For reference, I did let her see Spiderman but not X2. Anyone who who wants to rip me on the hypocrisy of that feel free, but please address the subject question as well. Other movies I haven't wanted her to see: SWII (attack of the cleavage) MBII, HP I &II. Of course, she wound up seeing most of these at Grandma's on DVD. Probably will see X2 that way as well.
Why did I feel Spiderman was OK but not X2? Mainly because Spiderman is about one good guy against the bad guys, whereas X2 was pretty convoluted. Especially in the "Who is good and who is bad" department (for a 7 year old, I was able to keep it straight).
She's really keen to know who the bad guy is in HULK, and the Deseret News review isn't clear... is it the father? Is it the HULK himself? Or just the military trying to blow him up?
[ November 14, 2003, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
So, you want your daughter to only see movies where good and bad are clearly black and white?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
SPOILER-ISH ?? (if you have no idea of the basic Hulk premise) . . . . . pooka, just as an aside: there was an interesting study done on how children perceive violence and danger in shows geared toward children (I can find the cite for you later if you like). Regarding the Hulk TV show, it was found that younger children were most frightened during the time that BB was the Hulk, as opposed to older children, who understood the plot better and were most frightened before the transformation occurs. The cutoff was somewhere around 8-10, so if you do take your child to see it, it might be worth discussing this beforehand, as well as reinforcing the non-monsterness of the Hulk (despite his scary appearance).
[ June 20, 2003, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Chamrajngar (Member # 3242) on :
yeah. how he is just mad at the mean people or something... maybe I shouldn't have posted this... It seems kinda dumb, at least for me... nvm.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
(((((((SPOILERS))))))))
Actually, the Hulk comes off as sort of a villian from time to time, and sort of an uncontrollable Hero some other times (which, come to think of it, is basically what the entire movie is about).
If there is a villian, it was the Father but it was very shakey in this. You don't really see his real villiany side till the end of the movie.
The military was "Protecting the citizens" while this coorporation was trying to profit from the DNA of Bruce Banner (The Hulk) by creating Super Human Weapons. Both the Military and the Coorporation come off as bad guys.
But then again, It was 1:00 in the morning and as most people will tell you, Movies can seem different at 1:00 in the morning...
Posted by Chamrajngar (Member # 3242) on :
lol. and i wasn't dissing this topic, I was dissing me for posting on this.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Pooka, I took my 10 year old son to see both Spiderman and X2. X2, while something I enjoyed very much, had some mature themes I winced through in knowing my son was there too. Basically, the sexual content was too high for my comfort. I don't think it is at all appropriate (nor would it be particularly understandable) to most (if not all) 2nd graders. Spiderman, OTOH, was very mild, if a bit violent, and I have had no wincing moments with it. My son is very well grounded, so the violence isn't as much a worry to me as other themes.
Can't say on The Hulk....it didn't look very good, so I wasn't thinking we'd even go see it in the theater. We'll wait til it comes out on video.
[ June 20, 2003, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: jeniwren ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
X2 and Spiderman SPOILERS
Well, there's black and white and then there's Dr. X being used as the tool of distruction of all non mutants (I'm tempted to say muggles) while Magneto is riding around in the Jet telling Pyro Dr. X is the real bad guy.
I mean, in Spiderman I did think it was terribly wrong for Peter to grant the villains last request, and it did bite him in the backside. Now that I think about it, the cops were after Spiderman too. But Jonah Jameson is kind of the spearhead of that.
Posted by Chamrajngar (Member # 3242) on :
hm... Yeah, I guess he is...
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
Why not let her see HP I & II?
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Just a random thought... I'm nearly 22 years old, and I'm STILL struggling to teach myself that the world isn't black and white, good vs. evil, that people are mixtures of good and bad, and that situations can't always be summed up with a single word. Definitely something I was taught when I was younger, and it's very difficult to stop myself from dividing everything up into two simple groups now that I'm an adult.
