If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendations of good non-animated "family" films for two parents and a 3-year-old?
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:12:13 EDT, "Beth Gallagher" wrote:
I cannot imagine fast-forwarding through any part of Wizard of Oz, by the way. Isn't having nightmares about the witch an essential part of growing up?! (only half tongue-in-cheek). My general feeling is that if a kid can't handle essential parts of a movie, such as the Dorothy-kidnapped scene in Wizard of Oz, he should wait and see the movie when he's ready. Fast-forwarding through parts of a great movie like Wizard of Oz is like reading the "Illustrated Classics" version of Jungle Book. What's the rush? If you can just hold off for another year or two, he'll be able to see the unadulterated thing the first time around, and that experience cannot be beat. I still hide my eyes and/or plug my ears in parts of movies, and I flip through overly gross or violent parts of books. By your reasoning, I shouldn't see/read them at all because I can't tolerate the violent or suspenseful parts. I think it's good to give kids lots of tools for dealing with entertainment that turns out to be too intense for them, and reminding them that they can fast-forward video is one of those tools. On the other hand, as a parent or a non-parental supervisor, I don't think I would choose to show a movie to kids that I wanted to prevent them from seeing parts of. It seems unnecessarily intrusive or something, for me to choose or approve the movie, yet insist on holding the remote and skipping bits. Our kids complained and sneered when rainy-day entertainment at their sports camp once included a drama video about their sport, with the counsellors fast-forwarding or distracting them during the sex scene. They thought that the counsellors should have edited the video ahead of time or not shown it for younger kids and for teens should just have let the kids make the choice to talk during that part or go to the bathroom or whatever. They didn't really appreciate the accountability of camp counsellors to a mixed group of parents, but otherwise I could kinda see their point.. Louise |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
CTTS 3-year-old "family" films
In article ,
Taed Nelson wrote: We've watched most of the recent "classics", such as those by Pixar and Disney. Many of the older Disney ones are too violent (such as _Fox and the Hound_) or scary. We also really like some of the anime such as _Kiki's Delivery Service_. My 3yo calls this movie "Kinky". As in, "I want to watch the Kinky movie." :-O Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01) -- "Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." -- Theodore Roosevelt Visit the TCP/IP Guide for FREE detailed TCP/IP Information http://www.tcpipguide.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendations of good non-animated "family" films for two parents and a 3-year-old?
FibbersCloset wrote in :
I think (but haven't looked it up) that the original movies (from the 60's?) was Incredible Journey, and the 1990's remake was Homeward Bound.* And*I second the recommendation.**I*have*yet*to*watch*the*end*of*Ho meward Bound without blubbering. I remember watching the original movie in the early seventies, probably bout '72 or '73. -- Penny Gaines UK mum to three |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendations of good non-animated "family" films for two parents and a 3-year-old?
"Louise" wrote in message ... On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:12:13 EDT, "Beth Gallagher" wrote: I cannot imagine fast-forwarding through any part of Wizard of Oz, by the way. Isn't having nightmares about the witch an essential part of growing up?! (only half tongue-in-cheek). My general feeling is that if a kid can't handle essential parts of a movie, such as the Dorothy-kidnapped scene in Wizard of Oz, he should wait and see the movie when he's ready. Fast-forwarding through parts of a great movie like Wizard of Oz is like reading the "Illustrated Classics" version of Jungle Book. What's the rush? If you can just hold off for another year or two, he'll be able to see the unadulterated thing the first time around, and that experience cannot be beat. I still hide my eyes and/or plug my ears in parts of movies, and I flip through overly gross or violent parts of books. By your reasoning, I shouldn't see/read them at all because I can't tolerate the violent or suspenseful parts. Is the violence or suspense "an essential part" (as I said above) of the book or movie? If so, then, yeh, by my reasoning, you might as well not even do that book/movie. I think it's good to give kids lots of tools for dealing with entertainment that turns out to be too intense for them, and reminding them that they can fast-forward video is one of those tools. I have told my DD, who get very upset very easily, "don't look!" at parts of movies that I knew would contain a nasty image. I'd also have been willing to FF through those parts if others hadn;t been watching who wanted to see those parts. But I generally didn't consider them essential parts of the movie in question. They were, say, one gruesome image or one especially realistic violent moment in an otherwise acceptable movie. Now, since this easily upset DD is the younger sibling of an older child who is really chomping at the bit to move on to movies at "the next level," I have on occasion let her be present while he and my DH and I watched slightly inappropriate movies that required us to cover her eyes during essential or large parts of the movie (Pirates of the Caribbean comes to mind). But I think that's a dumb thing to do! ; ) And I wouldn;'t do it for an oldest child, because it's just not necessary. They can wait. On the other hand, as a parent or a non-parental supervisor, I don't think I would choose to show a movie to kids that I wanted to prevent them from seeing parts of. It seems unnecessarily intrusive or something, for me to choose or approve the movie, yet insist on holding the remote and skipping bits. Our kids complained and sneered when rainy-day entertainment at their sports camp once included a drama video about their sport, with the counsellors fast-forwarding or distracting them during the sex scene. They thought that the counsellors should have edited the video ahead of time or not shown it for younger kids and for teens should just have let the kids make the choice to talk during that part or go to the bathroom or whatever. They didn't really appreciate the accountability of camp counsellors to a mixed group of parents, but otherwise I could kinda see their point.. yes. And generally I find that if you do need to edit out more than a few seconds of a movie, it really isn't the right movie for the audience. Beth |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendations of good non-animated "family" films for two parents and a 3-year-old?
