Bringing young kids to 12A rated films

trishasaffron

I went to see Gravity 3D on Sunday in a half empty cinema. I was relaxing into the film, delighted that I'd found one of the few spots well away from slurpers, chrunchers and chewers when a Dad and son sat right in front of me. The kid looked to me to be about 6 or 7 years old. From the beginning he was terrified, "Dad is she dead" "Dad is she going to die". So the Dad rather than leaving talked the kid through the film, "look she's going to be fine" "see they're going to get into another capsule". At one stage they got up and left - my heart leaped but then sank when they came back armed with even more popcorn and sweets.:eek:

I did move but I could hear him from rows away.

I even went to look up the rating guidelines but they are no help - basically just leave it up to the adult:
Films classified 12A have been deemed appropriate for viewers of twelve and over. However, they can also be seen by younger children - provided they are accompanied by an adult who has deemed the film appropriate viewing for that child. In such cases, IFCO strongly recommends that parents/guardians make informed decisions by accessing the consumer advice available on this website.

12A, 15A - as long as an adult over the age of 18 is present in the screening with them (for the whole duration), then a child under the age of 12 or 15 will be allowed to attend it as well. A member of staff can offer advice, but there really is nothing that they can do as there's no rules being broken.

dark crystal

Not all kids enjoy exclusively U rated films after a certain age. Obviously extreme language, gore, nudity, sex and violence are out, but Gravity seems pretty tame in that regard.

Maybe the kid is really into space related stuff and wanted to see it. As a kid, I would have found Gravity fascinating to watch!

TerrorFirmer

When Land of the Dead came out, it was 15A, was absolutely horrified to see two kids in it, both of which were definitely around seven or eight years old.

zoobizoo

There was a 6/7 year old at Spider Man 3 in a packed cinema at an 8pm showing ...

He kept whining... if I hadn't been on a date, I'd have had words with the parents and/or asked the staff the kid to be removed.

fryup

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

When Land of the Dead came out, it was 15A, was absolutely horrified to see two kids in it, both of which were definitely around seven or eight years old.

15A is a ridiculous cert who ever thought of that needs their head examined

there were terrified kids watching movies like the Conjuring and Prisoners in my local cinema accompanied by their "18 yr" siblings which made it all fine & dandy:rolleyes:

castletownman

I went to see 12 Years A Slave last week and there were two 7-10 year olds present (accompanied by a guardian) :eek:

I'd say some of the scenes in that had a profound effect on their young minds

Loughc

castletownman wrote: »

I went to see 12 Years A Slave last week and there were two 7-10 year olds present (accompanied by a guardian) :eek:

I'd say some of the scenes in that had a profound effect on their young minds

Same here but the kids were 5 & 8 in this case. I thought it was a disgrace bringing them. It's just parents being too cheap to fork out for a babysitter so they brings the kids along to films they want to go and see.

The 5 year old was running up and down the stairs throughout the movie, standing on his chair, standing up, asking questions aloud every 5 minutes, basically doing all the things a bored 5 year old would do in a very graphic, bleak premise movie.

Banjaxed82

Must admit, I find it baffling too. What I also find baffling are these young kids at evening/night time screenings.

Not content with warping their kids fragile minds, they're also denying them what every child needs......sleep. The same parents probably wonder why little Jimmy is a narky bollox.

FloatingVoter

I used to watch over 18s movies back in the 80s in a little country cinema (Latchfords, Newcastle West RIP). I would have been about 10 or 11 at the time. Letting kids in was the only way the cinema (and many others like it) stayed afloat. Didn't do me any harm. Haven't heard of any crazed axe murderers from amongst my peer group from back then either. As long as the kids shut up and don't annoy other people, I couldn't care less.
As for making noise, talking, playing with mobiles, ordering pizzas - there's another thread for that and it isn't exclusively kids who are guilty.

fryup

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

yes i'm sure very few (if any) are going to turn into psycho axe murderers,

but its the principal of the matter...is it right to have kids as young as 10 (or younger) exposed to such movies?? personally speaking i don't think so

johnny_ultimate

fryup wrote: »

but its the principal of the matter...is it right to have kids as young as 10 (or younger) exposed to such movies?? personally speaking i don't think so

What's important to me is that the choice is available. Every parent is different, every child is different, and I think the 'A' ratings acknowledge that and allow the parents to make a decision. It goes without saying that parents should be making an informed decision, as the IFCO website and the like do contain information about what's contained within. Alas, this is the most difficult thing to police, and of course many parents get uppity when, say, the cinema staff member helpfully informs them that there might be unsuitable content. That's impossible to counter, though, and generally I'm in favour of a more open ratings system wherever possible, albeit one that's clearly explained and implemented.

jaykay74

In Sweden the age limits are set at 7, 11, 15.

