Category: Cinema 31
My Dad and I saw HP7 Part 2 yesterday. It was a lot of fun and we enjoyed the movie immensely. We’ve seen every one of the movies together since they started, so it was nice to spend that time together.
Anyway, there were only a few other people in the theater. One of them was a woman wit ha few small children. By small, I mean like two or three, maybe four-years-old. She had to keep asking them to be quiet several times. I even missed a small dialogue exchange when Harry and co were in the bank because the kids were yelling. I honestly don’t think she should have brought them with her. If she couldn’t find a baby-sitter, she should have waited for a night when she did have one. It was very distracting for everyone else. I love kids, but I don’t think you should bring kids younger than eight or nine to see Harry Potter. I’ll even go as far to say wait until they’re ten at the most.
What does everyone else think? At what age is it appropriate to bring kids to movies like Harry Potter?
I can't wait to see it sometime this weekend. I agree about the young kids and I guess about 10 or so.
It's really difficult to put a number to that. There are plenty of kids eleven or older that would gladly act out in theaters, and plenty of 5-year-olds that would sit quietly. however, I definitely agree that parents need to be conscious of this. If you know your kid is generally loud in situations like this, it would be advisable not to bring them, and if your 5 or 6-year-old is quiet and obedient, then by all means bring them if they want to go. this isn't really about age; it's about respect. this parent should be using this as a life lesson. If you don't like the movie and you're getting bored of just sitting here, turn around and quietly ask your companion if you guys can leave, but if you're going to stay, you need to respect the other people in the theater that have paid to come see the movie. this goes with anything; not just Harry Potter.
I agree with the last post completely. this isn't about what age is appropriate for this sort of movie, but rather, about being respectful regardless of how old you are.
I agree to a certain extent. You shouldn't bring an infant to five-year-old to see it though-especially if they have a tendancy to be really loud when they get bored.
I see your point, but I wouldn't bring an infant, that is, under a year old just to clarify what I mean, to *any* movie, just because they haven't yet formed the ability to communicate through words that they've had enough, and will therefore probably resort to screaming to get their point across.
This isn't about age, like people have said. If your 4, for example, and can keep up with the story line, well good for you. This, though, is about how long you can actually sit there and not get bored. I know some parents don't have people to leave their kid with. But no one's thinking about how maybe they might not be able to make it to the theater anytime soon, which leaves them with the option of going that day, with the kids. I know it can get annoying when there's a screaming or crying kid close by, but if the parents can't get them to be quiet and don't want to miss what's going on, what can they do? All you have to do is get up and try to get a seat away from them. I've done this several times, and everything was good again. And if you can't get another seat, well then, you'll just have to deal!
I partly agree that age is not really the factor here, but it does take some part in it. I'm all for not sheltering your kids, but there are some things children do not need to be seeing, the later harry potters are not designed for young audiences. A lot of people show them to their kids thinking, "Oh, its a wizard, how hard could it be", but they deal with some very intense subjects, and I question the reasoning of exposing very young children to such things. I say wait until they are old enough to understand at least death before then. Granted, its not gory by any means, but it is still brutal in some instances, and extremely sad.
Also, if you have kids, you agreed to sacrifice a few conveniences. Sorry, but if you can't get a sitter that weekend, go another weekend when you can. Movies are in theaters for months, your telling me you can't get a friend/aunt/uncle/cousin/brother/sister/grandparent/neighbor/homelss guy to watch your kid for three hours while you go to a movie? No, your going to make everyone else miserable because you can't control your kid.
Also, as happened to me today when I went to see harry potter, a child screaming its head off in the back of the theater, is just as annoying as one screaming its head off in the front of the theater. If your kid is screaming, take them out of the theater.
I don't understand why parents with children aren't held to the same standards as the rest of us. I can garrantee if I was sitting in a theater having a loud cell phone conversation, you'd get pissed off at me and want to break my cell phone, you wouldn't say, "Oh well maybe its important".
Exactly. people have paid to see this movie...without distractions. if a distraction occured that the theater itself caused, like if the screen or the speakers malfunctioned or something, you'd probably get your money back. But we're supposed to just deal with the loud screaming children in the theater because, um, let's see, the parent just *had to* see the movie today and couldn't wait? No. I don't think so. Cody's right, once again. there are some conveniences you give up when you have kids, and this is one of them. The rest of the theater shouldn't have to deal because you decided to have kids and couldn't find someone to take them for the evening.
I agree with post 3, it doesn't matter what move or age.. you should be held accountable for your actions in a setting that requests just that... If you can get kicked out of a library at the age of 2 or 3 for being too loud, then why can you not do the same to someone who is interrupting something you payed for?