"Beth Gallagher" wrote:
"Louise" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:12:13 EDT, "Beth Gallagher" wrote: I cannot imagine fast-forwarding through any part of Wizard of Oz, by the way. Isn't having nightmares about the witch an essential part of growing up?! (only half tongue-in-cheek). My general feeling is that if a kid can't I had nightmares for about a week after I read "Gone With the WInd" when I was about 15 years old. There are a whole bunch of things (including some that my grandchildren watch quite happily and unscared) which I can't stand to watch. handle essential parts of a movie, such as the Dorothy-kidnapped scene in Wizard of Oz, he should wait and see the movie when he's ready. Fast-forwarding through parts of a great movie like Wizard of Oz is like reading the "Illustrated Classics" version of Jungle Book. What's the rush? If you can just hold off for another year or two, he'll be able to see the unadulterated thing the first time around, and that experience cannot be beat. That's not necessarily so. Some of us just don't like that kind of stuff. Actually I liked it less and less as I got older. My mom took me to see Bambi and Fantasea when I was little and they gave me nightmares. I still hide my eyes and/or plug my ears in parts of movies, and I flip through overly gross or violent parts of books. By your reasoning, I shouldn't see/read them at all because I can't tolerate the violent or suspenseful parts. Is the violence or suspense "an essential part" (as I said above) of the book or movie? If so, then, yeh, by my reasoning, you might as well not even do that book/movie. Why? I loved all the Oz books - I could/can read them over and over. The movie wasn't really anything like the book - for some reason the book is not scarey for me. I like the movie, but sometimes I skip or leave the room for some parts even though I know by now how it comes out. I think it's good to give kids lots of tools for dealing with entertainment that turns out to be too intense for them, and reminding them that they can fast-forward video is one of those tools. I have told my DD, who get very upset very easily, "don't look!" at parts of movies that I knew would contain a nasty image. I'd also have been willing to FF through those parts if others hadn;t been watching who wanted to see those parts. But I generally didn't consider them essential parts of the movie in question. They were, say, one gruesome image or one especially realistic violent moment in an otherwise acceptable movie. Now, since this easily upset DD is the younger sibling of an older child who is really chomping at the bit to move on to movies at "the next level," I have on occasion let her be present while he and my DH and I watched slightly inappropriate movies that required us to cover her eyes during essential or large parts of the movie (Pirates of the Caribbean comes to mind). But I think that's a dumb thing to do! ; ) And I wouldn;'t do it for an oldest child, because it's just not necessary. They can wait. Suppose they have to wait forever? On the other hand, as a parent or a non-parental supervisor, I don't think I would choose to show a movie to kids that I wanted to prevent them from seeing parts of. It seems unnecessarily intrusive or something, for me to choose or approve the movie, yet insist on holding the remote and skipping bits. Our kids complained and sneered when rainy-day entertainment at their sports camp once included a drama video about their sport, with the counsellors fast-forwarding or distracting them during the sex scene. They thought that the counsellors should have edited the video ahead of time or not shown it for younger kids and for teens should just have let the kids make the choice to talk during that part or go to the bathroom or whatever. They didn't really appreciate the accountability of camp counsellors to a mixed group of parents, but otherwise I could kinda see their point.. yes. And generally I find that if you do need to edit out more than a few seconds of a movie, it really isn't the right movie for the audience. Beth Suppose that the parent doesn't like it and the child does? grandma Rosalie |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendations of good non-animated "family" films for two parents and a 3-year-old?
