posted
I know that the new Trek movie is PG-13. Tova is 9, and we were wondering whether it'd be okay to take her. Sometimes, ratings are dumb. So anyone who's seen it, would you mind giving your opinion?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is some swearing, I think b***s*** is said once but never the effenheimer (naturally). It's mostly light-hearted fun, though there are a couple sort of scary/intense scenes although nothing I think a nine year old couldn't handle. One scene of slight sexuality involving a scantily clad man and woman. All in all I guess if I had a nine year old (I don't have kids, fyi) that was relatively mature for her age I wouldn't think twice about bringing her.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's nothing horribly blatant that I can think of. Nothing visceral or anything.
A few people get sucked out in to space... There's one rather bloody fight scene with Kirk (you see him pretty bloodied up in the trailer, so I'm guessing that's not a spoiler)... I don't recall if you actually get to see anyone die on screen.
There's one borderline sex scene that shows more skin than is usual for a Star Trek movie, but nothing overly dramatic I think.
I'm taking my son to see it this weekend (he's eight next month).
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a ceti-eel-like thing applied to someone...you don't see a whole lot, the camera backs quite far away as its being applied, but it's clear that the subject is struggling in agony against it.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: I don't recall if you actually get to see anyone die on screen.
At least 10 people die violently on screen, in a variety of ways. The movie is quite violent for a 9 year old, in my opinion- I'd see it first before taking Tovah, Lisa.
I don't know the movie everybody else saw, but if I know my 9 year olds, and I teach a lot of them, it's far too much visceral physicality for them to handle. It is an overload for an adult at certain points. Aside from that, it would sail over a 9 year old's head in every other way as well- it's very much a teen and above picture. This is bar far the most violent star trek ever seen- that may not be saying much, but I honestly think it's quite a violent cut above most sci-fi. It's not horror-fi, but it is quite gothic and dark at times.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I think the trailer is actually a pretty accurate representation of what you're going to see.
Have to disagree here, most of the violence of the trailer was space explosions and effects based violence. There's quite a lot of human (and beast), violence as well in the film that is not shown in the trailer. The trailer did accurately represent the visual style however.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually think (to me, at least) First Contact might be scarier than this one. That film was far less explosive and violent, but more atmospheric and dread-filled. It depends what you're scared of.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will take Nathan (he's 15, now) but I would not have at age 9. Too much violence.
But, then, he still remembers having nightmares about the opening scene of the Littlest Vampire when he was 9 (we didn't watch any more of that one), and how horrible he felt hearing Heidi cry for her grandpa when she was stolen away (the old Shirley Temple version) not too long after his favorite grampa died, when he was 7.
Tenderhearted. Sweet boy. Kind young man.
Actually, I think at 15, he'll really enjoy it, and perhhaps carry away some messages that are pretty okay -- like "only you can decide what direction your life will go, and I trust you to choose the way that works best" and "it's okay to feel like you belong to two different worlds, because we trust you to decide where you belong and we'll be proud no matter what . . . "
Trust and letting go seem to be a teen and parent issue, yes?
*reflects on the movie a bit more*
Every family is different and will make different decisions about viewing age, and that's okay!
If you're concerned, see it by yourself first, if that's possible. If not, you can always prep kids ahead of time by saying you're not sure if the movie really is okay for them, but you'll give it a try, AND you reserve your parental right to leave at anytime with them. And they can have the right to say it's too much, too. Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considerably more coverage than bikinis and swim trunks, unless you're talking about '50s beach wear. The "sex and nudity" is about as graphic as in the original Gidget movie. As for suitability for young children... ...think of the original StarWars trilogy (Abrams certainly did) but without any of Lucas' kinky stuff.
posted
I have to disagree again- the original Star Wars was far slower and deliberate. There was violence, yes, and some unexpected violence as well, but it was by no means as constant or unflinchingly packed with killing. Looking back, I do believe at nearly 20 people are seen dying gruesomely on screen in this movie. People are shot, impaled, incinerated, crushed, tortured, blown up, sucked into space, and dropped from cliffs- we're not talking tame stuff here.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Looking back, I do believe at nearly 20 people are seen dying gruesomely on screen in this movie. People are shot, impaled, incinerated, crushed, tortured, blown up, sucked into space, and dropped from cliffs- we're not talking tame stuff here.
