Is it okay for parents to blatantly disregard ratings?

[Astoria]

Wait kids can still get into R rated movies where you live? Wow, in Australia if you're not 18 you're not getting in no matter who you have with you. MA is a little more slack and says if you're under 15 you can go in but only with a adult. I guess it ultimately is the parents choice but they really shouldn't be letting little kids see movies like that. My first M movie was Spiderman when I was about 9 or 10 and I think that's about right. After that I guess it just depends how quickly the child matures.

 

[Snownine]

I feel that it is entirely up to the discretion of the parent.

 

[KiKiweaky]

Depends on the subject matter IMO.

I remember way back in like 1994 or whatever when they shows Schindlers List on NBC in primtime at like 8pm

That movie was brutal and adult yet it was allowed on network TV and I watched it as a 5th grader with my family. My parents even encouraged it at the time.

Good film, horrific but a good film none the less. What age would you have been? 11 or 10 bit young for that kind of film imo.

My Uncle showed his daughter the boy in the striped pyjamas.... She had a few nightmares/sleepness nights but she got over it eventually. Dont think I'd have shown her it in a million years though.

I was 11 I believe at that exact time.

And I agree with you that I was mostly to young for it at the time. I was too young and my mind just couldnt really grasp the concepts and serious tone of the movie.

BUT

I did understand some things and it clearly had some effect on me (in a good way) because it opened me up to that period in history even more. While I didnt understand the whole picture I was able to understand some of it and when I got older I remembered the film and I went back and watched it. The second time around I really got the purpose of that film.

Boy in the Striped Pajammas is really good too. Its probably a better movie to introduce kids to the whole holocaust/WW2 thing than Schindlers List. They will be able to identify with it better no doubt (plus SL is LONG and in Black and white). Still a very adult movie though.

I guess in the end its really hard to draw a line in the sand for this kind of thing. But as a general rule I would say 13 is a good age to start introducing certain R-rated content to a kid. Responsible parenting and all that stuff.

But no matter what you do they will probably see worse stuff anyways. I know I did! hah!

She was only 10 so ya that must have been horrific, I bet she wont like seeing large metal doors anymore. Or people in gas masks for that matter :/

Agree on the age thing though, 13 is a decent age to give some leeway with ratings. I showed my cousin teminator 2 judgement day when he was 12 and he didnt freak out well because its full of arnie kicking some serious ass > with mini guns and grenade launchers mmm still makes me all warm and fuzzy inside when I watch it.

I'd probably watch the film first and make my mind up then.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

As long as the parent doesn't turn around and complain about the effect of the content on his/her child, then sure.

 

[Mikeyfell]

That news article on The Kings Speech got me thinking.

Whenever I go to a movie that's rated R (17+) inevitably some mom is there with her kids. Usually a 5 year old and and 11 year old. While it might be a parents choice, is it really alright? The same can be said of games. Inevitably some mom or dad will buy their 10 year old Call of Duty. This isn't a case of "oh he's almost of age so it doesn't matter".

Is it really okay for kids to be subjected to adult material based on the uncaring or uninformed whim of the parent?

I will say this: If parents do decide to ignore the ratings they forfeit the right to complain about anything related to the media that they decided to ignore the rating on.

And that should be law

 

[Plurralbles]

as long as they dont' complain about the content and are informed I don't care what they decide to disregard.

 

[WanderingFool]

Only if they lose the right to complain about kids playing/watching said items.

This. This a thousand times over.

 

[Jodah]

True, it's the parent's right.

But any parent who actually allows that is either an idiot or they don't care. It doesn't matter how "mature" they think their children are, there's a reason that such movies are restricted - by law - so that kids don't watch 'em.

Plus, I'm sure most of you remember that one kid at school who was all like "My parents let me watch R-rated movies! I'm so much better than you!" And I'm sure you'll remember just how arrogant they were. These are the kind of kids we're talking about here.

Just a point of note, ratings are not law in the United States. A theater can allow anyone who want to view it in. Most, however, choose to adhere to the ratings as a publicity matter.

OT : It is completely up to the parent(s) and if they choose to take their child to see it they have no right to complain about any effect it has on them.

 

[Eri]

Do the people who rated the film know the child?
What about the parent? Which one do you think better understands what the child should be watching?

Not the parent based on half the ones I've seen.

 

[crudus]

Like voting, you can choose to not do it, but you cannot ***** about the consequences.

 

[Austin Howe]

Yes. In fact, it was what they should do.

 

[Android2137]

Is drowning detrimental to your health?

The rating is there for a reason. People shouldn't take small children to these things. It can traumatize them and later in life, they'd make a video game called Earthbound.

...I just weakened my argument, didn't I?

 

[Eri]

Whenever I go to a movie that's rated R (17+) inevitably some mom is there with her kids. Usually a 5 year old and and 11 year old. While it might be a parents choice, is it really alright?

Of course it is. Her parenting strategies are her own business, and ratings exist to help people make reasonably informed decisions while putting those strategies together.

Except most of "that kind" of parents don't care about ratings and just do whatever they want. I wonder if that translates into them not caring about the kid sometimes, if they just don't care.

 

[ArianaUO321]

I have no problems with letting them play games such as Call of Duty and whatnot. However, I do have a very serious problem if they are also allowing their child to use a microphone in multiplayer on CoD. And so do the majority of other people playing it.

 

[lizards]

depends on the kid, but in general i would disagree, trying to keep vulgar words away from kids is the reason why its so funny to them when they hear it, holding it back only makes them more interested

and many kids can handle it anyway

 

[BreakfastMan]

No, not really. It is the parents decision. The ratings are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. They are their to inform parents, not to be the end-all, be-all decision on age-appropriate material. It really just depends on the family and the child. Some kids can just handle some things better than others.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

Nope, it isn't. Those ratings are for the protection of children. But hey, what can you do about it.

Personally, I'm still an advocate of people having to earn the right to be a parent.

Hah, that'll be the day. I kind of agree though. I mean a lot of people are against abortions, but ultimately abortions EXIST because there are people out there unfit to raise kids.

I don't think most parents really notice the rating or the specific things listed under it on the back that cause the rating. Those are probably the kind of things that they'd need to know about, gotta look out for that 'cartoon violence' >:O