to take 5yo ds to see a 12A film?

[LittleLionMansMummy]

The film being the new Star Wars one. I know I'm officially 'allowed' to, but would usually check film content (by watching it) before making a decision about whether it's appropriate for him. He loves Star Wars and has asked specifically to see it at the cinema.

Yes, it was a deliberate, summing up of the opposing views with a facetious comment.

(We don't do Santa per se either)

dodgeballqueen you know this shit isn't real, right?

No one's afraid in this house, until some kid starts walloping him because he's seen something he's too young to process and his parents thought he was fine with it.

Yes littlelion I was slightly comically referencing an earlier post where someone mentioned shaun the sheep, a child's maturity and squeamish parents. I think you're doing the sensible thing watching the film first, it is up to the parents.

I agree somewhat about the classification system, in that content can vary widely and that kids can balk at odd things. However, only to a point. There is only so much they are going to come across in a PG, and it's fine for them to be faced with stuff you might have to discuss with them rationally and help them rationalise, that's all part of growing up. I think 12 is a huge leap from 5 though, and the content will definitely be a level up. I don't mind discussing the animal catcher in Shaun the Sheep this age, we discussed the good real life uses for tranquilizer guns in relation to Paddington. I don't want to discuss torture or decapitation or the like with him at 5. That's a personal view, it's too much too young and it's nothing to do with his maturity or my squeamishness.

Others make different decisions, and thats fine, I'm not really trying to tell anyone what to do, but I'm baffled they can take the risk with a 12 without having viewed it themselves first, and I haven't heard any reasons for it that have convinced me to change my opinion, only that the child really wants to see it and some kids are frightened by other odd things so may as well take a punt on it.

I agree it's strange that a parent would allow their 4 or 5 year old to watch this film (or any 12A film) without first watching it themselves to see how potentially suitable/unsuitable it may be.

Having been to see the film with a smaller child, the most unsuitable thing was the new Zoolander trailer which had 'ironic' references to sex, tits and bums and was just awful. Waaay more unsuitable than Star Wars although it is very loud and noisy and action-packed, and if you had a child who was already a bit scared by SW I wouldn't take them.

My DS is (just) 4 and absolutely loves Star Wars. He understands whats going on. He has watched the original trilogy on DVD with us, plus the first two of the second trilogy (PG ratings). Haven't let him see Revenge of the Sith as that has a gory bit and is a 12.

I read that Force Awakens is similar to the original trilogy - so lots of fights, explosion, villains, dying but no actual gore. I'm seeing it myself on Monday and if that is right then I will let my four year old watch it on DVD later.

I wouldn't take him to the cinema though, bigger screen, unfamiliar environment, no ability to "pause".

My 6 year old DD is terrified of Star Wars ...

I posted on another similar thread (think that one was about Jurassic Park). I am definitely in the err-on-the-side-of-caution camp.

I do see it as part of a general trend to try and make children grow up as soon as possible, forever moving them onto more mature pursuits. I see it with toys as well. People saying their six year olds have grown out of toys, or at least that they have grown out of cars/baby dolls/dinosaurs because they have now moved onto the more sophisticated Star Wars/Monster High/whatever. Toys are what you make of them - liking baby dolls shouldn't be less sophisticated than liking Monster High, they are different interests, but I am at the way it is seen as a sign of greater maturity.

Marketers foist characters onto young kids who are too young to read the book or see the film or whatever, and then when the children are old enough, they don't want to, because they think the characters are babyish.

Winnie the Pooh is a good example of this, or traditional Fairy Tales; you get Winnie the Pooh all over babygrows and toddler toys, but in fact to appreciate the wit and humour of the books, you'd be better off reading them as an 8 year old. And Fairy Tales are seen as "babyish" too - I've seen so many board books with sanitised versions aimed at young children, with any gruesome parts cut out and everyone living happily ever after.

DD (just 8) has recently been reading a more traditional version of Grimm's stories, and she is glued to them, totally gripped. She told her cousin she was reading Snow White, and her cousin laughed, and said they were baby stories, and BIL was all faux-shocked, acting like DD should be reading more "grown-up" things ("I thought she'd be on Harry Potter by now". But the Grimm's stories are really dark, not for a toddler. So why ruin them with pallid imitations? (And I'm saving Harry Potter for when I think DD will really appreciate it - this year, quite probably, but what's wrong with waiting a bit?) What is the rush to make our children grow up so quickly?

Just want to add, I love Star Wars too, I'm really looking forward to it, and I understand the temptation to include your children in a big cinema moment. When it was as yet unrated we discussed the possibility we might be able to take him if it was PG, but as soon as it was 12a it was an easy no. As a Pg one of is would still probably wanted to have seen it first, as he's more sensitive to live action stuff than animation. As such I've not shown him the originals yet, there's no hurry. Nothing escapes him, if a hand gets cut off I'll have questions for a month, and hand cutting off was a rather repetitive plot device in 4,5,6.

