Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you didn't want your eyes covered, then why did you go with your parents??? You say you're 17. The movie has an "R" rating. You're old enough to go by yourself or with your (17 & up) friends.
It was a last minute thing. My parents and I were already out, and randomly decided to go catch a movie. It's not like any of this was planned.
I'm not sure how I feel about screenings beforehand either. My friend will go pay to see a movie by herself, then if she deems it appropriate, pays to take the kids too. So assuming it's a $6.00 matinee (just a generic price there), she paid once for herself. Initial screening. Then paid for herself again, along with her two kids the second time. Then add the popcorn, candy, and drinks. We're looking at $30-40 for a movie.
I don't know. I'd do my best to get info about the movie online (meaning from people who've seen it), trust the ratings, and that's it. You can't shield kids from everything. You can just do your best.
Maybe they went as a family and didn't know that was going to happen in the movie and that is just how the OP's parents reacted.
I still on occasion will go to the movies with my mom and brother.
I think it can be a reasonable expectation at 17 that you can go to a movie with your family and NOT have your parents trying to cover your eyes. This probably never happened before, and I bet the OP will not be so keen to see other movies with his parents. So problem solved- at the cost of family bonding.
But really, I think what probably happened here wasn't so much about the OP's parents thinking he needed to be shielded or couldn't handle it. Something unexpectedly graphic and sexual came up, and they got embarrassed. In a sense they were really the ones who couldn't handle it, and thus the reaction. My dad still squirms if we're watching something and there's a very bland, brief sex scene.
But the idea that adult or very nearly adult children shouldn't attend movies with their parents or if they do should expect to have their eyes covered- sorry, I think mommy and daddy have some growing up to do.
I'm not sure how I feel about screenings beforehand either. My friend will go pay to see a movie by herself, then if she deems it appropriate, pays to take the kids too. So assuming it's a $6.00 matinee (just a generic price there), she paid once for herself. Initial screening. Then paid for herself again, along with her two kids the second time. Then add the popcorn, candy, and drinks. We're looking at $30-40 for a movie.
I don't know. I'd do my best to get info about the movie online (meaning from people who've seen it), trust the ratings, and that's it. You can't shield kids from everything. You can just do your best.
themoviespoiler.com is a great site if you really want to know every point of the plot
Shoot, I covered my own eyes during the sodomy/rape scene and I am a jaded, cynical, grown man. That was one of the most shocking rape sequences I have ever seen in a film, yet it definitely served its purpose for the story and character development which is to say it was not gratuitous.
I wouldn't cover a 17 year-old's eyes over the 'regular' sex scenes though. Sex is sex, while violence, especially when depicting rape or hurting someone who is helpless, is disgusting and definitely age-inappropriate for younger viewers. Whether 17 years is age appropriate is an individual matter.
Shoot, I covered my own eyes during the sodomy/rape scene and I am a jaded, cynical, grown man. That was one of the most shocking rape sequences I have ever seen in a film, yet it definitely served its purpose for the story and character development which is to say it was not gratuitous.
I wouldn't cover a 17 year-old's eyes over the 'regular' sex scenes though. Sex is sex, while violence, especially when depicting rape or hurting someone who is helpless, is disgusting and definitely age-inappropriate for younger viewers. Whether 17 years is age appropriate is an individual matter.
Due to the extreme graphic nature (as you've described), I can honestly say that I might panic and try to cover my child's eyes...or at the very least, tell THEM to cover their eyes. My hands probably would have been busy covering my OWN eyes! I don't personally know too many parents who would be comfortable watching a pornographic scene with their child, especially one in which someone is being sodomized!
Again, I have to question the sickness quotient of these film makers. This is NOT art or some media-worthy entity. Choreographing such pornography needs to be made illegal for general viewing, or they can can it like some NC-17 which is what is provided for bizarre/sick movies.
And the sick person who wrote the book. And those who endorse it. Slowly and gradually, everything is getting acceptable on film and social culture.
For those that have not seen the movie, this is not a sex scene, but an extremely violent rape.
Thanks for the heads up. I wouldn't cover my 15 yr old's eyes because I'd never take her to such a movie. Before we go to movies, I always check them out here.
Here's an excellent review of that movie. This review includes spoilers, so if you don't want to know about the movie, don't read it. You can just scroll down to violent content to see just how graphic the rapes are.
I, too, appreciate the heads up. It is a movie which I will be sure to warn my children about and avoid as well. I watch movies which entertain me and I am surely not in the least entertained by that type of content. Like AC, I do not find that to be "art" or media-worthy. I'm quite sure some would disagree, but to each his own. It's certainly not child-appropriate material.
Again, I have to question the sickness quotient of these film makers. This is NOT art or some media-worthy entity. Choreographing such pornography needs to be made illegal for general viewing, or they can can it like some NC-17 which is what is provided for bizarre/sick movies.
And the sick person who wrote the book. And those who endorse it. Slowly and gradually, everything is getting acceptable on film and social culture.
I don't mind if you question the film makers' sickness quotient, or if you think the book is sick. That's certainly your prerogative.
But I take exception to you wanting to make it illegal. Obviously, your definition of art and mine aren't the same, so I'd prefer it if you just exercised your right to not watch it and left my right to do so alone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
