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.

Ah, now they both agree five is too young.

abbie what a pathetic snide dig. Just because a child can watch a film doesn't mean they do nothing but watch TV.

Why would anyone be ashamed their child watches TV. Before TV people listened to the radio. Before that people embroidered. People have been doing their own things inside for ages so this crap about kids watching TV/on computers is ridiculous

I don't think it's snide - I said exactly what I meant. I do think that children of three who can sit through two hour long films are probably too used to watching TV for extended periods.

You mean they probably have watched films before? How horrible!

Well abbie- my children have never watched television because we don't have one. They can sit through a film at the cinema no problem, have been able to since they were three or so.
They probably have such a good concentration span because they don't watch tv rather than because they watch too much.

Yesterday (daytime) i watched quite a bloody horror film on tv, plenty of killing. The rating was PG. I guess nobody really cares to censor this sort of films because the vast majority if kids wouldn't care to watch some ancient B film with lame effects.
But Star Wars, Harry Potter, Hobbit something what is a cult for children lets get knickers in a knot over some lightsaber violence or a flying dragon.
Seriously...

Why would you assume that people not taking their five year olds to see 12a films are letting watch the news and violent crap on the TV?

Some odd logic on this thread, that doesn't really constitute an argument.

Just come back from watching it. Completely amazingly fantastic but imo in no way shape or form suitable for a 5yo. There were quite a number of scenes that reminded me of this thread and made me think no way. I have to say I would have to think that a small child who walked away from this film with no ill effects would have to have been inured to this kind of thing. I can't imagine letting DD watch this for a long time.

Also, fyi the bbfc certificate at the beginning clearly stated that the film was suitable for those aged 12 and over and that thise under 12 had to be accompanied by an adult. But very clear, suitable for those aged 12 and over. Good call imo.

I really applaud the parents on this thread who are genuinely wanting to make the correct decision for their under-12 yr olds. I can see that some have changed their minds after reading reviews, information and feedback from other MNetters.

I recall my DB taking DN (5 yrs old) to see a film that was a PG on his access afternoon - because DB himself wanted to see it. My DSIL had to pick up the pieces with all the worry and questions after that one.

I took DN to see Hachi (G rated) but had thoroughly researched and checked with SIL that she felt that DN (then aged about 9 yrs and whose Daddy had died 2 yrs before) would cope with the emotional content of death, grief and long-term loyalty - albeit through the story of a dog. I am on another thread in Mumsnet Telly Addicts about that one. I was the one with tears physically streaming down my face - but DN was clearly affected (short-term) by the emotions. One of the things I had to do was give DN my phone to speak to DM so he could express his emotions as I drove us back home. He 'made a joke' of Aunty SW crying throughout "Yes, proper real tears Mum.... all down her face. No, I didn't cry Mum. I found it very, very sad but I didn't cry. No, I don't want to go for a meal now, we are going back to Aunty SW's because DDog will be missing us. Aunty SW will cook".

I had to cook extra sausages that night for DN to feed to my DDog whilst emotional order was resumed in the household. Thank goodness the DDog has a waterproof coat..... he needed it that night whilst DN feared for losing his special best friend! That was a projection of emotions from the Hachi film that neither DM or I spotted might happen.

My suggestion is that no parent ever make promises to take an under-12 to a 12A film before watching themselves or reading the excellent parental guidelines/reviews on line. Those who said "My 5 year old will be soooooo disappointed if I don't take him/her now" should think before they promise.

I happy to take the flaming for my views.

Nataleejah

I used to look after DN most weekends after his daddy died. I said that he couldn't watch a Harry Potter film on TV because it was after the water-shed. DN phoned Mum and she said it was okay with her if I allowed him to stay up until 10.30pm as an exception.

I don't ago against a Mummy's decision, so we did bath, pjs and settle down on sofa - but NO story reading because it would be too late at 10.30pm.

All I remember to this day is that it included someone's left arm being cut with a knife. I know it is not real blood - but it looked real enough to me to make me traumatised. I had to stay in the room (cushion over my eyes) because I was responsible for DN - but I wouldn't have let him watch it.

De-sensitivity to brutal acts is not something I wish for my DN - or anyone else.

Took my 6yr old yesterday. He loved it! :) Hasn't scarred him. Tbh I'm struggling to recall the bits that people are worried about? There's a but at beginning (1st 10mins) which wasn't nice, but not graphic. But there is lots of cool flying so my ds was happy :)

Just back from seeing it here too. Took all of mine, though my youngest (DD3) us 13 now, so not an issue.

I have to say though that I would be much more doubtful about its suitability for a 5 year old for most of the reasons others have already given.

I think my judgment would have been different if I had never seen the other sw films... Ds has watched them all and been fine.
However he's also a huge avengers fans but I won't let him watch the films as they're too violent, i think personally. But he has watched jurassic world on dvd...
I wouldn't let him go to cinema to watch it though.
We chose to go to cinema to watch sw as we though the spfx would be fab for his 1st non u cinema viewing and we were right.

