Subject:
|
Re: Fellowship on Film
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:43:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
262 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Dave Johann writes:
> 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.
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) <g>. It's up to the parent to judge their child, off
course. Mine is steeped on special effects and tends to view them as cool
rather than threatening or scary.
It gets iffy for under 10, I'd agree, but I think my son could have handled
it at 8, possibly younger.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
