Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

How young would you take a child to see A 12A FILM

29 replies

Weegiemum · 18/05/2008 12:46

You can take them in at any age with a parent, according to the bbfc website.

Through school etc my kids have learnt of the imminent release of 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". They have already seen the other 3 films, and liked them (esp ds (6) ).

They are really keen to see the next film - they are dd1 (8.5), ds(6.5) and dd2 (4.6). But I'm not sure I should be taking a 4yo to a 12 film. The though, however, of her missing out on the same experience of the other 2 is awful - she hates being thought of as too little and has been to several pg films no bother. I have read the plot synopsis on the bbfc website and it doesnt sound like it would bother her. In fact, more likely to scare the other two!

They have all watched 12 films on dvd at home - Spiderman 3, Star Wars:Revenge of the Sith etc. But I wonder if the big screen is worse. Or am I a bad lax mum for letting them see things like this already, or would you take them?

OP posts:
Dynamicnanny · 18/05/2008 20:20

Sorry but sometimes little ones just can't go to things.

I wouldn't let a child under 8 at least see a 12a.

Could she not go to see something else with dp or you as a special treat.

lou33 · 18/05/2008 20:22

ds2 is 7 and i took him to see a 12a, he was fine, the film was fine imo, but it depends on the child really

oxocube · 18/05/2008 20:24

ds2 is 6 and I will be taking him to see this. Very much depends on the film and the child of course IMO

WideWebWitch · 18/05/2008 20:28

Surely it can't be any scarier than the others can it? If she's seen those and wasn't scared I wouldn't worry. I wonder why it's a 12?

Having said that, dh took ds (10) to see Iron Man this weekend, which is a 12, and said there was some scary parents and children being separated in war stuff and it wouldn't have been ok for dd (who is 4yo 6 months too).

She's fine with Dr Who, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Spiderman, all that stuff.

Anna8888 · 18/05/2008 20:29

I took my daughter (3.6) to Iron Man, which is rated 12A in the UK (PG here in France) and she loved it.

Twinkie1 · 18/05/2008 20:31

Ds is really cross that I have said that he can't go and see Indie - he watches the others over and over - DH thinks we should take him but I don't! He is 3.5 so a little young!

evenhope · 18/05/2008 20:33

I wouldn't take a child under 8. I really wouldn't take a 4 yo.

I suppose it depends on the child and your attitude as well. Some very "considerate" parents took their 4 very tiny children to the screening of Tranformers- also a 12A- that we went to and let them wander about, argue, squabble and generally muck about all through the film

It costs a small fortune to go to the cinema these days. If your DCs are the sort who will sit glued to the action and not make a peep well then take them.

If they are like most under 8s and get bored easily, ask loudly "what's he doing that for mummy?" during all the quieter bits of dialogue and want to wander around then for the sake of everyone else in the cinema wait for it to come out on DVD.

lou33 · 18/05/2008 20:33

I didnt take my kids to the cinema at the age of 3.5, but purely because i didn't think they would be able to sit still long enough

BrassicaNapusNapobrassica · 18/05/2008 20:35

Anna888 You also took your 3 year old dd to see Atonement, what cert was that?

Twinkie1 · 18/05/2008 20:35

I thought the ratings were to do with the contnet of the film not the pissability off of the other film goers??

DD is 7 and much more annoying at the cinema than DS at least DS just goes to sleep when he is bored rather than playig with her bloody popcorn and constantly annalysing the film as DD does!

lou33 · 18/05/2008 20:39

twinkie, i was thinking of me when i said they wouldnt sit through the film, not the other film goers

MarsLady · 18/05/2008 20:43

12

Twinkie1 · 18/05/2008 20:45

Ha ha - do what DH does and go to sleep!

lou33 · 18/05/2008 20:46

lol i have only once fallen asleep watching a film, and that was the first 40 mins of one of the star wars films

Anna8888 · 18/05/2008 21:47

PG

CrackerOfNuts · 18/05/2008 21:51

My brother took 5yr old Ds to see Iron Man, although he had been to see it himself first, to check it was ok.

He has also watched other 12A films at home, mainly Spiderman ones, but again my brother had always watched them first.

Theresa · 18/05/2008 21:58

As with everythin I think it depends on the child and you know yours better than anyone else. I found this site very helpful when debating on whether to take my 9 yr old to see St Trinians (we didnt!) www.imbd.com

MrsWeasley · 18/05/2008 22:02

I took my 6 year old to see Harry Potter and that was a 12A. He was fine, I went to see it first to check the content then took him a few days later.

FWIW he certainly wasnt the youngest one there.

seeker · 18/05/2008 22:16

12A mans anyone over 8 so long as their parents thing it's OK. It does not mean suitable for anyone of any age.

Why on EARTH would anyone let tiny children watch films like this? Apart from anything else, what are they going to watch when they are older - 18s at 12 becasue they've already seen all the 12a and 12s? Let little children be little children - take them to U and PGs.

There are lots of children in my ds's year 2 class who have played Grand Theft Auto - their parents think it's OK, but it isn't

pointydog · 18/05/2008 22:16

i THINK IT DEPENDS ON THe child and teh film. Trouble is, you don't know the content of a 12 film until you are actually watching it. Unless someone you trust has given you a good account.

seeker · 18/05/2008 22:19

But why? The classifications are there for a reason - there are lots of films in the world. Why would you take a 3 year old to a 12?

MrsWeasley · 18/05/2008 22:23

I have to add that I am normally very strict about the classifications as they are they for a reason, as quite rightly said BUT it was Harry Potter and DS had seen all the others and is a big HP fan. I did also view it first

Quattrocento · 18/05/2008 22:27

Depends on the child and depends on the film

Harry Potter was okay for mine (7&9 then)

lou33 · 18/05/2008 22:58

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.

that is from the bbfc website, it doesnt have a minimum age for accompanied children to watch

so it is down to the adult taking the child

snorkle · 19/05/2008 09:06

12A has a few lines after describing why it's a 12A so that the accompanying adult can make a more informed judgement.

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" has been rated 12A for 'moderate action violence and scary scenes'.

The 12A rating replaced the 12 classification, it's still intended to indicate suitability for a 12 year old to view, but recognises that the development and maturation of children varies considerably. See Q&A on 12A certification

From that site...

Q Does this mean that very young children could see a ?12A? film?
A Only if an accompanying adult accepts responsibility. The BBFC considers the content to be suitable for children of 12 and over. We would not recommend taking very young children to see ?12A? rated films, but parents or guardians must decide whether the film is suitable for their child or children.

Q So why don?t you simply set a minimum age limit e.g. 8 or 10 years old?
A This has not generally been found necessary in other countries which have used the ?12A? system. We would prefer to rely upon the good judgement of parents, supported by good consumer advice. But we will monitor the ?12A? closely during its first year or so and we would not rule out any modifications based upon national experience.