Hunger Games NOT for young teenagers

qrrgprgua

Brought my 11yo girl to see Hunger games, They said it would be fine for her to watch as I was present also there were other kids there her age.

Its not a move for young kids.. Maybe 15 for starting viewing. Where they got 12a rating I don't know

Its a Good movie.. Just very shocking.. And then the Suicide pact at the end wasn't a good note for teenagers.

So view with discretion.

PseudoFamous

11 is not a "Young teenager", that's a preteen. A 13 year old (13 being the minimum age you can get into a 12a movie without a parent) would be much more mentally prepared for that movie.

username123

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Its not a move for young kids.. Maybe 15 for starting viewing. Where they got 12a rating I don't know

Having read the books I was disappointed at how toned down the movie actually was, but in saying that - what was shown was definitely not suitable for an 11 year old.

I particularly thought the bloody brick scene was nasty even though you dont see what the brick is hitting.

The book is clear that the suicide pact is not really a suicide pact but a bluff to force the hand of the gamemakers - but this is not clear in the film at all.

I agree that 12a is the wrong rating.

opti76

hungers games wasnt suitable for your child.
as a parent its up to you to decide whats right for your child not a man sitting in an office in dublin.

qrrgprgua

PseudoFamous wrote: »

11 is not a "Young teenager", that's a preteen. A 13 year old (13 being the minimum age you can get into a 12a movie without a parent) would be much more mentally prepared for that movie.

12A Films classified in this category are considered to be suitable for those of twelve and upwards. They may also be seen by younger children provided a parent or adult guardian accompanies them.


Yes I agree. I Shouldn't have brought my Daughter.

But the rating is too low.,

qrrgprgua

opti76 wrote: »

hungers games wasnt suitable for your child.
as a parent its up to you to decide whats right for your child not a man sitting in an office in dublin.

Yes... I know. But if it had say been rated 15 then it would be clearer.

the rating was too low. Again I didn't think it would be "SAW meets X-FACTOR" in a movie with a rating 12a.

MrStuffins

No, the rating is grand. The rating means that if your child is 12 and upwards, it's fine for them to watch.

However, if the child is younger, it is left to the parents' discretion as to whether or nor their child is mature enough to watch such a movie.

if you had genuine concerns, you should've done some research before deciding your child could watch it. Any small level of research into The Hunger Games would've shown you that there were violence and other themes that might not be suitable for your child.

This is not the IFCO's fault.

qrrgprgua

MrStuffins wrote: »

No, the rating is grand. The rating means that if your child is 12 and upwards, it's fine for the to watch.

However, if the child is younger, it is left to the parents' discretion as to whether or nor their child is mature enough to watch such a movie.

if you had genuine concerns, you should've done some research before deciding your chils could watch it. Any small level of research into The Hunger Games would've shown you that there were violence and other themes that might not be suitable for your child.

This is not the IFCO's fault.

Well hopefully this thread will help other parents make a decision. Its not for under 12s even with an adult.

MrStuffins

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Well hopefully this thread will help other parents make a decision. Its not for under 12s even with an adult.

It's not for SOME under 12s.

CrazyRabbit

In related news, a documentary called 'Bully' was given an 'R' rating in the US (equivalent of an '18' rating here). The documentary follows a few kids who are bullied and shows how it affects them in daily life.

The result is that in theory, The Hunger Games can be shown in schools but a film showing the damage caused by bullying can't.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1682181

Blood, guts & murders are ok for kids, but an anti-bullying message isn't. Madness.

SdoowSirhc

Yeah, if you're annoyed at the 12a film then it's your own fault for bringing your 11 year old to see it. The movie is rated 12a for the reason that the IFCO think it's suitable for children over 12. And a lot of people have over stated any violence in the film, there's no way it is comparible to "Saw meets X Factor". The movie is quite bland really in the field of violence as far as similar films go, bar the suicide.

cynder

My 12 year old watched it, and 5 other kids in her class watched it some were 11 think there was even a 5 year old in there... There was nothing major in it, I watched 18 movies at that age. Tbh the film was disappointing could of done with been upgraded to 15 or 18 with more gore and more depth between peeta and katniss. Wasn't as violent as Jurassic park....


