AIBU not to let my three-year-old watch Frozen yet?

[Colourfulrainbowunicorns]

A discussion came up with a bunch of mum friends and I was definitely in the minority. I thought I would post here to see if I am being unreasonable. It's fine if I am.

My DD is 3. She has become aware of the character of Elsa from Frozen at nursery and loves this character. I am not bothered by this and happily got her an 'Elsa' dress when asked. I also allow the songs.

I will not however let her watch the full film.

She gets a bit invested in programs and is easily upset. She also likes to properly understand 'why'. I think there is a LOT of explanation and unpacking needed in Frozen and that she can wait a year or so.

On a practical note she doesn't have the concentration to watch a full length film like that.

Fairy tales and the jeopardy and loss in them are very important for growth the actual tales that were read to small children 100s of years ago were not sanitised purposefully.

though by mumsnet standards I would be lynched anyway. My DS loved frozen and ice age and cars at 3 years old. He’s 16 and survived. I also took him to see the guardians of the galaxy in the cinema at age 4.5 (shock horror) he loved it.
we have many memories of sitting together watching a movie at home or going to the cinema we still do in fact we went yesterday to see Spiderman. It was never a way for me to get stuff done i was always there taking the time to answer all of the questions.

Nobody actually needs to watch a film. Lots of us find it enjoyable. It’s not doing any harm when done alongside all the other stuff and particularly if watched with a parent who is helping make sense of it (asking and answering questions). So why stop 3 year olds doing it?

For me, 1 hour and 30/ 40 minutes is more than I would like a 3 year old to watch a screen, and I'd prefer a more age appropriate content - i don't think they can follow the story at three.
Its not a case of 'banning' them from it, more that there's better, shorter things to watch/ do at age 3.

See, I think short screen things are worse. Watch8ng something longer helps concentration span 8nstead of damaging it - and if combined with talking to a parent and (more than likely) also playing a bit and singing the songs it seems a pretty useful activity for if it’s too hot/cold/wet/dark to be out. Or if people just fancy a companionable sit down. Some children may not be able to c9 centra the that long at 3, some definitely can. If it’s at home they don’t even have to. They can dip out when they’ve had enough.
It might nit be ideal every day, but it’s not, in itself, a problem. Lots of addictive short videos, on the other hand…

And wizard of oz has a U rating.
But it still has scarier parts than frozen

So don’t want her to watch the whole film because you can’t be bothered to explain it to her? Could you buy the book, read it together then let her watch the film?

For explanations you don’t have to dig in deep at her age, she just needs a few pointers not a thesis.

I have already explained to her but she actually does want the thesis. We have spent a long time discussing the emotions in these short snap shots. I feel that taking things a bit at a time not overwhelming her with masses of questions is better.

Oh cool, why did you post then? You knew you didn’t want to let her watch it yet so you posted to have others agree with you, which pretty much no one has? It’s a completely normal film for a 3 yo to watch and enjoy, as with most Disney films.

Agreed. I don't know why you bothered posting.

Because sometimes asking a question helps you answer it yourself. Even if your answer is not the one other people give you.

Fair enough.

Its still not something I would chose to do at age 3. I have two grandchildren around that age and I sit with them when watching short programs and talk to them about what they are watching all the time. I used to work in reception class and have known children with American accents because they watched so much Disney from a young age believe it or not. Each to their own.

To th person who said ‘adults like movies so why not a 3 year old’ , i give you, in no particular order:

adults drink alcohol, drive cars, cross roads unsupervised - I could go on but won’t - but I don’t think anyone sane would suggest a 3 year lot should do any of those things. So it’s a silly argument.

screen time evidence - does no good at that age and can do harm

too young to follow plot

too young to sit still for 1.5 hours and unhealthy to do so at 3 (and probably for a while longer)

there are so many other active and practical activities a child of 3 can be doing instead of watching a film that have been listed by pps - all of them have some developmental benefit (emotional or physical development, fine and gross motor skills etc), whereas a film at best is an excuse to do nothing for a bit. If your 3 year old needs to do nothing then they probably need a nap.

Like I said. Not all the time. Why give the accent example when I’d already said occasional films?

