Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Showing Licence To Kill to a kid... thoughts.


41 replies to this topic

#1 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 14 July 2014 - 07:44 PM

OK. Here's one I've been thinking about that I thought I would put to you guys.

 

I have a step-son who is nearly 21. He's my wife's from a previous relationship (my wife and I have since had two daughters of our own). Before my lady and I got married and I was courting her (so to speak)  my step son was 11. She had mentioned to me that she rented the DVD of Die Another Day out for him and he LOVED it (heh, wonder if his opinion is different now? I'll have to ask him...)

Anyway he wanted her to rent out all the other movies for him but I told her not to bother - revealed I was huge fan - and already had all the movies on VHS and DVD. I said every time I come over I'll bring one for him.

Started at the beginning with Dr. No and over the course of a few weeks (or maybe months, this is a decade ago so bear with me) we got to The Living Daylights.

Now my lad (who incidentally - is called James!) really, REALLY enjoyed the movies and was running around his house and pretending to be the main man! Didn't get bored during the old Connery ones, LOVED (and I mean LOVED) Roger Moore - but the next one on the agenda was Licence To Kill.

 

So I took my wife aside and said "Look there may be a problem with the next one". I explained to her that it had a 15 rating, that it was considerably more violent than previous entries. I was concerned about it... but even though he was only 11 I didn't want him to have to miss one out - I wanted him to have the full experience. 

 

I was round a friend's (who was a good few years older than me and had kids of James' age) and I told him of the predicament. He said "Not sure if I remember that one" so I ran home and grabbed it and bought it back. We watched it together. 

 

When the film finished we talked it through and he said "Well, really there's nothing in there that hasn't been in one of these movies before. Sharks, people on fire, bit of blood and guts - the only difference here is that it's a bit more full on. If this was the first one you were going to show him then that would be a NO - but he understands the world of these movies so I think he's probably in a good mental space to watch it".

 

I then watched it with my missus. She was unsure but like me didn't want to be mean and leave one out. So we agreed to allow him to watch it - but take a specific pre-planned approach. Our approach was to not let him see the DVD cover, and not mention to him at all the violence or the 15 rating and just make out that is was "simply the next one on the list". Just play it down and not make a deal of it.

 

Luckily it worked. He watched it and the only bit that upset him was where Our Man found Della Leiter dead. Not cause of it's horribleness simply because he figured out that it would have reminded Our Man of when his own wife died. 

 

He didn't really seem to notice that it was more violent than usual. After the film finished I gave him a pat on the back. He was a bit confused and I told him that "Dude, that one caused major problems cause of it's violence and it made some adults feel a bit queasy. But you sat there and didn't let it phase you". His response "Yeah cool Stu, is Brosnan the next one?" 

All he cared about was getting to Brosnan's, lol. 

 

Interestingly I noticed that the violence in the story went over his head. He was just interested in the STORY. So afterwards I tentatively showed him The Matrix movies and a few years later when he was 14 I showed him Robocop. With the latter - the UNCUT version with the most gore. The gamble paid off. In the execution scene of Murphy he was a bit like "Ugh, that was gross. Why did they do that to him? What was the point of it?" And I was just like "James... don't you get it? HE'S ROBOCOP!" and James just smiled and went "Ahhh, I get this now".

 

I know not every kid is like James. I'm showing the Bond films to my daughters who are 5 and 8. And no. I am not showing them Licence To Kill. But having said that, I don't think I'm going to wait until they are 15 when I finally do. Maybe 11, 12 something like that. 

 

Where do you guys stand on issues like this? 


Edited by ChickenStu, 14 July 2014 - 07:44 PM.


#2 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 15 July 2014 - 07:34 AM

Bond films are not for children.

 

I really do not get why adults think they have to make them available to 5 year olds.



#3 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 15 July 2014 - 07:35 AM

Bond films are not for children.
 
I really do not get why adults think they have to make them available to 5 year olds.


Couldn't agree more with this.

#4 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 15 July 2014 - 07:43 AM

Wouldn't show it to anybody.



