Originally Posted by Storm Bride
this kind of post boggles me.
Why 13? Why not 12? Why not 14? Why not 13 and 2 months? Age limits on this kind of thing are arbitrary.
You are right - it was arbitrary. It was a quick way to say that that is around
the age at which I'd personally consider letting my kids see a movie such as that. I thought about the kids I know, and yes - I thought that 12 seemed a little young for this movie. I really don't think that *I* should get to decide for everyone else and their kids what movies they could see and when. But I still *personally* don't understand letting a younger child see *this movie*. I wouldn't even be outraged if I saw someone bring their 10,11,12,13 yo in to the movie - I'd not understand, and I'd think about the implications of desensitizing people, children in particular to the violent images, but I wouldn't be disturbed. However - I am quite disturbed that a 2 year old and now a 4 and 5 year old were brought to that movie - and yes that is arbitrary.
And, this isn't completely on topic, but it was what I was thinking about after seeing that movie: I thought this movie should have been rated R. PG-13 implies a different sort of movie to me. To me, it implies that the movie is probably ok for a 10, 11, 12, 13-ish (broadening my arbitrary age limits to appease the masses; cost: concisenss)
I don't think this movie was. Although, truth be told, I really don't like scary movies. But it irks me that some movies are rated R because of *sex* and a movie filled with violence can be rated PG-13 or PG. I'm sure many will disagree, but this irks me. The human body and sex are a normal part of life. The violence that is in a lot of movies isn't even reminiscent of normal life.
I wonder how much ratings of movies depend of the amount of time is spent on violence or whatever R-rated things they look for. Because, while I thought I am Ledgend was really scary in parts, it *was* only parts, not the overwhelming majority. I do still think it should have been rated R.