For the 11 age bracket an adult can bring a 7 or older as accompanied (no under 7's).

The 15 age bracket there is no allowance for accompanying with an under 15. Everyone should be over 15.

Musefan

My young niece enjoys horror films and action movies even though she's under 10 she gets brought to them. The difference is she's well aware of how to behave in the cinema from a young age & stays quiet as a mouse!

FloatingVoter

fryup wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

yes i'm sure very few (if any) are going to turn into psycho axe murders,

but its the principal of the matter...is it right to have kids as young as 10 (or younger) exposed to such movies?? personally speaking i don't think so

I went on my own or with mates. Parents didn't care so long as we came home before midnight. This would be the early 1980s. So the over 18 flicks would be tame by todays standards. Mainly some sex would get you an 18 cert back then. Rambo (First Blood pt2) was over 18 but we had already seen a very bad Russian bootleg copy of that from under the counter in the local video shop.
Life of Brian - you could not see...again under the counter video job there.
Clockwork Orange - ditto....except the movie is crap. Took watching the unbanned version to convince me of that.
Most things then as now that get 18 certs for violence or sex are cartoons anyway. I was smart enough to clock Rambo for a live action Road Runner at 10. And Fatal Attraction as a good film that meant girls have feelings too. 9 1/2 Weeks I didn't see as I heard Mickey Rourke also got naked in it. Still means I haven't seen it.
As for Apocalypse Now, Deer Hunter, Scarface - saw 'em all and loved them then as I do now.
But yeah, every kid is different - if they're living in cotton wool at home with the tooth fairy and Santa for company - then maybe 12 Years a Slave is a bit of a push. If they're robbing your books to read, then maybe they can handle it.
This is not about letting 5 year olds see Saw III because you want to drink the babysitting money - it is about are they ready to watch something educational like 12 Years a Slave or Schindler's List. If you know your own kids, you know the answer to that already.

TerrorFirmer

There's a limit with regards age though. I don't think anyone who argue that an 11 or 12 year old is always too young to see a 15, or even 18 rated movie. I don't have any problem with those individual choices made by parents at all, kids always have and always will be watching movies aimed far beyond their age with no problems.

I do have a problem though with wholly inappropriate instances like eight year olds being brought to see a film called 'Land of the Dead' (15A), much in the same way I was very irritated to see kids that were about six years old led out crying hysterically from The Dark Knight (15A). There's knowing your kids, and then there's just common ****ing sense.

That_Guy

Bringing kids to a 12A film is acceptable as long as those parents don't use the cinema as a babysitter.

zoobizoo

I went to see Soy Cuba, three hours of communist propaganda, B&W with subtitles.

There was a dad and his four sons in front ranging from maybe 7 up to 12. They sat in front of me. I groaned when I saw them as I knew that they'd be bored throughout.

How wrong was I? Not a peep out of any of them. (it wasn't over 15s or 18s - but it goes to show that kids can sit and watch a film without the noise).

arsenal1991

Prefer to go on a school night last showing if its 12A!

FlashD

I really don't understand why any parents would bring kids of primary school age into see '12 Years A Slave'. From what I saw, the content was too mature and the violence most definitely not suitable. But that's my opinion coming from a common sense perspective.

From what I can see in this thread, it's all meandering speculation and ill informed opinions. Only a child psychologist can understand the effect and say for certain, this is their field and it's their job to know. If I was really looking for answers, that is where my starting point would be.

FloatingVoter

FlashD wrote: »

I really don't understand why any parents would bring kids of primary school age into see '12 Years A Slave'. From what I saw, the content was too mature and the violence most definitely not suitable. But that's my opinion coming from a common sense perspective.

From what I can see in this thread, it's all meandering speculation and ill informed opinions. Only a child psychologist can understand the effect and say for certain, this is their field and it's their job to know. If I was really looking for answers, that is where my starting point would be.

