Members in Chat:
BertieBot, Gildebot_LockHart | |
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.
| | Harry Potter News Latest news and rumors about the Harry Potter world! | Vote for SS! 
06-05-2004, 06:40 AM
| | | 
M rating not a worry for Harry - Summary:
With the rating of M for the new Potter film, audeinces are saying there is nothing to worry about Article:
Thanks to Wizardnews Quote: There may be a werewolf and a giant spider, not to mention dementors who suck the life essence out of humans.
But the first Australian children to see the new Harry Potter movie shrugged the monsters away. Not too scary, was their verdict - and their parents agreed.
The movie's distributor, Village Roadshow, is appealing against an M15+ rating for Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. It is a tougher classification from the Federal Office of Film and Literature than the PG for previous Potter movies.
Before its release next week on mainland screens, and even ahead of the premiere in the US, the latest instalment of the series has been released in Tasmania to coincide with the state's school holidays. Yesterday queues snaked outside Village's central Hobart cinema despite polar air and snow on Mount Wellington.
Some waiting in line were unaware of the classification, such as Birgit Tanase of Berriedale and her 10-year-old son Jay. "M rating?" she said. "Well, I think Jay has travelled extensively around the globe and is used to things. I'm sure Harry Potter can do no harm."
Others had heard of it, among them a group of 14-year-old schoolgirls at the head of the queue. "If you've read the book, you're not worried," said one, Jodie Bosworth. Frances Atkinson added: "It's not a horror movie. It hasn't got anything sexual. It's fantasy."
Many of the audience for the morning shows were teenagers, but parents accompanied younger children, including what seemed to be a large number of nine-year-olds.
"Nine is about the age that children start on Harry Potter," said Karin Eickhoff, who took her son Aaron. He enjoyed it. "It was better than the last two, but not scary," Aaron said.
An appeal against the film's classification is due to be heard on Tuesday, two days before the movie's release in other states. Cinemas are divided over whether the rating is a marketing disaster or a side issue, given that the audience for the series is growing up.
One rival distributor, who asked not to be named, said the buzz about the movie being darker could limit the under-12 audience unless the rating was changed to PG.
"If it's between maybe Shrek 2 and Harry Potter, they might go with Shrek 2 because it's PG."
The marketing director for 20th Century Fox, John Scott, admitted to worrying about whether to take his own six-year-old, who has read all the Potter books but has never seen an M movie.
"I'm a little bit torn as a parent," he said. "Half of me thinks he'll get it but the other half feels quite responsible for exposing him to something like that. I think a lot of parents will be having the same deliberation."
But Mr Scott thought the popularity of the series and the strong British opening suggested the rating would have only a marginal impact on box office.
"It's definitely going to be one of the biggest grossing films of the year," he said | SMH  | |
06-05-2004, 07:44 AM
|
#2 (permalink)
| 
Madam Malkin's Mod
Forever Hufflepuff
Quill Editor Basilisk
Location: 20, Diagon Alley Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 42,362
Hogwarts RPG Name:
Garret Crocker
Second Year |
its not scary at all! just way better than the first 2 movies. the books are always best anyway. if u cant watch the movie,just read the book=you'll get more out of it. and wait for the movei to come out on dvd,then u can watch it anytime anyday! thats better anyway. | 
| | |
06-05-2004, 08:56 AM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
Location: USA Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,369
|
i don't know what to say but i think it looks ok to me.  :sorcerer: | |
| | |
06-05-2004, 05:07 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 200
|
There was a kid behind me that was about 7 or 8 that was completely terrified of Lupin as a werewolf and asked to go home. The funny thing about that was that the parents were so into it, they refused to leave! I think that it is a little scary for the younger kids, but that anyone over 11 should be able to handle it well. | |
| | |
06-05-2004, 07:33 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
|
Location: england Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 67
|
its not scary but it has more action | |
| | |
06-06-2004, 05:49 AM
|
#6 (permalink)
|
Location: Michigan Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 12
|
Quote: | \"If it's between maybe Shrek 2 and Harry Potter, they might go with Shrek 2 because it's PG.\" | Having seen both films this really irritates me. Who decided that sexual innuendo like that in Shrek is more acceptable for children than scary imagery? I suppose we have to trust parents to know what their children can and can't handle. :online2long: | |
| | |
06-06-2004, 11:36 AM
|
#7 (permalink)
|
Location: Somewhere dreaming quietly of Matt Bellamy... Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,211
|
My brother and sister are 6 and 7 and the horror elements didn't faze them at all. Yeah, they thought the werewolf was scary and the dementors were creepy, but they weren't having nightmares or anything. Mind you, I thought that jack-in-the-box snake was pretty disturbing.
God, that awful Crossroads movie was rated PG in our local cinema; all these five-year-old Britney fans were asking the parent in charge, "What's virginity?" I was disgusted. And a werewolf is worse? | |
| | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On | | | All times are GMT. The time now is 10:18 PM. |
