Wilco Worshipper Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Theaters are too loud for a baby's ears. Other than that, there's nothing to worry about. Did you notice if the mother kept her hands over the baby's ears the whole time? Cause then it would be ok till it cried. Sometimes, baby's go totally to sleep with too much stimulation. what the hell do I know, i've already broke 3 of them. So Greg you think it's okay to take a 6/7 yr old to the latest Potter movie?!? I did say LATEST...I'm not speaking about the others. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilco Worshipper Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 No big deal taking a 3 mo. old baby to a flick. Mom's gotta get out, too. Tissue in the ears for the kid is a good idea and the sense to leave to the hallway immediately if the baby starts to act up. We took our newborn to a Todd Snider show in early June when he was 3 mo. old. Second row. The music was just one guy with an acoustic guitar. We did the tissue thing and he got antsy towards about half-way through the gig so we ditched the seats and stood in the back. No big deal. I SWEAR you guys are messing with me here!!! Momma's gotta get out, too?!? Then get a god-damn babysitter...that's what they're for! If you CAN'T then wait & rent it and watch it when the kids are SLEEPING!!! If the baby acts up?!? This isn't the baby's fault should he/she...they are in an unsuitable environment!!! And taking a baby to a show with one guy and an acoustic is NOT THE SAME as what this lady DID!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G_willy Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 My nephews father took him to see bad santa in theaters when he was 6... what a winner Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 My dad took me to see Alien when I was 11. Scared the SHIT out of me. Mother was none too pleased. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Momma's gotta get out, too?!? Then get a god-damn babysitter...that's what they're for! If you CAN'T then wait & rent it and watch it when the kids are SLEEPING!!! If the baby acts up?!? This isn't the baby's fault should he/she...they are in an unsuitable environment!!!I'm not sure what the new Harry Potter entails, but I am pretty sure a 3 mo. old isn't going to be affected by it. It's not like the baby can even see the screen or anything. Again, with ears plugs I don't see the big deal. And a 3 mo. old baby will "act up" every now and then whether they're at Harry Potter, an acoustic show, church, or laying in bed. That said, my wife is at the new Harry Potter as we speak and she left the 4 mo. old home with me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilco Worshipper Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 I'm not sure what the new Harry Potter entails, but I am pretty sure a 3 mo. old isn't going to be affected by it. It's not like the baby can even see the screen or anything. Again, with ears plugs I don't see the big deal. And a 3 mo. old baby will "act up" every now and then whether they're at Harry Potter, an acoustic show, church, or laying in bed. That said, my wife is at the new Harry Potter as we speak and she left the 4 mo. old home with me. My concern is more with the 6/7 yr old being there. I know a baby will act up, I'm just saying "so what" to that part. And I'm glad the baby's with you Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 I was more worried about the ears and being surrounded by all of that scary sound. Just seems like it would freak the shit out of someone that undeveloped and sensitive. I didn't check for ear plugs, nor take the baby's temperature. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 I was more worried about the ears and being surrounded by all of that scary sound. Just seems like it would freak the shit out of someone that undeveloped and sensitive. I didn't check for ear plugs, nor take the baby's temperature.Well, if flogging was ruled out, I would say that would have been the least you could have done. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Well, that Captivity movie seems to have an identity crisis--is it a serious commentary about society or is it just a torture/gore flick? It's marketed as the latter, but I've read something about the former--I think that might have been wishful thinking. I'm not planning to see it.I haven't seen Captivity, but the director, Roland Joffe, is a fairly serious guy. He's responsible for The Killing Fields, The Mission, City of Joy and Fat Man and Little Boy. I wouldn't be surprised if he attempted something more "literate" with Captivity--but I also wouldn't be surprised if the marketing department chose to ignore that attempt. There might be a disconnect between the director's intentions and the advertising's goals, but that's not unusual. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 My concern is more with the 6/7 yr old being there.Yeah, I hear you. I do. However, the rating is there as a guideline for parental decisions. I don't have a beef with a parent taking a kid of 6/7 years old to a flick they deem suitable for their own kids. The decision is not illegal (the flick is rated PG-13 which suggests parents use greater caution in taking pre-teens to it) and merely differs from another parent's decision, perhaps. I wouldn't take my 7 year old, but I'm not going to get bent if someone else takes their 7 year old. Poor decisions are often in the eye of the beholder. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 We took my 8 year old nephew to the new Harry Potter this weekend. We also took him (and a friend from his class) to see the last Star Wars movie on opening day. They were both 6 at the time. It's entirely dependent on what the kid can handle. These kids did fine with Star Wars, but we went out to dinner after and discussed every possible aspect of the movie. If they'd been overly disturbed by anything they saw (they weren't), we would have talked it out with them. My two nieces are 10 and 11 years old. Last year, we showed them one episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The 10 year old is begging us to see more, but her older sister has said no, it was too much, and she doesn't want to see any more. So we'll wait a few more years before trying her with anything like that again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilco Worshipper Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Poor decisions are often in the eye of the beholder. I suppose... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 gogo summed up my perspective more succinctly than I did. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
austrya Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 I used to take Jacob to the movies when he was an infant. He just slept the whole time or nursed. It's not like a 3 month old is going to be ruined for life because he saw something violent on the movie screen. In about 30 seconds, he won't even remember he saw it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 I saw "The Godfather" at 10 (far too early IMHO). My far more lasting impression was of the death scenes (Lucca Brazi esp) than of the sex scenes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 I read an OpEd piece once where a guy said it was his moral duty to take his kids to see The Godfather so they could learn the lesson that you have to kill them before they kill you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilco Worshipper Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 I read an OpEd piece once where a guy said it was his moral duty to take his kids to see The Godfather so they could learn the lesson that you have to kill them before they kill you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
plasticeyeball Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 So Greg you think it's okay to take a 6/7 yr old to the latest Potter movie?!? I did say LATEST...I'm not speaking about the others. i,m saying mr atticus pg did not check their id's and may not be sure of or good at guessing the age of the older kid? both my 8's have seen all the hp movies, the last one in theaters (they were 6 or 7 when it came out) and my son saw the new one first day it came out. in reality, i think they have a great good vs evil vibe that's good for him. he is a bit of a fanatic though. my point was , my 8 year old son looks eight and my 8 year old daughter gets mistaken for our 5 year old's twin instead of her real twin so you really don't know how old the kid was. i was only worried about the babies ears. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Yeah. It was in Playboy, of all magazines. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilco Worshipper Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 my point was , my 8 year old son looks eight and my 8 year old daughter gets mistaken for our 5 year old's twin instead of her real twin so you really don't know how old the kid was. i was only worried about the babies ears. Okay... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
yermom Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 I read an OpEd piece once where a guy said it was his moral duty to take his kids to see The Godfather so they could learn the lesson that you have to kill them before they kill you.When his eight year-old son hits his ten year-old son, the boy will say, "I had to hit him before he hit me, papa! He was going all Fredo up in here!" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.