Appropriate for Children
Valérie
I know this has been talked about before, but I don't recall what the
general consensus was... What do you think would be the best "first
King book"? Eyes of the Dragon? I'm thinking that would be it, but
I'd also like someone to refresh my memory on any 'difficult' scenes
in the book. Like emotionally painful and the like...
Off topic (spoiler for City Slickers... stop reading now if you
haven't seen it and mind a **very** minor spoiler, imo), but on the
same line of 'appropriate for children', Ryan watched City Slickers
with us this weekend and really loved it. He didn't realize that
Norman's mother got shot, until I told him after the movie was over.
And (spoiler for Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls coming up next...) the
very beginning scene with the racoon in Ace Ventura had him
*screaming*! It was **horrible**! Especially since Ron and I
convinced him to get off the computer and come watch it with us,
thinking he'd really love it (which he did, after that scene). If I
had known, I would have waited until *after* the scene was over to get
him to come over. We tried to explain it was a parody of a different
movie, but it didn't help in the slightest.
Valérie
---
Harry Browne for President
For more info, please go to:
http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
Jon R.
Valérie wrote:
>
> I know this has been talked about before, but I don't recall what the
> general consensus was... What do you think would be the best "first
> King book"? Eyes of the Dragon? I'm thinking that would be it, but
> I'd also like someone to refresh my memory on any 'difficult' scenes
> in the book. Like emotionally painful and the like...
> very beginning scene with the racoon in Ace Ventura had him
> *screaming*! It was **horrible**! Especially since Ron and I
> convinced him to get off the computer and come watch it with us,
> thinking he'd really love it (which he did, after that scene). If I
> had known, I would have waited until *after* the scene was over to get
> him to come over. We tried to explain it was a parody of a different
> movie, but it didn't help in the slightest.
> Valérie
Hello Valerie,
EotD is safe. No animals are killed, only humans. *sigh*
Jon R.
-It really is safe-
sari nichols
Valérie wrote:
>
> I know this has been talked about before, but I don't recall what the
> general consensus was... What do you think would be the best "first
> King book"? Eyes of the Dragon? I'm thinking that would be it, but
> I'd also like someone to refresh my memory on any 'difficult' scenes
> in the book. Like emotionally painful and the like...
>
> haven't seen it and mind a **very** minor spoiler, imo), but on the
> same line of 'appropriate for children', Ryan watched City Slickers
> with us this weekend and really loved it. He didn't realize that
> Norman's mother got shot, until I told him after the movie was over.
>
> very beginning scene with the racoon in Ace Ventura had him
> *screaming*! It was **horrible**! Especially since Ron and I
> convinced him to get off the computer and come watch it with us,
> thinking he'd really love it (which he did, after that scene). If I
> had known, I would have waited until *after* the scene was over to get
> him to come over. We tried to explain it was a parody of a different
> movie, but it didn't help in the slightest.
> Valérie
two questions: how old is your son, and do you look at the ratings on
movies? My son is four and I would never let him see an "ACE" movie,
didn't that movie have a high rating?
There is nothing wrong with THE EYES OF THE DRAGON, I personaly would
read that to my child before I let him watch a Jim Carry movie. The
young boy Peter(I think that is his name) is a great role model for a
child of any age. Can not say the same for Jim Carry.
millsaul
sari nichols wrote:
> two questions: how old is your son, and do you look at the ratings on
> movies? My son is four and I would never let him see an "ACE" movie,
> didn't that movie have a high rating?
> There is nothing wrong with THE EYES OF THE DRAGON, I personaly would
> read that to my child before I let him watch a Jim Carry movie. The
> young boy Peter(I think that is his name) is a great role model for a
> child of any age. Can not say the same for Jim Carry.
Just to add something on a general level re: kids and books and kids and
movies ...
I think that generally speaking books are less likely to be disturbing to
kids than movies or TV because the impact of books depends on the reader
and his or her imagination ... movies put it right in your face with so
much less room for the individual to "shield" themselves.
Stevie Canuck
--
Blackbird singing in the dead of night
Take these broken wings and learn to fly ...
Lennon and McCartney
Dark Penguin
In article <3253E6...@rogerswave.ca>, millsaul <mill...@rogerswave.ca>
wrote:
>Just to add something on a general level re: kids and books and kids and
>movies ...
>
>I think that generally speaking books are less likely to be disturbing to
>kids than movies or TV because the impact of books depends on the reader
>and his or her imagination ... movies put it right in your face with so
>much less room for the individual to "shield" themselves.
A tough question! On the one hand, I agree. One significant difference
between reading and watching a TV show or movie is that reading is more of
a mentally active process, whereas TV/movie viewing is more passive. I
think a child reading a horror story would feel more in control, not as apt
to be overwhelmed by violent or shocking images.
OTOH, I gave my teenaged cousin Salem's Lot to read, and it gave her
nightmares for days. The problem being, if you _are_ an imaginative kid,
the horrors your own mind conjures up can be so much worse than anything
they put on a TV or movie screen.
So...I can't really say one way or the other. I guess it depends on the
individual.
--
Bryan Byun bb...@linkline.com
______________________________________
Today I saw a red-and-yellow sunset and thought,
How insignificant I am! Of course, I thought that
yesterday, too, and it rained. -- Woody Allen
Postmaster
In article <bbyun-ya02308000...@news.linkline.com>, Dark
Penguin <bb...@linkline.com> writes
>In article <3253E6...@rogerswave.ca>, millsaul <mill...@rogerswave.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>Just to add something on a general level re: kids and books and kids and
>>movies ...
>>
>>I think that generally speaking books are less likely to be disturbing to
>>kids than movies or TV because the impact of books depends on the reader
>>and his or her imagination ... movies put it right in your face with so
>>much less room for the individual to "shield" themselves.
>
>A tough question! On the one hand, I agree. One significant difference
>between reading and watching a TV show or movie is that reading is more of
>a mentally active process, whereas TV/movie viewing is more passive. I
>think a child reading a horror story would feel more in control, not as apt
>to be overwhelmed by violent or shocking images.
>
>OTOH, I gave my teenaged cousin Salem's Lot to read, and it gave her
>nightmares for days. The problem being, if you _are_ an imaginative kid,
>the horrors your own mind conjures up can be so much worse than anything
>they put on a TV or movie screen.
>
>So...I can't really say one way or the other. I guess it depends on the
>individual.
>
films a lot scarier than books. I can't explain why, but I suppose I
can't handle seeing the pictures. When I read The Shinning I didn't find
that particully scary, but the film was pretty scary!
--
Pete