51 replies to this topic

[ChickenStu]

OK, so I've finally caved and ordered the blu-ray set, and have began ordering the original Fleming books (I've only ever read two of them, so I want to put that right and read them all, and have them to keep for when my kids are a bit older.

 

I really want to get my kids interested. They love Batman, Star Wars, Superman, Indiana Jones so I think the Bond films will be right up their street. They are both girls. The oldest is 7, the youngest is coming up 5. I can remember watching some of the movies when I was their age. 

 

Naturally, I'm waiting for the blu-ray set to come through. Thing is, there is a LOT of movies and I don't want to bombard the kids with them. So my plan is to start getting Charlie Higson's Young Bond books to read to them at bed-time which will ease them into the character, and let them get to know him at an age that they can understand and identify with. 

 

As for the films, they very much vary in tone, certificate and storyline. Also, my wife is worried about the sexual politics of the movies (especially since we are somewhat of a Christian family) and is concerned about the message in some the early films. 

 

So what I'm trying to do, and what I'd like your help with as a forum, is trying to nail down a select few of the movies which would be perfectly suitable for kids of my kids ages, and are action packed and fast paced enough to hold their attention. 

 

The first three I've nailed down are Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Moonraker. 

 

Maybe also You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever.

 

I think my oldest would enjoy On Her Majesty's Secret Service because she'd get very excited about the idea of seeing him get married, and also, she strangely enjoys stuff that has a downbeat ending (her two favourite Star Wars movies are The Empire Strikes Back and Revenge Of The Sith) 

 

This my friends is what I have so far. I'd appreciate suggestions, and feedback on my current choices. 

[Major Tallon]

I agree with your choices, and we're also a Christian family.  The Young Bond books and the film of TSWLM are good picks.  The James Bond Junior cartoons (and boy, I may take a beating among some for even mentioning them) can be viewed on Youtube.  When my son was old enought to show an interest, I showed him parts of TSWLM (he was still too young for a full-length movie), since Jaws is essentially a comic book character anyway.  "Moonraker" also would work well.   

 

Sounds like you're bringing your kids up right! 

[ChickenStu]

Thanks Major Tallon. When I say we're a Christian family, it's only really me that's the Christian. My wife and step-son are atheists, but my wife has agreed to let me bring up our two girls in the Christian faith. Still, having said that, she still worries about the girls seeing our man in bed with a succession of ladies and worries about any negative message that can come across.

 

It didn't really matter when I was a kid (I'm 35 now), and we're not prudes - it's just there's a danger of it coming across like it's objectifying women. That's my wife's main concern, and I guess I can see her point. These days we have to be more careful with these things. 

Edited by ChickenStu, 14 September 2013 - 11:54 PM.

[elizabeth]

I am also a Christian (Catholic) and I started watching the Bond films when I was...heck, I don't remember.  But I was young and I wasn't bothered with them at all.  They should be fine.

[WhatMeWorry?]

When I first started watching Bond films at the age of 8, the sexual innuendo flew right over my head. I suspect that it is the same for all average young children. It's all up to you, but I would not be worried about sullying the mind your daughters with Bond films. There were still some sexual references that didn't occur to me until my college years! Have fun creating new Bond fanatics!

Edited by WhatMeWorry?, 15 September 2013 - 04:35 AM.

[Guy Haines]

Like whatmeworry above, I also started with the Bond films at the age of eight, and the sexual stuff in them didn't engage me at that time either. I'd seen all the Connery films plus OHMSS by the age of ten. And this, by the way, in the early seventies when the so called "sexual revolution" was still going strong. The sex in the films is, even by today's standards, pretty tame stuff - Messrs. Saltzman and Broccoli always wanted as wide an audience as possible and made the films accordingly. (The films' humour also reminded the audience that Bond's lifestyle was not meant to be taken seriously.)

 

Interestingly, no-one has mentioned the Craig Bond films so far - three movies where the male/female sexual aspect is, in my view, quite toned down. In Casino Royale, Bond does seduce a villain's wife and admits to affairs with married women - but then genuinely falls in love. In Quantum Of Solace there's a very brief "fling" with Strawberry Fields, but Bond's relationship with Camille Montes is purely platonic. In Skyfall, well, we know who Eve turns out to be in the end, and I rather doubt that this Miss Moneypenny will spend her days pining for 007. Only Bond's use of Severine to get to Silva is questionable. If objectifiying women is a concern then compared with the 1960's and 1970's Bonds the most recent offerings are relatively tame. The violence in the Craig films may be more of a concern.