I don’t think anyone has said that exactly have they? I said some people enjoy films. Seems a bit of a straw man.
Watching ‘screens’ (when did tv become ‘screen time’?) all the time is bad. Watching the occasional film or couple of episodes of something isn’t.
Too young to follow the plot - some children. Not all.
Too young to sit still for 1.5 hours and unhealthy to do so - really? Would you think that if they sat and coloured? Or sat and had books read to them? Plus young children watching films at home rarely sit still. They get up and down, have a dance and so on.
It’s an unnecessary panic. If the Op doesn’t think her daughter is ready, if you don’t, then don’t do it. But to suggest the occasional film in a balanced active childhood is unhealthy and damaging is just an overreaction.

I think you should do what feels right. All my kids could watch a film by 3 and they do ask questions it would be odd if they didnt. You dont have to make the answers complicated but if you dont want to answer her questions about a film what happens in day to day life? Do you avoid them or steer clear of situations that she might start asking questions about? It sounds exhausting. My Ds was 2 1/2 when we followed a man down stairs and he saw his head and pronounced really loudly "mummy why hasn't that man got hair, that man's bald, why is he bald" mortifying.

I’m just going on the science.

read ‘the anxious generation’ - genuinely worrying even if you limited your children’s screen time. And yes, TV is a screen, an inactive, uninteractive, passive activity same as any other screen. It is bizarre that you would think the original screen suddenly loses its screen status because portable versions are invented? It encourages children to zone out at the exact age that we are trying to teach them to zone in. Even an hour a day at that age is a huge chunk of their waking hours and just unnecessary and can be damaging.

But it’s not an uninteractive, passive activity if you watch and discuss and sing along. I’m not encouraging any zoning out at all. What I meant was the term ‘screen time’ is relatively new, not that tvs are a special category - though they are much more conducive to communal interaction than personal screens.
Anyway, no need to worry. DD (30) brought up with my lax and worrying ways managed a degree and to be safeguarding head for a massive national sporting organisation.

You've clearly never watched a film with a toddler. It is anything but inactive and passive.

Mine dance and sing away to the songs, wander around and do something else during less interesting parts, ask questions about the film etc. It is very interactive and and active.

Of course it can be used incorrectly and parents can encourage zoning out, watching hours and hours of screen time with no interaction etc but that is on the parents, not the films which can be a good tool when used correctly.

I'm not concerned about Disney films damaging my DC.

I think what you are describing is clear evidence that toddlers are not ready for
films.

So it is bad for toddlers to zone out and watch a film but when they don't zone out to watch the film, they aren't ready to watch it?

🎵 let it go, let it go ooooohhhhhh 🎵. Possibly the stupidest thing ive ever read. Shes a wean. Get a grip.

Those two things are the different sides of the same coin:

• i wouldn’t encourage any pre schooler to zone out for any time at all in front of a screen.
• The fact that people are saying their toddlers are ‘watching’ but also talking, dancing, playing, getting up and down and not watching it for periods shows quite clearly that they are too young to actually watch a film - it is just background noise to normal toddler behaviour, and a distraction from it.

TV as background is so sad for little ones, they don’t need it, just give them some pans to bang or some crayons and paper or some chalk for outside drawing on the patio or pavement or dishes/cups/pans of water and a washing up bowl outside, literally anything and they will play with it. I teach primary. You don’t need screens and kids need very little commercial material stuff to play - a couple of spoons, mud or soil and water and you have hours of fun with a good hose down at the end. Turn off the screens, it’s summer and they should be outside!

I think you are overthinking it. Its just a children's cartoon.

It can occasionally be background noise during parts when they lose interest and have a little wander but how is it background noise when they are actively taking part and interacting with the film such as singing and dancing to the music or asking a question about the film?

Why do you think it's one or the other? It's possible for toddlers to watch films and colour and play outside. Watching a film doesn't mean only watching films.

Exactly @SouthLondonMum22 . Such black and white, inflexible think8ng here. Lots of screen time is bad. We all know that. A little, managed well and involving interaction with others, isn’t. Most people (with and without toddlers) have a mix of excellent, good and just OK activities in their lives.