How Young is Too Young?

[sillysally]

We went to see the Hunger Games last night. I know it is rated PG-13, but it is violent. I saw a couple of very young children there--one was about 5 and the other 2 or 3. They were quiet and everything, that wasn't really the issue, but that just seemed REALLY young to me to be seeing stuff like that.

I'm 31 and a few of the scenes bothered me. I heard from a couple of news sources that it was fairly violent and this is the second week it was showing, so it's not like that should have been a surprise to anyone contemplating whether or not their small children should go with them to see it.

Am I just out of touch or does that seem really young to anyone else?

 

[lizzybeth727]

I've often thought that PG-13 movies are too violent for 13-year-olds. Personally, I'm NOT GOOD with violence, and couldn't stand PG-13 movies until I was in college. I still won't watch a violent R-rated movie.

But yeah, I think it's pretty idiotic to go to a PG-13 movie with a kid under 5. I wouldn't even take a toddler to a PG movie.... for one thing because G movies are usually pretty short and easier with a little kid. (Isn't Hunger Games long?)

I was upset when I saw kids under 5 at the last Harry Potter movie. Not only is it a little violent and a little disturbing, it's also VERY long. The kids didn't bother me (I was too into the movie), but most of them were gone by the end of the movie.

 

[yoko]

I'm a lover of horror movies. You name the type of horror and I'm there. I always see small children in those movies and I'm horrified. Every Saw I went to see there were always small children that were around 5-12. Every time something scary/gory would happen the kids would scream and start crying... Every. Time.

My friends would always ask the the parents to take the kids out and they shouldn't watch the movie. EVERY answer was 'just because I have kids doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to go watch a movie'.

I agree but I think that if you are taking a kid you should probably not see certain movies. The main problem I think you ran into is in most people's eyes PG-13 is the new PG.

 

[AdrianneIsabel]

There was an infant in the theater last night when we saw the hunger games. I was annoyed at best.

 

[zoe08]

I think this is a case of parents not getting babysitters, not because they were actually taking their 5 year old to see the movie. I totally don't agree with it. IMO, if you can't afford a babysitter, you can't afford the movies. Or you should be going to see a KID movie. People keep complaining that the Hunger Games is a violent children's book. It is NOT a children's book, it is a young adult novel. I think they need to separate the YA section from the children's section in book stores and on Amazon and such because people are getting the wrong idea, that just because it is listed under "children's" means it is acceptable for 6-10 year olds.

However I think the actual age for what is ok would vary depending on your child's maturity. But definitely not for children 10 or under. I think 13 is probably a good age to start considering it, but I think parent's need to be the judge on whether or not their child is ready for it.

PG-13 is far from the new PG if anything it's going the other way. Often things are PG-13 that should be R and things are PG that should be PG-13.

 

[Laurelin]

There was a little kid in our theater that kept screaming during the movie. (Like frightened screaming). I really don't know why people bring little kids to those kinds of movies.

 

[stardogs]

I actually didn't think the Hunger Games movie was that violent, especially compared to the same scenes in the books, but do think the PG13 designation was correct because of some of the scenes. Some of the themes (being taken away from home/family by force to basically be killed for sport, teens killing other teens, suicide, etc.) were not something I'd be comfortable having a kid under 12 or 13 watch.

I don't worry too much about infants at movies like that if they can somehow stay quiet through the whole thing (a late movie when they are sleeping I suppose, but 2.5 hours is loooong) since they wouldn't actually be watching, but a 2-5 yo?! No way.

 

[ACooper]

Well, the PG in PG13 is supposed to mean PARENTAL GUIDANCE......and the parent should know their child and make a responsible decision, but of course we know that isn't the normal case with the general populace

Out of my 5 children (the youngest is now 12) I had one that I could not/would not let view violent/scary movies. She could not (and still don't) handle it well and would have nightmares for days afterwards. I have one that I couldn't let watch much violence until he was in his teens because he got way to into it and the line between reality and fantasy blurred.

The other three were fine, knew the difference between entertainment and didn't take scary/violence to heart. Know your kid, and also GET A SITTER OR KEEP YOUR BUM AT HOME, LOL

I would also like to say I teach Sunday School ages 6-8. The boys in my class are ALWAYS talking about playing Call of Duty, in graphic details............HELLO, those are rated M and the last I knew 6, 7, and 8 year olds are not that M!

It doesn't matter how movies or games are rated if parents are going to ignore the ratings!

