Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Films

Related: TV discussion forum.

Original poster

Would you take 4 yr old to see new Superman?

42 replies

Northerner · 17/07/2006 09:06

We want to take ds to the cinema today, were going to see over the hedge, but ds and dh want to see Superman. I know it's a 12a so ds could se it with us, but, is it really suitable?

He has seen all of the old Superman films btw and loves them.

TIA.

OP posts:
brimfull · 17/07/2006 09:13

No I wouldn't as he's scared easily and we'd have to leave.

pinkranger · 17/07/2006 09:25

Same tihng my 3.8 yr old DS really really wants to see it but i am bit unsure???

expatinscotland · 17/07/2006 09:29

no, they scare easily. even if they put on like they're not, it could wreck their sleep.

Greensleeves · 17/07/2006 09:30

Hell, no. I wouldn't even let mine watch the Fox and the Hound

collision · 17/07/2006 15:55

Doesnt 12a mean they have to be 12?

am not sure if they would let him in!

Aimsmum · 17/07/2006 15:58

Message withdrawn

katierocket · 17/07/2006 16:00

No. Apparently it has some quite loud, frightening (well to younger children) scenes.

12a means that you can take younger children but only if an adult accompanys them and thinks they can handle it

Enid · 17/07/2006 16:00

12a means they have to be 12 and even then it may not be suitable

Enid · 17/07/2006 16:01

whoops sorry I am wrong

katierocket · 17/07/2006 16:01

It bascially means 12 advisory. IMO 4 is too young.

Enid · 17/07/2006 16:02

no I'm not

"'12A' - SUITABLE ONLY FOR PERSONS OF 12 YEARS AND OVER
The '12A' certificate means that no-one younger than 12 may see a '12A' film in a cinema unless accompanied by an adult. Films or videos classified '12A' contain material that may be disturbing, harmful or unsuitable for children under 12. There may be stronger or more detailed treatment of some of the elements listed below than would be allowed in a 'PG' film or video. Context may justify exceptions."

tallmummy · 17/07/2006 16:03

My bil is always taking his boys to see films or getting DVDs way to old for them. They are 7 and 11 now but he's done it for ages. It's a shame - why risk scaring them with some fantasy violence that they won't understand?

I always wonder what they will actually want to watch when they are 12, 15 and 18.

Enid · 17/07/2006 16:03

actually I think I AM wrong and so is that website

Aimsmum · 17/07/2006 16:03

Message withdrawn

Axolotl · 17/07/2006 16:19

No, no and no, I'm afraid. There is a reason why they put certificates on films - there is likely to be violence or really scary stuff in there. I wouldn't take my seven year old, let alone a child of four. A big no-no for me.

melrose · 17/07/2006 16:22

No, let them watch something suitable, but afraid I am anti kids watching anything not on cbeebies!
ie 5 year old = postman pat not eastenders

katierocket · 17/07/2006 16:39

not to worry Enid - it's probably the heat
this is from the BBFC website

12A ? Suitable for 12 years and over. No-one younger than 12 may see a ?12A? film in a cinema unless accompanied by an adult. No-one younger than 12 may rent or buy a ?12? rated video or DVD. Responsibility for allowing under-12s to view lies with the accompanying or supervising adult.

IT's basically for children slightly younger than 12 who are pretty mature for their age.

apronstrings · 17/07/2006 16:41

no - I am debating with my dh weather ds who is 8 should be allowed to go

apronstrings · 17/07/2006 16:41

weather?! i mean whether

nikkie · 17/07/2006 22:34

NO, it is quite scry for younger/more sensitive kids and is quite loud, much more to it than the old ones, and more realistic.Theere is also a lot of talking and younger ones would get bored

nooka · 17/07/2006 23:39

I wouldn't take my ds who is 7. But I think it is also very long. The reviews have been fairly dreadful, so I'm not sure you would enjoy it either. But then we have just watched Superman 1 and 2, and we all agreed that they were fairly pants! (Well Superman one has it's moments)

WestCountryLass · 18/07/2006 00:02

I took my DS who is 4 (5 in October) and he loved it! But he loves Superman and stuff like Transformers/Power Rangers etc and he knows it is make believe!

He was not frightened but I do know other 4 year olds that would be, my friends little boy is scared of Thomas, so I would not take him.

If in doubt, do not go though because some bits are loud!

Greensleeves · 18/07/2006 01:18

I've just been to see it and it is very violent indeed. One scene shows a prolonged and vicious beating, gang-style, with a man being repeatedly kicked and punched by several others until virtually unconscious and the stabbed. There is also a scene where a woman is hit/pushed/knocked to the floor by a man, who is subsequently killed by having a grand piano thrown at him. It's wholly unsuitable for young children, much too violent.

Cracking film though

ghosty · 18/07/2006 01:55

I wouldn't take my 6 and a half year old to see it. He would love to go but I think it's wrong to expose young children to films like that. I think the HP and the G of F film was totally unsuitable for younger children too but I know someone who took their 5 year old and 3 year old to see it and KING KONG at Christmas

geekgrrl · 18/07/2006 06:29

I'm with ghosty on this - no need to expose young children to films clearly not aimed at them...
(but then my then 5 yr old dd was the only one in her class who didn't get to see Star Wars episode III - the one where lots of children are killed and Anakin Skywalker is very graphically burnt alive - goodness me ghosty, we're obviously such prudes )

Swipe left for the next trending thread