have said, just watch the Lego/cartoon versions - that ties in with the merchandise anyway

[CombineBananaFister]

YANBU. I'm completely with you on this op and I'm a bit fed up with the competitive attitude i've seen lately among my friends where its 'cool' that your kids can tolerate a film not rated for them, that they are somehow 'tougher'. It's ludicrous! by all means watch what you want but its not some badge of bloody honour. Pisses me right off. I think its braver of my Ds to stand in the school queue and admit that he doesnt like 'such and such' film because it was scary infront of his peers.

We went to see Kubo and as the poster upthread mentioned it was actually really creepy, he did have nightmares about it. Its not because he's a wuss or wrapped in cotton wool, its because its about two 'Ring' like sisters trying to cut his eye out and kill his mum. There's no deeper issue.

[MrsPear]

Just watch the cartoons - ds has a scooby doo cartoon with batman and robin in. Plus some old ones with Spider-Man in. Not difficult really

[TheSpottedZebra]

Watership Down is a U - I've been having nightmares about that for decades.

I doubt it'd shift many lunchboxes, however.

[Nataleejah]

Isn't it the other way around? In 70's and 80's for example, the typical action/adventure/fantasy films were always meant to be watched by youngsters. Not under 5's, but certainly younger than 15. Even though today's dvd releases have much stricter classification.

[Imgoing2killhim]

12A was invented after lots of pressure (and money) was 'thrown at' the film board by those in the film industry that finance/make the films.

They were upset that the films they were producing from children's books and comics (eg, Harry Potter, Spiderman, Batman, etc) were receiving 15 ratings as they were rightly perceived as being too dark and/or graphic and violent for children (ie: under 15s).

They argued that as these films were based on children's books/comics they would be losing their main market with a 15 certificate.

Eventually, after lots of discussions and 'donations', a compromise was reached whereby they invented the 12A rating and passed the buck to parents.
The film board believe 12A films to be 15s (otherwise it would be PG), but by relinquishing the decisions to parents they cannot be held accountable for any distress caused by those under 15 viewing such films.

OP, YANBU.

[WhooooAmI24601]

I think some of it has to do with older siblings, too; DS1 is 11 but at 5 was happily watching CBeebies and Bear in the Big Blue house. DS2 is now 5 and, because he has an older sibling, watches stuff I'd never have even considered putting on for DS1. I'm pretty strict on games ratings and fortunately DS1 isn't too interested in older games yet, but again, at 5 he wasn't half so clued-up on Star Wars movies and characters simply because he was still so young.

DS2 loves DS1's hand-me-down toys, too, many of which are superhero related things. There's no right or wrong when it comes to age restrictions; I think parents know their children and what they can deal with. Last December DH and I went to see the new Star Wars first and agreed that both DCs could watch it, because both would cope despite being under 12. I would far rather cinemas give parents the choice than to remove it entirely. Just as with merchandise you have the option not to buy it.

[TheClaus]

Nataleejah, if that was referring to my post, you weren't understanding my meaning. I'm not worried about Batman in particular. That was an example. I agree it's ludicrous there are Game of Thrones clothes for babies. When we buy these things, we also buy into a huge mass-marketing machine.

[MetalMidget]

12A was introduced at the time of the Tim Burton Batman to placate parents of 10 year olds desperate to watch slightly tough superhero movies - still very relevant.

If I recall correctly, Tim Burton's Batman was the first to be given a 12 certificate at the cinema - at the time, it was a legally enforceable certificate, like a 15 or 18. The BBFC didn't have 12 ratings for videos, so when it came out on VHS, they upgraded it to a 15. They later introduced the 12 certificate for videos.

12a came about a few years later, reportedly after lobbying by Sony because they didn't want under 12s banned from seeing Spider-Man (the Sam Raimi one).

It's worth remembering that a lot of films are American, and they have a completely different approach to ratings. For a start, they're voluntary for filmakers (films can be released unrated), and only NC-17s stop under 17s from seeing the film. Parents can quite legally take their kids to see R rated films, hence lots of horrified parents after taking their five year olds to see Deadpool...

To be honest, I'm not sure why The Force Awakens is so much higher than the originals. They featured a mix of limbs being lopped off (Ponda Baba, the Wampa, Luke, Darth Vader), choking (Jabba, by an enslaved Leia), murder by the good guys (Han shot first!), torture (the Emperor frazzling Luke with Force lightning), the aftermath of murder of the innocents (the Jawas corpse pile, Aunt Beru and Uncle Lars' charred skeletal remains), Tauntaun entrails, and numerous battles both on the ground and in space.

[Nataleejah]

There are clothes for babies made after Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad. And you worry about Batman?

[TheClaus]

I doubt there'd be outcry Crazywriter if manufacturers stopped making Batman underpants for toddlers. It's more a case of a 'make it, they'll buy it' mentality. I was referring before more to the idea of embedding superheroes/robots/etc. into toddlers' minds even before they are out of nappies. This then creates higher demand for toys, then higher attendance at movies - even unsuitable ones.

[Pluto30]

Well, my 5yo has seen Star Wars and lived to tell the tale, so.

Wouldn't call it unsuitable for children.

[crazywriter]

theclaw the toys are initially based on comics that were for kids. Even the original star wars was considered suitable for kids. It's up to parents if the want to later ban thein kids from seeing the movies. There'd be outcry if there weren't toys and clothes with batman etc for kids considering the older versions.

Steer kids away from those sections of toys stores if you don't like it. And that can be done. We steered ours away from paw patrol today because we looked out for it first. I'm fed up of tantrum over not getting certain toys so looked for the aisle and pulled DD1 a different way to something that I knew she wouldn't beg for.