Not a criticism of what you're doing, pooka, but I've never heard of this tactic in screening movies before, and I'm intrigued.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
X2 had sexual content? What? (This is not a joke; I honestly cannot remember anything that bad in it.)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Sure, the scene with Mystique and Wolverine...
The Blackness Whiteness issue has kind of developed as we've been discussing on this thread. I hadn't really been sure why Spiderman seemed OK but X2 didn't. By that standard I really shouldn't be letting her watch "Jonah, a Veggietales movie" due to the final characterization of the apparent protagonist.
The Harry Potter thing is just that I'm not overly interested in it. I don't have theological issues, I know it's a fantasy world like Hatrack River/Vigor Church. I was just hoping to avoid the commercial maelstrom. MB II was kind of gross in parts. I don't think I was old enough for SW II (due to the mother's torture and imprisonment).
I haven't seen Matrix Reloaded yet. Not sure if I will. Trying to vote for content with my dollars.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
We rented HULK on video, and said 2nd Grader spent most the time hiding from the scary parts (anything involving a hypodermic needle is scary) though she would pop back in time to time to say "Is he killing the bad guys?"
So my concerns were apparently justified. But they probably sprang from whoever it was that originally exposed her to what goes on in the movie. I love public schooling.
I think it's too bad so many people went into this as a "Summer Action Flick" and not "An Ang Lee Picture". Viewing it as the latter, it was very clear that David was the primary villain. Though General Ross does make several blunders according to the Guide to being an Evil Overlord The one thing I thought was really weird was how the blonde guy turned into a cardboard cutout at the moment of his presumed death. Also, I don't know if I would have used the comic layout trick as often, though there were several shots where it was genius. Since it was largely dropped in the final act, I think they could have used it a little less throughout.
[ November 14, 2003, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Monkichi (Member # 5919) on :
I dont understand peoples problem with letting their kids see HP 1&2 personally i think that denying them the right to watch it just makes it seem even more interesting to them then it really is and really the whole concept of the stories is a boy who is clearly good fightin a super bad guy, pretty black n white to me, yet some people have the whole fight about the magic in the book n that they dont want their kids to start practicing witch craft because Harry does it, hopefully most kids are smart enough to realize that it is all pretend i mean you might as well tell them they cant watch "Snow White" because the evil witch does magic and "kills" Snow White, all fairy tales have magic in them yet noone seems to complain about these stories... and harry potter stories are, in my opion, really good for kids the stories have alot of good morals that kids should learn in them. Just my opinion, but i would like for someone to explain to me the whole problem if i am wrong.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I actually finally figured this out. In my universe, there is power that comes from love and power that comes from fear. In the Harry Potter universe, those two powers are all kind of mixed up. I mean, they definitely make the point that his mother's love is what saved him from Voldemort, but a lot of what they do resembles the power of fear in my universe.
In a lot of people's universe views, neither love nor fear have any real power so "it's all good".
And I don't utterly insulate them from HP movies because they are going to be exposed to it. I'm just saying I don't think HP is cool.
P.S. also, the Love/Fear power thing makes it okay for me to like Alvin Maker and not Harry Potter.
[ November 14, 2003, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Monkichi-- Capitalization. Periods. Sentences.
They make communication SO much more effective.
We screen all our children's movies.
Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
I have an honest question (though it may come across as rude since Harry Potter is a touchy subject for me). What are the chances that a 2nd grader would understand a complex theory about the difference between the power of fear and the power of love? To a small child Harry Potter is the good guy backed by all those that love him and Voldemort is the bad guy because he kills people and controls the lives of people.
quote: I'm just saying I don't think HP is cool.
This is a good reason to keep your kids from watching a harmless (PG-rated, though it is scary in parts) movie?
Sorry to offend if I did, I am just of the opinion that one would be hard pressed to find a story that has the good/evil lines so clearly marked as the Harry Potter books (movies).