You don't see pools of blood flowing from open wounds (other than the bar fight in the trailer, I don't remember seeing blood anywhere else, but I could be wrong). You don't see removed limbs. You don't see flesh burning. You don't see bodies slamming in to the ground at terminal velocity.
Maybe I missed something, but the deaths you refer to weren't really "on screen". I don't want to go in to details here because it would be spoilers.
Yeah, it's not Sesame Street, but I struggle to call it violent and visceral enough to have an impact on older children.
I consider Transformers and Spiderman 2, both of which was pretty much marketed at kids of the age in question despite both being PG-13, way more violent than this. I had issues showing Spiderman 2 (which shows an entire medical staff getting torn to pieces and a woman getting her throat cut by flying glass) to my son; I don't have the same issues with this movie.
Guess it's up to the parent's judgment.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Maybe I missed something, but the deaths you refer to weren't really "on screen". I don't want to go in to details here because it would be spoilers."
The crushing, two incinerations, two impalements, at least 5 shootings, and at least 3 people being sucked into space are all fully on screen. Perhaps you misremember, or perhaps I do, but that is my recollection from seeing the film yesterday. Certainly some of the violence was cut-away, but a good part of it was on screen.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So we're going to the 11:30 showing today. It was funny... we were sitting at the table for breakfast, and I gave Havah and Tova a brief rundown of the prequel to the movie which came out as a four issue comic recently. Which got Tova talking about the episodes she's seen.
She's never seen any TOS eps, but I showed her two TAS eps on YouTube a couple of years ago. And she has a freaky memory sometimes. But, while she was describing one of the episodes, she referred to the Enterprise as "the... StarTrekmobile thingamabob". I may never be able to look at the Enterprise again without thinking "StarTrekmobile".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tova hid her face every time there was a beatdown, or when two people kissed. She didn't have as much trouble with the shooting (less visceral, more distant). But she really enjoyed it. I think we'll stick with regular PG flicks for a while, though.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I saw it yesterday, there was a young child of perhaps 7 who loudly exclaimed "Ewwwww!" during the "sex" scene, which generated quite a few chuckles from the adults within earshot. It was actually quite cute.
posted
Quantum of Solace had bloody, visceral close range deaths. I do not approve. (Let that haunt your dreams.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We see a photograph of a dead man. It appears from the photograph that his face has been eaten by animals, and thus is very graphic with exposed rotting muscle and bone, as well as rotting skin hanging off of his head.
.../...
Many scenes of people getting shot with guns. Some of these scenes are fairly graphic, and one features a man dying a slow and painful death after being shot multiple times.
.../...
A man attempts to attack someone with an axe and misses. We see the axe go through his foot and see blood squirt out, and then see him pull the axe out as more blood sprays out.
.../...
There is a big explosion towards the end where someone is killed. For a brief second, you see the explosion rip his clothes off of his body, as well as chunks of his skin. It's not incredibly graphic, and not shown for more than a split second.
Maybe you say the "director's cut" then... Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: As a child of the 80's, violence is okay but sexual innuendo isn't.
