The Chronicles of Narnia

I couldnt get over the oompa looma that drove the White Witch around. I couldnt take him seriously - all I saw was the little oompa loopma.

Did anyone see that?
 
I saw it with a group of friends, all in their late 20's and early 30's. Maybe we are all jaded or over protective of the children that none of us have, but we all thought it was too violent for children. I thought that level of 'combat' and death deserved a PG13.
Click to expand...

I guess i'm just used to really violent things, so you could be right. The spongebob cartoon i remember had spongebog standing on some poor guys retinas....IN GOLF SHOES WITH SPIKES!!....

that sadistic spongebob...
 
TheYankee said:
It was a very enjoyable film, albeit, toned and scaled down for the child audience they are appealing to.

The biggest problem is if I had kids I think it is too violent for them, yet they toned down the violence so it is not really enjoyable for adults who want blood and carnage (like myself).
Click to expand...
Scaled down, yet too violent? We might as well have watched a teenage mutant ninja turtles episode if we wanted the violence SCALED down. There was hardly any!
 
Slimothy said:
Scaled down, yet too violent? We might as well have watched a teenage mutant ninja turtles episode if we wanted the violence SCALED down. There was hardly any!
Click to expand...


Yeah, maybe your right that stabbing a lion, turning people to stone, seeing bombs fall on a city, dropping stones on a charging army, watching a child get stabbed with a sword, and arrows shot into people is hardly any violence. Regardless of whether you see the bloody reaction or not, I would say that is a little violent for a child under 13, then again, I have no kids so I can't tell people with kids whether it is appropriate for them.
 
hmm, maybe our society is raising desensitized kids (and parents), I mean, I thought I was fairly conservative with my kids and I went with my 6 year old and I didn't get the impression from him that anything was unsettling, I mean, the latest Harry Potter was far scarier (and it was PG-13), I mean, there was some freaky shiite in that one!
 
TheYankee said:
...stabbing a lion, turning people to stone, seeing bombs fall on a city, dropping stones on a charging army, watching a child get stabbed with a sword, and arrows shot into people is hardly any violence...
Click to expand...


You must be older than I am (and I'm not that young), either that or you're really into melodrama, that sounded much worse than it was, I mean c'mon, almost every video game out there is worse than those scenes!

:shocked:
 
Yankee, you mean you wouldn't let your kids watch Indy, Star Wars, Jurassic Park or LOTR until they were 13? Seriosly? :huh:
 
I am hardly into melodrama by any means, and try to avoid it whenever possible. I'm amazed at how much attention my simple opinion has generated, especially when I normally shy away from reviews on new releases in order to avoid the drama.

My point is several fold.
1. I believe that this movie should have received a higher rating because of the violence. I once again refer to the specific instances of people being turned to stone, a knife being driven through a lion, rocks dropped to crush enemies, arrows shot into bodies, sword fights, and knife stabs. These are violent images that I believe are not meant for a child audience.
2. I am the most liberal person I know, I have no problem with what other people show their children. My point was from a discussion I had with friends after the film where we pretty much all said that we would not bring an 8 year old to see this film, hence why I think it should be rated PG13. I don't care what kids see though. I have no kids and if my luck continues I will not have any kids.
3. If I did have kids would I let them see this? That's a good question. I think it depends on their age. Personally I would hope that my children would read as much as I did in my youth (and still today). I would have no problem with them seeing films like Star Wars (for it's cultural impact upon me), but I would not let them see the Indiana Jones movies until they were 10-13. Why? (answer in next point)
4. I just finished my master degree in philosophy. Part of my thesis was concentrating upon how society in general has become more and more desensitized to violence. It was my standpoint that the imagery we see through news broadcasts, movies, television, and in printed publications has removed the shock value. Hitchcock fought with the censors regarding the shower scene in Psycho. Psycho also marked the first time a man and woman were shown horizontally in bed together.

I am not trying to make a right wing political statement by any means, in fact I disagree with all of that. My personal tastes are for the more violent, offensive, and disgusting things I can see. Exquisite Corpse by Poppy Z. Brite was supposed to be this ultra disturbing book, and it really didn't affect me at all. Sleepers (the novel, not movie) affected me more with it's imagery of abusing children. I don't even care for children, but my point is, if we have a rating system then I think it needs to be effective to warn people of what is in the movie.

