Disney to young moviegoers: GET LOST

[mikeymars]

Well, despite the fact the last issue of Disney magazine stated that the upcoming "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie would be appropiate for "anyone old enough to go on the ride at the park," that was apparently a LIE .

Instead, director Jerry Bruckheimer and Disney INTENTIONALLY decided to develop a PG-13-rated movie, the FIRST after the studio's decades-long run of entertainment safe for audiences of all ages.

In fact, the movie is so scary that the head of Disney Production, Nina Jacobson isn't going to let her 5 year old son see it. "I think it's too intense and scary," she said.

That's what the Motion Picture Assn. of America thought too, when it put a PG-13 stamp on the movie this week for its "violence."

In my humble opinion, Disney is making a HUGE mistake here. The phenomenally successful "Star Wars" and "Harry Potter" movies, for example, were rated PG. Disney/Pixar Animation Studios' G-rated "Finding Nemo" is the most popular movie in the country. "Pirates' COULD have followed this path, but NOoooooo....

...and Disney is already making excuses for the PG-13 label.

The Chairman of Disney Studios, Dick Cook, has said the rating on "Pirates" is "comparable" to the height restrictions and health warnings that accompany the company's supposedlty "scarier" theme park rides in Anaheim and Florida, such as Space Mountain, Tower of Terror and Indiana Jones. He even claimed that if Disney's 1954 science fiction adventure "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" had been made today, it probably would have been rated PG-13 because of "a giant squid attacking a submarine."

Cook and production head Jacobson claim they had "hoped" that "Pirates" would be a PG movie. But apparently Bruckheimer had other ideas. He was determined to cast a lead not known for family films, and selected Johnny Depp, who has appeared in less than family fare such as "Sleepy Hollow."

Bruckheimer said Depp was an "edgy" actor who would "kind of counter the Disney 'Country Bears' soft quality and tell an audience that an adult and teenager can go see this and have a good time with it."

Depp apparently decided the model for a pirate was... a drunken, drug using rock star. Depp took his character beyond what even Bruckheimer had envisioned. He modeled himself after Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards, a personal friend.

"I was reading about the 18th century pirates and thought they were kind of like rock stars. So, when I thought, 'Who is the greatest rock 'n' roll star of all time?' it was Keith," Depp said during a phone interview from France, where he lives (figures).

In the film, Depp's character actually looks a lot like Richards, wearing a red bandana draped around his beaded hair and a thin stripe of black makeup under each eye. He also staggers and swaggers.

Depp shocked Bruckheimer and Disney executives before shooting began when he decided to add yet another touch to his portrayal his character, when he had gold caps placed on all his front teeth.

Despite the PG-13 rating, the 40-year-old Depp said he would feel comfortable taking his 4-year-old daughter to see the movie. "When she was 2 years old, she watched 'The Wizard of Oz' and loved it," Depp said. "At 17, I remember being freaked out about those weird monkeys. She's totally cool with that stuff."

What a intelligent comparison. A family fantasy made in 1939 and a 2003 PG-13 "pirate" movie featuring "rock stars." Impress us some more, Depp, with your thoughtful, insightful analogies.

And apparently, Disney intends to tell the kids to get lost again later this year, On Thanksgiving weekend, Disney will release a movie version of another theme park attraction, "The Haunted Mansion." Studio head Jacobson has already said it could draw a PG-13 rating "because of the scariness factor."

[lenshanem]

My 5 year old saw the Pirate trailer at Daddy Day Care and about had a heart attack. She can ride the attraction, but obviously won't be able to handle the movie. I think they could ahve really doen this up and it woudl have been a HUGr draw to littel boys. Think of the marketing... Oh well. Same with Haunted Mansion. I woudl think they coudl ahev coem up with soemthing cute and funny. Think Casper with an edge. Oh well again? We'll just ahve to wait and see... I thought Eddie Murphy was in it? And sources are saying it is too scary, too?

[mikeymars]

My six year old son (who has ridden the park attraction at WDW as a four year old with no problems) also saw the TV version of the trailer weeks ago, and while somewhat scared by some of it said he "couldn't wait" for the film. I noticed at the time it hadn't yet been rated, and said "you may or may not get to see this, we'll see."

After subsequently reading the Disney magazine piece, I told him "Disney in now saying it wants to make to make sure the film is O.K. for kids who have been on the ride, and since you have, I'm sure they will make it appropriate for your age."

Well, when I told him yesterday that "the movie has now been rated, and unfortunately it isn't appropriate for you," he was heartbroken. "Why not, dad?" he asked. "Didn't they say it was going to be O.K.?" The only thing I could tell him was "yes, they did, but apparently the people in charge at Disney didn't thing keeping that promise was particularly important."

[OnWithTheShow]

Boy, somebody has it out for Johnny Depp. To suggest that the primary reason a movie got the rating it did because of the choice of an actor to play a part is ludicrious.

[DisneyKidds]

The Chairman of Disney Studios, Dick Cook, has said the rating on "Pirates" is "comparable" to the height restrictions and health warnings that accompany the company's supposedlty "scarier" theme park rides in Anaheim and Florida, such as Space Mountain, Tower of Terror and Indiana Jones. He even claimed that if Disney's 1954 science fiction adventure "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" had been made today, it probably would have been rated PG-13 because of "a giant squid attacking a submarine."
Thanks for the laugh - that was a good one................



just a minute....................


still laughing.......................


with you in a moment...................


whoooo...........that was a good one ;).


Question - has Bruckheimer ever made a PG movie in his life? If not, I doubt Disney ever really figured he would with this one.

To suggest that the primary reason a movie got the rating it did because of the choice of an actor to play a part is ludicrious.
I don't think he is suggesting Depp is the reason for the rating. Rather, it just seems he is pointing out that Depp decided to play the character on the edgier side, whereas some might expect that a character in a Disney film might have been more conservative.

[Peter Pirate]

I like Johnny Depp. I don't mind that he lives in France. It doesn't even strike me as odd that a movie about Pirates would be scary and edgy, even to the tune of a PG-13 rating...

As for "telling the kids to get lost", perhaps they'd like 'Finding Nemo' or maybe 'Brother Bear' later this year. It hardly seems like Disney is abandoning anyone, IMO...

As for the movie, both of my kids (10 & 14) are anxious to see it (although the 14 yo is a little worried about the scariness). Further, she tells me that Orlando Bloom being in the flick has all of the girls in her school planning to go...