 

A suggestion for ChickenStu's list - The Living Daylights. It shows Bond as a "one girl" guy - I'm not sure Timothy Dalton was ever that comfortable with Bond's womanising, and the film was made in the mid 1980s when all the talk was about AIDS and safe sex. And it's a very good Bond film, and showcases an actor whose Bond is pretty close to the man Ian Fleming envisaged, imho, even though the background to the film is now dated.

[SecretAgentFan]

May I ask why people get nervous about Bond having flings with women (in scenes which never show anything but the tamest closed mouth kiss)?

 

If I had problems with a "message" that films could send then it should be this: conflict can only be solved with violence.

 

But the most important message parents should think about: a movie is not real life and everyone watching it, kids or adults, should very quickly learn to acknowledge this.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 15 September 2013 - 10:21 AM.

[ChickenStu]

Thanks for the responses people. I don't really want to show them the Daniel Craig films just yet, cause they are a bit "wham-bam". I'm not too worried about the content of The Living Daylights and it is a lovely movie... it's just I don't think it'll hold the attention. It's a bit long. There is no way in HELL they are watching Licence To Kill any time soon, I tell you that now.

 

On the subject of Licence To Kill I DID actually show that to my step-son when he was about 11. Now, I'm not a bad parent by any means and don't let my kids watch just anything. However, the reason I let him watch that one I think was valid and I stand by it. You see, he was getting interested in the Bond movies at that age, so I was showing him my old DVDs. This is before his Mum and I were married, before our daughters were born (my step-son is almost 20 now). Over a period of about six months, when I used to stay over weekends I'd bring a Bond DVD with me. We watched them all in order. When the time came for Licence To Kill I was concerned. I even watched the film with a mate of mine to get his opinion, and my missus and I talked through it constantly.

 

I didn't want to show them all to him, and then say "but you can't watch THIS one" cause I didn't think it was fair. He was 11, he knew it was only a movie and not real. So what we decided to do was just show it to him. Not make any hoo hah about it at all. We didn't mention it had a 15 rating, we just said "and here's the next one" and stuck it on. Even though it was more violent, he HAD seen sharks attack people and people being set on fire and stuff in the previous PG rated ones. OK, in Licence To Kill it's on an elevated level and is far more grisly - but I think he was prepared for it. And you know what? Totally went over his head. Didn't bother him in the slightest. He didn't even comment, although he did mention being upset at the bit where Bond found Della Leiter dead. He found the final truck chase very exciting aswell. 

 

It was around that age I allowed him to watch The Matrix films. But there were conditions to it. It was a one time only deal,and he couldn't watch them again till he was 15, and when he watched them, he had to watch them with me and his Mum. He was a bit put out by that, but accepted when we firmly told him those were the conditions and that was that. 

 

My two young daughters have seen Star Wars Episode III Revenge Of The Sith. I was a bit concerned about the content of it, but that one is very important in understanding the overall story. They were fine with it. 

 

So there are times when I let my kids watch something with a higher certificate. But I do my homework on the matter first. It's not something I'm frivolous about. 

[SecretAgentFan]

By the way, the official ratings do suggest an appropriate age for viewers. So if in doubt, why not stick to that?

[The Krynoid man]

I'm not old enough to have had children, but I watched the Moore films at a very young age and the sexual references went over my head. If your worried about the films objectifying women, I would recommend TSWLM as the Bond girl in that is very much his equal.

[David_M]

I think a lot depends on your kids: Some are ready for stuff earlier than others.  

 

That said, I think you've made some good choices.  The violence in GF, TWSLM and MR is very "fairy tale" like in a way, and highly stylized, although in fairness I should note that when I was in first grade my friends and I were pretty freaked out when Oddjobb disposed of Mr Solo in the car crusher (even though he was already dead at that point).  Also note that ABC chose to cut out the bit where Bond electrocutes the guy in the tub with an electric fan, possibly because it didn't pass the "kids might try this at home" test (but it could be a teachable moment!).

 

It's interesting how parents today still have more trouble with the sex than the violence.  My dad was a Methodist minister, and before each viewing of a Bond film, I always got the same speech: "Now we're going to let you watch this, but we want you to understand that we don't approve of his lifestyle."  By which of course they meant sleeping around; pinning a guy to a tree with a spear gun was okay.

