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?

I get what you mean OP. My DS is nearly 7 and has always been very sensitive. When they had a "favourite superhero" costume day at preschool I googled some cartoon versions that were pretty short and benign. He chose Spider-Man as his favourite. But I wouldn't show him a proper Spider-Man movie yet, I don't think he'd cope.

Many names/brands/imagery have transcended different generations. You have toys/clothes/cartoons for very young children, also you have films/books/items for grown-up fans and collectors. Film ratings are just a formality, they have little to do with 'the big picture' of things.

With Star Wars merchandise, I think that they are targeting people who were kids when the originals came out. They are recreating their childhood by buying stuff that they would have enjoyed if they were younger.
It's very sneaky how they've made different layers to the franchises. They make programmes and merchandise from pre-school right through to adulthood.
The one that annoyed me was the Deadpool merchandise. I don't think it was clear that he wasn't your average 12a superhero until you tried to watch it at the cinema with your kid. (It's a 15)

Considering Spiderman, Iron Man etc are comic books YABU. Star Wars also has a cartoon version, so again YABU.

My 4yo was watching Star Wars at 3 with her dad and GPs. She now looks through Spiderman comics and loves Captain America. Spiderman and Darth Vader are her favourites.

I guess it depends on the kids but toys and just that...toys. They don't mean kids have to have seen the movies. In fact my DD loved Vader before she even watched the movies. She went around calling him her friend after seeing him at comic con. Same with the daleks from Doctor Who.

Comics and cartoons are not genres exclusive to small children. Plenty are adult orientated and completely inappropriate for children.

You'd have to be pretty oblivious to not get that Deadpool was a rather different film to the standard Avengers stuff really. It was R rated in the US. It had f-bombs in the trailers and it is based on a comic that was never for children.

Parents need to do some due diligence surely?

I guess it depends on the kids but toys and just that...toys. They don't mean kids have to have seen the movies.

Uh, yes, Crazywriter, that's the whole purpose of the toys. The kids may not see the movies now, but they most likely will later on, because now they know the character's name. It's in their psyche. Advertising is very insidious. Why do you think they sell little boys' underwear with Batman or Spider-Man on them? So parents can say, 'look, what a big boy you are now, just like Batman...' And without seeing any sort of visual - film, TV, cartoon, book - how is the kid going to know? So we're buying into these Disney/Marvel mass-market ideals that toys are very much a part of. And then, when a three year old asks to see the new movie that is really not at all appropriate for him, no wonder parents end up with a problem.

Yes The Woman in Black was a really creepy film, despite it being a 12. It wasn't marketed for children though.

Ratings are guidelines, not laws, if you watch the film and feel that it's appropriate for your DC to watch then allow them.

Actually, the more 'grown-up' versions of superhero films are a fairly recent thing. Batman, Spiderman, Star Wars -- been out there for decades as kids' stuff. But its adults who want cartoon characters to have sex life and stuff.
Also the present generation has become oversensitive and wussy. Stuff that was kids' entertainment for ages, suddenly became inappropriate and 'desensitizing'

Yabu. A lot of these have comic books and cartoons that kids enjoy.

The darker superhero films might be relatively new, but the comic/graphic novel darker plots they are based on have been around for a long time. Hollywood just discovered they were profitable. Deadpool was a real gamble as an adult only movie, but the character was developed in the 90s. The Dark Night incarnation of Batman appeared in the 80s (and is usually described as returning to his roots before he went a bit camp in the 60s).

YABU a bit. How would you like things like lunchboxes and toys to be redesigned so that they are aimed at 10 year-olds but not 6 year-olds? That doesn't really work.

My DD has seen all the Star Wars films (apart from the revenge of the sith)
There is not much scary about the new one, it's just a bit fighty at times.

What 12A really means is "we have seen this film as experts and we really don't think it is suitable for under 12s. If we did we would give it a PG - which by the way we officially say means it should be OK for a child 8 or older. However the film companies are moaning that teenagers don't want to see PG films, but they also don't want to lose that lucrative family film dollar, so they have made us invent this lame assed nothing of a rating which just serves to make parents feel guilty whether they take their child or don't."

We tend to 'vet' 12a movies by checking the parent section for films on IMDb if we are going to the cinema or we watch them first. We don't do it as much now as dd1 is 12 and her sister is 9.

Parents quite happily allow children to watch 80's PG films which had swearing, sexual defences etc without batting an eyelid.

For example back to the future films with swearing, including '....see some serious shit' , mother/son kissing, biff trying to touch up Lorraine etc. And that was a PG !
Short circuit had swearing, again a PG.

The first Harry Potter film is a U and it was banned in our house for a bit when dd1 was little, as Draco talks about Neville falling on his 'fat arse' , dd1 was about 5 and kept repeating it.

If in doubt watch/research the film. The marvel ones tend to be violent which is what gives them the 12a status.

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.

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

Wouldn't call it unsuitable for children.

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.

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

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I doubt it'd shift many lunchboxes, however.