[mikeymars]

I didn't say Depp in and of himself was the reason for the rating. I just wanted to point out what happens when management gets too fixated on being "edgy" just for the sake of being egdy.

By the way, looks like Dreamworks in going to pound Disney into the ground again in early July, just like they did with Shrek.

For at the same time Disney is telling me and my son (and the other millions of people like us) to get lost, Dreamworks will be inviting us and the rest of the "families with younger chldren" crowd into the theater to enjoy their pirate story, with Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (rated PG, opening July 2, a week before Disney's "Pirates let's-get-edgy-just-to-appear-currrent of the Caribbean." Interestingly, Sinbad's voice is being done by Brad Pitt, who apparently doesn't feel the need to play him like a drugged out "rock star."

[Liv2CdWorld]

I must agree with Peter Pirate.

I think it's actually a nice change of Disney to be offering something for older children and adults. Universal does it, so why can't Disney?

I don't think they should be crucified just becuase they are targeting a different audience.

Also, when I saw the trailer weeks ago (without rating), I knew immediately that it wasn't appropriate for children and when my DS4 thought he'd like to see it, I told him in a few years.

[doombuggy]

Wait a second, other studios put out a wide range of films, why not Disney? Are you going to use the excuse that the Walt Disney Company owns other movie studios?

The Motion Picture Assoc. of America sets the rating standards for our viewing pleasure. They designated "Lilo & Stitch" as PG due to the "space alien" elements of the movie. I'll bet all of you know at least one person under the age of 13 who saw that film. My point is that "Pirates..." might not be all that scary.

Maybe it's just me. I saw "The Amityville Horror" at age 11 and it did not bother me. We'll have to wait and see, I guess.

[HauntedMansionFan]

Yeah.... hi... its a movie about Pirates! Not the "fun" and "family" kind found in Treasure Island. But mean-spirited pirates being just what they are.... flippin' Pirates! And to top it off it is directed by Bruckheimer, king of mayhem and explosions. I think the title of this thread was very misleading, I don't think that the production of this movie was ever (nor will it ever) be a jab at young moviegoers. I believe that its intent was always to be a fun summer, popcorn blockbuster. Not... hey little kids.... come watch the pirates do tricks and dance around singing. If anyone though that is what this movie was going to be then obviously something was wrong. But then again... people ALWAYS need something to complain about.

God forbid that Disney release any film that isn't aimed at the under 12 group. :rolleyes:

* end rant *

I also failed to miss the part where Disney actually said to the young movie going public: "Get Out".

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by mikeymars
For at the same time Disney is telling me and my son (and the other millions of people like us) to get lost, Dreamworks will be inviting us and the rest of the "families with younger chldren" crowd into the theater to enjoy their pirate story, with Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (rated PG, opening July 2, a week before Disney's "Pirates let's-get-edgy-just-to-appear-currrent of the Caribbean." Interestingly, Sinbad's voice is being done by Brad Pitt, who apparently doesn't feel the need to play him like a drugged out "rock star."
I do have to agree that you are being a bit hard on this film. As our good Pirate pointed out, it is a pirate flick and should be edgy. Curse of the Black Pearl...............has to involve some scarey elements, no? I think the film itself is probably better off for it, and Johnny's edgey portrayal. I hope the film does well.

Now for the part that I'd like clarified, and hope doesn't get lost in the fray. Is this the first time a Walt Disney Pictures release (not some other Disney affiliated studio) has gotten a PG-13 rating? If not, I see no need for a debate. However, it seems it may be, and that is the departure. It isn't that Disney has never had a PG-13+ rated film released by one of the studios under it's umbrella. It is that Disney has, in the past, always reserved the Walt Disney Pictures moniker for pictures that were PG and below. If that had been the case, should Disney have changed that? Add in the fact that Disney has been advertising this film in the Disney mag (have they ever advertised Miramax or other PG-13+ flicks in the Disney mag) and one could further see why someone might have expected this picture to be slightly more family oriented - thus the 'thanks for the interest in our pirate flick, but piss off it ain't for you kid' take that Mikeymars has.

What difference does it make, you might ask? Well, if you go to the Disney website and go under entertainment, heck - go anywhere in the site except for investor relations, and I believe all you will see listed are Walt Disney Pictures releases. All family stuff, stricktly PG and below - the kind of wholesome stuff many expect from the Disney name. Now, possibly for the first time, you see listed PoC, a violent, scarey picture about mean spirited, cursed pirates. Maybe that is upsetting to some given the history of the Walt Disney Pictures name. Not that Disney shouldn't have released this film under some banner, but was the Walt Disney Pictures banner the best to use in this case? It is quite possible that Disney risked the PG and under wholesomeness of the Walt Disney Pictures name simply for a buck, as Disney presents.....Pirates of the Caribbean will probably draw better than Touchstone presents...........Pirates of the Caribbean.

It is kind of interesting that Disney revamped the original Pirates of the Caribbean ride in WDW because the carousing pirates chasing women and being violent were considered to be too edgey for a Disney park, but now they aren't for a Walt Disney Pictures film.

Mikeymars...........would it be any better in your view if it were 'Miramax presents........ Pirates of the Carribean, Curse of the Black Pearl' and the film were never advertised to the whole family in things like the Disney mag? Is this a case of you being upset that Disney, regardless of which studio released this film, didn't make PoC a film your whole family could see (which I don't think is anything to be upset about), or that Disney has somehow reduced the wholesomeness of the Walt Disney Pictures name by releasing a first ever PG-13 film from this namesake studio (regardless of what film it might be)?

[Planogirl]

People are worried because Johnny Depp decided to portray a pirate as a bad guy in a way? Interesting.

Disney probably wants to tie the movie to the ride and that's why they're keeping the Disney name on the film. I'm personally looking forward to it and so is my 10 year old. I think that he can handle it but then I'm still mulling over why they made Terminator 3 an "R" rated movie. PG-13 doesn't seem so bad to me.

[HauntedMansionFan]

Originally posted by mikeymars
Well, when I told him yesterday that "the movie has now been rated, and unfortunately it isn't appropriate for you," he was heartbroken. "Why not, dad?" he asked. "Didn't they say it was going to be O.K.?" The only thing I could tell him was "yes, they did, but apparently the people in charge at Disney didn't thing keeping that promise was particularly important." Just because the movie is rated PG-13 doesn't necessarily mean that it is inappropriate for a child your age to see. Every child is different and some are more mature and able to handle the scenes that caused the movie to obtain the rating that it did. But using Disney as a scapegoat almost seems unfair to me. I noticed that in your originial post that you left out an important quote made by Dick Cook, Disney Studios Chairman. Where he said that, "under no circumstances would Disney Pictures release a movie that included foul language, sex, or drug use. There are no exceptions to those rules". So I think that some kudos need to be handed to Disney in that aspect.

