Should I let my 15 year old watch an 18 movie?

kieranb

Just canvassing opinions. I got out the latest DREDD movie at the weekend, which is designated an over 18 movie (based on its violent scenes I would think). I watched it and then mentioned to my son that I had seen it. He begged to watch it, as he has read a lot of my old 2000ADs (about 10 years worth form the 80s/90s), whilst I was begining to give in, my wife was insistent that he could not. He turns 16 in less than a month. If you have seen the movie, what do you think? I sugested that he waits until he turns 16. Are we, like in goldilocks, just right, too hard, too soft?

BigLee1

I would say no, he`s going to be older than 18 for a very long time and he can catch up with all those films then!

Kieran_Burns

Seen the film. Karl Urban nails Dredd and the gritty reality of the imagery is spot on (IMHO) for such a low budget production.

I can understand your wife's reluctance however (although maybe not agree with it entirely) as there are some seriously violent scenes (the multiple mini-gun bit was... well, mind blowing), the executions are graphic.

Hmmm, now I think about it: the skinning scene near the start? and the graphic sexual mind manipulation bit? Not to mention the impacted dead bodies....

Okay: I would say yes but be prepared to talk about it afterwards.

rubertoe

You either watch it with him, or he watches it with someone else and then you dont get to talk to him about it.

iPete

Is being a parent a bit 'do as I say not as I do'?

I'm sure most of us managed to grow up OK when we were doing all sorts of things at 15... rubertoes suggestion sounds like the best balance. It'll just get watched elsewhere otherwise.

rick_chasey

Nah.

The ratings don't just look at the level and type of sex, drugs, violence, but also what broader themes they examine. If you're 15 your lack of life experience may mean a lot of the film is just lost on you.

Gallywomack

I consider it one of the best things about my teenage years that I was given free rein to watch whatever fillum I wanted, as long as nobody else wanted to watch something else on the telly at the time. From the age of about 13 onwards I used to religiously look at the film pages of the radio times and circle all the 4 and 5-star films for the week (this was in the good old days of decent films being shown on the 4 terrestrial channels!). What certificate the film was was never given any thought.

So in short, yes, you should let him watch it IMO! But of course, good relations with SWMBO are probably more important than your kid getting his way...

veronese68

Depends on the 15 year old. Some are significantly more mature than others. Presumably he knows the difference between right and wrong and real life and made up stuff in films. Rubertoe makes sense. They have access to a hell of a lot more than we did at their age, so to watch something and be able to discuss it is very much a good thing. I also find being too rigid in banning things can create issues, so a bit of flexibility if they show they deserve something can help.

LiveGiantly

No....

The 18 certificated films of today are not even suitable for 18 year olds let alone 15 years old....

But as you are the parent it's your call....

slowbike

kieranb wrote:

He turns 16 in less than a month.<snip> I sugested that he waits until he turns 16.

Er - right ... ok ...

I can understand the "treat" bit ... ie - it's your birthday or you've been good etc etc ... but an arbitrary age is meaningless. As others have said - it'll depend on maturity - what else has he watched ... ?
Is he likely to be able to get hold of the movie to watch without your permission? If so, it may be better (as RT said) to watch it with him (gives you an excuse to watch it again! )

I've not seen the movie and don't know the content - but at age 15 what is he already having access to that you don't know about and wouldn't approve ?

Of course, if he's young for his age then perhaps not ...

slowbike

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you're 15 your lack of life experience may mean a lot of the film is just lost on you.

Doesn't make it any less "good" to watch ... on a slightly different level I can watch loads of stuff with nieces/nephews that have two levels of viewing - one for the kids and a "tap you nose & wink" level for the adults ...

rick_chasey

Slowbike wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you're 15 your lack of life experience may mean a lot of the film is just lost on you.

Doesn't make it any less "good" to watch ... on a slightly different level I can watch loads of stuff with nieces/nephews that have two levels of viewing - one for the kids and a "tap you nose & wink" level for the adults ...

Sure it does.

I saw taxi driver at 14 and really hated it throughout.

Saw it when I was 22 and really thought it was a great film.

It's not the end of the world, and I don't feel particularly strongly about it.

bompington

rubertoe wrote:

You either watch it with him, or he watches it with someone else and then you dont get to talk to him about it.

By the same logic you could conclude that you must do everything you disapprove of with your kids in case they do it with someone else first. Watching 18 movies, taking drugs, beating up random strangers...

slowbike

bompington wrote:

rubertoe wrote:

You either watch it with him, or he watches it with someone else and then you dont get to talk to him about it.