I took my daughter and 2 of her friends to see fright night last year that was a 15a. No big deal... Depends on the child and their level of maturity. The parents of the kids I took along were ok for their kids to see the film without an adult but because they weren't 15 I went in with them, ( there was a 2 year old in with his parents too it was the late screening now that was too young)

the same kids i took to the cinema also watched the movie lady in black and they got in without an adult present that was a 15. ( I have no intention of seeing that film) but whatever floats your boat.....

Cian92

God... The lack of spoilers in here, is very frustrating.

mirekb

grindelwald wrote: »

My 12 year old watched it, and 5 other kids in her class watched it some were 11 think there was even a 5 year old in there... There was nothing major in it, I watched 18 movies at that age. Tbh the film was disappointing could of done with been upgraded to 15 or 18 with more gore and more depth between peeta and katniss. Wasn't as violent as Jurassic park....

A five year old in a movie with a bloody brick hitting someone, and a suicide pact? I don't agree with that. They are like sponges at that age. Sponges with no filters (moral or otherwise)

I think Jurassic Park gets rated differently as it is dinosaurs and not people hurting people.

My son's only 7, and I watched the likes of Spider-man (allowed) and Lord of the Rings (not allowed!) before I would let him see them, and they are both 12s. I think sometimes as adults we forget how much of an effect these things can have on children. I saw an episode of Murder She Wrote when I was about 5 and had nightmares for about two years:D

Orion

qrrgprgua wrote: »

But the rating is too low.,

In your opinion.

The rating allows parents to make up their own mind for their children. It's called parenting.

cynder

mirekb wrote: »

A five year old in a movie with a bloody brick hitting someone, and a suicide pact? I don't agree with that. They are like sponges at that age. Sponges with no filters (moral or otherwise)

I think Jurassic Park gets rated differently as it is dinosaurs and not people hurting people.

My son's only 7, and I watched the likes of Spider-man (allowed) and Lord of the Rings (not allowed!) before I would let him see them, and they are both 12s. I think sometimes as adults we forget how much of an effect these things can have on children. I saw an episode of Murder She Wrote when I was about 5 and had nightmares for about two years:D

The suicide pact was nothing major they could have done it with more emotion it was very bland would a 5 year old pick ou on a suicide pact ? Depending on the child.

In Jurassic park a guy gets eaten by a dinosaur while screaming his head off, think that would be a little more dramatic that would have a longer lasting impression then one saying have a few berries....

Depends on the child and depends on the parent, they are only guidelines after all.

LittleBook

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Well hopefully this thread will help other parents make a decision. Its not for under 12s even with an adult.

You don't need a thread like this to make a decision about whether or not to bring your child to see a film that's about kids being forced to fight to the death until there is only one remaining.

The very premise demands a little research if your child is young or sensitive.

There are loads of resources to help parents make these kinds of choices without even having to see the film, I think this site will be helpful to you in future OP.

LegacyUser

mirekb wrote: »

A five year old in a movie with a bloody brick hitting someone, and a suicide pact? I don't agree with that. They are like sponges at that age. Sponges with no filters (moral or otherwise)

To be fair Romeo + Juliet [Baz Luhrmann version from 1996] got a 12's rating and the whole focus of that film is the suicide pact. Having read the book and gone to see the film last night have to say I found both to be utterly bland and boring esp when compared to similar themed books like Battle Royal [the film version of that quite rightly got an 18's cert]

The 'suicide pact' is hardly much of a pact and more of a rash choice made under harsh conditions unlike Rome and Juliet were it's very much the focal point, not the pretend to be dead plan but the ending were Juliet opts to die rather then live without her 'love' for me that's a far more horrible message for young tweens and teens then what is shown in the hunger games.