#5 Hansen

Hansen

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 431 posts
  • Location:Paris

Posted 15 July 2014 - 10:40 AM

I showed it to my kids : boy (10), girl (7) and watched it with them and they enjoyed it.

About the violence, sorry but it is not worse and probably less disturbing / frightening than Harry Potter

I saw Octopussy and NSNA at 8 and I enjoyed them, but I admit that below this age, there is point in showing them



#6 Royal Dalton

Royal Dalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4542 posts

Posted 15 July 2014 - 02:58 PM

Wouldn't show it to anybody.

 

Drum roll. Cymbal crash.



#7 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 15 July 2014 - 10:26 PM

I always figured that these were meant to be family entertainment. Up until Licence To Kill they did always have PG ratings. I first experienced them as a kid. Going to see Goldeneye when I was 17 is one of my most cherished childhood memories! 



#8 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 16 July 2014 - 02:31 AM

The PG rating didn't necessarily mean "family friendly" prior to 1984.  It just meant that the material wasn't objectionable enough to warrant an R or an X rating. 

 

Cubby had said at various points that the Bond films were supposed to be "family entertainment", but I think that they've dropped the ball on that quite a few times over the years.  That said, they should have never been aiming to make that kind of film anyway, as a film series about a government-sanctioned murderer who drinks, chain smokes, and sleeps practically every woman he meets doesn't exactly lend itself to family entertainment. 



#9 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 16 July 2014 - 07:46 AM

As far as I know the "family entertainment"-quote came during the later Moore era.  It was definitely not applied during the Connery films.

 

By the way, for me childhood ends at 12.  Then teenagerdom starts.



#10 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 16 July 2014 - 01:34 PM

As far as I know the "family entertainment"-quote came during the later Moore era.  It was definitely not applied during the Connery films.

 

By the way, for me childhood ends at 12.  Then teenagerdom starts.

 

It definitely wasn't applied in the early Moore films either. 

 

I think 12 would be about the time that I'd first consider letting kids watch the Bond films, but even then I'd be a bit wary of allowing them to do so, and certain films wouldn't be a part of the deal.



#11 Simkins

Simkins

    Recruit

  • Crew
  • 4 posts

Posted 16 July 2014 - 08:09 PM

I did a bit of research on the classification of Bond films, comparing the ratings in different countries, and wrote a blog post on the results:

 

http://jamesbondmeme...james-bond.html

 

The main conclusion to draw is that film classification has generally been at odds with the public's view of the Bond films as family entertainment. In reality, classification boards have tended to rate the films, from Dr No onwards, as suitable for mature audiences - that is, for teenagers and adults. In some countries, the Bond films have rarely been deemed suitable for under 15s. There have been exceptions - Roger Moore's films have usually had lower ratings, and that's probably where the view that Bond series was family viewing started. 

 

When I saw Casino Royale in the cinema, I noticed a father had brought his young daughter (perhaps aged 7 or 8) with him. I felt rather uncomfortable during some of the scenes knowing that young children were watching. I just didn't think the film was suitable for that age group.



#12 Agent Spriggan Ominae

Agent Spriggan Ominae

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1068 posts
  • Location:Aiea,Hawaii

Posted 16 July 2014 - 08:58 PM

Well I'll share some insight and personal experience. I actually started watching the Bond films probably a lot younger than I should have going by the general consensus. LTK was among the first I ever recall seeing any part of, the other being DAF and this would have been sometime very late '80s, early '90s when I was 2-3 years old. Without a doubt Bond films are not intended to be viewed by very young children. My grandfather was a fan of the films and he is a WW2 vet so now that I really think about it he was probably desensitized and as such didn't think me watching a bit here and there would hurt. The Crematorium scene from DAF was traumatizing as a child at that age. I saw the scene the first time and it left a lasting impression and the next time I saw the film during the TBS James Bond Wednesday run that as soon as I realized what was happening I ran away from the TV and wouldn't come back until I was assured the scene was over and back then we would record the Bond films during the TV showings and when they played DAF I made sure my grandma paused the recording at the part where Franks's corpse is being loaded onto the plane and didn't resume until well into the casino scene, that's how scared it made me. However I finally got around to overcoming that fear and saw the scene again in full when I was around 6 and got over it. Even then I guess I would still be seen as too young to watching Bond films.