The 80s were weird like that. Extremely violent R-rated movies like Robocop had action figures and a Saturday morning cartoon. To be honest, I think that most kids aren't as disturbed by seeing make believe violence as their parents are by the idea of them seeing it.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty perplexed by all these comments about these movies being "pretty standard" or "no more than network." These movies, especially Quantum of Solace, are much more violent than movies previously were in their franchises, and a giant leap above network TV for violence.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be much more comfortable with letting my hypothetical child see nudity (nudity != graphic sex) than a torture scene. But, depending on the kid, I wouldn't find graphic violence that bad either for a 7 or 8 year-old. I think I was maybe 8 when I first watched Aliens, for example. It scared me, but I also really enjoyed being scared.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have you seen this show called The US Government? It seems to be on TV all the time around 6:00pm and it seems to have pretty graphic torture scenes quite often Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw Terminator when I was 9 years old, and thought it was probably the coolest thing ever. Depends on the kid, but I don't think movies will mess 'em up too much.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Have you seen Lost? Maybe it isn't as frequent, there have been torture scenes that are certainly more terrifying psychologically --- just this season.
I wouldn't let my toddler watch Lost, either. Why would you?
quote:Crap, Coraline was scarier than Quantum and Star Trek put together...
*blink* I could see the Star Trek thing, sure. But Quantum? Either you aren't remembering the movie correctly or you are really, really blase about some things.
And it's worth noting that I wouldn't take my toddler to Coraline, either. Heck, I didn't take her to Monsters vs. Aliens -- not because of violence, but because I didn't want to introduce her to the fart joke in precisely that way.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I saw Terminator when I was 9 years old, and thought it was probably the coolest thing ever. Depends on the kid, but I don't think movies will mess 'em up too much.
Yes, it certainly does depend on the kid. I watched Terminator, Robocop, and Alien films when I was about 7-8. Most of my friends had too. Strangely my parents, who tended to be overprotective in every other way, had no problem with my brother and I watching R-rated films at such a young age. That's why I tend to think that it's actually more upsetting to the parents than the kids a lot of the time. But of course, parents know better than anyone else what their kids are sensitive to.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
How did you explain the scene where James Bond was being whipped in the testicles with a wet rope after having been electrocuted for a while?
"Some times, when two men really don't like each other, one man ties another man to a chair and makes him hurt very, very badly..."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that I'm defending Casino Royale as a child friendly movie, but do you really need to explain every questionable act in a movie in order to help kids "come to terms" with it? I think when most young kids watch something like a James Bond movie with an intricate plot between lots of action all they really get out of it is that James Bond is fighting the bad guys. In that particular scene, the bad guys caught Bond and now they're beating him up because he's the good guy and they're the bad guys. As a kid, I don't think I would have even realized exactly what they were doing. It's not like they showed rope hitting testicles. I would have thought they were just whipping him or something.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But wouldn't that be equally true of sex? I mean, they're just two naked people on top of each other, being happy. Right?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference is that I think kids would be more inclined to try to imitate sex rather than most of the acts of violence that they see on film. At least if said kids understand that in really life acts of violence can really hurt people.
Kids understand fighting. Whether it's Power Rangers, Ninja Turtles, Pokemon, or play fighting at recess they're likely going to see a lot of it before puberty. They usually are pretty good at accepting that pain and injuries are consequences of real violence. Understanding sex and why it's just for grown ups is a lot more complicated.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So our main concern about showing sex or violence to kids is that they might try to emulate what they see?
To be honest with you, that's why I wouldn't let Sophie see the fart jokes in Monsters vs. Aliens. But it's not why I wouldn't expose her to Texas Chainsaw Massacre or 9 1/2 Weeks.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If your main concern is that they will be upset or disturbed by what they see then it's like I said above, it depends on the kid and it's up to the parents to make the call.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I will say, however, that my 3-year-old was a lot more enthused after Quantum of Solace (she sure loves explosions).
hahahahahaha oh god, you took a three year old to Quantum of Solace and you think that's okay.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: If your main concern is that they will be upset or disturbed by what they see then it's like I said above, it depends on the kid and it's up to the parents to make the call.
