Thanks to all who responded to this - now I`m more confused than I was, before I posted this thread.
I guess if my son hadn`t seen any of the Bonds before, then I would most definitely have not wanted him to see CR. The fact is, he HAS seen some, and some of the more realistic scenes/deaths in the Connery films that I mentioned earlier, didn`t seem to faze him at all.
He knows the films are make believe, and he knows that people being shot/killed in them aren`t really dead, so I wouldn`t have a problem with him experiencing the deaths in Casino Royale, (though Vesper drowning may have to be explained, as he hasn`t witnessed a drowning before) because he knows none of it is real.
He just loves the films and the way Bond "is" in the films, (yep, even at 5 1/2). He is in a school Xmas play next week, and today at the dress rehearsal, my wife and I dressed him up in the costume he had to wear in the play, which is a white shirt and a tuxedo bow tie. I showed him what he looked like in the mirror. He smiled broadly and the first thing he said was, "I`m James Bond!".
I think kids today ARE more perceptive and less hung up on stuff than I, (and others of my age group), were at his age, (I`m 42) and I agree with one of the posters who said that much of the stuff these days just seems to go over their heads.
Kids are introduced early to Play Station games which depict war and battles, zombie massacres, etc. etc. so the kids become anesthetised to all of that, and what they then see in films is sometimes just an extension of that.
Is watching Bond kill Dent in cold blood any different to watching Bond kill Dryden the same way in Casino Royale? The answer really is no. I`m sure Dryden`s death won`t even register on my son`s radar and the torture sequence could just be explained by saying, "Bond is being hurt because the baddie wants to know something". One doesn`t have to give a young child, (of any age) a blow by blow description of what is happening, he/she will get the gist and that will be that.
What I think is more of a concern, (and Casino Royale and this thread has brought this up) is that it`s okay for the British Board of Film Censors to say, "A young child may see a 12A certificate film, so long as he/she is accompanied by an adult" but the BBFC don`t say what a MINIMUM age should be, for a film of this nature.
It`s all very well showing the trailer on TV, and having a disclaimer at the bottom saying, "Film contains action and one torture scene" (or whatever the wording was - but it did mention the torture scene) but there isn`t a guideline from the BBFC to say, "No cinema should allow a child under 5-6-7-8 (take your pick) to see this film, due to the nature and content of such film." They expect the parent to toss a coin and say, "do we let him/her see it, or don`t we?" and deal with the fallout afterwards, if the child sees it, and is upset at what they saw.
If I DO take him, it`ll be a 1st showing on a quiet Sunday morning, with hopefully very few people in the cinema. Then, if he wants to ask a question, here or there, I can answer them for him and if it helps him to enjoy the film more, and follow the plot a bit better, then I won`t mind doing that.
At least if the cinema is almost empty, we can sit away from people and whisper when we need to. That way I won`t be lynched by someone, because they`re fed up with me yakking in front/behind them.
And we all hate that, don`t we?
Best
Andy
Edited by Auric64, 26 November 2006 - 12:07 AM.