 | | Fellowship on Film
|
|
First of all, do NOT take any small children to see this film. I would say probably 10 would be the youngest who should see it, and that is pushing it. Younger kids will have nightmares for weeks, possibly years, if they are subjected to this film. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fellowship on Film
|
|
I would agree to not take any small children to see Lord of the Rings, but for a different reason: no kid under 10 years old would be able to sit through the whole movie without needing to go to the bathroom, even if they had gone right before it (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fellowship on Film
|
|
(...) Yes, kids younger than 10 should start reading the book. By the time they finish they will have no problem with the film. (It is PG-13.) Spoiler zone Spoiler zone Spoiler zone Spoiler zone Spoiler zone Spoiler zone Spoiler zone Spoiler zone (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fellowship on Film
|
|
Here's something I don't understand. WHY would anyone take children under the age of 10 to see this film. First off, it's rated PG-13. Secondly, it's 3 hours long. Finally, the story isn't suitable for younger viewers anymore than the Matrix was. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fellowship on Film
|
|
(...) My son is ten. The only problem he had was what the other poster mentioned: even though he went to the restroom just before the start of the movie, he had to go midway through (I sent him at the safest point when little would happen onscreen) (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fellowship on Film
|
|
(...) Sounds like you have a brave little guy. My step-daughter is nearly 6, and her dad let her see a cartoon version of LoTR a few weeks back. She has been unable to sleep through the night due to her terror of the Black Knights. I saw rows of (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fellowship on Film
|
|
(...) I agree. In the book, Aragorn really, REALLY wanted to go to Gondor. But after Gandalf died, he knew it was his duty to protect Frodo and attempt to lead the quest for the Ring. He was in great doubt as to what to do. That is why the (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fellowship on Film
|
|
This is a nifty movie, no doubt, but from the perspective of a dedicated Tolkien fan, I am somewhat disappointed because much of the really important character dynamics have been neglected or underdeveloped - dynamics that are essential to the tale. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fellowship on Film
|
|
(...) Yes... even the book version of the Nazgul gave my daughter nightmares when she first read LOTR aged about 10. I can't see taking a kid younger than that to the movie if they (Nazgul) have been done right. I must say I've been put off going to (...) (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fellowship on Film
|
|
(...) What is your picture of hobbits? Bigger heads? (Rankin/Bass?) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fellowship on Film
|
|
Erik Olson wrote in message ... (...) Shorter, stockier, hairier, less smooth. The guys in the posters look like human teenagers with mutant feet :-). Kevin ---...--- NEW Tank Engine custom train set: (URL) Annual SYSTEM Creativity Contest: (URL) (...) (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fellowship on Film
|
|
(...) Aha! You seek hairy minifigs! Or midgets... (23 years ago, 22-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Fellowship on Film
|
|
(...) Quite violent in parts, yes, I think most would agree to that. Apart from that having a child sit there for this long wouldn't be fair unless they seriously could understand the movie for what it is, and define the difference between reality (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.loc.au)
|
