DVDizzy Forum

BelleGirl wrote:

Neal wrote:My children will not be shielded. Pan's Labyrinth and Snow White will be right next to the cleaner-than-soap films such as Winnie the Pooh on their playroom movie shelf.

I don't think it would be wise to show Pan's labyrinth to children. Some scenes in this movie are so frightening and grim that even adults have a hard time watching them.

But by all means let your children watch Snow White!

I don't think there's anything wrong with Pan's Labyrinth, IMO, if the kid is around 10 years old.

enigmawing wrote:

The_Iceflash wrote:What do you tell people who say Disney movies are just "butchered fairy tales"? I get that a lot..

"Alrighty then, let's have Ariel kill herself at the end of TLM and see just how well it does at the box office."

Stop, before I cry.

"I don't think there's anything wrong with Pan's Labyrinth, IMO, if the kid is around 10 years old. "

With such scenes as:

- A man tied to to a pole in a stable and being tortured?

- A man stitching up the enormous cut in his face himself?

- A man shooting his stepdaughter in cold blood?

- A woman suffering, screaming and ultimately dying in childbirth?


Well, if you think that's o.k. for 10 years olds to watch....

At ten years old I was watching "Face/Off" and "Child's Play" and I turned out perfectly normal - not sadistic or unusually frightened or anything.

When I was 10 i had watched Fatal Attraction, and even the Exorcist - only because i was very intrigued by the video on the shelf, and my mum allowed me to watch it with her in bright daylight. Mum told me that at any point I didn't like it she would switch it off. And i was ok with it. And i've turned out pretty normal.
I think kids should be allowed to watch more grown up films. Give them some credit.

The funny thing is, I found Peter and the Wolf far more scary than the Exorcist

xxhplinkxx wrote: I don't think there's anything wrong with Pan's Labyrinth, IMO, if the kid is around 10 years old.

In Germany it's forbidden for under 16 years old to watch. Parents who allow it incuring a panelty. Imho not without any reason- Pan's Labyrinth is sometimes pretty heavy.

When my parents took me to see The Little Mermaid in 1989, my dad said he was actually disappointed in it since it was so different than the version his mother told him as a child (not only the ending, but the fact that it wasn't physically painful for her to walk). He warmed up to it though by the time it came to video though.

I think the point these overprotective parents are missing with the fairy tales is that most of them have a very clear, strong moral, which is something I feel most Disney versions still retain even if they are toned down.

enigmawing wrote:When my parents took me to see The Little Mermaid in 1989, my dad said he was actually disappointed in it since it was so different than the version his mother told him as a child (not only the ending, but the fact that it wasn't physically painful for her to walk). He warmed up to it though by the time it came to video though.

I think the point these overprotective parents are missing with the fairy tales is that most of them have a very clear, strong moral, which is something I feel most Disney versions still retain even if they are toned down.

But are they overprotective? The survey was done by a site called TheBabyWebsite.com! We have no idea how old the children of these parents are, but I'm guessing the survey was about parents of children under five. You I would find it hard to believe a site called "TheBabyWebsite.com" has much to do with school aged children.

http://www.thebabywebsite.com/

And as I said before, Disney itself has both censored fairytales to tone down the horror/cruelty and made them more Politically Correct. So what's the issue?

2099net wrote:But are they overprotective? The survey was done by a site called TheBabyWebsite.com! We have no idea how old the children of these parents are, but I'm guessing the survey was about parents of children under five.

I can't imagine my parents holding back on telling me/reading to me/letting me watch fairy tales because they were "too scary" or "politically incorrect," many of which I was exposed to long before my fifth birthday.

Neal wrote:At ten years old I was watching "Face/Off" and "Child's Play" and I turned out perfectly normal - not sadistic or unusually frightened or anything.

And the movies didn't frighten you at all when you watched them?

enigmawing wrote:

2099net wrote:But are they overprotective? The survey was done by a site called TheBabyWebsite.com! We have no idea how old the children of these parents are, but I'm guessing the survey was about parents of children under five.

I can't imagine my parents holding back on telling me/reading to me/letting me watch fairy tales because they were "too scary" or "politically incorrect," many of which I was exposed to long before my fifth birthday.

Really? The "proper" fairytales or the Disney versions (or similarly toned down versions)??

2099net wrote:Really? The "proper" fairytales or the Disney versions (or similarly toned down versions)??

Both actually. My dad was always a big Disney fan but also felt it was important to tell us the "real" versions as well as point out the differences between them. Some how the scarier versions didn't seem all that scary to us kids, only exciting and somehow "grown up."

I usually feel like these days most parents feel that everything needs to be made appropriate for babies. Sure, there are some kids movies that you might want to wait to show your kids until a certain age, not when they're 1 or 2 years old. But it seems like lots of parents simply want to keep their kids away from anything that might make them ask questions. It always makes me think of an episode of Home Improvement when Tim says to Jill: "Sure, he gets to ASK all the questions, I'm the one who has to ANSWER them." and Jill says: "Gee, I guess that makes you the DAD.