"Taed Nelson" wrote in message ... I'd like to get some recommendations of true family films, something that would interest both parents and our 3-year-old. We've watched most of the recent "classics", such as those by Pixar and Disney. Many of the older Disney ones are too violent (such as _Fox and the Hound_) or scary. We also really like some of the anime such as _Kiki's Delivery Service_. However, I want to watch something other than animated films, and that's where I'm having trouble... I've looked through the library and video store twice and have come up with very few titles that would interest all of us. The big issue is that we want to avoid any violence, guns, swords, and the like, but I don't think that there are any other hot-button issues. Other adult themes such as nudity and paying taxes aren't an issue for us, but I doubt there are any "family" films with that. I also don't want to watch any bad movies! The story also has to be simple enough on some level for a 3-year-old to follow and understand. A great film (though there are some parts we have to fast-forward through) for us was _E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial_. My son understood most of the movie, and even cried at both the beginning (where the space ship leaves without ET) and where ET dies. (He can be surprisingly sensitive.) (It was also the re-release with the guns edited out, so it worked well for out sensibilities.) _The Wizard of Oz_ also worked out well, again with just a little bit that needed to be skipped over. (That developed a big interest in tornadoes, though, so we're read a number of books from the library about them.) He also sat through _Whale Rider_, and also cried when the whales were stuck on the beach. _Babe_ is another good example (however, _Gordy_ is so bad that we stopped it about 15 minutes into it). I'm also considering taking him to the 1956 version of _Around the World in 80 Days_ next week at The Stanford Theatre -- from what I've read, I think it should be fine for him, particularly since it has planes, balloons, trains, and so on, which he's really into these days. Has anyone seen this and care to comment on it's level of violence (hitting, guns, swords, etc.)? Any other movie recommendations along these lines? (Thanks in advance.) We're planning on raising our son on anime (we're big fans). If you liked Kiki's Delivery Service, how about My Neighbor Totoro? (its being rereleased this summer so you can find the old version cheap - I think I saw the DVD for $6 at Best Buy) Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke, and Castle in the Sky are also by Miyazaki, but a bit too violent for your standards right now. We're currently collecting anime for our son, especially Robotech. If you're worried about certain depictions in movies, there's a Christian ministry (CAP) that analyzes movies for all sorts of things and reviews them in excruciating detail (each review lists specific examples of violence, sex, etc). That might be a good guide for you concerning more current movies - http://www.capalert.com/capmarstartpage.htm. I agree, finding good family movies is hard. I've tried thinking of some that I liked when I was younger (but not at the age of 3). I'll leave it up to you to decide how violent they are (I'm not as concerned) - Labyrinth, Dark Crystal, any of the Muppet movies, Willow, Flight of the Navigator, Anne of Green Gables, Black Beauty, and . How about old classics, like Shirley Temple movies (I still love A Little Princess). Honestly, I'd avoid Around the World in 80 Days if you're worried about violence - it features Jackie Chan (as the servant character Passepartout) so there's going to be a high level of martial arts (hitting), I'm guessing. There was a decent amount of guns in the earlier versions I've seen. At least I'd wait until more reviews came out to be sure. This review has a number of spoilers about ATW80D if you want to know whats in it- http://www.hkentreview.com/2003/columns/around.html. Hmm...there's a boxing match scene, does that disqualify it from consideration? - Joanne |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendations of good non-animated "family" films for two parents and a 3-year-old?
I finally looked it up. "The Incredible Journey" (a Disney Movie) was
released in 1963. "Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey" was released in 1993. Dena "Penny Gaines" wrote in message ... FibbersCloset wrote in : I think (but haven't looked it up) that the original movies (from the 60's?) was Incredible Journey, and the 1990's remake was Homeward Bound. And I second the recommendation. I have yet to watch the end of Homeward Bound without blubbering. I remember watching the original movie in the early seventies, probably bout '72 or '73. -- Penny Gaines UK mum to three |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
CTTS 3-year-old "family" films
Robyn Kozierok wrote:
In article , Taed Nelson wrote: We've watched most of the recent "classics", such as those by Pixar and Disney. Many of the older Disney ones are too violent (such as _Fox and the Hound_) or scary. We also really like some of the anime such as _Kiki's Delivery Service_. My 3yo calls this movie "Kinky". As in, "I want to watch the Kinky movie." :-O Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01) What kind of looks do you get when he refers to the kinky movie outside the home? :-) Lesley |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendations of good non-animated "family" films for two parents and a 3-year-old?