By the same logic you could conclude that you must do everything you disapprove of with your kids in case they do it with someone else first. Watching 18 movies, taking drugs, beating up random strangers...

But the op doesn't disapprove of his kid watching the film ...

Agent57

Depends.

Depends on the film and content, depends on the kid. Depends on the environment.

Last night, my 11-year-old son watched an 18 certificate film. The Johnny Depp version of "Sweeney Todd." He watched it with my wife, and had already been to see the school production last week. We thought that was OK.

Sometimes, the certification doesn't make much sense to me. He has loads of WWE DVDs; some of them are 18 certificates. Dunno why really, and we've no concerns with him watching them.

I probably wouldn't be happy about him watching the TV series "True Blood" though.

Basically, I reckon you know your son; and you've seen the film. You're well placed to make a fair judgement as to whether he can handle it, I expect.

wongataa

Watch the film with your wife and then knowing the content and your child you can make an informed decision about what to do.

Gallywomack

Rick makes a good point. What is it about an 18 fillum that makes it unsuitable for a 15 year old? Just gore/violence, or adult themes? Like Rick, no doubt some of the films I watched as a teenager were slightly wasted on me on a thematic level, in the sense that the themes were beyond my ken as a spotty yoof. I can't think of any specific examples offhand, but no doubt I even found some of the films I saw quite disturbing on this thematic level. Who knows whether or not this did any harm - I don't think a film is particularly different to a book in this regard, a book could just as easily contain adult themes that might confuse or distress a teenager, but we don't tend to be as proscriptive when it comes to what kids read.

The gore thing is a bit different perhaps, I can remember watching stuff like The Wild Bunch and not being particularly bothered, but everyone's different.

Agent57

Who remembers the Channel 4 "red triangle"? As a teenager with a portable TV in my room, I always watched a film if it had a red triangle.

Ended up watching Sebastiane. :shock:

DonDaddyD

When I was fifteen I had smoked weed (wasn't for me) and watched porn (was for me). This was back in 1997 and this was the year that I went to watch Scream 2 (rated 18) at the cinema. I think this was the same year I got drunk for the first time as well... It would be another six f*cking years before I got to try the sex :x (when I did it was a Wednesday, Wednesday's have always been special to me since...)

That film [Scream] didn't make me want to stab anyone and to be honest I think Child's Play (rated 15) was and is far scarier, disturbing, violent and horrific.

Teens age and mature differently, you've got to look at your kid and ask yourself can he handle it. Its unfair for me to comment beyond what I was like as a 15 year old because I don't know you or your kid or the relationship you have with him. I was exposed to, exposed myself to a lot when growing up, with morden technology I'm surprised your son hasn't seen worse on the Internet...

That said there is something to be said about "you either watch it with him, or he watches it with someone else and you're excluded from your sons life [to some degree]".

Choice is yours.

apreading

Many films rated because of swear words. We work on the principal that they will hear much worse every day in the playground but know better than to EVER use those words when at home/with family or where we could hear them!

Sex is something that at age 12/14 we still dont want our kids to see too graphically - so more concerned about this aspect in some films. Depends how it was done though - Rock of Ages was a 12 but we wouldnt let our kids watch that (have taken them to the stage show though). Other films are 15s but I would say OK.

Violence, they see alot even in 12 films, generally no concern about anything in a 15 but when a film has an 18 rating this could either be because it is more gory or because there is more frequent content of a lesser nature. Real gore we still would not let them watch but whats the difference between a couple of semi-gory scenes in a 15 and ten scenes of a similar nature that earns the film an 18 rating...

Wouldnt let our kids watch 'Kick Ass' but I know they would love it...!

Gallywomack

I can foresee this being an issue with my wife when our progeny hit the teens. We were watching Raiders of the Lost Ark over xmas and she was mildly outraged that such a gory, scary film was being shown before the watershed. She was only slightly mollified when I pointed out that it's rated PG.

DonDaddyD

Open question to all:

Would you let your 15 year old watch Spartacus Blood&Sand et al, True Blood, Game of Thrones and Walking Dead?

IMO those are far more graphic in terms of sex, swearing and violence than many films to such an extent that if a child is watching those TV programs then there is no point preventing access to rated 18 films.

Same with Grand Theft Auto 3 onwards and other computer games (Gears of War, Call of Duty etc) which contain 'adult themes' that out strip most films with the level of detail they go into.

apreading

Probably not, based on what you say - but havent seen any of those myself to comment properly!

Medders

the film is pretty gruesome/violent and its graphic. Depends if your lad may get disturbed by it. I probably wouldnt let him but then I am more sensitive to screen violence now than I was at 15, so probably judging it by old man standards.