Maybe I have become jaded or hyper sensitive to imaginary children that I do not have. That's a possibility, but ultimately it really doesn't matter to me because I have no right or place to tell people what to do with their children (unless they are kicking my chair in a theatre, then I'll make a scene and yell at the parents and the kids).

I regret that my opinion has turned into this stance where I am defending my view point, that was hardly my intention, but rather to just express my opinions regarding this film.

I'm surprised that I am the only one though that thinks that just because blood is not shown that it is violent beyond the level of what a 8-10 year old needs to see.

Then again, I don't have a kid, so I don't know what an 8-10 year old needs to see. I'm simply looking back two decades and wondering if I would have needed to see that, and I was watching Action Jackson at that age... Maybe I've just become a hypocrite, and that's possible.
 
TheYankee said:
I am hardly into melodrama by any means, and try to avoid it whenever possible. I'm amazed at how much attention my simple opinion has generated, especially when I normally shy away from reviews on new releases in order to avoid the drama.

My point is several fold.
1. I believe that this movie should have received a higher rating because of the violence. I once again refer to the specific instances of people being turned to stone, a knife being driven through a lion, rocks dropped to crush enemies, arrows shot into bodies, sword fights, and knife stabs. These are violent images that I believe are not meant for a child audience.
2. I am the most liberal person I know, I have no problem with what other people show their children. My point was from a discussion I had with friends after the film where we pretty much all said that we would not bring an 8 year old to see this film, hence why I think it should be rated PG13. I don't care what kids see though. I have no kids and if my luck continues I will not have any kids.
3. If I did have kids would I let them see this? That's a good question. I think it depends on their age. Personally I would hope that my children would read as much as I did in my youth (and still today). I would have no problem with them seeing films like Star Wars (for it's cultural impact upon me), but I would not let them see the Indiana Jones movies until they were 10-13. Why? (answer in next point)
4. I just finished my master degree in philosophy. Part of my thesis was concentrating upon how society in general has become more and more desensitized to violence. It was my standpoint that the imagery we see through news broadcasts, movies, television, and in printed publications has removed the shock value. Hitchcock fought with the censors regarding the shower scene in Psycho. Psycho also marked the first time a man and woman were shown horizontally in bed together.

I am not trying to make a right wing political statement by any means, in fact I disagree with all of that. My personal tastes are for the more violent, offensive, and disgusting things I can see. Exquisite Corpse by Poppy Z. Brite was supposed to be this ultra disturbing book, and it really didn't affect me at all. Sleepers (the novel, not movie) affected me more with it's imagery of abusing children. I don't even care for children, but my point is, if we have a rating system then I think it needs to be effective to warn people of what is in the movie.

Maybe I have become jaded or hyper sensitive to imaginary children that I do not have. That's a possibility, but ultimately it really doesn't matter to me because I have no right or place to tell people what to do with their children (unless they are kicking my chair in a theatre, then I'll make a scene and yell at the parents and the kids).

I regret that my opinion has turned into this stance where I am defending my view point, that was hardly my intention, but rather to just express my opinions regarding this film.

I'm surprised that I am the only one though that thinks that just because blood is not shown that it is violent beyond the level of what a 8-10 year old needs to see.

Then again, I don't have a kid, so I don't know what an 8-10 year old needs to see. I'm simply looking back two decades and wondering if I would have needed to see that, and I was watching Action Jackson at that age... Maybe I've just become a hypocrite, and that's possible.
Click to expand...

I think you're taking it way too serious man :thumbsup: You don't need to defend your position. If you think it's too violent, you think it's too viloent. I definately disagree and DO think that, with the way you wrote it (rocks falling on people, stabbing lions, etc) makes it sound alot worse than it was. I bet most people who saw it wouldn't have a problem w/ their kids seeing. Oh well. The movie sucked balls. Hopefully you're right and no kids will have to see it due to them not making another onem (Should we be so lucky).
 
I think it's not something you can set an age limit to. Every child is different. And, I do agree that our culture is desensitized to violence. Some day we might even have modern day gladiators.
 
You have to stop and consider what "desensitized" means, first off. Where is it written that we're supposed to cringe at the sight of blood?
 
briceman said:
I think it's not something you can set an age limit to. Every child is different. And, I do agree that our culture is desensitized to violence. Some day we might even have modern day gladiators.
Click to expand...
We pretty much do....The Ultimate Fighting Championship?
 
ouch, my head hurts... my most sincere apologies for fueling the philosophy fire. Ciao and see you at the movies! ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top