What a intelligent comparison. A family fantasy made in 1939 and a 2003 PG-13 "pirate" movie featuring "rock stars." Impress us some more, Depp, with your thoughtful, insightful analogies. I have to agree with his analogy, as idiotic as some might see it, pirates where the "rock stars" of the high seas back in the 18th century. So I can understand Mr. Depp's choice in finding a modern day figure to model his character after.

By the way, looks like Dreamworks in going to pound Disney into the ground again in early July, just like they did with Shrek. And I'm not quite sure what you mean by "pound Disney into the ground again". I'm thinking you mean the close release dates of Monsters Inc. and Shrek. And in that case Shrek didn't really "pound" anything out of Monsters Inc., they are both rated the 2nd and 3rd highest grossing animated films respectively. Or did you mean something else?

[hopemax]

Yes, the Pirates movie is the FIRST PG-13 movie to be released under the Walt Disney Pictures label. Normally, the PG-13 movies are released under the Touchstone label. That's why the Touchstone division was created in the first place, to give the Disney company a place where it could release films without being shackled by the "it needs to be family appropriate" reputation.

[Mi3sons]

I agree with DisneyKids on the fact that disney released a PG-13 movie has upset people as opposed to a Touchtone film being PG-13. I also think all you pirate haters should all just relax!
;)

[DisneyKidds]

There are no exceptions to those rules
As you know, there are those in these here parts that like to talk about slippery slopes. Sure, there are no exceptions to the 'sex, drugs, and four letter words' rule for a Walt Disney Pictures release. I'm sure at one point someone claimed there was no exception to the 'no PG-13 and above violence' rule for a Walt Disney Pictures release. Where does it stop? Should it stop? Or should the namesake Disney studio become free to release any genre of picture they like?
Disney probably wants to tie the movie to the ride and that's why they're keeping the Disney name on the film.
My point exactly (although I seem to be writing like the Baron this afternoon so it may have gone unnoticed ;)), but should Disney have taken this first ever Walt Disney Pictures PG-13 step for the sake of a buck?

[DisneyKidds]

Originally posted by hopemax
Yes, the Pirates movie is the FIRST PG-13 movie to be released under the Walt Disney Pictures label. Normally, the PG-13 movies are released under the Touchstone label. That's why the Touchstone division was created in the first place, to give the Disney company a place where it could release films without being shackled by the "it needs to be family appropriate" reputation.
Thanks for clarifying. For those taking the Disney history high ground, believing that they should stick with the very thinking you point out above with respect to the creation of Touchstone Pictures, PoC quite possibly provides something to be concerned about.

[mikeymars]

>>I think it's actually a nice change of Disney to be offering something for older children and adults.<<

They already do - turn on the TV and take a look at the Disney channel for ten seconds or more during primetime. There's nothing -- absolutely nothing -- there for anyone under 8 or 9. Also, why did Disney promote this film so heavily in their media AIMED directly at younger children? If they really wanted to get to attract the "we want edgy" teens and up crowd, STOP running ads for this film on Sunday night on ABC at 7pm. Go to MTV and FOX instead.

>>Just because the movie is rated PG-13 doesn't necessarily mean that it is inappropriate for a child your age to see. Every child is different and some are more mature and able to handle the scenes that caused the movie to obtain the rating that it did.<<

Oh, boy, the whole "compression of childhood" thing. Reminds me of the so-called "parents" who took seven year olds in to see "Hannibal." Of course, they also claimed those kids were also "mature" enough to see that gruesome nightmare.

>>I believe that its intent was always to be a fun summer, popcorn blockbuster. Not... hey little kids.... come watch the pirates do tricks and dance around singing. If anyone though that is what this movie was going to be then obviously something was wrong.<<

Then why did Disney interview the producers and writers for their magazine, and quoted them (in response to the question "will this film be appropriate for the whole family?") as saying "the film will be appropriate for anyone who is old enough to go on the attraction at the parks." You're saying that wasn't positioning this as a family film? Or is this the above comment just another example of the "Disney can do no wrong" apologist mentality?

>>it is a pirate flick and should be edgy. <<

Since when? Captain Blood is the greatest pirate movie ever made, and it wasn't "edgy." Sounds like the post-millenium "edgy for the sake of edgy" mindset is raising it's head again.

>>would it be any better in your view if it were 'Miramax presents........ Pirates of the Carribean, Curse of the Black Pearl' and the film were never advertised to the whole family in things like the Disney mag? Is this a case of you being upset that Disney, regardless of which studio released this film, didn't make PoC a film your whole family could see (which I don't think is anything to be upset about), or that Disney has somehow reduced the wholesomeness of the Walt Disney Pictures name by releasing a first ever PG-13 film from this namesake studio (regardless of what film it might be)?<<

Neither, actually. What annoys me is Disney intentionally leading their core market along for the better part of the last nine months, with a message that basically consisted of "GET READY FOR A FANTASTIC FILM BASED UPON THE CLASSIC PARK ATTRACTION. ONCE THAT EVEN FEATURES SCENES FROM THE RIDE."

Yep, let's get millions of 4-5-6-7-8-9 year olds all worked up, and then at the 11th hour say "NEVER MIND, THIS ISN'T APPROPRIATE FOR YOU, BECAUSE JERRY BRUCKHEIMER INSISTED ON IN-YOUR-FACE EDGY AND DESPITE THE FACT WE WERE HOLDING THE CHECKBOOK WERE TOO WEAK TO SAY NO." If Disney thinks that's a good way to build positive brand equity with millions of kids (and their parents), then they must be crammed with almuni of the teams that built "New Coke" and the Ford Edsel.

>>As you know, there are those in these here parts that like to talk about slippery slopes. Sure, there are no exceptions to the 'sex, drugs, and four letter words' rule for a Walt Disney Pictures release. I'm sure at one point someone claimed there was no exception to the 'no PG-13 and above violence' rule for a Walt Disney Pictures release. Where does it stop? Should it stop? Or should the namesake Disney studio become free to release any genre of picture they like?<<

Bingo, Bingo, BINGO - the core element of the issue here: Disney wants to have it's cake and eat it too - leverage the brand name but attract the "it has to be edgy" crowd. They want to pretend there's no risk or tradeoff in doing that.