[ November 14, 2003, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: hansenj ]
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
I make a judgment call when it comes to PG-13 movies. I took my kids, who were four at the time, to see Harry Potter II with no problems. I did not take them to see Spiderman because I thought it would be too violent/scary. As I sat there, I realized it probably would not have been a problem. I haven't seen Hulk; if I were to see it now, I would probably make the same judgment call--not to let them watch it until I have seen it first.
I think some of the posters here who are not parents are losing sight of just how young the kids in question are. I think it's entirely appropriate for a parent of a child this young to censor what he or she sees, insofar as that parent is able to, for any reason the parent sees fit. For instance, I prevented my kids, when they were younger, from watching Barney and Teletubbies. Yeah, I know, not what you were really looking for, but I find these shows (particularly Teletubbies) as objectionable as pooka finds Harry Potter. We don't really have to justify it. Something about a movie bothers us on some fundamental level, and we censor it because we can. You can't do it with older kids, but you hope that when your kids are older you have taught them your values as well as critical thinking skills, so that by that point whatever has you worried about a show or a movie will be less likely to do any damage.
Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
I guess I came across the wrong way. I am not a parent yet, and I'm not trying to make anyone change the way they have decided to raise their children. I was just taken aback by Pooka's choice regarding Harry Potter specifically, and I wanted to understand the reasons behind it.
Also, I'm a little scared by this viewpoint, but that's just my personal opinion:
quote: We don't really have to justify it.
quote:...We censor it because we can.
Posted by Chandani (Member # 5879) on :
I don't see what's scary about that viewpoint. Parents raise & teach their kids at their sole discretion - that's their job. And being able to see movies is not a right, especially for really little kids. If it were, I'd have to sue my parents, since they don't believe in going to the theater at all, and we didn't have a VCR till I was in high school. Would it have done me any harm to see Star Wars in the theater? Probably not, but it was their decision to make, and it certainly didn't do me any harm to miss it either.
Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
I guess it's the not justifying it that scares me. I think it's good to have reasons for what you do, and while you shouldn't have to defend yourself against others trying to tell you how to raise your children you should be able to state why you have chosen to do what you have done.
To clarify: I don't want people to think that because of what I have said in this thread I am the kind of person who thinks parents should just let their kids see whatever they want, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I am very impressed with parents who monitor the media of their children, and I plan to when I have my own family. I guess I'm just big into knowing the reasons behind the individual choices people make. Maybe I should just be quiet about it...
[ November 14, 2003, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: hansenj ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I haven't gotten that pooka has forbidden her children to watch Harry Potter, merely that they didn't go to the theater to watch it and they haven't rented it. It isn't so much, "We must protect our children", as "It isn't cool, so I won't see it." And of course, neither will the children.
And no one really has to justify that. It isn't censorship at all.
I'm sure Pooka knows that at some point it is pretty much guaranteed that her children will watch Harry Potter.
And as parents, I think we all have to realize that. Why won't we let our children watch some movie? Would we care if they watched it when they were older? Why or why not?
Posted by Chandani (Member # 5879) on :
Yeah, this is probably getting analyzed into a bigger deal than it really is. And as a non-parent, it's easy for me to say, but my theory is that all parents mess their kids up in some way no matter what they do...just because growing up into a human is tough, period, and raising another one is far tougher. You do the best you can. As if I knew anything.
And for the record, hansen, I hope I didn't sound too cranky in that earlier post...it wasn't meant that way, but now that I'm home from work and more relaxed I'm unsure of how I may have come across. Rereading your last post, I don't think there's any real disagreement here.
Shutting up now.
Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
Chandani, I was just talking to my roommate about this, and I was hoping that I had explained myself well enough to show that I really didn't think there was a big disagreement here. And don't be worried that you offended me or anything, I was more worried that I had done the offending.