Oh yes I agree about torture and decapitation Satsu although the 'torture' in SW is use of the Force - I am making an assumption that it is not graphic and that a child ds's age would see it clearly as 'not real' in the sense that he dresses as Spiderman but knows he can't climb buildings etc. I remember that one of the original SW films included a scene in which someone's hand got cut off (Luke's?) which made me wince while watching with ds, as did the scene where Luke is electrocuted and Vader is killed. And that's a U rating! The physical violence does concern me if I'm honest because it's very real to a 5yo, but the 'imagined' violence less so. And I simply think that the 'mass murder' elements would completely go over his head since it's wildly outside of his experience and comprehension. To take a real life example, he asked me about the Paris attacks but had no idea of the enormity of it as his empathy is not yet fully developed. It posed a challenge to me to explain that one in age appropriate terms.

It's all very interesting, and subjective as you say. I don't judge the parents choosing to take their young dc as I have to take it on face value that they know their children better than anyone else.

When DD was about 3.5 the BBC lunchtime news showed a video clip several times of a granade bouncing on the ground and exploding and a policeman a couple of feet away having his leg blown off (the leg flew across the screen). Luckily DD didn't see it (and we haven't watched BBC news or any other live news since). Seeing something real like that, with no acting or fake blood, would be upsetting to most adults, never mind small children. And there was no age rating or warning for that clip whatsoever (not an apology when lots of people complained).

Smacks a lot to me of too much too soon. Why anyone thinks it appropriate to let a five year old view a film deemed suitable for 12 year olds and over is beyond me.

ineedacheeseslicer Yy completely agree, right down to the Winnie the Pooh baby stuff.

It's not about wanting to keep them babies, it's that there's a time for everything, and why rush to it? 8/9/10 is still a child, it will be as fresh and interesting to them then, probably more so because they will have an understanding to match that goes beyond the most mature 5 year old.

I agree about the news, disappointedone, but it doesn't follow that seeing fake violence is somehow better for them?

There's a review for parents in The Birmingham Mail

Should I take my children to see Star Wars: The Force Awakens?

Birmingham Mail 17th December

DD sees no violence in real life. She genuinely doesn't seem to notice it in films. (These 2 Star Wars ones are the only non-U or PG ones she's seen.) She came out with a big grin. I think we try to put our lenses on them, when they just don't see things as we do. (And frankly, discussions about pretend violence on a screen pale into insignificance when you consider what some other children are witnessing for real in certain parts of the world at the moment. )

Have to agree about some parents wanting their DC to grow up very quickly. I was admiring my nephew's bedroom one day and his mum said 'oh I don't like it, it's not very grown up'. He was 5. And I once handed DD's Winnie the Pooh plate to a friend and had it handed back with the comment 'he [her 5yo DS] is not a baby'.

A lot of friends assume that DD woukd have watched SW, Hobbit, HP etc, because we are into them, the assumption being that of course you want your DC to get into stuff you like asap.

But it's good to hear that DC don't automatically reject the more age-appropriate stuff when the more grown-up stuff is introduced. Though their parents might .

That's so true about Winnie the Pooh INeedACheeseSlicer. His image is associated just with babies and toddlers, but the books themselves aren't babyish in the slightest.

'If ever there is tomorrow when we're not together... there is something you must always remember. You are braver than you believe, stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think. But the most important thing is, even if we're apart... I'll always be with you.'

No reason to include that other than it always brings e teeny tiny tear to my eye.

I'm a bit shocked at people boasting that their three year old children watch so much tv that they're fully able to watch a two hour long film without a murmur.

Obviously, lots of kids do, but I didn't imagine anyone thought it would be a point of pride.

So, they went off together. But wherever they go, and whatever happens to them on the way, in that enchanted place on the top of the Forest, a little boy and his Bear will always be playing.

High-fives squoosh

We never had any pooh related baby stuff, because I don't like fisting character stuff on kids before they are interested themselves, and ds at nearly 5 is only just getting into the characters because we've been reading chapters at night. A few months ago even the language wouldn't have held his attention so strongly.

*foisting! foisting character stuff!

Sorry everyone. I've just pushed this thread into an 18 rating

Oh satsuki I'll be in full on blub mode soon. I'm not sure what makes me more emotional, thinking of Christopher Robin growing up, or imagining he and Pooh playing forever in Hundred Acre Wood.

I don't like character stuff on kids' clothes either.

I disagree that people are boasting about their 3 yos who can watch a film for 2 hours, neither of my DCs watch much TV but have both always sat through films at the cinema. Now they are 9&7 they still watch loads of kids stuff, they love Disney and the little one still watches Jake, Zoo, Curious George etc but also loves SW, Avengers, Ghostbusters too. It's not about them growing up too soon it is about specific children's interests.

I don't understand how Winnie the Pooh is babyish either, DS2 has taken his giant WTP cuddly toy to school on toy day for 2 years running and even saved up his pocket money all year to buy the baby Pluto toy this year at euro Disney, he sobbed in the shop when they said it was discontinued, the shop assistant actually said to him that he was too young for it anyway, I was not happy as I love that he loves the young stuff still, I equally love that we can watch Star wars and so on together.

Interestingly Simon Mayo on Radio 5 just said he thought it was fine for young children and should have been a PG. Mark Kermode disagreed and thought it had scenes that would be upsetting for young children.

Having just seen it myself I agree with Mark. There are scenes that are dark and upsetting. There are also a lot of scenes my five year old would absolutely love, but unfortunately because of the other scenes, (which are presumably the reason for it being a 12a) there is no chance.