But they are soon going to learn otherwise. Or, as the article in Business Week will probably label the discussion, "HOW TO STRIP MINE YOUR BRAND."

[Peter Pirate]

Mickymars, correct me if I'm mistaken but after your last post it appears that you have more issues with Disney than just PoC...And this is fine fine, as far more verbose people than you have espoused less reasonable arguments against the Company...But (there's always a but with me) the real point is can you take a pre-movie interview stating some "fact" about the flick as true promise? And is it at all relevent that Disney strayed from the PG realm with a flick?

[FriendsOfEeyore]

Most of us have seen the trailers and the commercials. Who is to say that that is not the harshest part? We have not seen this movie. It will not be released for another two weeks. Let's actually see how the movie turns out.

But..

I will say this. The other night, dw and I are watching 101 Dalmations, and the preview for PoC comes on the TV. We were like, OMG, that is a little more than we would have expected of a Disney film. But it is all relative...

Think about the things that are your 6pm news, the sat morning cartoons, nick and Disney Channel. Things have changed! Heck 101 Dalmations has some "suspensful" type scenes to it.

QUESTIONS:

Am I going to take my 15mo ds old to see PoC on July 9th? NO

How about a 5 - 10 year old? Maybe. That is not my decision. However, as a movie-goer, I do get irritated when young children are talking through the movies.

Could this movie had been done so as to only get a PG rating. I am sure, but it does not make that much of a difference. Pirates in and of themselves are "Thieves". They are viewed as being mean.

The PoC attraction itself could be quite scary for young children and I would say may be inappropriate for younger children anyway. I mean, c'mon they are selling the wenches. How do you explain that to your 10 year old???? And the fact that they are all drunk.

Maybe all Pirates should be as nice as Captain Hook! Oh wait:rolleyes:

[DisneyKidds]

And is it at all relevent that Disney strayed from the PG realm with a flick?
Ahh....it takes a Pirate to defend all things pirate ;). (Only kidding...... :)).

Actually, I haven't decided if it is all that relevant. You can't argue with the fact that at some point in Disney's movie making history they did decide it was a relevant issue, so much so that Touchstone was brought into the picture.

When was Touchstone introduced, and whose decision was that (read: to whom was it important to maintain the PG rating for pictures released by the namesake studio)?

Did Disney choose media outlets and advertising that might have led people to believe this might have been a more family oriented flick? Not sure. It certainly doesn't fit with the usual Piglet's Big Movie/Jungle Book 2/Lizzie Maguire/Young Black Stallion/etc. films that Disney touts on it's official website. Again, I'm not sure how many PG-13 films are advertised in the Disney mag. I suppose some could feel misled, but as you point out - it's hard to nail down any promises.

Do you disagree that the sole reason from a departure from the usual Walt Disney Pictures PG rating was to associate PoC with Disney for the sake of ratings and $$$? That would be consistent with various other management decisions that might be considered contrary to Disney tradition. Is this good enough motivation/justification for departing from the tradition of having Walt Disney Pictures be PG? If this wasn't the motivation, why wasn't the film released via Touchstone?

Look at me - full of questions.

[mikeymars]

Let's not play games and be ambiguous about whether this film is appropriate for any child under age twelve. The following is directly from the MPAA website:

"PG-13 is a sterner warning to parents to determine for themselves the attendance in particular of their younger children as they might consider some material not suited for them. Parents, by the rating, are alerted to be very careful about the attendance of their under-teenage children.

A PG-13 film is one which, in the view of the Rating Board, leaps beyond the boundaries of the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, or other contents, but does not quite fit within the restricted R category. Any drug use content will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. In effect, the PG-13 cautions parents with more stringency than usual to give special attention to this film before they allow their 12-year olds and younger to attend."

And here's a prediction: I'm willing to bet anyone here --ANYONE -- that within a week of the July 9th release, I will be able to come back here with scores of links and or copies of stories from the media about parents (either those who didn't do their homework prior to taking young kids to the film, or those who like me had to explain to their children why the film they were waiting for can't be seen) being very, VERY angry at Disney about the PG-13 rating.

YOU CAN BANK ON THAT.

[Peter Pirate]

You're probably right Mr. mars, but I don't think bad parenting is an issue for Disney to be concerned with...

Mr. Kidds, I agree with your supposition that one thing and one thing only led to the apparant policy change with regard to ratings and that is money. Disney wants the tie in to the PoC ride and doesn't want any ambiguity as would be if it were a Touchtone release. Should this be done? Certainly. The tie in is necessary the "policy" is meaningless...

The ratings are a guide and my 10 year old daughter will see this film...Am I a bad parent? Well, generally we're considered over protective...But not from social, literal or artistic standpoints. I know what my kids can and can't take and I don't need or appreciate some group of folks who don't know us telling me what is acceptable for children. The movie ratings people should just go away, IMO...

[raidermatt]

First off, let me say that the original article was biased and full of logical "leaps", to say the least. That said...

Regarding ratings, while I agree they aren't a "be all end all" to determining what is acceptable for our children, they do offer a comparative guide for a product that we go into almost blind sometimes.

Of course we believe we are the best judge of what our children should see, but how does one make that judgement without viewing the product first? PG-13 may not make the difference if you have a well-adjusted 12, or even 10 year old. But when you've got a 4 or 5 year old, it should make a difference.

The point is that Disney has taken a bit of a leap themselves in releasing a PG13 film under the Disney brand. What makes it a bigger leap is that the ride it is inspired by carries no height restriction, and in fact has had some of its more "objectionable" material removed.

This alone does not automatically make it a "bad" decision, but on the other hand, neither does the fact that it was inspired by $$$ make it a "good" decision.

One could make the point that Disney became Disney by establishing philosophies and managing to them, rather than altering philosophies because a given project might benefit from the alteration.

That aside, if you're going to look solely at the dollars and cents, the question is was the G/PG strategy actually worth anything to the company? If so, a long term financial benefit may have been sacrificed for a short term benefit.

One could even question whether there really will be a short term benefit from keeping the film "Disney", instead of simply removing PoC completely from the equation and releasing the film under Touchstone.

After all, wasn't the whole reason for creating Touchstone that too many people equated "Disney" with "kiddies"? Has that now changed to the point that folks who want nothing to do with Disney will now go see a "Disney" movie, even if its PG-13?