jjmoreta said:
If you're worried about certain depictions in movies, there's a Christian ministry (CAP) that analyzes movies for all sorts of things and reviews them in excruciating detail (each review lists specific examples of violence, sex, etc). That might be a good guide for you concerning more current movies - http://www.capalert.com/capmarstartpage.htm. I've never found their reviews to be of much help, perhaps because their point of view is very different from mine. Harry Potter is an obvious example. They go on about the movie being 38% more "Offensive to God" than the previous two episodes, but don't tell me about how some of the violence in the book is handled visually. I can tell from the commercials that the slap in the face has become a punch in the nose. Is there an explosion with multiple Muggle deaths? Do they reveal a nightmarish dementor face? How bad are the injuries from falling off of broomsticks and attacks by hippogriffs, dogs, cats, rats and trees? And when he loses his ability to shoot web while in mid-swing, does he fall and...oh, wait, wrong book. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendations of good non-animated "family" films for two parents and a 3-year-old?
"Rosalie B." wrote in message ... "Beth Gallagher" wrote: "Louise" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:12:13 EDT, "Beth Gallagher" wrote: I cannot imagine fast-forwarding through any part of Wizard of Oz, by the way. Isn't having nightmares about the witch an essential part of growing up?! (only half tongue-in-cheek). My general feeling is that if a kid can't I had nightmares for about a week after I read "Gone With the WInd" when I was about 15 years old. There are a whole bunch of things (including some that my grandchildren watch quite happily and unscared) which I can't stand to watch. handle essential parts of a movie, such as the Dorothy-kidnapped scene in Wizard of Oz, he should wait and see the movie when he's ready. Fast-forwarding through parts of a great movie like Wizard of Oz is like reading the "Illustrated Classics" version of Jungle Book. What's the rush? If you can just hold off for another year or two, he'll be able to see the unadulterated thing the first time around, and that experience cannot be beat. That's not necessarily so. Some of us just don't like that kind of stuff. So don't watch it! Most children will come to an age when they can handle all of a movie like the Wizard of Oz or the real version of most children's classics. Why water their experience down by editing it on first read or viewing? To some extent I see this as a matter of parental patience and self-control. There are all kinds of great books and movies I can't wait to share with my kids, but I simply need to wait until they're really ready. I still hide my eyes and/or plug my ears in parts of movies, and I flip through overly gross or violent parts of books. By your reasoning, I shouldn't see/read them at all because I can't tolerate the violent or suspenseful parts. Is the violence or suspense "an essential part" (as I said above) of the book or movie? If so, then, yeh, by my reasoning, you might as well not even do that book/movie. Why? I loved all the Oz books - I could/can read them over and over. What does this have to do with my point? The books worked for you; great. If the movie does, great; if not, don't watch it. Plus, I'm talking about how we as parents manage our kids' exposures to works of art and entertainment. If an adult wants to water something down for him/herself, that's their choice. I have on occasion let her be present while he and my DH and I watched slightly inappropriate movies that required us to cover her eyes during essential or large parts of the movie (Pirates of the Caribbean comes to mind). But I think that's a dumb thing to do! ; ) And I wouldn;'t do it for an oldest child, because it's just not necessary. They can wait. Suppose they have to wait forever? Then it's clearly not a good viewing choice for them. I, e.g., will never see the movie Seven. I've heard about it and know it would be "bad for me." yes. And generally I find that if you do need to edit out more than a few seconds of a movie, it really isn't the right movie for the audience. Beth Suppose that the parent doesn't like it and the child does? Perhaps get the other parent to watch it, if one can tolerate it? Or let the child watch it alone? Besides, I have very different feelings about these things when it comes to adults than children. How scared or traumatized can an adult really be by something a child can stand to watch? I know there are some scenes that upset me that don't upset my kids as much, like the scene in Pinocchio where the one boy is turned into a donkey and starts crying for his mom. I *hate* that scene, whereas my kids are only mildly affected by it. But I'm a big girl now; I can sit through it!! Anyway, I'm not suggesting making any of this law; it's just my personal philosophy on kids' entertainment experiences. Beth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Research: Negative effects of spanking | Chris | General | 14 | June 8th 04 07:01 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Mom goes AWOL from Iraq - says children need her at home | John Stone | General | 179 | November 18th 03 11:08 PM |