 

LTK wasn't as bad from what I remember and it wasn't until '95-'96 that I finally saw the whole movie and loved it but by then I had already seen things probably far worse than Bond i.e. various horror films, Jaws, Die Hard, Terminator, Aliens, Robocop, Total Recall, Indiana Jones, hell even Who framed Roger Rabbit? which could be considered aimed at kids was another one where the whole bit with steamroller and the subsequent terrifying resurrection of the villain is the stuff of nightmare fuel. Even though I say LTK didn't seem as bad, stuff like the Shark scene with Felix would automatically make this movie unsuitable for children. The scene is very dark and intense. That said I was watching the full movie when I was 8-9 years old, but by that point I was somewhat desensitized and I had seen Die Hard with a Vengeance in theaters the same year as Toy Story but missed Goldeneye. As for how I was able to see DHWAV and not GE, I think it says a lot about how it's true that through conditioning American society is a lot more comfortable with violence than sex. My Grandparents probably would have taken me had I asked but I guess it was in part that GE looked a bit too stylized and mature for me because of the sexual content that was clear in the marketing. It wasn't until TND when I was 10 that I saw a Bond movie proper on the Big Screen.        

 

In spite of how and when I saw the Bond films, I probably wouldn't let my children watch a full Bond film on TV till they're at least 7 or 8 and even then it would be supervised and probably be one of the Moore or Connery films, maybe TLD. I might ease them into it first maybe letting them watch a few random action and story scenes here and there. I'd wait till they were at least 10 before taking them to see one on the big screen and I would say 12 is the age when they can start to really appreciate the stories. To this day I find my views, perspectives, and opinions on the films and stories changing and evolving with subsequent views in reference to many things. I for one can confirm at least for me, the number one reason why I was watching these Bond films at young age was one thing...the explosions! At the age of 4 everything else in the story is excuse or filler to get to the big ka-boom at the end and that's pretty much how almost all the most memorable action adventure classics end. I blame stuff like Batman '89(Axis Chemicals explosion), Star Wars (The Death Star), Ghostbusters ( the building at the end), and Die Hard (Ditto). To this day you'll never see me complain about a movie having too many explosions, at the same time a movie doesn't need to have that many explosions, just one really well done and spectacular blast, I mean look at Dr. No, only the hearse bursting into flames but then there's the reactor at the end which kinda set the stage for what to expect from the rest of the franchise in that department.  



#13 Double Naught spy

Double Naught spy

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 169 posts

Posted 18 July 2014 - 12:12 AM

Chicken Stu,

 

To paraphrase Mr. Dalton in Everything or Nothing - these films aren't for children.  That said, you seem like a level-headed guy (despite the fact you've clearly shoved your family aside lately to read the 50+ James Bond novels - LOL!), so go with your instincts.  My first film was Moonraker - which was a  pretty harmless experience for an eleven-year-old.  But soon after that, I was reading all the gore and sex that Fleming's novel had to offer.  And, look at me now - 100% sane and totally unaffected by my young exposure to the literary and cinematic worlds of 007!

 

If nothing else, with License to Kill, you can:

 

1) Show your young son how not to almost destroy a multi-million dollar franchise. (Personally, I love the film and Dalton's portrayal - but am trumped by the box-office receipts)

 

2) Nice way to introduce him to the literary works of Ernest Hemingway.  (Daddy, what's up with all those cats?)

 

3) Get him jazzed on the paradise-like beauty of the Florida Keys and give him a history lesson on how the Seven-Mile Bridge (and all of the Overseas Highway for that matter) was once a train line (courtesy of Standard Oil's Henry Flagler - Rock On, sir!) down the Keys until the ungodly Hurricane of 1935. 

 

4) The film is an obvious segue to the discussion of the role Wayne Newton (the original Beeber) played in pop music.

 

5) A life lesson of the fates of Hollywood fame - Benicio del Toro - the fatter you get, the more critically acclaimed you are; Robert Davi - the more you bald, the more they want you to direct; and Carey Lowell - Hmmm, a wrinkle?  We have some nice parting gifts for you in the form of TV shows.