One thing is for sure.... if the movie fails to meet expectations, there will be plenty of excuses to pick from without having to admit the failure was due to the movie's appeal. (Note: I said IF it fails...)

[Peter Pirate]

Matt, I believe most (maybe all) of what you said is true...But (there it is again) your assumption that something as minute or trivial as a movie rating somehow impacts or impinges the brand, present, future or past seems illogical to me. It's just a rating. If the movie benefits from the move, this is a great move. If the movie is a stinker then the "Disney" label won't help it anyway...But (again) there is nothing magical or sacred about a ratings policy and to tie this policy change to the other perceived or real unmagical things always bandied about around here just doesn't add up...

[rippinguitarkid88]

o cmon! that movie is gonna rock! so what if its rated PG-13? i saw Batman Returns when i wuz 3 in theaters when it first came out! and that was rated PG-13 also. and so what if Johnny Dep is gonna scare kids? he already has probably! Edward Scissorhands is one. so i just think everyone is overreacting at Disney making a PG-13 movie. hey the ride shows drunk pirates! kudos for them. theyre showing that they can produce a teen/adult film and still keep theyre image as Disney. but thats just what i think as a 15-year-old.

[raidermatt]

I'm coming more from the reasons for the rating. I know there are some less-than-logical guidelines for assigning ratings, but for the most part, a PG-13 film is going to be a problem for more 12 and unders than a PG film.

As you said, a lot of people don't pay much attention to ratings, and for them, they could be surprised at the maturity of the themes, the level of the violence, or whatever it is that pushed the film to PG13. If they assumed that a Disney movie based on a ride that features a women chasing a pirate around with a rolling pin was suitible for their 7 year old, they might be in for an unpleasant surprise.

What will that do to their perception of future Disney films? We have to remember that while the Disney Studios name is a turn off for some, its also relied on by others.

Does it make sense for Disney to take the risk of breaking that trust? Especially when some of the older teen audience they are targeting might skip the film anyway, because its "Disney"?

I agree that their is nothing Magical about MPAA ratings. But clearly Disney has had a brand strategy as it relates to these ratings, or at least as it relates to films that fit these ratings. IMO, thinking the name "PoC" has some value to an individual film is not a good enough reason for crossing a brand strategy.

[Laurajean1014]

My son is excited about Brother Bear and Pirates. I want to go see Haunted Mansion!

We will be there at all three.

GO DISNEY GO!

[Planogirl]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
Matt, I believe most (maybe all) of what you said is true...But (there it is again) your assumption that something as minute or trivial as a movie rating somehow impacts or impinges the brand, present, future or past seems illogical to me. It's just a rating. If the movie benefits from the move, this is a great move. If the movie is a stinker then the "Disney" label won't help it anyway...But (again) there is nothing magical or sacred about a ratings policy and to tie this policy change to the other perceived or real unmagical things always bandied about around here just doesn't add up...
I agree with you Mr Pirate. My son is 10 and he will also see the Pirates movie based on my best judgment that he is able to handle this movie. As he himself put it today, he can't see Johnny Depp singing "A Pirate's Life For Me" and he fully expects an unsavory and rather vicious character.

I will also wait to pass judgment until after the movie comes out and we see exactly why it's rated PG-13. I have a bigger problem right now, namely why Terminator 3 is rated R. That is causing plenty of fuss in this household. :rolleyes:

[emmagata]

Originally posted by mikeymars
My six year old son (who has ridden the park attraction at WDW as a four year old with no problems) also saw the TV version of the trailer weeks ago, and while somewhat scared by some of it said he "couldn't wait" for the film. I noticed at the time it hadn't yet been rated, and said "you may or may not get to see this, we'll see."

After subsequently reading the Disney magazine piece, I told him "Disney in now saying it wants to make to make sure the film is O.K. for kids who have been on the ride, and since you have, I'm sure they will make it appropriate for your age."

Well, when I told him yesterday that "the movie has now been rated, and unfortunately it isn't appropriate for you," he was heartbroken. "Why not, dad?" he asked. "Didn't they say it was going to be O.K.?" The only thing I could tell him was "yes, they did, but apparently the people in charge at Disney didn't thing keeping that promise was particularly important."


There is something I don't understand.

I've been through POTC many many times and the entire ride is full of mild violence.

Now I haven't seen the trailer but you have not seen the entire movie.

Don't you think it would be better to be open minded by you seeing the movie before making claims that Disney broke some sort of promise?

[emmagata]

Originally posted by mikeymars
Well, despite the fact the last issue of Disney magazine stated that the upcoming "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie would be appropiate for "anyone old enough to go on the ride at the park," that was apparently a LIE .

Instead, director Jerry Bruckheimer and Disney INTENTIONALLY decided to develop a PG-13-rated movie, the FIRST after the studio's decades-long run of entertainment safe for audiences of all ages.

In fact, the movie is so scary that the head of Disney Production, Nina Jacobson isn't going to let her 5 year old son see it. "I think it's too intense and scary," she said.

That's what the Motion Picture Assn. of America thought too, when it put a PG-13 stamp on the movie this week for its "violence."

In my humble opinion, Disney is making a HUGE mistake here. The phenomenally successful "Star Wars" and "Harry Potter" movies, for example, were rated PG. Disney/Pixar Animation Studios' G-rated "Finding Nemo" is the most popular movie in the country. "Pirates' COULD have followed this path, but NOoooooo....

...and Disney is already making excuses for the PG-13 label.

The Chairman of Disney Studios, Dick Cook, has said the rating on "Pirates" is "comparable" to the height restrictions and health warnings that accompany the company's supposedlty "scarier" theme park rides in Anaheim and Florida, such as Space Mountain, Tower of Terror and Indiana Jones. He even claimed that if Disney's 1954 science fiction adventure "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" had been made today, it probably would have been rated PG-13 because of "a giant squid attacking a submarine."

Cook and production head Jacobson claim they had "hoped" that "Pirates" would be a PG movie. But apparently Bruckheimer had other ideas. He was determined to cast a lead not known for family films, and selected Johnny Depp, who has appeared in less than family fare such as "Sleepy Hollow."

Bruckheimer said Depp was an "edgy" actor who would "kind of counter the Disney 'Country Bears' soft quality and tell an audience that an adult and teenager can go see this and have a good time with it."

Depp apparently decided the model for a pirate was... a drunken, drug using rock star. Depp took his character beyond what even Bruckheimer had envisioned. He modeled himself after Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards, a personal friend.