Neal wrote:At ten years old I was watching "Face/Off" and "Child's Play" and I turned out perfectly normal - not sadistic or unusually frightened or anything.

That's okay, but remember not every kid is like you. The fact that you could stand them doesn't mean any other kid (maybe your kid someday) can stand it. I know I couldn't when I wasthat age. And now I'm 23 years old and there are still films I don't wanna see because of the gore, like Saw.

I find that the majority of people like this are usually the type that have no imagination or creativity, and try to rain on everyone else's parade by sulking in their realism.

My sister-in-law won't let her kids watch Disney classics because of this & that, and now that I think about it she's always saying "that could never happen" or "that's just stupid" when watching anything fictional. I can't stand people like this, they're just bitter.

I had friends growing up who weren't allowed to watch the Smurfs because there was a wizard in it, and wizardry is evil ya know. Sheesh, I wish people would learn the difference in fiction and reality, and quit taking everything so seriously.

The world would be an ugly, depressing place if everything was regulated according to how PC it is, etc.

Neal, Enchantment, everyone who thinks PG-13 to R movies are okay for children just over like, 10...or younger...

YOU may have turned out okay. But every child is different, and more often than not, children will be upset by the films. More often than not, it is not a good thing to show your children those kinds of things.

Neal, you could try letting your kid watch something and promise to turn it off if they get too scared, and like I said, this may not have happened to you, but it's very possible your chidl wil not realize they are being affected, or be more affected later, like at night when they remember what they watched.

That happened to me often. Or what about if your child seemed the same, but you didn't realize they were a little more distrusting of things and viewed the world a little harsher than before? People are effected subtely. I remember worrying about my mother hurting me after I watched Carrie, but she never knew that.

Having been through much depression, and sometimes feeling like I'm going carzy, over scary, hard to understand terrors in the world from like 11 on, and I think I can remember even before 11...I can't imagine children getting their happy views of the world ruined so much sooner.

Waiting is fine. Maybe 13, okay?

Oh, and on the subject of the Exocrist and R movies in general, sometimes it's not just the scares, but the sexual references, sexual acts (um that girl was totally doing a sexual act with a cross in that movie!) violence, foul language, and actually as I have been saying, general harsher, less happy, less positive, more hateful behavior towards people and views on people and the world.

Pardon me as I go watch Child's Play, Jurassic Park, and Wolf's Rain with my 10 year old daughter.

This reminds me of Last Unicorn. The first American DVD release was unedited. Parents complained because the movie was rated G and yet contained (mild) cursing. "Damn" and "Hell" are said a few times in the movie. So the next DVD release was edited. And yet the harpy, Celano, still had her 3 sagging tits and Schmendrick still got his face stuck between the exaggerated cleavage of a tree. Amazes me the word "damn" offended so many parents, but boobs were ok.

Pic of the harpy
http://www.grandpaelephant.com/landon/u ... cap003.jpg

Pic of the tree
http://www.last-unicorn.net/wp-content/ ... Ux1137.jpg

I was only 20 when I first saw The Exorcist (the original version, none of the "version you've never seen" crap). I made the mistake of watching it alone and in the dark. *shudders* It scared the sh!t out of me.

albert

Disney Duster wrote:Neal, Enchantment, everyone who thinks PG-13 to R movies are okay for children just over like, 10...or younger...

YOU may have turned out okay. But every child is different, and more often than not, children will be upset by the films. More often than not, it is not a good thing to show your children those kinds of things.

I brought up that exact same point about not all children being alike, so I agree with you that one shouldn't measure all films on their own personal experience. However, I object to the rating as done by the MPAA. It's arbitrarily, it's done in complete secretivity, and it allows way more violence for young children than, say, (mild, suggestive) sexual acts. It also discriminates along lines of gender and sexual preference, and there are no experts on the panel, but only 'average parents' who are not average because some of them don't even have children.

How do I know this? Watch the excellent documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006) and be amazed.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTL3XMDwY0c

Disney Duster wrote:Oh, and on the subject of the Exocrist and R movies in general, sometimes it's not just the scares, but the sexual references, sexual acts (um that girl was totally doing a sexual act with a cross in that movie!) violence, foul language, and actually as I have been saying, general harsher, less happy, less positive, more hateful behavior towards people and views on people and the world.

I don't really mind sexual references or foul language. What's considered 'foul' differs from person to person, and if differs from person to person what is acceptable. Sexual references don't bother me, because they're just *that*: references. Personally, I find sexual acts to be much more acceptable than violence. Most of the times, when it comes to films, the sexual acts aren't harmful, nobody gets hurt. Whereas violence is always harmful.

This is just my personal opinion. Nobody should feel attacked or the need to defnd themselves. (It's sad, but I have to built in this disclaimer to avoid trouble.)

Well, I never said I was forcing my kids to watch this stuff. Only that the option was there.

Siren wrote:Pic of the harpy
http://www.grandpaelephant.com/landon/u ... cap003.jpg

Bird boobs!