 

6) Excellent opportunity to show him politics in action - the most-powerful man in the state (Gov. Bob Martinez) whores himself out (I confess, were I governor, I'd have jumped at the opportunity too! ...but, then again, I acknowledge that and am under no self-delusion that I'm cut out to lead a state!) for a cameo as a lowly customs officer.  Wonderful life lesson of the nature of politics and politicians for you to teach you son. 



#14 Grard Bond

Grard Bond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 518 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 19 July 2014 - 04:19 PM

But why would anybody impose the Bondmovies on his kids?

Let them develop their own taste and interests.

If they ask to see a Bondmovie that's fine, but otherwise just let them watch and have fun with what they like theirselves, not what their father likes...



#15 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 19 July 2014 - 05:22 PM

But why would anybody impose the Bondmovies on his kids?

Let them develop their own taste and interests.

If they ask to see a Bondmovie that's fine, but otherwise just let them watch and have fun with what they like theirselves, not what their father likes...

 

Are you actually for real?

 

If you read my original post you'll see that my step-son had seen Die Another Day shortly before his Mum and I got together and wanted to see the rest. I didn't impose anything on him, nor do I impose anything on my daughters. 

 

Why don't YOU not IMPOSE your blanket judgments on people you'll never meet? 



#16 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 19 July 2014 - 05:56 PM

Gentlemen, I feel vaguely reminded of another discussion we've had on the topic, not so long ago as I seem to remember; wasn't that the books back then?

Be that as it may, you mentioned your two girls and their - relative - youth and asked for thoughts, ChickenStu. Now this is what you get, isn't it? You can hardly complain when people feel what you do may actually go in just that direction, 'helping' your kids to become a fan...

#17 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 19 July 2014 - 06:21 PM

OK then. Let me clear the matter up once and for all so there is no confusion. I do not impose anything on any of my children. My oldest daughter was interested in the movies because a boy in her class had seen Skyfall and she also liked the song by Adelle. That was in fact how she first heard about Bond. 

 

Believe it or not though when I began showing them to her last year she got bored and decided they weren't really for her. However that has changed this year because she has began reading Silverfin.

 

Now - being a film fan I do have movies in my collection that I think they may enjoy. E.T, The Star Wars Movies, The Goonies, etc etc. Are you telling me I'm a bad parent because I might suggest something to them? If they don't like something or get bored of it whatever - that's fine. I don't try and force them to become a certain way - I back off and let them grow as people. They can say "NO" any time. In fact, I ENCOURAGE it.

 

The question I ask myself now is - why the hell am I explaining myself to you people. 



#18 Grard Bond

Grard Bond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 518 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 19 July 2014 - 06:51 PM

First of all my post was not realy focused at you in particular, so don't be so angry and second behave a little normal and civilized to other posters, please.


Edited by Grard Bond, 19 July 2014 - 09:08 PM.


#19 Grard Bond

Grard Bond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 518 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands

Posted 19 July 2014 - 06:59 PM

But if you want an opinion: showing Bondmovies to a 5 year old daughter is to me not realy smart. Those movies are not made for 5 year old children.

That's way too young.


Edited by Grard Bond, 19 July 2014 - 09:23 PM.


#20 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 19 July 2014 - 07:12 PM

The question I ask myself now is - why the hell am I explaining myself to you people.

Because you asked for our opinions, didn't you? And you got them; some approve, some don't. You stated yourself:


OK. Here's one I've been thinking about that I thought I would put to you guys.

...
I know not every kid is like James. I'm showing the Bond films to my daughters who are 5 and 8. And no. I am not showing them Licence To Kill. But having said that, I don't think I'm going to wait until they are 15 when I finally do. Maybe 11, 12 something like that.

Where do you guys stand on issues like this?

So you seem to be - at least partially - in two minds about this matter or you wouldn't have brought up the matter here. What you are looking here for, ChickenStu, is perhaps not so much our opinion but our absolution.

But fact is, we don't really deal in such categories, none of us is qualified to judge your parenting via the Internet. All we do is offer opinions and you are as free to heed or ignore them as the next guy. But you ought to be prepared not all the feedback you get may be to your liking.

