Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Yes or no?
Apart from the violence there's that bit about the hospital porter charging people while she's in a coma... I could barely get my head round that, let alone an 11 year old.
They're familiar with such concepts - appalling as they are
And the point of the film is revenge, for this and other crimes against the Bride
But yeah - I'm 50/50 on it even though war films and murder are tv/cinema staples and the news is atrocities 24/7
I think it would be good for them to see a female lead character kicking ass for a change
they may not want it.. thus the decision is made for you.
or you could be a rebel and let them watch whatever they want like cool dads do
But to reply. I think that there is only so much you can shelter young adults from. The key thing is to ensure that they are all ok with it ( no little violet getting dragging into watching it against her will) and no parents going to go bush.
Thinking about it, when i was a kid (albeit a little older than 11 I suppose) me and my mates would watch all sorts of things we shouldn't have from our parents' video collections and the like. And that was before the internet, so I guess it's much easier for kids to watch whatever they want now without any parental mediation.
That said, I think i'd have thought it a bit weird if my or my mates' parents had actually said we could watch it, though.
had a friend whos dad used to let us get whatever we wanted from the video shop, after clarifying "are you definitely sure you want to watch this?".
could have picked anything we wanted and we always ended up going with a 70s horror shitfest.
then again, he was a dealer and we definitely were exposed to a lot more stuff than others were at that age.
Reckon it's fine, cartoonish violence. Remember growing up the local video shop would let us have anything, and 80s 18 rated violence was so much more unsettling than modern stuff.
and i turned out really well
But it's not my call for other 11 year-olds
(I don't have an 11 year-old, he's only 3)
and the manga scene (great though it is) has some dodgy stuff in.
The violence however, is fun, exciting and cartoon, so I would allow that.
Then again Im a moralising prude and so probably not the sort of person to take advice from
looks like the future children of dis are not going to be the cool kids
load up back to the future on netflix instead. you could probably charge them 53 quid each for it.
They might not enjoy it as much as films targetted towards them but if they REALLY want to see it there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
buffy the vampire slayer (movie)
a league of their own
we are the best!
this is a good website to check age-appropriateness of stuff:
Most likely it'll go largely over their heads anyway.
My Dad wasn't too shy about showing me higher age-rated films when I was a kid, and I think it did my taste in films a world of good over the long run.
You've got to respect a kid's intelligence if you want them to mature, something I think a lot of kids' media fails to do these days.
also confused about what the word trolling means
Not confused by what trolling means - it is a post by in_limbo
Many of the most powerful films explore subjects commonly thought of as unsuitable for children, and being exposed to that from an early age is far more likely to stoke a kid's imagination than just being put in front of Space Jam or whatever other family-friendly dreck was around at the time to shut them up. I'm not the biggest film buff in the world but I used to work in an independent cinema and was able to hold my own in conversations with the uber-nerds who frequented it. Doubt I'd have the same diverse experiences with film if I'd waited 'til I was 18 for my first forays into more difficult material.
However, in the context of the OP you would be making a choice on the behalf of the parents of the other girls, and would probably not be in a position to make an informed judgement of the maturity/intelligence of the other girls.
Would you say that there is a difference between films 'commonly' thought of as being unsuitable for children, and films which are most assuredly not suitable? Does the benefit of opening up children to more thought provoking films require the inclusion of particularly violent films?
but in relation to the title of this thread, Kill Bill isn't that great and I don't think it has the power to cultivate a particularly fine taste in young minds.
On the 11 year old. And her friends of course. You need to try to cater to the lowest common denominator if you can because in a group of that age, they will be at different stages of development and what is manageable for some in the group might be too much for others.
11 is a hard age, when I was 11 I was reproductively mature but very much still a little girl because of a sheltered upbringing. I suspect Sweden is quite different when it comes to the latter.
I wouldn't say No outright, but I'd consider issues like parental consent and apart from any obvious issues be inclined to let them scare themselves to shit.
My class selected one of the Alien films, then got scared and watched something else. If they're not enjoying it they'll just watch something else.
My teacher showed us interview with a vampire and it made me hate vampires. And Brad Pitt.
Kill bill might turn out to be a bit slow in parts and then gratuitously rough in others (for them) and they'll self select by turning on to something else.
