Angel: Eve. So, I guess we should, I don't know, talk? Eve: About what? Angel: About what happened back there with us. Eve: Angel, it's not like this is the first time I've had sex under a mystical influence. I went to U.C. Santa Cruz.

'Life of the Party'


Buffista Movies 7: Brides for 7 Samurai  

A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.


flea - Dec 07, 2012 12:49:50 pm PST #23070 of 30000
information libertarian

Both, since both contribute to the film's inappropriateness for children. Why do you ask?


§ ita § - Dec 07, 2012 1:17:36 pm PST #23071 of 30000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

I'm wondering what are practical solutions. It's pretty clear PJ is endemically unable to not put all the Tolkien in, so it would take more movies to accomplish the same OCD nerdery with shorter run times, and people are already pissed enough.

It would seem possible to be less scary more easily than shorter, but the risk of not having a visceral effect on the adults is probably not going to be broached. I don't have any young associations with the book, so I'm surprised when I hear four year old fans of it--I read it at age 11 or so, so the movie would probably be perfectly designed to freaky my shit in a way I enjoy.

It's impossible for me to put aside childless bias, but I think PG-13 is more appropriate for the world and threats I remember than PG, especially with him returning to a universe that had been constructed for an adult movie in the first place.

I can't really see him doing much other than PG-13, basically. I don't know enough about movie demographics to say if charged up adults represent a bigger potential pot than going PG and lightening the scare factor.


flea - Dec 07, 2012 1:40:02 pm PST #23072 of 30000
information libertarian

From a Hollywood perspective, and having already done very successful adult movies, the choices make sense. But The Hobbit as a book is pitched really young in tone - I'd say it's pitched at about 8 years old. It's funny to read, as an adult, because the plot is pretty objectively scary, but because of the brevity and the voice of the book, it doesn't scare children. It comes off as more gee-whiz adventure.


§ ita § - Dec 07, 2012 1:48:42 pm PST #23073 of 30000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

Tolkien was a chatty guy. He must have written down the age he was aiming at when he wrote it, no? Being appropriate for and pitched at don't have to have the same answer.


Tom Scola - Dec 07, 2012 2:00:31 pm PST #23074 of 30000
hwæt

Rayner Unwin was the son of publisher Sir Stanley Unwin of the publishing firm George Allen & Unwin.

Young Unwin was a test subject for the firm; his father believed that children were the best judges of what made good children's books. He was paid one shilling for each written report, and in Rayner Unwin's own words, it was "good money in those days". In 1936, at the age of 10, he was asked to review The Hobbit, a book by J.R.R. Tolkien:”

“Bilbo Baggins was a Hobbit who lived in his Hobbit hole and never went for adventures, at last Gandalf the wizard and his Dwarves persuaded him to go. He had a very exiting (sic) time fighting goblins and wargs. At last they get to the lonely mountain; Smaug, the dragon who guards it is killed and after a terrific battle with the goblins he returned home — rich!

This book, with the help of maps, does not need any illustrations it is good and should appeal to all children between the ages of 5 and 9.”


megan walker - Dec 07, 2012 2:33:15 pm PST #23075 of 30000
"What kind of magical sunshine and lollipop world do you live in? Because you need to be medicated."-SFist

The Tolkien Professor (a former colleague), who did a whole podcast lecture series on The Hobbit a few years ago said he was specifically disappointed that they were doing The Hobbit after LotR because they were so different in tone and they would have to darken and change what is so clearly a children's story to make it fit into the LotR framework.


P.M. Marc - Dec 07, 2012 2:38:21 pm PST #23076 of 30000
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear

I do not remember how many times I had to sit through the LotR trilogy during Lilly's grade 1 obsession with it.

If she ever finishes The Hobbit (she refuses, because Smaug is her boo), I'm going to have to watch all those over and over again with a small child. I have no parental objections, as my small child found the live-action human violence less terrifying than she finds cartoon violence.

(Up made her run from the theatre in terror. The Winnie the Pooh movie that came out at some point recently, same thing. Helm's Deep? Walk in the park.)


§ ita § - Dec 07, 2012 3:38:56 pm PST #23077 of 30000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

Interesting, Tom. What I found said he didn't consider it a children's book (from Wikipedia too), so there might not be agreement.


Atropa - Dec 07, 2012 4:26:20 pm PST #23078 of 30000
The artist formerly associated with cupcakes.

as my small child found the live-action human violence less terrifying than she finds cartoon violence.

This is why she won't watch Nightmare Before Christmas with me, isn't it? Hmmm, maybe she'll be okay with Beetlejuice.


DavidS - Dec 07, 2012 4:38:09 pm PST #23079 of 30000
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."

Hmmm, maybe she'll be okay with Beetlejuice.

Both of my kids were able to watch Beetlejuice very early, and were only somewhat frightened by the hellish wedding scene at the end.