Edited by Dustin, 19 July 2014 - 07:12 PM.


#21 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 20 July 2014 - 07:17 AM

Well, quite.



#22 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4650 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 20 July 2014 - 11:32 PM

I'm calling social services.



#23 iBond

iBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Location:Santa Monica, Ca

Posted 21 July 2014 - 05:06 AM

I wouldn't introduce a kid to the Dalton films. I love Timothy Dalton as James Bond but he is for a more mature audience and even The Living Daylights would be too dark for a kid, even though it is the lesser of two evils in violence when paired with Licence. But again, it depends on how young the kid is. If the kid is like 4 or 6, heck no. But Die Another Day would be more suitable.



#24 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 21 July 2014 - 06:39 AM

If Chicken Stu is a "bad parent" - and I don't believe he is, on the evidence of this thread - then so must have been my dear old Mum, God bless her. Taking yours truly to see OHMSS at the flicks when he was the tender age of eight. This is a film, remember, in which features a violent beach fight, another fight inside a hotel room, Bond bedding several young women whilst supposedly in love with Tracy, a man on skis sent over a cliff and another one who "had a lot of guts", if you catch my drift. And that shocker of an end scene.

 

But at eight, it all - well, most of it - went over my head. I wanted to see the car chases, the ski chases and that bobsleigh chase I'd seen, briefly, on a children's TV quiz show. That's right, before the TV watershed. True, it started a lifelong interest in Bond but the films have never left me feeling particularly disturbed, not even LTK - although the death of Krest in the decompression chamber exerts a certain horrifying fascination, and I wondered at the time of CR how they got away with the torture scene. The Bond books are a different case altogether. Listening to them on the "Reloaded" audio CDs has reminded me that, had they been filmed as written, and for reasons not just to do with sex and violence, it's doubtful that most of them would have gained a 12 or "A" certificate.

 

I think children are, sadly, exposed to far, far worse scenes in real life, via the news or in some sad cases their own experience, than the violence of the Bond series.

 

(Incidentally I managed to see the Bruce Lee film Enter The Dragon at an age which was, er, a little bit less than the "X" certificate age of eighteen. By the end of it neither I nor my friends, who were also short of the age limit, could understand the fuss. It looked like sub-Bond stuff with extra added Kung Fu thrown in. I've since learned that the film gained an "X" because of the sound of bones breaking during the Kung Fu fights. And frankly, I've seen worse violence since then in films which children can see without difficulty.)



#25 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 21 July 2014 - 09:56 AM

OK. I apologize if I was a jerk at all in here. In hindsight maybe I did get a bit defensive when I shouldn't have and am genuinely sorry. 

 

However, I will say this.

 

I wouldn't be showing the movies to my daughters if they weren't interested. When I have my annual marathon in November they are welcome to watch them with me (except for the obvious exception). I will let them know that I am watching them. If they aren't interested? That's up to them. 

 

With Licence To Kill I showed it to my step-boy when he was 11 and it turned out to be not a bad thing. So by that rationale I'll wait till my daughters are around that age and have a think about it then. 

 

Now onto the argument about suitability for kids in general: whether or not they are/aren't suitable for young kids in our opinion is kind of a moot point - cause I'm willing to bet a vast, significant number of this forum's members first saw Bond when they were kids. I bet even most of the people in this thread did. I know I sure as hell did. All I took away from it was villains having bases in volcanoes, ejector seats in cars, underwater lotuses and one hell of an epic laser battle in space. The sort of things that kids adore. 

 

My Mum read Ian Fleming's original books when she was a kid (and she probably wasn't much older than my daughter to be fair). 

 

In my personal opinion - I find the sexual content and violence in a majority of the movies rather tame. No more violent really than say an Indiana Jones movie. 

 

I must stress again the only reason I showed Licence To Kill to my (then) 11 year old step-son was because he was fan of the movies, had seen ALL the previous ones up until that point - and - me and his Mum had enough faith in him, and knew him well enough to know that he could handle it. Our faith was rewarded because for the most part he took it as much in his stride as he did the others. 