I do agree with alot of what post 8 says, but I actually disagree with the age restriction simply because it is more violent, do we keep children from watching the lion king simply because of murder? I don't think so, I do believe due to the word, "bitch" that the movie should automatically be pushed to a PG rating.. But I don't think it should matter what age you are to enjoy harry potter.....
Two is a bit of a difficult age for getting the child to sit still. As a poster put it on my other forum, it's kind of like trying to herd stray cats. However, my daughter was 4 last year when I took her to see SECRETARIAT, and I told her before the movie she had to sit still and watch the movie, if she needed to go potty or tell me something to say it very quietly. There is also the announcement before the movie starts NO TALKING DURING THE MOVIE, so she really was well behaved at her first movie. Depends on the child and their particular disposition.
Definitely I wouldn't bring an infant or toddler to a movie. Also, not being a Potter person myself but having seen the ads, aren't there some characters/parts that might be scary for a young child? Perhaps for that reason between 8-10 is best for movies of this series?
There is a huge difference between watching a lion flop limp after being kicked by a rampaging wildabest, and watching a massive snake eat a woman. The lion king is designed specifically for people who are the same age as the main characters, it has been since it first came out in book form. You can see it if you watch the dialogue in the book and how it forms and progresses. A child can probably handle the lion king, its a cartoon, and they don't actually show the only murder in it directly. They show several in harry potter.
Yes they do, they showed scar murdering his won brother..
they showed him pretty much getting thrown off the cliff... Not one scene in harry potter ended that violent
I'm sorry I was talking and typing
They showed Scar murdering Mufasa, the scene showed Scar digging his clas into mufasas paw and pushing him off the cliff...
like I said, no scene in harry potter is that violent...
But that isn't what kills mufasa, mufasa just dies, flops his head down, simba sniffles a bit, Jonathan tailor thomas does some bad voice acting, then there the required disney, distressed waling with far too much echo sceen.
Now lets go to harry potter, we have snape and voldemort, and a snake, voldemort tells snake to kill snape, snape gets bitten repeatedly by snake, and it shows it, sound effects and all. No, snape doesn't instantly die, but its still a guy getting the shit bitten out of him by a snake. Lets take it back a movie, well half a movie, we've got some girls groaning about harry in boxer shorts, and some guys purring about emma watson partially naked, and groaning because she's making out with harry and not with them. Plus, we've got a house elf with a knife in his chest, people getting tortured, screams of pain and anguish.
Going back a bit farther, we have dumbledores epic fall from the astronomy tower, we have a woman getting eaten by a snake. Plus, some more torture, and in the fifth book there's a good bit of torture too.
that's not even including the fight sceen with the snake, when its purposefully designed to scare the shit out of you... twice. Yeah, that's something I want my children seeing when they're four.
I'm not saying the lion king is a great movie, cuz really, hamlet doesn't need to be seen by four year olds either. But it wasn't really made for a four year old anyway, its meant for seven year olds or so. You want a movie made for four year olds, your looking at winny the poo or thomas the tank engine, something like that.
As far as I know there has never been a single murder or torture sceen in a winny the poo movie.
Lmfao, great points, but for me I believe it is all on the parents, as a child (4 and above) I was introduced to t.v shows like tales from the crypt and various hair raising ghost stories... My parents never forced these upon me, but as soon as they knew I was freaking out too much they would instantly turn it off... I was a pretty stubborn kid, so I would start crying to get it back on, but I go back to the rate PG arguement. The movies should only be shown if parents give their consent...
I disagree. I don't like having a government entity decide what is fine and what is not. I realize that may sound a little hypocritical, but I don't think it is.
I think the parents should decide for themselves, and should suffer the consequences. If you take your infant to see a movie, and he starts crying, you get kicked out, and you don't get the 200 dollars you just dropped on tickets and popcorn returned to you. Life sucks, you should have stayed at home.
I, too, have never agreed with the government ratings on movies. Most content in a PG13 movie, kids have probbly seen or heard by the time they're five, if not earlier.
Wait, you were talking about how you didn't want anyone under the age of 10 watching the harry potter movie... How can parents make a decision what is too violent for their young child if they have no warning?
Should parents be required to read the book to get an idea of how the movie will turn out? How can you complain what movie is appropriate or not if there is no warning?
Its easy, you go on line and get a plot sinopsis, or you look at a preview. You can usually gauge pretty well what the movie will be like from that.
First of all, you should not be forced to have a computer to get an idea of how rough or vulgar a movie is. It shouldn't be something you need to plan so far in advanced... If someone decides that they are in the mood to watch a movie they can look at the rating and decide if it is something they might want to watch.
