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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
CTTS 3-year-old "family" films
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendations of good non-animated "family" films for two parents and a 3-year-old?
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:27:37 EDT, "Beth Gallagher" wrote:
So don't watch it! Most children will come to an age when they can handle all of a movie like the Wizard of Oz or the real version of most children's classics. Why water their experience down by editing it on first read or viewing? Because some stories are so wonderful that they're worth sharing well before the language of the original book or the scary scenes of a movie are appropriate. Because some kids have learning disabilities or other reading troubles, and their parents try to expose their imaginations to lots of stories, including ones which their peers might be reading in the original. Because the flying monkey sequence and the dead witch of the East under the house are small parts of the Wizard of Oz movie, and it's possible not to pay attention to those parts and still enjoy the movie. Because we encourage our kids to make their own critical judgements of story treatments (comparing a "Disney version" with its written sources, for example, or reading fan-fiction tributes to a beloved television show and discussing how the amateur writers succeed at duplicating the flavour of the characters' interactions). I recently watched a couple of plays with teenagers. For one play, one young person had read part of the book in the original French and complained about the quality of the translation in our library, and the other one knew the story from a Wishbone television episode. For my part, I didn't know the story at all, but someone at my workplace gave me a capsule version from a movie, and I then bought an English translation to read later. I am glad that we had so many choices of how to enjoy this story (play, movie, Wishbone, English translation abridged or not), without having to wade through a very thick book written in old-fashioned French. I take the young person's word for it that the language in the original adds to the storytelling, but I still probably won't read it. Louise |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendations of good non-animated "family" films for two parents and a 3-year-old?
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 15:58:40 EDT, Lee wrote:
jjmoreta said: If you're worried about certain depictions in movies, there's a Christian ministry (CAP) that analyzes movies for all sorts of things and reviews them in excruciating detail (each review lists specific examples of violence, sex, etc). That might be a good guide for you concerning more current movies - http://www.capalert.com/capmarstartpage.htm. I've never found their reviews to be of much help, perhaps because their point of view is very different from mine. Harry Potter is an obvious example. They go on about the movie being 38% more "Offensive to God" than the previous two episodes, but don't tell me about how some of the violence in the book is handled visually. I can tell from the commercials that the slap in the face has become a punch in the nose. Is there an explosion with multiple Muggle deaths? Do they reveal a nightmarish dementor face? How bad are the injuries from falling off of broomsticks and attacks by hippogriffs, dogs, cats, rats and trees? And when he loses his ability to shoot web while in mid-swing, does he fall and...oh, wait, wrong book. This kind of thing is what www.screenit.com is really good at. They discuss each movie under a lot of different criteria (such as suspenseful "jump" scenes and music, topics to discuss as a family, disrespectful behaviour, alcohol and drug use, and so on as well as the sex and violence parts) in a way that I keep describing as "non-judgemental" even though that sounds kinda funny. You can probably find answers to all those questions (except the Spiderman one) at screenit. . Louise |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendations of good non-animated "family" films for two parents and a 3-year-old?
Beth Gallagher wrote:
So don't watch it! Most children will come to an age when they can handle all of a movie like the Wizard of Oz or the real version of most children's classics. Why water their experience down by editing it on first read or viewing? I have no problem with your opinion, but it seems rather idiosyncratic, and I think you're pushing it a bit much as a suggestion for others. I don't think it takes anything away from books, movies, etc., for younger children to enjoy the parts that are appropriate for them, and wait for the rest until they are older. I don't have a problem with Illustrated Classics, either! -- David desJardins |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendations of good non-animated "family" films for two parents and a 3-year-old?
In article , David desJardins wrote:
Beth Gallagher wrote: So don't watch it! Most children will come to an age when they can handle all of a movie like the Wizard of Oz or the real version of most children's classics. Why water their experience down by editing it on first read or viewing? I have no problem with your opinion, but it seems rather idiosyncratic, and I think you're pushing it a bit much as a suggestion for others. I don't think it takes anything away from books, movies, etc., for younger children to enjoy the parts that are appropriate for them, and wait for the rest until they are older. I don't have a problem with Illustrated Classics, either! I think, that if you read rec.arts.books.children, you'd find many people who found it objectionable to water down books for children. It is not an unusual opinion---definitely not idiosyncratic. Sometimes there are uses for such books (for example, we read a "stories from Shakespeare" version of a play before going to see the real thing, so that our son could follow the action despite the difficulty of the language---this worked very well last year when he was 7). -- Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels) Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed) Professor of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics Affiliations for identification only. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendations of good non-animated "family" films for two parents and a 3-year-old?