So you can gauge who's okay with what as they pick.
yeah, why not
when i was 11 and having sleepovers with my friend we watched loads of sex stuff that was on tv (her parents seemed to have unlimited cable access). i think you should more or less leave them to it and not worry too much about what they see. as long as the other parents arent gonna have a massive go at you, it's alright. also remember watching american pie for someone's 10th birthday party, like entirely sanctioned by the parents. like ok here is your party bag now american pie. hahaha such a weird film to show to a bunch of 10 year olds for so many reasons.
i'd be really annoyed if someone had decided that i was too young to watch them or something. they're really age appropriate for 11 year olds imo.
to me it seems if they want to watch it it suggests that people there age are watching it, and if people their age are watching it it is probably ok for that age group to be watching it or at least normal, and inevitable that they will watch it (possibly just without permission), being not allowed would just be really frustrating and could drive a wedge between parents and children (know that sounds a bit over the top for this example, but if parents continiously tried to impose standards on their children different to their peers). Probably irrelevant to his question as you're not talking about banning it, just whether its suitable for this situation, probably fine if other parents are ok with it, if they're not asked they would probably be annoyed even if they would have been ok with it.
dead and buried
^^^would "do their taste in films a world of good"
^definitely would "improve their taste in films"
grubby lube coma rape?
coolest dad in town!
What Would Si_Badvibes do?
It's a party let them be a bit rebellious, there's enough years they'll have to put up with doing shit they don't want to
None of that it's too gross/violent shit actually matters
None of that it's not even a good film stuff actually matters
What their parents think probably matters the least out of all of it
In conclusion, buy them a litre of vodka
I saw it at 11 and I wasn't traumatised by it. I thought it was a load of shit actually. Violence is generally fine. It's just things like drug abuse which children of that age shouldn't be watching. (I wasn't allowed to watch Trainspotting until I was 18)
also kids might get picked on if their parents abide too closely to the age ratings.
think trainspotting is fine too, possibly even a very good film to show children, doesn't glamourise drugs too much and shows the consequences, can't imagine a kid thinking heroin is a good idea after watching it.
is the weakest argument in this thread.
Parents are moral guardians and at that age if you agree to let a child watch something like that you are explicitly endorsing the content regardless of whether you can assess they understand the context of what's happening in it.
Plus, 90% of the pleasure of these films as a kid is finding it for yourself, the illicit nature - non-parent approved naughtiness.
But as to your first point about explicitly endorsing the content of Kill Bill, what effect do you believe this would actually have?
Please tell me we're creating a group of 11 year old samurai killers
and I don't want to come over all Mary Whitehouse....
It's just the choice of film and the age of 11 slides into a grey area for me. KB is a bit morally ambiguous towards violence and the concepts of revenge need some understanding. 13 or 14 year old and I could get behind it a bit more.
I guess I'm just wondering whether there's an age where a film dictates an attitude / view on life on a child before you've had a chance to cement your own / the right view in the kid. Good and bad are done and dusted early doors but more complex adult stuff?
The idea that seeing a film once might effect someone's morality so intensely.
Or that, if they do, we must shelter children from grey areas of morality. Life is full of this. We need to challenge them as early as possible.
The idea that it would dictate it that harshly is pretty absurd to me. It's more likely just going to scare them a bit which let's be honest is most of the fun behind doing it.
I don't get what endorsing its content means, if an adult thinks this is a good film then they would 'endorse its content' for other adults, age appropriateness is separate to that, its whether you think a film could do harm to a child watching it. If a parent said they do not endorse the content it would be a film they do not think is suitable for anyone.
didn't explain that well, but it basically comes down to adults saying 'this is ok for us but not for you' which is of course an appropriate stance to take at some ages but will become a source of tension as children get older, and thats the thing I think people should be aware of , should be about judging their intelligence, maturity, what is normal for their peer group etc. Im surprised by how many people here are dead against it, expect a lot of people will have watched films before they should, not felt harmed by it, and would have probably felt they missed out if they hadn't.
is checking the emotional, intellectual and maturity of the kid against the content of the film before showing it to them. Will they be negatively effected? Do they understand the context? Does it fit with the morality I've taught them?
Where we disagree is around what the peer group are doing or whether they'll feel they're missing out. Sure, they might not be cool in school for not seeing something but if they're not ready for the concepts or content then as a parent that's a judgement call.
id expect the two to be fairly aligned though, if most parents are ok with it you don't want to be the overprotective one whose kids miss out, and I do think idealistic parents ideals having different standards to what is considered ok for most other kids is probably worse for a kid than being exposed to something a bit mature for them (probably incredibly bias on this due to my weird religious upbringing).
would only have problems about showing kids stuff that was tonally unpleasant or cruel like the gta games or something. everyone was playing vice city when I was ~11 though so idk
I think it would be alright otherwise unless there's some other unpleasant bits i've forgotten
mind don't show them Kill Bill 2 unless you want to bore them to death
it's a crap film
Is relatively non violent and generally great for any age. (over ten)
For a Girl Power thing I'd go for Sucker Punch as I found that quite empowering. (admittedly Snyder films can be balls but I liked it a lot).
Nothing more embarrassing.