 

As to your wife's specific concerns, I'd argue the women in GF are all fairly strong.  Jill is a bit of horndog, but I wouldn't consider her a "bimbo" or in any way "dominated" by Bond.  Tilly is strong-willed and pretty bold, if ultimately in way over her head (and croaks before she can hit the sheets with Bond, if indeed she even wanted to).  And of course Pussy Galore is the first Bond girl to be anything close to Bond's equal in the "action hero" department.  In that sense, the Moore films are going be more problematic: Anya is on paper a "strong" female, but ends up a damsel in distress like all the others. However, there is at least that "I'm going to kill you when this is over" twist to make her more interesting. Holly is, curiously, one of the more formidable Bond girls with a skill set Bond needs and doesn't have himself, and "uses" him for sex as much as the reverse, but Lois Chiles' fairly vacuous performance undermines a lot of the strength the character might have had in other hands.  But besides those two, there is an unending parade of "Hello, let's have sex" eye candy that won't do a lot to advance the cause of women's lib in your house.

 

That said, I think kids in general are smarter than people give them credit for.  If they know that you can't really kill people with your hat or your steel teeth, they'll know that the "irresistable to females" routine is all in fun, as well.  And frankly, any little girl growing up today with Miley Cyrus performances and rap videos on TV already has a lot more to worry about in the "women as sex objects" department than a silly-fun Bond movie.  My own daughter is 5 years old and it's a challenge to find fashions even in her size that don't make girls look like little hookers.  The shenanigans in the Connery and Moore films might have been "daring" or "sexist" at the time, but by today's standards, they're practically genteel.

[ChickenStu]

David_M, thanks for your insightful post mate. You've put a lot of things into context. As for the sexual politics and innuendos that come with it, times have certainly changed. I find it stunning that programmes like Are You Being Served? were shown at tea-time to a family audience! Especially with all of Mrs Slocombe's lines ("Can you lift up my letterbox and have a look at my pussy?").

 

Don't see that shown on UK Gold do you?

 

Live And Let Die concerns me slightly aswell. I don't think in anyway that the filmmakers set out to be racist... but intentional or not, there is still a bit of an uncomfortable sub-text in that movie. Only my opinion of course, but it seems that all black characters in it are villains. Even "Mrs Bond" turns out to be a traitor. There's also quite a lot of stereotypes in it. I don't want to risk my kids getting the wrong message.  

[David_M]

re: LALD

 

Again, you have to put it in context.  On average, a majority of the characters in any Bond film are going to be "bad guys" once you've eliminated the "family of regulars" (M,Q, Moneypenny), the "sacrificial lamb," the Bond girl and the "affable but mostly useless buddy from the CIA."  I mean, how many actors with a speaking role in YOLT are on the side of evil?  Does anybody ever say that movie is "anti-Japanese?"

 

People are, on the whole, a lot more thin-skinned about race now than they used to be. "All In the Family" dealt with real social issues in a frank manner 40+ years ago on network TV, and nobody, nowhere would have the guts to approach those subjects in that way now.  Not, I hasten to add, because we have "moved beyond it" and become "post-racial."  If anything, we've gone backwards on a lot of that stuff, only now nobody has the guts to look it in the face.

 

Which is not to suggest that LALD is similarly high-minded, you understand, only that creators and audiences used to be a lot less uptight about how they approached things back then.  I remember Redd Foxx using the "N" word on "Sanford and Son" and that was considered kid-friendly fare. I'm sure no one making LALD thought, "Let's make black folks look bad" but likewise no one was thinking, "We better throw in a couple of 'good ones' here to keep ourselves out of trouble."  It just wasn't on the radar, period.  

 

And as with most things in life, you can argue from either side.  An argument could be made that Yaphet Kotto's character was a breakthrough role, being the first black character elevated to "main villain" status in a Bond film (although Eon shouldn't get too puffed up, as he was also the last!).  And Rosie wasn't so much "evil" as just "weak," trying to play both sides and getting killed for it (she's the "sacrificial lamb" and the "bad girl" on one, here).  I'd also argue that the JJ Adams character has a very formidable sense of menace to him, not quite on a Red Grant level but pretty doggone imposing.  And Geoffrey Holder's "Baron Samedi" stands out even now as one of the most visually powerful and genuinely unsettling figures in the series.

 

If anything, JW Pepper is a broader stereotype than any black character, and makes a racist white (and alas, as usual in film, a *Southern* racist white) the only object of outright parody.  On the other hand, we can't judge the film separately from its real-world motivations, which are cynical in the extreme.  The most "racist" thing about LALD isn't anything in the script, but the mere fact that some bean-counter somewhere saw the money being made by "blaxploitation" films and decided to get a piece of the action.  And in the end we find that, like the "N" word itself, "blaxploitation" is one of those things that's only "okay" when it's self-inflicted; as soon as white folks try to get in on the act, the air is immediately sucked out of the room and everyone just stands there going, "Excuse me?  Please tell me you did not just go there."