You don't have to be an expert in psychology to know, or at least to very easily find out, that there are effects of these kinds of exposures that range beyond simple discomfort or outward emotional stress. Children at the age of 3 don't have the contextual or emotional experience necessary even to differentiate the reality of a film or story from that of the world in which they actually live. A 3 year old does not typically understand the concept of representational or dramatic art. Exposing children to violence on that level, to images for which they have virtually no context or tools for analysis, even if they seem to enjoy it, has an actual effect on the way the brain develops.
You simply can't compare the emotional or intellectual processes of a child as if he/she was a mini-adult. It's totally different.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: If your main concern is that they will be upset or disturbed by what they see then it's like I said above, it depends on the kid and it's up to the parents to make the call.
You don't have to be an expert in psychology to know, or at least to very easily find out, that there are effects of these kinds of exposures that range beyond simple discomfort or outward emotional stress. Children at the age of 3 don't have the contextual or emotional experience necessary even to differentiate the reality of a film or story from that of the world in which they actually live. A 3 year old does not typically understand the concept of representational or dramatic art. Exposing children to violence on that level, to images for which they have virtually no context or tools for analysis, even if they seem to enjoy it, has an actual effect on the way the brain develops.
You simply can't compare the emotional or intellectual processes of a child as if he/she was a mini-adult. It's totally different.
None of my posts were made with children as young as 3 in mind. I was thinking more of 8 or 9ish, as that was where the original discussion started, and my own experiences mentioned above were of watching R-rated movies around that age. At age 3 or 4 the most violent thing I'd watched was probably Star Wars.
I would, however, like to think that I'm living proof that exposure to violent entertainment at a young age doesn't warp all children, which is not to say that I don't agree that it's probably not good for most.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This reminds me of when I went to see The Orphanage, and there were a couple of people with little kids in tow, looking perplexed and confused as said children really didn't like the movie.
quote:And though she isn't imitative of the violence, because she realizes that people can get hurt, inappropriate humor (the farm animal sex references in Star Trek) and explicit or implicit sexual scenes wouldn't seem harmful.
Imitative behavior really isn't what I'm worried about.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I further believe that if children aren't exposed to these elements in a controlled environment, their response during an uncontrolled incident will be variable.
Case in point: A child whose parents avoid any movies with guns will have little knowledge of guns, except for the conditioning he receives from his peers. In an instance where several children find a gun, he is FAR more likely to injure himself or others because of his lack of knowledge.
Basic safety knowledge is not applicable on this topic- knowing what a gun, a mechanical device, does and how it works is all the context a child needs to deal with the object in an ordinary situation. A gun is not unlike a toaster in that way.
Images of violence and sexuality are TOTALLY DIFFERENT. They are not things you can expose your child to in a controlled way- only in a way you think you have control of. Giving a child as much room for context, as many good examples as possible of correct behavior, and as much space a he/she needs to question you on the nature of thing he/she sees out in the world is pretty much all you can do. You cannot train your child to understand adult behavior. That is the realm of adults.
Case in point: I knew exactly how to deal with guns from an early age, despite the fact that I never fired a handgun once, and only ever fired a rifle once at camp. That's an easy thing to teach: "treat the gun as if it has a bullet in it that can come out and hit someone," was all my father had to reiterate to me every time the subject came up. He simply quietly assured me, without fail, that guns were dangerous, and that I should not touch them. That's not hard to understand at age 5.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Case in point: A child whose parents avoid any movies with guns will have little knowledge of guns, except for the conditioning he receives from his peers. In an instance where several children find a gun, he is FAR more likely to injure himself or others because of his lack of knowledge.
So you want to teach your three year old about guns. Congratulations, I'm happy for you. You don't teach your three year old about guns by taking them to a James Bond movie. You're making it sound like you think the only option for informing them about guns is to see them used as a staple of fictional brutality and action-violence in a setting inappropriate in all ways for a three year old.
I might as well say "I want my kid to know about tree-trimming equipment so of course we went to the latest Texas Chainsaw Massacre film."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