"I was reading about the 18th century pirates and thought they were kind of like rock stars. So, when I thought, 'Who is the greatest rock 'n' roll star of all time?' it was Keith," Depp said during a phone interview from France, where he lives (figures).

In the film, Depp's character actually looks a lot like Richards, wearing a red bandana draped around his beaded hair and a thin stripe of black makeup under each eye. He also staggers and swaggers.

Depp shocked Bruckheimer and Disney executives before shooting began when he decided to add yet another touch to his portrayal his character, when he had gold caps placed on all his front teeth.

Despite the PG-13 rating, the 40-year-old Depp said he would feel comfortable taking his 4-year-old daughter to see the movie. "When she was 2 years old, she watched 'The Wizard of Oz' and loved it," Depp said. "At 17, I remember being freaked out about those weird monkeys. She's totally cool with that stuff."

What a intelligent comparison. A family fantasy made in 1939 and a 2003 PG-13 "pirate" movie featuring "rock stars." Impress us some more, Depp, with your thoughtful, insightful analogies.

And apparently, Disney intends to tell the kids to get lost again later this year, On Thanksgiving weekend, Disney will release a movie version of another theme park attraction, "The Haunted Mansion." Studio head Jacobson has already said it could draw a PG-13 rating "because of the scariness factor."


After reading the thread, it's apparent to me (and some other posters) that you have more issues with Disney than just this movie.

You and only you can make a true assessment as to whether the movie is appropriate for your child.

So instead of possibly telling your child that because of the rating that you would have to see the movie first to see if it was OK for them to see, you laid a huge guilt trip on Disney.

And you're about to do the same thing with the (currently) unrated HM movie.

Since you're not taking your child, are you going to see it all?

[crusader]

This rating is right for this movie. There is already a tremendous buzz among teen girls and young women who will go just to see Orlando Bloom. We are looking at a target market beginning with the middle/high school age bracket who line up and toss megabucks during the summer to see such great films as "I Know What You Did Last Summer". They particularly patronize movies which are more mature and exclude grade school siblings. They will be there hanging out in packs on opening day and opening weekend. If the movie is good, they'll pass the word around.

You also have a group who carry a great love for the Pirates of the Carribbean and have a preconception as to what that represents. This film needs to authenticate its' theme and deliver on effects. A PG rating limits capability.

I keep hearing all of this criticism regarding Johnny Depp which makes very little sense. He has always delivered outstanding performances in complicated roles. I believe he will be equally entertaining here as well. Why has there been no mention of Geoffrey Rush? He happens to be an excellent actor who should greatly contribute to this film.

[grinningghost]

Some kids can handle PG-13 movies, some can't. That's why the film is rated PG13. It would irresponsible to give it a PG or a G rating if there's a chance that some kids are going to get freaked out. It's the whole PC thing that has taken the world by storm in recent years. If you think your kid can handle the film, let them see it. If you know they're sensitive to this stuff, don't. It's really quite simple.

And yes, as the parent of a 14 year old girl, with lots of 14 year old friends, Orlando Bloom is the main draw in this demographic. They won't even notice the pirate stuff - their dream guy is what's going to flood the theaters with cash.;)

[Patch'sD]

Maybe Disney knows what we all know. Families are not made up of 1-10 Year olds. This is not neverland and people do grow up. Does the sign outside the ride say, Touchstone's POC or Disney's POC. The movie is branded for the ride. I am sick and tired of this family thing has to be aimed at the under 10 Year old and 48" inches. I can just picture myself and my 15 year old Son enjoying riding Dumbo. Dinsey's prime time is aimed at an older market and I am glad. Most of the show's tackle issues that pre teens and teens have to deal with, but of course they are not part of a family and Disney should just run cartoons. Get a grip, Kids to get older.

[DisneyKidds]

Get a grip, Kids do get older.
I think some are getting way too caught up in pointing out that Disney should be free to market a film, such as PoC, to a PG-13 audience. I have yet to see one person on this thread who would disagree with that. I also don't see the rating for this particular movie, or whether kids can handle the content, as the main issue or point that mikeymars was trying get across.

Yes, yes, yes - Disney has every right to make a pirate movie for an older audience. So let's stop proving that point and discuss the following...............................

Did Disney initially advertise this film in a way that implied it would be appropriate for a wider audience (that included those under 13)? I'm not sure. The previews and trailers certainly seemed a bit violent and scary. Personally, I wouldn't have expected this film to be appropriate for a younger audience. However, this film is being released by Walt Disney Pictures. Based on Disney's history I think there is a more than reasonable expectation that a Walt Disney Pictures release, especially one based on a theme park ride, would have a PG or lower rating - as every single Walt Disney Pictures Release prior to this one has had. Add in the fact that PoC is also advertised in the Disney magazine and on the Disney website and I can see how there are going to be people who put that all together and assumed, for good reason, that the film would be appropriate for a wider audience. Now that release time is near and people have gotten excited about the film, there is a certain segment of those people that may not be able to see/handle the film. I think that was mikeymars point.

Personally, I don't see a big problem here, but my family hasn't been affected in the same way as mikeymars. However, I do think that Disney could have handled the release and marketing of this film in a better way.

[mikeymars]

>>Based on Disney's history I think there is a more than reasonable expectation that a Walt Disney Pictures release, especially one based on a theme park ride, would have a PG or lower rating - as every single Walt Disney Pictures Release prior to this one has had. Add in the fact that PoC is also advertised in the Disney magazine and on the Disney website and I can see how there are going to be people who put that all together and assumed, for good reason, that the film would be appropriate for a wider audience. Now that release time is near and people have gotten excited about the film, there is a certain segment of those people that may not be able to see/handle the film. I think that was mikeymars point. <<

Bingo, bingo , BINGO - you stated the argument beautifully. Why did Disney invest in months of promotion of this under their "family brand" label, getting heaven-know-how-many children all excited about it, only at the 11th hour to admit this is NOT a family film and is NOT appropriate for the overwhelming majority of children?

Also, the "what's the big deal" gang needs to read the below, with particular attention to two points the exellent article makes, which are:

(a) the fact that major films that are heavily promoted to kids -- ergo, like the one we are currently discussing -- become problems for families that realize they are inappropriate because of their "cultural phenomena" nature.

(b) the fact some of the arguments offered here that defend Disney for releasing a PG-13 movie actually act as evidence of a larger social problem: a general desensitizing to violence.


