I read an article on CNN.com that has me a bit annoyed.

The article, titled “Parents upset, bored by ‘Where the Wild Things Are,'” tells all about how so many parents are upset with the film version of Maurice Sendak’s 1963 classic book about a boy who throws a temper tantrum, is sent to his room without dinner and subsequently imagines a world inhabited by “wild things” where he feels important and has a place until he ultimately misses his family.

For those of you who didn’t read this book as a child, I deeply mourn for your loss. It is, hands down, one of my favorite books of my childhood. Go read it immediately.

I will also admit that I have not yet seen the film. My annoyance does not come from a personal disagreement with how parents view this film but instead the ridiculous conflict between gripes.

In the article, one parent states the film didn’t have “enough of a fear element-there wasn’t a moment where my (20-month-old) was crying.”

And that’s a problem? Why is this father so upset that his child wasn’t in fear throughout the whole film? Does he want his son to be crying in the theater, then at home as soon as the lights go out? Insanity.

Another parent said he had a problem with too many frightening and violent scenes in the film. Apparently his young daughter saw the film then came home and threw a temper tantrum of her own then threatened to run away to “where the wild things are.”

You don’t say? A young child throwing a temper tantrum? That’s the most outlandish thing I’ve ever heard. This child clearly needs shock therapy immediately.

The main theme of the article is that, while the book, with its incredibly simple text and universally relatable theme, can be loved by children of all ages, especially that oh-so-sought-after 1- to 4-year-old demographic, the film plays to children ages 8-12 and even adults.

The audacity of it all! How dare Spike Jonze and Warner Brothers Films make a film that appeals to various age groups? Of course this film should have appealed only to infants and toddlers.

Come on, people, it’s a damned full-length motion picture. It would have been impossible to make a film that runs an hour-and-a-half and appeals only to children too young to walk.

As for appealing to adults, I wonder if people have considered that the book was published in 1963. Perhaps the film company was trying to make a movie adults could relate to, a film they could watch and appreciate as a film and still feel some semblance of what they did when they read the book.

The point is, if you don’t want your child to get any ideas about throwing tantrums, don’t take them to a film based around a boy who throws a tantrum.

If you want your 2-year-old to comprehend something, buy a “Baby Einstein” video, not a ticket to a major motion picture.

Ultimately, quit complaining. It is a film based on a children’s book, not some treatise on groundbreaking ideals. Deal with it.

David Thill is a senior journalism major and can be reached at

[email protected] or 581-7942.