Yes, I know I should shut about about this already, but I think I've figured out what it is that doesn't sit well with me on this topic. (Be forewarned that my opinion follows, and people are free to disagree with me.) Many of the parents that have posted on this thread so far have alluded to (and sometimes outright stated) that they should have full control over what their children watch. I can't say that I disagree with that statement, but here's the question I have. How far is it ok to control what they see? At some point it seems that it could change from monitoring what they watch for moral reasons to "I just don't like it so they can't watch it in my presence." Then it ceases to be a moral issue at all and changes to be a matter of personal tastes. Maybe it's just that I'm a Humanities major or that my tastes vary drastically from some of those in my family, but I don't think it's necessarily good for a parent to try and force their likes and dislikes on their children. In this Harry Potter example, I think a child would feel like they were going behind their parents back and doing something against their will if they went to a friend's house to watch them. I think children should have their own freedom to watch/read what they choose and discover things they like for themselves. Of course throughout this whole process I still believe a good parent would control things and put forth standards when it comes to teaching good morals. But I also believe a good parent would want to expose their children to a great variety of things, regardless of their personal preferences. It's like, say I didn't like green beans. I would still serve them to my children because they are healthy and green beans could, perhaps, be a vegetable they ended up liking.
Anyway, that ended up being way longer than I meant it to be (I've never been very good at being concise), but that's what I think. I probably read way more into it than was meant. I have just been thinking about this kind of thing quite a bit recently, and this thread caused me to do a lot of introspection. So, thanks, honestly, and I'm so sorry if I have said anything offensive, especially to the parents of Hatrack, many of whom are a good example for me and have given me great insight on how I would like to raise my own children someday.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
The kids in this thread are quite young hansenj. I'm guessing that if they were older the responses wouldn't be quite the same.
If you have kids that young, you are supposed to control most of what they see. I wasn't allowed to see Jurassic Park when it came out and I was much older then these kids. To this day I have no idea why I couldn't see it and i really don't think my parents do either. They just didn't think it was a good idea and so they made the rule. Who cares? I don't think that not renting a movie when your child is that young because you don't like it or have some objection to the content has any chance of screwing up a kid. If it does then that kid was probably screwed up to begin with
--ApostleRadio
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:SWII (attack of the cleavage) MBII, HP I &II. Of course, she wound up seeing most of these at Grandma's on DVD. Probably will see X2 that way as well
I am quoting myself here in case you skipped the first part of the thread.
Her aunts and uncles on her Dad's side also tend to have all these things. The dilemna is that with a really little kid (under 5), I don't figure they really understand what's going on enough to bother shielding them. As my daughter got older, she started being bothered by things.
I don't know if I've related this elsewhere, but here is the deal with my daughter and Harry Potter. She was in kindergarten and the day HP was to be released on video, the school scheduled a HP dress up day to celebrate. (We hadn't seen the movie up to this point nor read any of the books). However, for some reason she was afraid to go to school. I'm not sure how much or where she got the information that it would be scary, but I made a deal with her. If she would agree to go to school on HP dress up day, I would take her to see the movie, and that way she would know not to be scared. I don't know what I was thinking, I guess I trusted all these pundits telling me it was harmless and promotes learning.
She enjoyed most of the movie, except the dark forest, but in the morning she still wouldn't go into school unless I went in with her to make sure no one in kindergarten was dressed as a witch. (No one was, which is not too surprising). But kids in 1st grade were. So I personally question schools promoting it in this way. My daughter got older and is more interested in it now. I did let her watch the trailer for HP III. She developed a morbid fascination with Richard Harris' death. Again, due to someone else telling her about it.
I don't know where she got so interested in the HULK movie. She seems very susceptible to commercial influence. I probably should sit with her and watch some commercial TV every week and explain to her how it works. By the way, what do you think of Spielberg removing the guns from the halloween costumes in the later edition of E.T.?
Edit: answer to rhetorical question: I assume you won't have a problem with it because it is his movie and it was what he felt was right. That is what it means to be a parent as well.
[ November 15, 2003, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Sorry for going a little off-topic, but what's MBII?
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
Men in Black II
Posted by raphael (Member # 5870) on :
my apologies too but: whats hulk?
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
She's talking about the movie The Hulk that's based on the comic of the same name. It's about a guy who gets green, giant, and ugly when he's angry.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I assume you won't have a problem with it because it is his movie and it was what he felt was right."
