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.

You are right, the attention span thing is a red herring.

Adults don't have a 2 hour attention span either, but manage to watch whole films. They just don't pay attention equally throughout. They might take a sip of their drink or eat some popcorn and then focus entirely on the film again, but the lapse in concentration doesn't affect anyone.

Lots of 5 year olds (and younger children) can do the same.

atticus because a 12 has very tame 'violence' in my opinion.

The film is not rated a 12 atticus, its a 12a. Which is different. I'm quoting the BBFC here -' Adults planning to take a child under 12 to view a 12A film should consider whether the film is suitable for that child.' It doesnt say that 12a films will always be unsuitable.

atticus hunger games not so sure about because it's more "realistic". As in it could really frighten a child.

Star Wars is fantasy it's different.

12 is the 12A rating for DVD. It is otherwise the same rating. See my earlier link. They cannot use 12A for DVDs because they can't enforce whether an adult sits with the child in their own home and its confusing for retailers. The Force Awakens will have a 12 rating when its released on DVD.

Talizorah you genuinely think that the Hunger Games is suitable for a five year old. I am shocked and that just makes me think that you have a skewed view of what is appropriate for young children (and question how much experience you have with young children).

Cross post there talizorah but the hunger games is a 12A and you've just said that its tame violence. Personally I don't think children being forced to kill one another in a warped version of the world where life has no meaning is even vaguely appropriate for anyone younger than 12.

The hunger games is fantasy

It is Disney's fault though and they need to market responsibly. The fuckers make billions out of people and I don't think we should let them off the hook. We should have higher expectations of corporations rather than simply accepting that it's all our responsibility as parents.

We might call it corporate social responsibility, but no one seems to expect much of that at all.

12 is the same as 12A

The PG-13 American version of the first hunger games film has a 15 certificate. They had to edit out 7 seconds to get a 12A. Mockingjay part 2 was clearly cut to just scrape into the 12 category.

They don't make hunger games toys for preschoolers though.

So the reason it'll be a 12 on dvd is because the 12a rating is unenforceable in the home, not because the material suddenly becomes too much for anyone under 12 to handle. I'd be interested to know why the bother with a 12a rating at all - or is it simply financial and gets more bums on seats in the cinema?

I'm not sure you can compare star wars to the hunger games. Entirely different concepts. Hunger games would have been a 15 were it not for less than 10 seconds being cut from the film. Not the case with this star wars.

Hah cross post step

They added the A because so many parents were upset that Spider-Man was a 12 not a PG.

The 12A certificate missed the point though. The studio should have made a PG Spider-Man.

The result is that they just make everything a 12A now because it maximises potential revenue.

Good lord, I must be very old fashioned. My 5 year old is still happy watching Doc Mcstuffins and has only just managed a Disney film without being scared. I'm afraid I'm in the 'childhood is short, preserve their innocence as long as possible' brigade. Why do 5 year old need to watch films about killing? Our real world is scary enough.

I'm not are why they introduced it either but I suspect due to pressure from the industry. Fact remains that a 12A film is a 12, rated by the certification board as suitable for 12 year olds. If they believe the film suitable for 11 year olds or 10 year olds they rate it PG. The law simply permits adults to take younger children into the cinema to see a 12a if they wish to do so. I suspect they thought there would be borderline cases, not that five year olds would be taken in.

I'm not saying anything negative about star wars (we're very much a star wars loving house), nor am I comparing it to the hunger games in terms of a concept, I was responding to talizorah's statement that the film is suitable for 5 year olds because the violence in 12A/12 films is tame.

atticus it's a more realistic thing though. Less superpowers more real weapons. Also it's not the violence that puts me off its the themes. So hunger games I'm less happy with.

Star Wars I'm fine with though, as I am with most 12s. There's the odd one like the Hunger Games which is a bit darker but most aren't that bad

But you haven't seen the film!!! How can you possibly say its fine!!

Right so now competitive parenting has spilled into film watching. Oh my little darling is 4 and had seen the whole of star wars, Lord of the rings blah blah. First of all I do not believe for 1 second that a 4 year old has sat through and understood the Lord of the rings films and secondly I am shocked that anyone would think this appropriate for a child of that age. Same for star wars, Darth Vader is pretty fucking scary for a 4 or 5 year old. And just because you've exposed your kids to it doesn't mean they're any more advanced than the 4 year old watching Paddington Bear. It's sad when parents force things they like on their kids with no thought as to whether it's age appropriate or how it will affect them

atticus because Star Wars as a whole doesn't have particularly realistic violence. They're hardly going to make this one particularly bad

I'm pretty sure it was nothing to do with borderline cases. It was that they could make much more money if people could bring children to see their 12A films. I think the industry pushed for an intermediate certificate between PG and 15 and from there it was easy to argue that it should be at parents' discression.

But, of course, in doing so they get to transfer all responsibility to parents and pretend that the industry has none. It's classic neoliberal capitalist fuckwittery.

There is huge variation in how violent or scary or otherwise 12A films are. The violence in, say, the Dark Knight Rises or the Hunger Games is much worse than in lots of 12A films. It would be silly to claim that it's all mild. I found Mockingjay Part 2 really quite scary at one point, much more so than I was expecting.

have you actually seen Star wars number 3 talizorah? If you have and you believe that is suitable for a five year old there is something very wrong.

Darth Vader is pretty fucking scary for a 4 or 5 year old.

He looks like he's made of Lego.

XiCi: the original Star Wars trilogy films have U certificates... They are considered suitable for all ages.

I think there's a difference between taking a 5 year old to see a 12A film in a cinema and allowing them to watch it at home.

Mine have seen Jurassic Park at home at age 5 (not the last one though). But I wouldn't take them to the cinema to see it. The pitch black darkness, booming speakers, massive screen hugely change the 'feel' of a film. They can't hide behind a pillow or wander off if there's a bit they don't like. Mine don't find the dinosaur-eating-people scenes that scary, but i'm pretty sure they would in a cinema iyswim?

By number 3 I mean Episode 3