Children are allowed to stay in the room while the news is on. If a 12 year old is incapable of watching 12 Years a Slave - the problem is with the child and said child's understanding of the world. A 4 - 8 year old - sure...let them have fairytales for a while longer.
My point isn't so much about parents bringing them - as to what the kid will watch anyway by themselves. If I'm stuck in charge of my 12 year old niece tomorrow - we'll go see Frozen. I'd be amused if she told me to fcuk off - she wants to see Wolf of Wall Street instead. I'll not have kittens.
On the other point - why would a child psychologist know anything apart from the opinions they have studied from others ? Any child traumatised by watching grownups play pretend has got serious underlying issues anyway. Better they know that people can die and will stay dead when they get shot rather than think of a gun as a prop for Bugs Bunny or Bart Simpson.

ps3lover

Didn't some kids watch Childs Play 3 in the 90s and it influenced them to commit murder?
It's dangrous letting kids watch mature content.

ps3lover

ps3lover wrote: »

Didn't some kids watch Childs Play 3 in the 90s and it influenced them to commit murder?
It's dangrous letting kids watch mature content.

That was the media sensationalizing parts of the investigation. The police officer leading the investigation noted that when the father of one of the boy s rented the film his son was not living with him at the time and it's unlikely that they did see the film. It was also noted that the boy didn't even like horror films and the police investigation into links between the murder and the film were quickly finished up as they were none.

ps3lover

Really? Never heard that before. Sure recently enough this subject came up on the FM104 Phoneshow and Jeremy was hosting at the time, he and some callers kept bringing up the Child's Play 3 thing like it was the truth and never mentioned anything stating otherwise.

ps3lover

ps3lover wrote: »

Really? Never heard that before. Sure recently enough this subject came up on the FM104 Phoneshow and Jeremy was hosting at the time, he and some callers kept bringing up the Child's Play 3 thing like it was the truth and never mentioned anything stating otherwise.

It's because most people are morons who are easily led by populist trash such as the Daily Mail. That they could so easily pin the blame on a film gave the rags editorials that they pray for.

FlashD

ps3lover wrote: »

Didn't some kids watch Childs Play 3 in the 90s and it influenced them to commit murder?
It's dangrous letting kids watch mature content.

That is true, it was a huge case at the time where genuine connections were made between the actual murder of Jamie Bulger and those in the movie. As a result, I think the Childs Play series was banned for a long time in the UK and Europe.

In a lot of cases, there are underlying issues in these kids' lives and adult content can be a dangerous influential tipping point.

FlashD

FlashD wrote: »

That is true, it was a huge case at the time where genuine connections were made between the actual murder of Jamie Bulger and those in the movie. As a result, I think the Childs Play series was banned for a long time in the UK and Europe.

In a lot of cases, there are underlying issues in these kids' lives and adult content can be a dangerous influential tipping point.

No it's not true. There were a number of connections made between the two but they were proven to be untrue. The tabloids whipped up a media frenzy over the initial connections which allowed them to create an ongoing story to terrify parents all over the country. They used the film as a simply scapegoat even after the police stated that there was no connection between the two and it was highly unlikely that either of the killers had seen the film.

FlashD

Deleted User wrote: »

No it's not true. There were a number of connections made between the two but they were proven to be untrue. The tabloids whipped up a media frenzy over the initial connections which allowed them to create an ongoing story to terrify parents all over the country. They used the film as a simply scapegoat even after the police stated that there was no connection between the two and it was highly unlikely that either of the killers had seen the film.

I remember the case at the time, the media frenzy including the connections that were made to Childs Play 3 and its subsequent banning within the video libraries. If its true that these connections didn't really exist then thanks for letting us know.

FloatingVoter

Its safe to say that various individuals from Jack the Ripper through to Adolf Hitler were not influenced by video nasties. However, I'm sure someone somewhere is working on a doctoral thesis to prove me wrong.

ps3lover

I found this video on YouTube that seems to clear a lot of things up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx1uUnr2aCM

I thought it was really interesting when it pointed out people who call him Jamie instead of James which is what FlashD did.

FlashD

ps3lover wrote: »

I thought it was really interesting when it pointed out people who call him Jamie instead of James which is what FlashD did.

I didn't look at your video, its too long and the subject matter is depressing...but looking at your comment is interesting.

The majority of the public who lived through that time (including myself) used the name Jamie, as communicated through the daily newspapers, 2 TV channels (RTE 1 & 2), and radio which comprised mainly of Radio 1 & 2 FM. These were the sole news sources in Ireland.

Looking back, you could almost say the media had the power and control on public opinion. Times have changed a lot since, news is almost instant now and piped straight to our houses where everyone has the power to express an opinion.

beauf

One of mine told me recent they didn't want to go on a boat (ferry) ever. When asked why, they said every movie they see a boat/ship in, it sinks.