You did not see someone being hit with a bloody brick - we see a man lying motionless and we see another man holding a brick shiny with blood - it's not dripping blood, nor is there bloody gushing from the beaten man.

The film certs are there as guides only. This is a major motion picture release with plenty of information freely available and easy to find on it's contents. It would take all of 5 mins to check the film on a film or parenting site in order to make the choice wither to see it or allow someone in your care to see it. IMDB has a very detailed description and breakdown of every scene that was marked as violent. I was a massive film buff as a child back in the early 80's and my parents had to really make an effort to research all the films I asked to go see [paid off as I know work full time in the film industry] so todays parents have no excuse to whinge after the fact.

magrat

In my opinion anyone bringing children to movies should research the movie. Read some reviews, maybe watch a few trailers. Find out the general guist of the story.

If you are bringing a child under 12 to a movie rated as suitable for children over the age of 12 unless accompanied then you need to research it.

I had to read this book for my book club - and my elder daughter (18) read it - my younger (12) daughter's class and in fact the whole of 4th 5th and 6th class seemed to be reading it.

I saw the movie with my book club and then yesterday brought my daughers and my younger daughter's friend (11) to it. And sure there were moments when they cried (when Katnis steps forward at the reaping... and again when Rue dies)... but we went knowing what the story was.

I think informing yourself is important and have always done this when deciding what books and films I allowed my children to see.

I dont think just lumping all 11year olds in together and saying this movie is unsuitable is at all helpful. Its a horrible story, and a horrible horrible idea. But if you talk to them about it and remind them how horrible it is ... it can be a lesson learnt.

None of the children I know who are reading the books really get how horrid it is. They are just jumping on the band wagon of the latest craze - and at least this female lead is a hero - not like last years one who just curled up and wept whenever her vampire boyfriend went away.

magrat

OP - when your child is studing the Diary of Anne Frank - which most schools do at age 11 or 12 ... will you say this is also unsuitable. Because there is a lot of death in that too.

byhookorbycrook

A number of children had asked me if I had the book and could they borrow it, so I did a bit of research as to whether it was a suitable book for the school library,didn't buy it.

It's not the fault of the cinema that you made the wrong choice for your child.

lace

OP, I think you're underestimating children here.

The Diary of Anne Frank mentioned above is a fantastic example. I read it for school when I was in 4th class (age 8) and did lots of research on WW2. I think it's far more unsettling and disturbing for children to learn about the horrible crimes which actually happened than to watch a story which is completely fictional. Children of this age are capable of telling the difference.

In 6th class, I read (again for class) a book called Reaching the Heights which contains

woman-beating, loan sharks, crime, drugs, alcohol and violence. http://omahonys.ie/catalog/reaching-the-heights-textbook-activity-book-p-69742.html

I didn't really think there was anything too unsuitable in The Hunger Games. I t was actually pretty tamed down. It may have been unsuitable for your daughter in particular but I think it's unfair of you to presume it's unsuitable for all 12 year olds.

eviltwin

totally depends on the child...I think its funny parents will make a point of not letting their child watch X because they think its too violent but have no problem letting them see all sorts of violence on the news on in tv shows or video games.

I think context is a big thing, now I am not familiar with the Hunger Games but I gather its not glorified violence and there is a bigger picture to look at.

byhookorbycrook

Lace, you were 8 in fourth????What age were you starting school????:D:D

lace

Apologies!! It's a long time since I was in school! :P I would have been 9 or 10!

ash23

My daughter is 9 and I sometimes let her watch films with a 12 rating. I usually google the movie beforehand and find out the reason for the rating. Usually it's mild swearing or sex. So i know she'll be ok with that.
She is sensitive to violence and scary atmosphere though so i wouldn't let her see hunger games, again because I researched it and found the reasoning behind the 12s certification.