We went to see it yesterday and have decided that we won't be taking DD (6) and DS (4) to see it at the cinema, despite requests and "my friend has seen it and says it's not scary". We have said to them that when it comes out on DVD, they can watch it then - at home with us where the lights can be on and we can turn it off if they get concerned.

Mostly it's fine and great and they'd love it. However, there are three or four scenes that I can see being disturbing for them.

We took our 4.8yo and our 7.1 yo as well as the 12yo yesterday. DH booked the tickets ages ago and it wasn't classified at that point. Normally we would have watched before and made a decision but had no chance to this time so we took a chance and were prepared to leave if needed. It is the second time 4.8yo has been to the cinema.

It was fine - there was one scene that 7.1yo turned away from and that was all. All the trailers were for kids films and there were plenty of other little ones in the audience.

The 'darker' bits would have passed right over their heads.

I am a bit dubious at ratings - I won't let the 12yo watch Spectre but we are at this moment watching Indiana Jones on BBC1 which has shown some very gory bloody bits - in fact the bloke is about to be sliced up by the aeroplane as I type. Yet that is apparently fine for all ages? Much worse than Star Wars imo!

It's pretty tame for a 12A and nowhere near as scary/violent as Revenge of the Sith was; a 9/10-year old could easily handle it and in my opinion, it's not one which you definitely have to be 12 to watch (e.g. The Dark Knight). It would probably have been a PG in the 1980's (when '12' didn't exist).

The intensity is more due to the emotional scenes than the violence, so his empathetic phase would probably have a large effect.

I know that it's Star Wars, but I'd honestly wait for the DVD. The much louder volume of the cinema was very immersive but would be intense for a 5 year old.

KirstyJC Raiders of the Lost Ark is a PG, which roughly means that it's fine for 8 years and older (so not suitable for all, which would be a U). Still, I agree that PG is too low, and it's insane that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a 12 but is much less violent.

I'd say that 12A/12 would be OK for Raiders and I'm very surprised that it wasn't upgraded to that rating in 2012 (when it was last submitted to the ratings board); the BBFC aren't afraid to increase (e.g. Jaws and Ghostbusters going from PG to 12A) or decrease (e.g. The Godfather and The Terminator going from 18 to 15) the ratings of their older films to suit current guidelines, which I'm glad that they do and is very useful for parents.

guitar I don't agree that the noise would be intense for all 5yr olds. My son is 6 and has been to the cinema atleast once every 3/4 months since he was 2. His dsis has been going with us since she was 4 weeks old. She's now 2 and has been many times. The noise isn't an issue for them..... We have only ever seen animation u certs up until sw.
We didn't take our dd to see sw, as she would lose interest in the 1st 5mins!

guitarguy

Jaws was originally a PG?!! That film terrified me when I was a kid.

What baffles me on these threads is that people mums get their knickers in a twist about fake violence but no one bothers about letting any age of child watch the horrific sexism in so many 'kids' films esp Disney.

My kids have watched all the films mentioned on this thread, at whatever age they asked. But I won't let them see beauty and the beast or the little mermaid for example. Imo the messages in those films are much more damaging than fake gore in a fantasy world.

My ten year old did get upset at one scene. It wasn't overtly violent but threatening with a sadistic twist iyswim. The score also got to him at that point as he put his fingers in his ears.

Again, it's not either or lightbulbon, I don't like the sexism in some of those with (Peter Pan being another one) . I don't go out of my way to ensure my kids watch these.

However violence is still violence.

Sexism in movies is not going to give them nightmares but does give you an opportunity to discuss it. 5 is not too young for this. My ds of his own accord says things like "why are there no girl transformers? There should be one." And when he says thing like "I didn't know girls could be baddies" we talk about it. You can balance images with ideas and how you live your life.

You can also do it with regards to violence, but it should be gradual and age appropriate.

ShamefulPlaceMarker - I saw it in IMAX and those screenings tend to be louder than normal ones, so I take back what I said (if OP's child isn't seeing it in IMAX).

Something that I do take issue with is the slightly sadistic edge to the First Order's methods (which I won't go into detail with to avoid spoilers), but with that in mind, I can see why it's a 12A instead of PG. It might go over OP's child's head seeing as he's very young but it's worth taking note of; however it doesn't run throughout the whole film and is nowhere near as bad as Saw or even The Dark Knight (also a 12A).

ProvisionallyAnxious - Jaws (the film itself) is still a PG on DVD/Blu-Ray because it hasn't been resubmitted for video since 2000. The 12 rating on the front is for the bonus features (which is mentioned on the back cover), although the film itself would easily get a 12 if resubmitted nowadays.

The 12A is for the cinema re-release in 2012. Even after 37 years had passed, the BBFC felt that it was much closer to a 15 than a PG (so it was at the higher end of 12A).

It was a 15 in Ireland until downgraded to 12 in 2012.