Well, no. I thought it was foolish, boneheaded, and patronizing.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I wouldn't know. I refused to see it after catching a glimpse of it's CG-crapiness.
[ November 15, 2003, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Primal Curve ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Okay, I lied. I assumed hansen would agree because he was being liberal.
Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
<--- Is a girl
Well, I still think I am being misunderstood, but I can't think of what I could say differently. I must say though, I laughed right out loud when I read that you thought I was being liberal because in reality, I am a conservative, LDS, BYU student. Like Chandani said, I really don't think there is a huge disagreement here. Basically, I'm pretty sure I misread between the lines in many of the posts and others have done the same with mine. If I'm wrong, and you're pretty sure you disagree with me, feel free to try and explain further. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
From what I understand you are both in agreement, but from different directions.
One is saying that a parent doesn't have to give any reasons for allowing or not allowing a child to see or do something. It is within their rights as parents toward children.
The other side is saying that allowing and not allowing a child to see or do something is fine as long as the parent explains why. It is hoped that in explaining the reasons the child will grow to decide for themselves how correct the reasoning is.
Here is the problem, as someone pointed out -- the children in question are VERY YOUNG. They are not teenagers or even nearly of that age. This makes them incapable to understand not only the reasoning behind the "censorship," but the subtle complexeties of the movies in question. At that age their ability for "critical thinking skills" do not exist. They take things at a very literal/tactile level. Meaning, they are more susceptable to suggestion and direct influence.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
I'm sorry you find my statements "scary." I'll resist the temptation to post a snarky reply, and try to clarify instead. I definitely think parents should try to have a reason for everything that they do. I think you should have as your goal to know why you make the choices that you make for your children. However, sometimes your instincts scream something at you that you're not quite able to rationalize. You ever have the experience of not knowing why a movie bothered you on a moral level, until you read somebody else's analysis that hit it right on the head? When you are a parent of a young child, you have to make thousands of decisions for them, and you don't always have time to stop and ponder until later. It would be irresponsible, as a parent, to ignore your own instincts when they tell you something could be harmful for your child to watch. You certainly should try to articulate why, at least to yourself. Even if you can't do that in the heat of the moment, you should try to do so later, or reconsider your position. But, all I'm trying to say is, you have to make a lot of decisions, and you shouldn't ignore your instincts . . . there's often something to them. Look, I'm hardly the sort to make un-analyzed decisions. I am a thoughtful person, and I usually know why I feel as I do. But, as I said before, I think a lot of posters are failing to differentiate between a six-year-old and a thirteen-year-old.
-o-
And, what the heck, I do think it's a bit disengeneous to say something one of us said is scary, and then hedge with a statement like "many of [the parents of Hatrack] are a good example for me and have given me great insight on how I would like to raise my own children someday." I guess your out is in the word "many," but your second statement certainly doesn't balance out your first in my eyes.
Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
Icarus,
I don't know if you have read my latest posts trying to explain myself (it appears as though you haven't), but I have realized (and your explanation confirms it even more) that there really isn't a disagreement here. I misunderstood your original post, and when I quoted it I tried to show why I thought it was scary. I thought you meant that a parent doesn't need to have reasons at all for doing what they do. Now that you have explained yourself (that as a parent you don't need to justify yourself when it's something fundamentally unsettling for moral reasons) I fully agree with you. I'm very sorry that I came across the way I did. (This is probably why I stay away from most serious discussions, I always put my foot in my mouth.) I did honestly mean that I included you in the parents I admire at Hatrack when I said "most", and again, I apologize for seeming disengenuous.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
S'OK . . . I must have been wearing my tight underwear yesterday. Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I bet Cor likes it when you do that.
Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
Oh my... Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I remember seeing "All Quiet On the Western Front" when I was about seven.
I just assume my mom kicked the hell out of my dad for letting me watch that. Lots of tears. Lots.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And don't be worried that you offended me or anything, I was more worried that I had done the offending. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Oh my...