[Gothamite]

I saw most of the Connery and Moore Bonds as well as Licence to Kill (still the most gleefully violent of the entire franchise) and Batman Returns (where the Penguin brandishes a bloody severed hand at Christopher Walken) when I was a tyke and all of the violence and innuendo merrily sailed over my head and I just enjoyed the adventure and never went off the rails in a bloody rampage of sex and violence in my teenage years or my twenties. 

 

I still can't understand when I hear about children who can't reconcile the fact that films and film characters aren't real. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are one thing, but I never had any problem accepting the fact as a child that what I was watching was fiction.

Edited by Gothamite, 16 September 2013 - 08:02 PM.

[David_M]

Well, in fairness you can know something's not real and still be traumatized by watching it.  And that doesn't just apply to kids: how many grown-ups were reluctant to get in the water after seeing "Jaws," for example?

 

I don't think most parents are concerned that exposure to violent images will turn their kids into homicidal maniacs.  They're more concerned that it'll keep the kids up at night (and thus keep the parents up, too;  we need our sleep!)

 

BTW, forgot to mention earlier: way back in the dark ages when I was in high school, one of my teachers got tired of hearing me go on about Bond and decided she and her family would see what all the fuss was about when the next movie aired on TV.  Turned out the next movie was "From Russia With Love" and her 5-year-old had nightmares about Rosa Klebb's kicking, spitting, hissing death scene for weeks.  If she could've flunked me for that, she would've. :-p

[Satorious]

In a similar place. My eldest really wants to watch a Bond film, so we started TSWLM about 6 months back. We stopped as soon as Jaws showed his metal teeth as she was clearly scared (and not in that kids "fun" kinda way). I started watching the series when my parents took me to see FYEO at the cinema. I was hooked. However I remember LALD completely freaking me out at the time and also cowering behind the sofa everytime I saw a poisoned shoe in FRWL. That seems funny looking back. However the point being: all children are different, they all have different thresholds - you are by far the best judge of what is going to be appropriate for them. Also consider the things you might be concerned about will probably wash over them no problem, but they might pick-up on entirely different things you didn't think of at the time - this is the wonder of children...

[Turn]

I've had Bond in my life practically since I was born. The rereleases of the Connery films seemed to always be run and I had fairly young parents and an uncle who were fans, so we caught those frequently. DAF was  my first new release in the theater. I was 5 and I recall them chuckling over the innuendo, but I was focused on things like the moon buggy.

 

It was a family thing that eventually became an interest of my own. None of the content had an effect on me in a negative way and here I am today typing this. Although I had an aunt with some kind of psychology background who claimed my lack of lasting relationships was from my wanting to copy Bond's lifestyle. A little premature on her part as I've been with my wife for 24 years now.

 

The thing I find interesting on this issue is when you look at those early films that they weren't necessarily aimed at family audiences, their level of violence and sexual content was astounding for the day, and yet Bond became a huge marketing sensation for kids with all the toys and such. Practically every kids product at the time portrayed Bond with a gun. I'm curious how much discussion there was in families in the '60s regarding Bond's suitability for the kids.

[Gothamite]

Well, in fairness you can know something's not real and still be traumatized by watching it.  And that doesn't just apply to kids: how many grown-ups were reluctant to get in the water after seeing "Jaws," for example?

 

I don't think most parents are concerned that exposure to violent images will turn their kids into homicidal maniacs.  They're more concerned that it'll keep the kids up at night (and thus keep the parents up, too;  we need our sleep!)

 

BTW, forgot to mention earlier: way back in the dark ages when I was in high school, one of my teachers got tired of hearing me go on about Bond and decided she and her family would see what all the fuss was about when the next movie aired on TV.  Turned out the next movie was "From Russia With Love" and her 5-year-old had nightmares about Rosa Klebb's kicking, spitting, hissing death scene for weeks.  If she could've flunked me for that, she would've. :-p

I get that, but nowadays it seems every worried parent seems to bring in the lines between reality and fiction which don't have anything to do with something being suitable or unsuitable for a child. 