She read books about Anne Frank and Cleopatra etc. so she was allowed to watch the boy in the striped pajamas (12A) because she had a grasp of what wars are and of what happened in WW2.

ETA - OP, if you go on IMDB.com and look up a film, there is a classification guide which details the exact moments in the folm, under different headings such as sex/profanity/violence/alcohol/smoking/frightening or intense scenes etc.
It can kind of ruin the film a bit but it's worth it if you think a film might be too much.

ash23

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Lace, you were 8 in fourth????What age were you starting school????:D:D

I was 8 starting 4th class

(only for a month and then I turned 9 - my ma couldn't wait to be rid of me out of the house so I started school really early )

ash23

ash23 wrote: »

I was 8 starting 4th class

(only for a month and then I turned 9 - my ma couldn't wait to be rid of me out of the house so I started school really early )

Yeah, I was 7-8 in 4th

The Big Red Button

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah, I was 7-8 in 4th

Did you skip a class or something?

I started school at three, so I'd have been eight going into fourth class.

chatterpillar

chatterpillar wrote: »

Did you skip a class or something?

I started school at three, so I'd have been eight going into fourth class.

junior&senior infants, 4th&5th year

The Big Red Button

bluewolf wrote: »

junior&senior infants, 4th&5th year

That's a bit mad! How come? (If you don't mind me asking!!)

planetX

The 'A' is the key part of that rating, so it's the judgement call of the parent - and a good thing that is too, to move away from censors making all the judgements. With all the internet resources there's no excuse for someone to turn up with a child and be surprised by the content.
My 10 yr old was v keen to see this movie. I was doubtful it was for him, so went to see it first. It wasn't the violence, it was the whole concept I didn't want him exposed to yet. A couple of years would make a huge difference tho, I'd say 12 was spot on. I told him the movie was boring, with lots of kissing - heard no more about it:D

BostonB

This site is useful as a guide.

http://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/hunger-games

recipio

Now that the film is out on dvd I watched it and found it disappointing.
The movie is obviously sanitised and aimed at the pre- teen to 16 year old market. I don't think your daughter would find any of the violence upsetting. She's not going to see anything that isn't on TV every day.
For me , the bland direction and pandering to audience ratings is the usual cynical Hollywood mercinary approach.
For a real ( adult ) chase movie see Mel Gibsons 'Apocalipto' which had me riveted to the seat.

Victor

cynder wrote: »

My 12 year old watched it, and 5 other kids in her class watched it some were 11 think there was even a 5 year old in there... There was nothing major in it, I watched 18 movies at that age. Tbh the film was disappointing could of done with been upgraded to 15 or 18 with more gore and more depth between peeta and katniss. Wasn't as violent as Jurassic park....

No, children understand that dinosaurs are scary and are happy to experience that level of scariness in an abstract situation. Teenagers killing each other is another matter - it is too difficult for children to distinguish from reality and is much more frightening. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80671757&postcount=823

peppy123

i think the movie is fine most of the "gorey " parts you dont see! they intentional do this movies alot to leave it up to the viewer to imagine what happens, movies have been doing this for the last 40-50 years , "The texas chainsaw massacre" original was all done like this to try get a lower rating. its about bringing in the widest possible audience without affecting the movie too much. That being said this movie was fine, i watched it with my 8 year old sister she liked, she hasn't gone living in the woods and sleeping in tree's or murdering her peers yet , if your child does anything they see in a movie its NOT the movies fault its the parents for not putting it in context for them.

giftgrub

BBC 5 Live's Mark Kermode is a great critic and says its up to the parent to decide based on the information they have...