Besides, just because you know the idea of the movie does not mean you know what kind of violence or language they might portray. Spiderman might look good on paper, but the language may not be acceptable...
I'm sorry multi tasking
Sorry, but if you have a kid, you should be planning things. If you have an infant, I don't think you can do anything on the spur of the moment. I've seen how much people have to pack for a kid. if you can plan that, you can plan having a movie.
Besides, some basic logic can tell you a lot. Winny the poo, is probably a bit more child related than hitman. Toy story, is probably a bit more kiddie friendly than broke back mountain. Also, the company can tell you quite a bit, its not perfect, but MTV studios, is probably a bit less kid related than disney studios. If it has a castle on the front of it, its probably something you should look into for kids.
Would you want the government to decide what food you can and can't eat? I mean, that takes planning, you have to decide what restaurant to go to, and what to order, its a lot of work.
There's really not a lot of difference betwen that, and them saying that restaurants can't sell soda or cake because its unhealthy.
Its your life, take control of it.
First of all, I would love for the government to help me decide actually. They let me know what restaurants have been approved in the sense of cleanlieness as well as laws that force restaurants to let me know what the calorie count is for certain foods. Are you going to tell me it is my responsibility to figure out whether or not certain foods are good for me? Am I suppose to assume that they put sugar in their salads as well as 45 gram dressings?
Just the same way, how was I suppose to know that a movie that was suppose to be as child friendly as shrek would have so many obscene moments in them?
This goes back to my point that it is on your parents to decide what your children are and are not allowed to watch. It is absolutely stupid to think that the only movies I would let my kids watch are disney related.
that's exactly what I'm telling you. If you want to eat healthy, eat healthy, if you can't be bothered to read the ingredients, that's not my problem. I happen to like unhealthy foods, and want restaurants to be allowed to serve them to those who want them.
Are you saying I should be denied my unhealthy foods because your too lazy to do the research yourself, or make the foods yourself if nothing else? Your saying that your right to be lazy, outweighs my right to choices?
You want to control what the restaurant will serve, whereas I want to eat what they're serving. How about you stay home, cook your own salads, and leave everyone else to their own devices? Why do you need the government to be in control of everything?
Are you truly so lazy that you can't do something yourself without needing a law to do it for you?
As for shrek, simple logic would tell you that if you put Edie murphy in a movie, that movie is probably going to have some inappropiraite parts. Has no one ever seen his stand up? Its dirty as hell. That's what he does, he tells dirty jokes.
Robin williams, edie murphy, will smith, louis black, dennis leary, they all do dirty jokes. Put them in a movie, and there's a really good chance that your going to have some dirty jokes told.
You need examples, look at alladden and tell me there aren't some dirty jokes in there.
Welcome to life, sometimes it sucks, get a helemt. Not everyone is going to bow to your whims, and your going to have to deal with that.
You don't want calories in your salads, make your own salad. You want perfectly clean movies, make your own. But nothing gives you the right to tell me, or anyone else what we can and can't do or watch or eat if it doesn't effect your life. Once it effects your life, without you having the choice to change the situation on your own, then you have the right to tell us to stop.
Wait, I never once said what anyone can and cannot watch or eat, you were the one who started this whole thing whining ab out harry potter, my point was that other movies have things that are just as if not much more obscene. My point is that you should get some warning, if I go to a movie I want to know if there will be some language it is just straight ignorant for you to say it doesnt matter, further more it is the government that pout out nutritional values on foods in restaurants, so how can you say it is the responsibility of the customer to research any of this if they never even get an opportunity to look at it?
Yes, the government requires restaurants to post the ingredients, but they don't rate the food, you get to decide if its healthy or not. Well, I should amend that by saying that this is only true in some places. There are some places, san francisco for instance, where you can't just eat what you like, and getting a happy meal is no longer what it used to be either, so the bastian of consumer choice is slowly crumbling; but I digress.
The point is, what gives the government, and by government I only mean the one in America, the right to say what is proper, and what is right. For instance, the FCC, who are they to say what can and cannot be said on TV or radio? They are an unelected body, and as far as I, or any other expert whose actually taken the time to read that pesky little pamphlet called the constitution can tell, there's nothing in them that gives them the right to say what a channel can or cannot say. Thus, they shouldn't be able to say what a movie can or cannot possess. There is something that does have that power, and its called the market.
Amazingly enough, most parents do not want to take their precious angels to watch a mexican cock fight, or two naked lesbians sexually experimenting with power tools. You ever noticed they never put that kind of stuff in children's movies, before their was the ratings system?