As an aside - as an avid reader of 2000ad in the 80s, I didnt rate this film at all. Not nearly futuristic enough - gritty yes, but driving around on normal roads in ordinary camper style vans? Seriously, if you dont have the budget dont bother. Dare I say it the Stallone version felt more in line with the comic character.

Kieran_Burns

Medders wrote:

the film is pretty gruesome/violent and its graphic. Depends if your lad may get disturbed by it. I probably wouldnt let him but then I am more sensitive to screen violence now than I was at 15, so probably judging it by old man standards.

As an aside - as an avid reader of 2000ad in the 80s, I didnt rate this film at all. Not nearly futuristic enough - gritty yes, but driving around on normal roads in ordinary camper style vans? Seriously, if you dont have the budget dont bother. Dare I say it the Stallone version felt more in line with the comic character.

He took his helmet off therefore your argument is invalid. 8)

DonDaddyD

Medders wrote:

As an aside - as an avid reader of 2000ad in the 80s, I didnt rate this film at all. Not nearly futuristic enough - gritty yes, but driving around on normal roads in ordinary camper style vans? Seriously, if you dont have the budget dont bother. Dare I say it the Stallone version felt more in line with the comic character.

WTF? Nah, man, you're wrong. I think the more recent versions of Judge Dread have scaled down the city of the future vision so that its more in keeping with the recent film than the flying bikes of Stallone's version. But seriously, dude, the Stallone version was terrible, wooden and boring compared to DREDD.

I thought they took key elements from Judge Dredd - the fact that he cannot perfectly administer justice in a infallable way, his stoic nature, Judge Anderson, the lawgiver, futuristic drugs, the mega blocks - and executed them perfectly.

I'm seeing more Judge Dredds at the comic conventions as well!

Kieran_Burns

DonDaddyD wrote:

Medders wrote:

As an aside - as an avid reader of 2000ad in the 80s, I didnt rate this film at all. Not nearly futuristic enough - gritty yes, but driving around on normal roads in ordinary camper style vans? Seriously, if you dont have the budget dont bother. Dare I say it the Stallone version felt more in line with the comic character.

WTF? Nah, man, you're wrong. I think the more recent versions of Judge Dread have scaled down the city of the future vision so that its more in keeping with the recent film than the flying bikes of Stallone's version. But seriously, dude, the Stallone version was terrible, wooden and boring compared to DREDD.

I thought they took key elements from Judge Dredd - the fact that he cannot perfectly administer justice in a infallable way, his stoic nature, Judge Anderson, the lawgiver, futuristic drugs, the mega blocks - and executed them perfectly.

I'm seeing more Judge Dredds at the comic conventions as well!

Great. Now you've got me agreeing with Don. Thanks for that.

bigmat

From the descriptions of the gratuitous violence in this film, I struggle to understand why people get their kicks watching that sort of thing. But maybe that's just me. In all honesty, I could understand a 15 year old boy wanting to watch that sort of thing more than most people. Also have to bear in mind that kids have access to all sorts of nasty stuff on the internet these days, you probably can't stop them watching this and much worse, but you could at least discourage it - not sure it needs to be "banned" but I wouldn't sit down and watch it with him (that's 2 hours of your life you just got back too!)

I had a similar issue at Christmas deciding whether my lad would want to watch Ironman or not (he got the outfit for Christmas - his request, I had no idea what the film was like). I watched about 10 minutes of it on TV, it was incredibly tedious interspersed with occasional bouts of extreme violence. Figured he could give it a miss, but then he's only 5...

pblakeney

DonDaddyD wrote:

Same with Grand Theft Auto 3 onwards and other computer games (Gears of War, Call of Duty etc) which contain 'adult themes' that out strip most films with the level of detail they go into.

I was not going to comment on this thread as all families are different and all children will handle what they view in a different matter.
It is up to the parents if their child can handle what is on screen.

What prompted me to add to the thread was simply to point out that computer games do have age restrictions specifically because they are so graphic and should be treated as such. The restrictions are there for a reason.

Agent57

DonDaddyD wrote:

Open question to all:

Would you let your 15 year old watch Spartacus Blood&Sand et al, True Blood, Game of Thrones and Walking Dead?

My 15-year-old daughter, yeah. Not that keen on the sexual content, but not concerned with the blood and gore.

She's far more likely to be perturbed by something like The Blair Witch Project, and that's only a 15.

Agent57

Kieran_Burns wrote:

He took his helmet off therefore your argument is invalid. 8)

But it had Mean Machine and an ABC Warrior in, therefore it's boss.

And Rico. \o/