This is from the Irish Film Classification office

Frequent moderate violence in a sci-fi context.
Note for parents:
Set in a dystopian future, the central premise of The Hunger Games is that of an oppressed society forced to nominate 24 teenagers to fight to the death for the entertainment of their rulers. These ‘games’ are satirically presented in the manner of a reality television gameshow.
While this fantasy/sci-fi setting is firmly established, parents should note that the violence, though not explicit, is often presented in a gritty and realistic fashion.
While the film frames this violence within a positive moral framework and provides a reassuring outcome (i.e., the ‘good’ or ‘heroic’ characters prevail), the intensity of some of the threatening and violent situations make ‘The Hunger Games’ unsuitable for younger viewers.
Films classified 12A have been deemed appropriate for viewers of twelve and over. This particular film is at the high end of this classification.
IFCO strongly promotes the exercise of parental responsibility and encourages all parents to make informed decisions regarding the suitability of films for their children, using the information provided on this website.

Perosnally i think the BBFC's site is better...

I'm not going to post the whole thing but the link is here for you to read....there was a slightly edited version for the UK market

BostonB

Handy link thanks for that.

Interesting the Irish and UK classifications are not always the same. So I'm told by mini people unhappy with my own censorship....

giftgrub

BostonB wrote: »

Handy link thanks for that.

Interesting the Irish and UK classifications are not always the same. So I'm told by mini people unhappy with my own censorship....

I would recommend you take a listen to the 5 Live movie show, they podcast as well. He covers most of weeks main releases and is pretty honest about the content of the movie....and wheter its good or bad!

BostonB

recipio wrote: »

...For me , the bland direction and pandering to audience ratings is the usual cynical Hollywood mercinary approach....

Dunno look at all the kids franchises being reborn as non kids movies, spiderman, superman, batman etc.

BostonB

giftgrub wrote: »

I would recommend you take a listen to the 5 Live movie show, they podcast as well. He covers most of weeks main releases and is pretty honest about the content of the movie....and wheter its good or bad!

Cheers look forward to that. - seems to be UK only.

BostonB

Podcatcher grabbed it ok. It was just the website that was blocking playback.

Sleepy

I'm reading the books at the moment and would heavily advise against this as a series for younger kids. Unless they really sanitise the sequels you might find yourself having to explain spoilers for later books:

prostitution, torture and nuclear war

.

MagicMarker

OP, you say the movie wasn't suitable for your child. Well, what is your child's opinion? Is she okay? Has she been having nightmares?

Or is it simply your opinion that it's not suitable for her and she didn't mind it at all?

cynder

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm reading the books at the moment and would heavily advise against this as a series for younger kids. Unless they really sanitise the sequels you might find yourself having to explain spoilers for later books:

prostitution, torture and nuclear war

.

Tom and jerry torture each other, road runner and coyote wolf always trying to kill each other off.

Nuclear war is still war, on the news all the time. There are plenty of pg films with war scenes. In 6th class they learn about ww2 in 4th they learned about Anne frank. Most of my daughters class read the books aged 11 and 12.

Some others in her school 9 and 10 read the book, she knows what torture is, she knows what prostitution is, infact you could say all 4th 5th & 6th did. And some younger classes . the schools ex principle was arrested for soliciting.

Most kids know about sex before their parents are ready to tell them.

Sleepy

I'm 32. Am I that out of touch that I'd consider detailed torture scenes,

someone being forced into prostitution under the threat of what will become of their loved ones, vividly described gruesome deaths in fireballs etc

unsuitable for a child under the age of 13? The very purpose of the games in this series is to ensure slaves stay subjugated by reminding them just how much power the Capitol has over their lives: they can make their children kill each other.

I can remember from my own childhood that we know about sex, slavery, prostitution etc. way before our parents had any conversations with us about them. I would, however, have been into my teens before I had any notion of what they really involved. In much the same way that when Jerry arranges for Tom to have an anvil fall on his head, that's funny because it makes Tom dizzy and have a lump immediately grow out of his head. When it's a real person and their head gets crushed leaving blood, bone and bits of brain all over the floor, that's gruesome and unsuitable viewing for most children.

I'm not one for excessive censoring of what our children watch (our 6 year old's favourite movie is Jaws!) but I'm not sure I like the idea of exposing pre-teens to the extents to which man's cruelty to each other can be taken.