 

I should mention that in spite of being able to watch a lot of things that I now know to be quite violent, there was a vast sea of things my mother forbade me from watching (I wasn't even allowed watch 'The Simpsons' at one point) because of inappropriate content, language or violence. I still begrudge her to this day for not allowing me watch Buffy when I was 11. 

[ChickenStu]

I thought Broccoli always intended them to be family films! 

[David_M]

 

 

I get that, but nowadays it seems every worried parent seems to bring in the lines between reality and fiction which don't have anything to do with something being suitable or unsuitable for a child. 

 

It does tend to keep coming up, usually in the context of "it's all the fault of movies/TV/video games! They desensitized my kid to violence, and that's why he killed everyone in the mall."  It's a handy excuse, similar to the way comic books were blamed for juvenile delinquency in the 50s.  "Lord knows we did everything right; it must be the fault of outside influences."

 

Anyway,  I agree kids know the difference between fiction and reality, and if they don't here's a general rule of thumb to share with them:  On the whole, reality is much worse than fiction.  If you really want to traumatize them, take out the Bond DVDs and sit them in front of CNN for a couple of hours.

[Skylla]

OK, so I've finally caved and ordered the blu-ray set, and have began ordering the original Fleming books (I've only ever read two of them, so I want to put that right and read them all, and have them to keep for when my kids are a bit older.

 

I really want to get my kids interested. They love Batman, Star Wars, Superman, Indiana Jones so I think the Bond films will be right up their street. They are both girls. The oldest is 7, the youngest is coming up 5. I can remember watching some of the movies when I was their age. 

 

Naturally, I'm waiting for the blu-ray set to come through. Thing is, there is a LOT of movies and I don't want to bombard the kids with them. So my plan is to start getting Charlie Higson's Young Bond books to read to them at bed-time which will ease them into the character, and let them get to know him at an age that they can understand and identify with. 

 

As for the films, they very much vary in tone, certificate and storyline. Also, my wife is worried about the sexual politics of the movies (especially since we are somewhat of a Christian family) and is concerned about the message in some the early films. 

 

So what I'm trying to do, and what I'd like your help with as a forum, is trying to nail down a select few of the movies which would be perfectly suitable for kids of my kids ages, and are action packed and fast paced enough to hold their attention. 

 

The first three I've nailed down are Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Moonraker. 

 

Maybe also You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever.

 

I think my oldest would enjoy On Her Majesty's Secret Service because she'd get very excited about the idea of seeing him get married, and also, she strangely enjoys stuff that has a downbeat ending (her two favourite Star Wars movies are The Empire Strikes Back and Revenge Of The Sith) 

 

This my friends is what I have so far. I'd appreciate suggestions, and feedback on my current choices. 

The official ratings for this films are 12 or higher and you think about letting a five year old girl watching them, and the only thing that you are concerned about is the sexual politics ? That´s funny, you must be american.... 

[sharpshooter]

I watched the Bond films from a young age and turned out fine. 

[wakeup37]

Here's an alternative view that might say the Bluray set could be unsuitable despite many of us having enjoyed the movies as kids: as a kid I'd seen all of the Bond films (up until Goldeneye) only on TV during Christmas, Easter and Summer holidays (FRWL will forever remind me of Easter), and as such they'd probably have mostly been shown reasonably early in the afternoon to get the full family audience.

 

I imagine they'd almost all have been edited-for-TV: violent scenes trimmed, language over-dubbed, that sort of thing. It's a pity those versions (often referred to as "airplane versions" for when movies are screened to the whole plane, not individually) aren't made available as an extra, so you can more comfortably watch more adult films with junior family members.

 

I saw "Love Actually" on a to-the-whole-plane showing once, having already seen it at the cinema with my GF - some scenes had been entirely reshot especially for airplane/tv audiences. As an adult I was shocked to see how different "Beverly Hills Cop" was on DVD as compared to my very old recorded-off-the-telly version - the TV version was somewhat funnier, the swearing having been overdubbed with unlikely phrases such as "Bad Mother-Funster".

 

With Blurays extra storage space and the old-as-DVD technologies of seamless-scene-branching and alternate audio tracks, I'm at a loss as to why films are not as-standard released with a family-friendly option when all the alternate footage and audio already exists. Surely it would only help increase sales!

[Hockey Mask]

A five year old girl has no business watching a Bond movie. Let them be a kid a little longer. There is plenty of time.

[tdalton]

There's very little point, IMO, to releasing these so-called "edited-for-TV" versions of the films in any kind of official capacity.  If someone's not mature enough to watch a Bond film, then they're not mature enough and they shouldn't watch it. 