PG Isn't What It Used to Be

Startled by hit films' violence, some parents find movie ratings unclear and unhelpful

By LYNN SMITH, TIMES STAFF WRITER

In "Spider-Man," a goblin is impaled, a cable car full of children hangs from a bridge, and a father and a father figure die. In "Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones" a mother dies in her son's arms; a father is decapitated and his boy finds the severed head in a helmet.

Does this sound like appropriate fare for young children? To some parents, the answer is a resounding no.

"I've never had so many e-mails about a movie as I have about 'Spider-Man,'" said Nell Minow, a Washington, D.C., mother whose 5-year-old Web site Moviemom offers alternative movie ratings. Her second-largest number of queries concerned "Attack of the Clones," she said. Part of the problem, as parents are well aware, is that "Spider-Man" and "Attack of the Clones" aren't just movies. They're also cultural phenomena, and the child who isn't throwing a "Spider-Man" or "Star Wars" birthday outing will undoubtedly be invited to one. There's no escape from avenging heroes, superpowers or the battles of other galaxies, no matter how far away.

Mark Applegate, a father of two from Torrance, said his 4-year old daughter Amanda saw commercials on television for "Spider-Man" and started begging to see it a week before it opened.

"I wasn't sure if it was a good movie for her or not," said Applegate, who had heard that some scenes might be too intense for children. "I said we couldn't go, and she started crying," he said.

Compounding the problem, some parents say, is that they can't always trust the MPAA ratings to tell them what they need to know. A number of media critics have pointed to what they refer to as "ratings creep," a belief that films are given less restrictive ratings than previously.

Another problem is that the MPAA offers only "opaque" explanations for the ratings, according to Minow, who has written a book on the subject. "My favorite [ratings warning] is for 'mild thematic elements.' I don't know what that's supposed to mean. You need a degree in semiotics to understand it," Minow said.

The MPAA rates the "Star Wars" prequel PG (parental guidance suggested) for "sustained sequences of sci-fi action/violence" and "Spider-Man" PG-13 (parents strongly cautioned; some material may be inappropriate for children under 13) for "stylized violence and action." Media critics also blame ratings creep, believed to have resulted in downgrading movies that would have formerly been R-rated to PG-13, and PG-13s to PG.

For example, "Midnight Cowboy," which was rated X in 1969, would surely be an R-rated film today, said MPAA chief Jack Valenti.

The "Star Wars" film's PG might not be the same sort of PG that parents recall from the earlier films, due to ratings creep, according to media critic James Steyer, author of "The Other Parent." "For parents, it's a big problem," Steyer said.

Ratings creep is also evident in language, Minow said. "It's stunning. Words that would get [a film] an automatic R now get PG-13."

Valenti, however, said the MPAA panel that determines the ratings--a group of a dozen local private citizens who make the initial ratings, which are subject to appeal by the studios--are only trying to keep up with what is socially acceptable. "Society has changed, no question about it," he said. "TV is the common denominator. The ratings system cannot be sterner than TV."

Now parents complain they don't know what they'll find in a PG-13 movie. "PG-13 encompasses so much," said Julie Shy of Calabasas. "It's hard to find places to go to find out why it's a PG-13." To help them decide whether to take their 9-year-old son to see "Spider-Man," she and her husband turned to a comic-book store owner in Fillmore. He advised them the movie was a cross between the "squeaky-clean" old Superman type of movie and the darker "Batman." They let him go.

Parents familiar with the "Star Wars" series said they were fairly certain about
what sort of violence they would find in the latest installment. But Laura Nuchols of Torrance, who took her children, ages 10, 8 and 6, to "Star Wars," said she was surprised to see the decapitation. What bothered her about it was not so much the violence as its unreality. "It's too sanitary. It makes it look really neat, fantasy-like," she said.

Ironically, it was the very bloodlessness of the violence that undoubtedly saved it from a PG-13 rating. "In all the 'Star Wars' movies, there's a lot of chopping going on," said Jim Ward, vice president of marketing for Lucasfilm, which produces the series. "We've had limbs chopped off. In the last film, Darth Maul was cut in half. Yet it all exists within this fantasy world of 'Star Wars.'

"It's far from us to say whether it's appropriate for kids. At the end of the day, parents know their kids the best. Every child is different. As the PG rating suggests, every parent makes the judgment whether it's appropriate or not," he said. "It comes down to parents knowing their children and making the best judgment."

Steve Elzer, a spokesman for Columbia Pictures, which released "Spider-Man," said the studio wouldn't comment on the rating for the film. "The MPAA rating is a guideline for parents and consumers, and they are the appropriate organization to discuss the rating that any film receives."

Valenti reiterated the studios' stance that the ratings are guidelines, not strict regulations.

"In all of our definitions for PG-13, we say, 'Do not take your young child to this picture.' Only the parent knows the maturity resident in their child. They should read Parents magazine, talk to friends, read reviews," he said. He said MPAA surveys show parents are happy with the ratings system. "I get a lot of criticism from producers, distributors, critics, directors, writers. The people for whom it is designed seem to find it a pretty good compass course for them to steer by," he said.

Minow and other critics, however, think there's a need for change.

"The MPAA has no special expertise. They see so much of this material, they have honestly lost touch with the rest of what America thinks," she said. "They have become desensitized."

Last year, a move to seek congressional support for a single content-based ratings system for all media was derailed by the September terrorist attacks, according to Douglas Gentile, director of research for the National Institute on Media and the Family. Parents do like ratings, he said. "But they would like better ratings even better."

Meanwhile, Applegate said Amanda is still upset that they haven't seen "Spider-Man."

"I've been making excuses. I tell her we'll see it another time. Or that it's too late," he said.

"Then I remind her that we're going to see 'Scooby Doo' when it comes out."

[crusader]

Mr. Kidds -

You can blame the publicity department all you want but they are getting the word out to everyone that this film is about to be released. Whether it be to the fans through the Disney Magazine, or through trailors during other family flicks or during prime time TV spots it is their job to make sure we all know when to go see it.

Disney has to move beyond the very young kiddie entertainment umbrella and we have to be willing to accept this for our families. The complaints about the timing in advertisement are really weak and of little consequence compared to what is flooding the market these days.

[d-r]

"Society has changed, no question about it,"

"It's far from us to say whether it's appropriate for kids. At the end of the day, parents know their kids the best. Every child is different. As the PG rating suggests, every parent makes the judgment whether it's appropriate or not," he said. "It comes down to parents knowing their children and making the best judgment."