The first movie is, like the first book, by far the tamest (and somewhat sanitised compared to the book). When they were initially written of course, this wouldn't have been a problem: the child would have read "The Hunger Games" at 13, "Catching Fire" at 14 and "Mockingjay" at 15. The increasingly adult nature of the books increasing with the age of the child. That's fine, once you know it's there. There'll be about 2 years between each film so that might give your child enough time to mature as the content of the movies do but the books are available for them to get the story ahead of those films. If, like most, you consider it a good idea to encourage our children to read, a parent could be setting up rather a protracted conflict by allowing their child to see this movie.

BostonB

I've not seen/read this series. But the Harry Potter books also do the same thing, get darker as the series progresses. While the intent might be for the reader to have aged a few years between the books, the reality is, a kid will read one after another all at the same age. Some read a lot earlier than others.

Nightmares would be a very simple outcome, but I would think kids acting out things might be more of a problem, especially if a kid is immature and doesn't understand fully the implications of what's going on, and also lack the moral and social restraints of someone more mature.

6yr old Jaws really? Have to say I wouldn't. You'd never get them swimming again. Pretty gory/scary no? You can see the certifications it has globally here. Seems to average 12~13.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073195/parentalguide

Hunger games rating here
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/parentalguide#certification

cynder

BostonB wrote: »

I've not seen/read this series. But the Harry Potter books also do the same thing, get darker as the series progresses. While the intent might be for the reader to have aged a few years between the books, the reality is, a kid will read one after another all at the same age. Some read a lot earlier than others.

Nightmares would be a very simple outcome, but I would think kids acting out things might be more of a problem, especially if a kid is immature and doesn't understand fully the implications of what's going on, and also lack the moral and social restraints of someone more mature.

6yr old Jaws really? Have to say I wouldn't. You'd never get them swimming again. Pretty gory/scary no? You can see the certifications it has globally here. Seems to average 12~13.

my 6 and 5 year old love jaws too!

Im 32, and i can remember what i watched as a kid, as soon as total recall was out on dvd i saw it, in fact i loved all the Van Damme, Segal, Bruce Willis, Stallone, Arnie films. They had an adult theme (including rape) and were violent, yet never had any affect on me and many others, since your the same age Sleepy did you watch any of the above films?

I watched Aliens before my 8th birthday, the bit that stuck out was the alien running across the table... (i know it was before my 8th birthday, as i watched it with my parents in the uk, we moved to ireland just before my 8th birthday) Did not have nightmares, however i did after watching the evil dead, when i was 2 my brother and I put on the VCR and that so happened to be the film inside. My mom tells me we got a good telling off, I had the nightmares for 3 years. I can still remember them vividly.

The only films i wasnt allowed to watch were the horrors. Freddy and chucky and so on.

We had to close our eyes at the sex scenes but not at the violent scenes.

BostonB

cynder wrote: »

....I had the nightmares for 3 years. I can still remember them vividly....

I would think there are effects much less obvious more insidious then turning you into a gibbering wreck. But would have a impact on a kid nonetheless. But you might not notice them if your value system is on a scale of 0 to 3 years of nightmares. Just a thought...

Sleepy

I'd have been 12/13 before I was let watch any of the Arnie / Stallone / Van Damme movies (beyond the Rocky series). I can still remember being allowed to watch my first Bond movie at about 9...

On Jaws, the biggest impact has been a fascination with sharks, they understand that Sharks like warm water and the water in Ireland is too cold for them and love documentaries on them on Discovery, National Geo etc. Though we did get a right laugh when the little fella was once asked did he know any songs and he burst into "Show me the way to go home..."

BostonB

There no instructions in the manual you get with a baby about this kind of stuff at all.

I remember seeing the empire strikes back and my cousin having nightmares about the Han Solo Carbonite scene. Though that scene has never been the same for me since Family Guy did it.