 

With regards to five-year-olds watching Bond, I would have to take up the position that it's probably not a good idea. 

[SecretAgentFan]

There's very little point, IMO, to releasing these so-called "edited-for-TV" versions of the films in any kind of official capacity.  If someone's not mature enough to watch a Bond film, then they're not mature enough and they shouldn't watch it. 

 

With regards to five-year-olds watching Bond, I would have to take up the position that it's probably not a good idea. 

 

Exactly. Perfect answer.

 

And once again - the ratings tell parents which age their kids should be. Why would a responsible adult think: hmmm, my kid´s just five years old but I want to show them a Bond film.

[wakeup37]

I can't disagree with not showing 5 year-olds Bond film: there's plenty of good stuff out there for 5 year olds that adults can sit through.

 

However if people are happy for young teens to watch TV versions of Bond films, I don't see why it would be so heinous to add these as a DVD extra, only if they are "official" in the sense that the studios themselves created the dubs, edits and alternate scenes (as per the "Love Actually" example).

[SecretAgentFan]

What would one really have to cut out of a Bond film so a 5-year-old could watch it?

 

Let´s be honest: the violence. (Although, many parents do not have any problem showing their kids the principle of violence solving a conflict.)

 

What else?

 

There are no sex scenes in Bond, only kisses and some bedside conversations. And no nudity either.  (Still, some puritans are more concerned about this than the violence.)

 

But okay, cut all those PG-moments out, too.

 

What about the scenes in which Bond encounters foreigners? Would one really want to show a child that foreigners are either willing service people or ruthless and cunning villains? 

 

So a responsible parent would have to cut those scenes, too.

 

And what have you got? An incomprehensible mess. Why would I want my child to watch something like that?

 

And what message am I sending as a parent doing this? Hey, kid, I want you to watch something that is not intended for your age - but don´t worry, I have cut out everything that might be problematic. By the way, this is a worthy life lesson, son. Just pretend something is not there, and you will have only fun with the rest. Ooops, this "Mona Lisa"... um, just look at the face. The cleavage might be too offensive. Hey, wanna watch TRANSFORMERS? Big robots punching each other to a pulp? Haha, so fun, right? No wonder, it´s for kids!

[tdalton]

 

And what message am I sending as a parent doing this? Hey, kid, I want you to watch something that is not intended for your age - but don´t worry, I have cut out everything that might be problematic. By the way, this is a worthy life lesson, son. Just pretend something is not there, and you will have only fun with the rest. Ooops, this "Mona Lisa"... um, just look at the face. The cleavage might be too offensive. Hey, wanna watch TRANSFORMERS? Big robots punching each other to a pulp? Haha, so fun, right? No wonder, it´s for kids!

 

In addition, the problem of having an edited version to cater to those who are otherwise not mature enough to watch a Bond film pretty much caters to a sense of entitlement that seems to run through today's youth culture.  If you're not mature enough to watch a Bond film then, quite simply, you don't watch it.  It's not right for someone to simply take a scalpel to a film (any film, not just the Bond films) and cut out everything that could be deemed "objectionable" to the point where someone who is otherwise not mature enough to watch the film can handle doing so.  Either you're mature enough or not, and it's not up to the filmmakers to make sure that there's a different version of their artistic output available for those who can't handle the original product.

[SecretAgentFan]

 

 

And what message am I sending as a parent doing this? Hey, kid, I want you to watch something that is not intended for your age - but don´t worry, I have cut out everything that might be problematic. By the way, this is a worthy life lesson, son. Just pretend something is not there, and you will have only fun with the rest. Ooops, this "Mona Lisa"... um, just look at the face. The cleavage might be too offensive. Hey, wanna watch TRANSFORMERS? Big robots punching each other to a pulp? Haha, so fun, right? No wonder, it´s for kids!

 

In addition, the problem of having an edited version to cater to those who are otherwise not mature enough to watch a Bond film pretty much caters to a sense of entitlement that seems to run through today's youth culture.  If you're not mature enough to watch a Bond film then, quite simply, you don't watch it.  It's not right for someone to simply take a scalpel to a film (any film, not just the Bond films) and cut out everything that could be deemed "objectionable" to the point where someone who is otherwise not mature enough to watch the film can handle doing so.  Either you're mature enough or not, and it's not up to the filmmakers to make sure that there's a different version of their artistic output available for those who can't handle the original product.

 

 

Yes, yes, yes! Absolutely agreed!

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 20 September 2013 - 09:50 AM.