Hi - Interesting thread about books watered down for kids. I have to admit, I've never watered down anything for my two. I *have* edited which books I offered them (until they were old enough to wander the library on their own), and when I read aloud I often stop to explain things that they might not already understand, but I really dislike abridge books, etc. I also don't let my kids watch most movies unless they've already read the book. (Some movies are better as movies than as books, even if the book came out first. "Mary Poppins" comes to mind right away ...) My husband and I disagree on this topic, but he doesn't care so much so my view tends to prevail. (We did let our younger son see the Harry Potter flicks, even though he can't really read the books yet, but that's a rare exception.) My feeling is that the reason a book is a classic has a lot to do with the writing, and not just the story line. Yes, you can get something out of an abridged version, but you lose a great deal as well. And many kids will either *think* they already know the book, hence not read it again when they're ready for the real thing, or else be turned off by the abridged version when they would have loved the real thing when read at the right time. So yes, there is a downside to seeing the movie first, reading an abridged version, etc. Just my thoughts, --Beth Kevles http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner. NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the AOL one if you would like me to reply. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendations of good non-animated "family" films for two parents and a 3-year-old?
"Beth Kevles" wrote in message ... Interesting thread about books watered down for kids. I have to admit, I've never watered down anything for my two. I *have* edited which books I offered them (until they were old enough to wander the library on their own), and when I read aloud I often stop to explain things that they might not already understand, but I really dislike abridge books, etc. I also don't let my kids watch most movies unless they've already read the book. (Some movies are better as movies than as books, even if the book came out first. "Mary Poppins" comes to mind right away ...) My daughter badly wants to see the "Lord of the Rings" movies. I'd really prefer she read the books, first, but even I can see that I might be expecting a bit too much (even though I read them myself when I was in the summer of third grade). I *have* told her, though, that she needs to at least read "The Hobbit." My husband thinks I'm being a Mean Mommy, and maybe I am, but reading the books was and is important to me. I have to admit that, in part, it's a stalling technique: The Kid may well be fearless, but even I found the Nazguls in the movie a little intimidating. The movies are awfully dark for a kid, but then again, so were the books. (We did let our younger son see the Harry Potter flicks, even though he can't really read the books yet, but that's a rare exception.) My daughter is old enough that she had read the "Harry Potter" books before seeing the films. I haven't heard much about the new "Harry Potter" movie, by the way. We'll see it no matter what, but I am wondering how they handle the Dementors. Those guys are as creepy as a Nazgul any day. (Please, no one tell me too much and spoil the movie for me, though!) By the way, I liked the "Mary Poppins" books growing up. beeswing |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
CTTS 3-year-old "family" films
In article ,
LFortier wrote: What kind of looks do you get when he refers to the kinky movie outside the home? :-) Fortunately, this hasn't come up yet ;-) --Robyn |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendations of good non-animated "family" films for two parents and a 3-year-old?
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Recommendations of good non-animated "family" films for two parents and a 3-year-old?
"David desJardins" wrote in message ... Beth Gallagher wrote: So don't watch it! Most children will come to an age when they can handle all of a movie like the Wizard of Oz or the real version of most children's classics. Why water their experience down by editing it on first read or viewing? I have no problem with your opinion, but it seems rather idiosyncratic, and I think you're pushing it a bit much as a suggestion for others. I don't think it takes anything away from books, movies, etc., for younger children to enjoy the parts that are appropriate for them, and wait for the rest until they are older. I don't have a problem with Illustrated Classics, either! Well, the exception I make to my own guideline is that if the work is really for adults, then a child reading or seeing an edited or adapted version may not, in some cases, be so bad. My thinking is that, by the time they get around to reading the real thing, it will be a completely new experience for them, and so the earlier, edited/adapted version will not interfere with the experience of the "real thing." So, my eldest read the Illustated Classics version of Dracula; I knew it would be a decade or more before he read the original. I think this would be less true for entertainment or art intended for kids, in which case there may be only a 1- or 2-year gap between the time the child reads/sees the edited version and the time (s)he is ready to see/read the real thing. Note also that I'm not necessarily talking about not letting a child see an entirely different version of a story, e.g., Disney movie vs. Grimm Bros. translation or the Wizard of Oz movie vs the book. Those cases need to be taken individually. I'm talking about single versions, e.g. The Wizard of Oz movie with fast-forwarding vs without. And if you're talking about a piece of crap, . . . well, feel free to fast-forward/edit/etc. to one's delight. My interest is in preserving, for my own kids, great cultural experiences, not in being a purist for its own sake. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Research: Negative effects of spanking | Chris | General | 14 | June 8th 04 07:01 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Mom goes AWOL from Iraq - says children need her at home | John Stone | General | 179 | November 18th 03 11:08 PM |