Take snow white for instance, ever wonder why they took the part where prince charming rapes the pretty little maiden out of the animated version? Its so kids would watch it. As miraculous as this may seem, most logical people don't need a rating to tell them that. They didn't when movies first started coming out, and they don't now; no matter how much you think you do. It is actually possible for you to find out information on your own. Try it, I promise your head will not explode, as some college professors have been saying since the sixties.
Oh, and if you happen to take your child to a movie that contains lesbians sexually experimenting with power tools, you get up, you walk out of the theater, and you write a nasty note to disney. When disney finds the pile of mail that is burying their headquarters from outraged parents, they'll probably tell the lesbians to go home, or at least back to the disney director's house.
You want a real life example? The disney castle that you see at the beginning of every movie, even the ones for little kids? One of the towers used to be a penis. Now, it was probably done as a joke by the artist, but one day a parent paused disney at the exact right time and went, "dear sweet jumping jesus, that tower is a penis". They wrote disney, now, it is just a normal everyday, non-penis shaped tower.
That's because, disney is out to make money, if parents don't buy the movies, they don't make money. Oddly, parents don't like buying movies for their children that have penis shaped towers in them. Its one of those weird parenting things.
That, is called logic, and the principle of free market economics. Make what sells, or you don't sell anything. Parents don't buy penis movies, (at least not for their kids), so disney stopped making them. And there was no government involved at all.
Life itself doesn't come with warnings. when you get into a relationship, there's no warning that says, Wait! Stop! You might end up getting hurt in this relationship! You just have to figure that out for yourself. when people have unprotected sex, there's no warning that says, Wait! this action may cause pregnancy, or may cause you to acquire a sexually transmitted disease. If it did, noone would ever have a problem with these things, and very few people would actually do it in the first place. Like I said earlier, kids are probably going to hear more cusswords at home and/or on the street than they will in these movies that have that warning.
Well I was about 10 when the first HP movie came out, I've already read the first 4 books, at my School at the time we were given tasks to read the books and already knew what was going to happen. Same with every other young kids back at School, it wasn't about how old you have to be to watch HP movies as long as you know the story.
esides, I did have a case where I was watching HP and the Deathly Hallows PT1 in 2010 and a baby was crying through most of the movie, so I'll have to say you need to be about 10 to watch the first 3 with a Parent or Guardian, then slowly through 4, 5 and 6 they can start to watch it by themselves.
Or do like Harry Potter, at age 11, watch the first one, and watch one HP movie till the age of 17 where they can watch all by themselves.
Couldn't agree more with posts 25 and 27. Note to self, when Silver Lightening speaks, do not drink coffee for fear of snarfing. lol
As for kids at movies, I couldn't agree more, if they can't sit still and shut up, then leave them with a sitter. That's coming from a parent.
When he was little, my son, fortunately never acted up at movies but at church when he would get cranky or whiny, guess what I'd do. I would get up and leave the room to quiet him so as not to disturb those around us. It's called common curtacy, something that is sadly lacking these days.
hmm harry potter verses the lion king
yes when mufasa dies, the actual death isn't shown. yes we see him falling off a cliff, then see him dead a few sceens later. but this is the cliff he did climb up so he could of done it again. he could of landed wrong, he could of landed nearer the end of the stampeed. we all just assume he got trampled by it. yeah that happened but still.
by the way i was 4 when i saw that.
harry potter i was 14.
you can't compare the two. it is darker, more grosem, and what have you.
but generally i'd say 10 or so for something that was HP. though that's a bit of a mute point now. since there's no more hp.
sniff sniff.
Very well said, Silver Lightning. I couldn't agree more. And to the poster who said that you shouldn't have to own a computer to find out if a movie is appropriate or not, you don't. If you have a tv, you'll see previews. It's that simple. And no, I certainly don't want the government rating what food they think we should be eating. For example, look at all these wellness plans that schools have, yet kids are still obese. Telling kids that unhealthy foods are the devil and disguise doesn't have the desired effect at all, in fact it does just the opposite. When they get old enough to want to tempt fate, or try things, the first thing is probably going to be soda and candy and chips in epic proportions. If they had just been given choices, they would learn to make the right choices in the end. Most people would, anyway. Some people would choose to be unhealthy no matter what anyone tries to do, and its their body, their business.
Plus, that's only one piece of the puzzle. If gym classes focused less on team sports and more on things that don't deliberately exclude a certain ratio of the class, I think kids would see that exercise isn't evil either. then again, considering most kids just go home and play video games and eat fast food anyway, they've failed on both counts. Actually, a lot of blame has to go to the parents too, for not stepping up and letting the government take control of something that they frankly should stay the hell out of.
what this all comes down to is choice. you can choose right or wrong, but in the end it's your choice.