 

[sparks19]

I started watching Horror movies when I was about 10 lol but those were the cheesy 80's kind. but I was a horror flick junkie. My best friend and I would hole up in my room for the weekend with a horror flick marathon lol

That being said... people need to use some common sense when taking kids to see certain movies.

an infant? not really a big deal. they don't get it anyway and they won't remember it and its unlikely to be upsetting to them because as I said...they don't get it beyond moving images on a screen. they don't get that it's violent or supposed to be scary or what have you (although that seems a bit loud to be taking an infant to)

but children Hannah's age? I don't get that at all. it's frightening for them and if it's not frightening for them then I think there is another issue there.

we pretty much steer clear of the main theater here anyway. I will wait until the movies come out to the $2 theater to take hannah to see them lol and then if it's something she can't handle or doesn't like then we are only out a couple of bucks rather than $50 lol

 

[CaliTerp07]

PG-13 means thirteen, in my opinion. There are plenty of movies appropriate for younger kids. Hunger games is not one of them. The ONLY exception I could see would be if my 11/12 year old had read and loved the books. Then, I might screen it first and let them see it if it were appropriate. Probably once it came out on video though.

It is a violent, traumatic story line. I haven't seen the film yet, but I've read the books and even then I'd be very cautious letting an elementary school child read them.

 

[Dekka]

Darien (11) and his friend (also 11) saw it today. They were fine. They went by themselves and neither are the least bit upset, weirded out by it. Then again they both play COD...

I think 5-8 is way too young. But I agree its a matter of know you child. Darien has a very good grasp of what is 'real' and what is not. I know at that age I had issues with books or movies that were very detailed and would get dreams and nightmares.

 

[Southpaw]

I don't think it's too violent of a movie, given the concept and how the book is written. The multiple times I've seen it, lol, there are a couple scenes where the entire theater gasps in a sort of horror... but I don't think young kids would even get it...

I think you just have to know your kids. Certainly when I was 5, I was watching things that should have been way inappropriate for that age. But it didn't have an affect on me. I know my 6 year old nephew would definitely be freaked out by THG though.

 

[lizzybeth727]

It is a violent, traumatic story line. I haven't seen the film yet, but I've read the books and even then I'd be very cautious letting an elementary school child read them.

^^^Definately. I'm even upset that schools are requiring kids to read them. IMO it's too violent for schools to require kids under high school age to read them, and kids in high school should, frankly, be required to read better books (IMO Hunger Games is NOT literature). I don't care if middle schoolers read them, or if high schoolers read them; I just don't think schools should require them.

My sister's a teacher and her school's going to require it starting next year. She's going to have to teach it to her ninth graders.

 

[Dekka]

I am ok with it being taught to ninth graders. No its not literature, but to inspire minds you need something that engages them first. I am an avid reader and I remember dreading the books we had to read for english as much as the next kid. There was no relevance, no interest (except Shakespeare, love Shakespeare)

The Hunger Games, is engrossing AND has loads of topics to discuss and springboard off of.

 

[AdrianneIsabel]

Kid leering over kid with bloody brick isn't violent?

 

[Paige]

I have not gone to a movie since Briggs was born. I think its pretty obvious how I feel about kids at the theater.

 

[Grab]

I saw a lot of horror/gory movies, etc when young. I had a good grasp on what was real and what wasn't, though. I doubt I was going to a theater to see those movies at five, though. But, as others have said, parents know their kids best..I'm sure many 10 year olds, etc would be able to separate fiction from reality just fine. Especially if their parents can put things into context, etc. I think a 5 year old in any 2.5 hour movie is pushing it, though. No matter the content.

I agree that a 2 or 3 year old in the theater meant their parents just didn't get sitters. We saw the movie. Our kid was happily at his sitters having a great time, though, lol.

 

[Labyrinth]

Sounds like they couldn't get a babysitter. I haven't seen the movie yet but recently read the books. Definitely not something I'd take my small kids to. I'm kind of surprised it's required reading in schools. It seems too violent to be forced on kids.

 

[stardogs]

Kid leering over kid with bloody brick isn't violent?

Not as violent as the original scene in the book with the muttations at the end of the 74th Hunger Games or how the girl who died from the tracker jackers appeared to Katniss...

Yes, there is violence and the PG 13 rating is appropriate, but I didn't find the movie nearly as gory as it could have been.

 

[zoe08]

^^^Definately. I'm even upset that schools are requiring kids to read them. IMO it's too violent for schools to require kids under high school age to read them, and kids in high school should, frankly, be required to read better books (IMO Hunger Games is NOT literature). I don't care if middle schoolers read them, or if high schoolers read them; I just don't think schools should require them.

My sister's a teacher and her school's going to require it starting next year. She's going to have to teach it to her ninth graders.

I don't think it should be *required* BELOW high school, but I had to read Lord of the Flies in high school, which I did not like....now if Hunger Games replaced that, I would actually have interest in the required high school reading!