Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Other subjects

Flip

Original poster

Lord of The Rings - would you let a five year old see it???

15 replies

willow2 · 30/12/2002 23:04

Have just been to see The Twin Towers - absolute magic...would happily sit through it again immediately. However, when the lights went up and everyone started leaving I was gobsmacked to see families with kids who can't have been more than four or five years old. I know the film has a 12A certificate - basically any responsible adult over the age of 18 can take a child under the age of 12 - but how any adult taking such young children to see such a supremely bloody film can be classed as responsible is beyond me. Maybe I'm being overly protective, but I found it obscene that an adult could sit alongside a small kid through three hours of murder and mayhem (albeit beautifully done). No doubt they'll wonder why their children wake screaming in the night for the next year or so.... and then just as things are starting to get better they'll take them to see the final part of the trilogy.... I'm sorry to rant but some people shouldn't be allowed gerbils let alone kids. I also think the new 12A classification isn't worth the paper it's written on - as it leaves the cinema with no power to stop these idiots.

OP posts:

Original poster

willow2 · 30/12/2002 23:06

I meant The Two Towers....

OP posts:

SofiaAmes · 30/12/2002 23:21

Interesting that you should say the twin towers...I thought that the footage from the 9/11 bombing that was shown on every news station at all hours of the day and night was far more disturbing than any movie could be as it was real. But having said that I completely agree with you regarding violent films and young children.

kkgirl · 30/12/2002 23:21

I bought the video of LOTR Fellowship for our nearly 9 year old for Christmas. We watched it together in November.
Stupidly we put it on the other day for him (he is a bit poorly) in front of our two six and a half year olds and it wasn't until it was on I realised how gory some of the bits are and it is all quite dark and scary. Neither of them seemed that bothered but we stopped it and I wouldn't be keen to let them see it again.
Willow2 sorry better swop the kids for gerbils tomorrow!!!

Tortington · 31/12/2002 00:12

i think it depends on your children. i would say dont take five year olds becuase its just to damned long and they will get bored, one of my 9 year olds got bored and started making robots out of popcorn packets and straws! but i had read it to them beforehand ad i think their imaginations are much worse than films, so that was somekind f prparation - be it good or bad - i suppose

Holly02 · 31/12/2002 03:33

Willow2, I really don't think I would take a 5 year old to see it - personally I think it's far too young. We went to see the Two Towers the other day, and I commented to dh that children would find it very scary. I really think a 5 yr old would have nightmares, and I know I certainly wouldn't be taking my son to see something like that until he's much older.

tigermoth · 31/12/2002 10:19

custardo, what!!!! you read the ENTIRE Lord of the Rings to your children? It must have taken you months! What with you and PamT putting together 45 piece beyblades for her ds, I feel I am lagging behind in the dedicated mother stakes.

Anyway, back to willow's question - we too saw the Two Towers yesterday. Wonderful and yes, I'd see it again too. Saw quite a few 6 year olds upwards in the audience. Took my 8 year old - he loved it to bits - loves the first LOTR film which we have on video. Wouldn't have wanted ds to see this film without an adult - he needed to hide in my coat when the excitement got too much. Lots of his classmates have seen it too. As long as a 8/9 year old wants to see it and there's an adult with them, I have no qualms about letting them. At that age some of them are up to reading the book for themselves, anyway.

5 year olds, probably not. But... well...... our three year old has seen our LOTR 1 video, in the company of his older brother from time to time. Doesn't seem traumatised - no nightmares, or become super aggressive - a bit of pretend play follows where the the year old is a troll and the 8 year old is frodo. To be honest the three year old prefers Star Wars, especially the pod racing scenes... and the light sabre fights. Toy light sabres are big in our home.

At nursery, I am told my youngest ds mixes well with other children, will share and take turns as much as a three year old does, doesn't hit out depsite being boisterous, can exert some control over his emotions in other words and ..... knows all the star wars characters and role plays star wars like mad.

Make of that what you will

Original poster

willow2 · 31/12/2002 11:51

Sounds silly maybe, but think that watching same film on video could be far less traumatic - the whole effect of the cinema, the darkness, the sound, the massive screen, adds so hugely to the general feel of a film - that's why we go to them. Also agree that many eight or nine year olds would be fine - it was just the tiny ones I was worried about.

OP posts:

helenmc · 31/12/2002 12:13

I agree with you Willow2, my 5yr old couldn't hack Shrek, (didn't like the dragon) but managed to see it on video

threeangels · 31/12/2002 15:05

I wouldnt. I like the movie but thought some things were a little to spooky for even me. In our house we dont really allow our kids to watch movies that are PG 13 and over.

XAusted · 31/12/2002 20:08

Saw it last night. Most excellent. But not for 5 year olds! Even if I thought it was suitable for my 6 year old, I wouldn't take her. Would have to go to the loo at least twice during film and ask endless questions!

emsiewill · 01/01/2003 10:41

dh is a cinema manager, and I was talking about this to him last night. He absolutely hates the 12A certificate - says that you might as well make the film a PG. It was introduced for the Spiderman movie, and it's basically so the distributors can make more money.

tigermoth · 01/01/2003 11:14

that's interesting, emsiewill - how exactly does the new 12 certificate make more money? if you've time, can you explain please?

emsiewill · 01/01/2003 11:20

Hi tigermoth - basically because more people can see the film, they make more mpney - like with Spiderman, there were hundreds of 5/6/7/8 etc.. year old boys who were desparate to see the film, but as they were under 12 were not allowed. The 12A means anyone can see it, as long as they're accompanied by an over 18, so once the certificate was changed to that, they could watch it. I suppose they would say that the certificate gives people an idea that the film may not be suitable for children under 12, and at least if an under 12-yr old went to see it, they would be accompanied by someone "responsible", but, cynic that I am, I just don't believe that - I think they realised there was a whole market that they were missing out on.

tigermoth · 01/01/2003 18:43

ah yes, it all becomes clear now. We had much spiderman angst in our house, due to that old 12 ruling.

Tillysmummy · 01/01/2003 18:55

I thought the Two Towers was brilliant. Far better than the first and I would love to go again like you Willow. Magical but also extremely scary I thought for small people. I definitely wouldn't take a young child to see it. I found it scary so goodness knows what a young child would think. Not suitable and they are not able to appreciate the story either. There were two kids behind us, one no more than 6 and they were continually asking their dad questions.

Flip