 

I'm a good Dad. If you guys here met my daughters you would absolutely love them. My oldest daughter is a straight A student with an exceptionally high IQ and a much higher level of maturity than most other girls her age (a big part of the reason I allow her to watch 12A rated films). My youngest daughter is on the Autistic spectrum and doesn't really concentrate on the films anyway - so I have no problem putting them on when she is in the room. She's usually more interested in a toy or a colouring book anyway. 

 

Simply put: These are not decisions I take lightly.

 

There is only ONE 12A rated movie I've regretted taking my daughter to see and that was Star Trek Into Darkness. The neck breaking scene in that movie is far more horrific than ANYTHING that has been in a Bond film. 

 

I hope this clears things up - as it is certainly my intent to do so. 



#26 AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän

AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 493 posts
  • Location:Oulu, Finland

Posted 21 July 2014 - 11:11 AM

Childrens cartoons nowadays are excessively violent, so probably LTK would seem rather tame to a contemporary kid... I saw my first Bond and Hammer Dracula when I was 8, I was 10 when LTK came out and had already seen Die Hard and RoboCop uncut and I turned out just fine. There's no Bond film in existence I wouldn't show to my son when he's around 8 or 9, In my opinion when can keep up with  the subtitles he's old enough to view any Bond film. 



#27 Janus Assassin

Janus Assassin

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1898 posts
  • Location:Where You Vacation, Florida

Posted 21 July 2014 - 04:39 PM

The only thing I found extremely violent was when Krest's head explodes. The shark feeding is no worse than when Quint got ate by the one in Jaws.



#28 Revelator

Revelator

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 572 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 21 July 2014 - 05:41 PM

I first watched LTK when I was nine, and I loved it. The violence didn't strike me as much worse than that in Batman, which I saw in the movie theater slightly earlier. My parents were frequent watchers of the Bond films, and one of the first images I remember is the gold-painted lady in Goldfinger (which I remember being a bit scary, but nothing else in the films was like that). I think that the sexy parts of the Bond movies tend to go over kids' heads, and the violent bits are often stylized enough to avoid being traumatic.


Edited by Revelator, 21 July 2014 - 05:41 PM.


#29 iBond

iBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Location:Santa Monica, Ca

Posted 21 July 2014 - 07:52 PM


There is only ONE 12A rated movie I've regretted taking my daughter to see and that was Star Trek Into Darkness. The neck breaking scene in that movie is far more horrific than ANYTHING that has been in a Bond film. 

 

I hope this clears things up - as it is certainly my intent to do so. 

 

You mean the scene where Spock smashes Marcus' head near the end of the film? Granted, it wasn't seen or anything, but the sound was certainly pretty creepy. However, I would honestly, put the Krest implosion scene way ahead of the Star Trek Into Darkness scene. But that's just my personal opinion. No matter how many times I watch the scene of Sanchez killing Krest, I'm always creeped out by it and just want it to pass.



#30 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 22 July 2014 - 12:04 PM

 


There is only ONE 12A rated movie I've regretted taking my daughter to see and that was Star Trek Into Darkness. The neck breaking scene in that movie is far more horrific than ANYTHING that has been in a Bond film. 

 

I hope this clears things up - as it is certainly my intent to do so. 

 

You mean the scene where Spock smashes Marcus' head near the end of the film? Granted, it wasn't seen or anything, but the sound was certainly pretty creepy. However, I would honestly, put the Krest implosion scene way ahead of the Star Trek Into Darkness scene. But that's just my personal opinion. No matter how many times I watch the scene of Sanchez killing Krest, I'm always creeped out by it and just want it to pass.

 

 

It was Khan that did it wasn't it? I only saw it once. I swear it was Khan. But yeah, that's the scene. BTW I was excluding LTK when I was talking about other Bond movies. Not showing my younger kids that one just yet. 

 

Anyway you can add another one to that list now. I took my daughter to see Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes yesterday. There was a bit with a machine gun I didn't really like - and far too much guns in general. Still, good film though. 


Edited by ChickenStu, 22 July 2014 - 12:05 PM.