Meanwhile, Applegate said Amanda is still upset that they haven't seen "Spider-Man."

"I've been making excuses. I tell her we'll see it another time. Or that it's too late," he said.

"Then I remind her that we're going to see 'Scooby Doo' when it comes out."



Does anyone think that Scooby Doo had less "stylized violence and action," was less scary, or had less rude humor and bad language and drug references than spider man did? Is that just me? I guess Scooby Doo didn't have that upside down kiss, but I've heard people say that one scene was worth $50 million in box office. I guess no one got killed in Scooby Doo, exactly, they just had there souls torn out.


I said we couldn't go, and she started crying," he said.


That's when my parents told me they'd give me something to really cry about ;)

DR

"Iwillnotsaythattomykid,Iwillnotsaythattomykid,Iwil lnotsaythattomykid"

[mikeymars]

>>Disney has to move beyond the very young kiddie entertainment umbrella <<

Uh, I fear you missed something(s), specifically:

Miramax

Dimension Films

Hollywood Pictures

Touchstone Pictures

Lyric Street Records

Mammoth Records

Everything on the Disney channel after 12pm


Or to put if differently,

Walt Disney Pictures is the FAMILY studio piece of the Disney studio brands. They ALREADY have other brands that focus on the teen and adult markets.

[Patch'sD]

Where is it stated that Disney is branded only to the family market? Overwellming majority of under 10 year olds. Why does Disney only have to market to Families with under 10 Year olds. Is that not your Opinion of what Disney Should be. I prefer Disney Branded towards everyone, not just the Toddler set.

[crusader]

Walt Disney Pictures is the FAMILY studio piece of the Disney studio brands. They ALREADY have other brands that focus on the teen and adult markets

mikeymars this is hurting the company not helping them. If you want to label Disney as only for the G and PG audience this company will continue to suffer in name association. As soon as the PG-13 rating tier came along, the tarket market took a dramatic shift away from disney's core demographic. They have to recapture this and remove the branding you are describing. Hopefully, Pirates will help them to do this.

[raidermatt]

Where is it stated that Disney is branded only to the family market? AGAIN, they are free to do whatever the heck they want, but that branding strategy is what the Disney name was built on.

mikeymars this is hurting the company not helping them. No, its not hurting them at all. What's hurting them is a lack of quality products. No brand can be all things to all people. Attempting to do that is a sure way to devaluing the very brand you are trying to grow.

That is not an attempt to label the DISNEY COMPANY as a G and PG company, but rather a realization that the Walt Disney Studios brand is a G and PG brand, while Touchstone and the other labels were created for the explicit purpose of tapping other markets.

[Liv2CdWorld]

Originally posted by mikeymars
Mark Applegate, a father of two from Torrance, said his 4-year old daughter Amanda saw commercials on television for "Spider-Man" and started begging to see it a week before it opened.

Meanwhile, Applegate said Amanda is still upset that they haven't seen "Spider-Man."

Give me a break! My 4 yr old son wants to see "The Hulk" too, but he can't. He cried, and he got over it.

Mr. Applegate is in for a big suprise if he's so upset that his little Amanda cried because she couldn't see Spiderman.

Blah, blah blah.

Sorry for the harshness, but if you are so against PG-13 ratings from Disney, DON'T GO. Simple as that.

[Liv2CdWorld]

Originally posted by raidermatt
That is not an attempt to label the DISNEY COMPANY as a G and PG company, but rather a realization that the Walt Disney Studios brand is a G and PG brand, while Touchstone and the other labels were created for the explicit purpose of tapping other markets.
True, but even if it was Touchstone, people will STILL associate Disney with the name PoC.

[mikeymars]

>>I prefer Disney Branded towards everyone, not just the Toddler set.<<

One of the better lessons I learned at HBS:

Want to erode your brand?

Rather than focusing and differentiating it, try to make it all things to all people. Better yet, if it already has a targeted, defined equity, turn it 180 degrees away from that, preferably overnight.

And I'll even predict the next case study the professors write up to illustrate those scenarios:

Walt Disney Studios.

[Planogirl]

I can see both sides of the issue here but I am a little surprised that there may be parents out there upset about the violence in super hero movies. Spiderman and his ilk have ALWAYS been involved in violence. Spiderman was always fighting the bad guys, that isn't anything new. As a matter of fact, kids' cartoons in general tended to be violent. I always marveled (pun intended) at how many times the coyote fell from that cliff and lived to chase the roadrunner again. Or how many times a rock fell on Fred's head. Or how all of the tongue-in-cheek "biff" "bam" "boom" fighting of the old Batman series never seemed to actually hurt anyone.

Sorry, but kids may want to see some of these features but they're just going to have to wait until they're old enough to handle these things. Just like most of us did.

[crusader]

No, its not hurting them at all. What's hurting them is a lack of quality products. No brand can be all things to all people. Attempting to do that is a sure way to devaluing the very brand you are trying to grow.

The Disney Brand is stifled in its own label and it isn't merely due to poor quality. It is due to the 'cartoon' affiliation which older kids disengage themselves from. This limits product marketability. The only place for expansion is into an older age bracket. If all of the products are going to continue to be restricted in order to be only family oriented they will not sell to the majority of consumers because most things are purchased beyond that level.

There is plenty of room to expand your product into other markets while still maintaining the lines which have proven success. Disney can't do this if it keeps clinging to the young family limitation

[meowthew2]

One of the film's writers posted a lengthy message on the LaughingPlace.com discussion boards in defense of the movie's rating. He states that there was never any intention to make PotC a PG-13 film, but rather to make it the kind of movie and story that Walt Disney would have made, and one that would be appropriate for anyone who is mature enough to enjoy the PotC ride.

He says the violence that gave the movie a PG-13 rating amounts to blood shown onscreen three or four different times, far less, he points out, than the record 169 onscreen deaths in Walt's own "Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier". His (admittedly biased) opinion is if you think the ride is OK for your child, the movie should be OK for them to watch with you.

[d-r]

I was a 10-11 year old kid when "the black hole" came out. I'm sure that somebody, somewhere flipped out because a PG movie was being released under the Disney name. Up until then, it had only been G. I went to see it, and it didn't ruin me.

I think these ratings are pretty arbitrary - no one has bothered to point out what was in the PG-13 rated spider man that he wouldn't let little Amanda watch that was worse than what was in the PG rated Scooby Doo - hell, I seem to remember when PG wasn't a rating that was considered appropriate for four year olds. People haven't seen this movie (POTC) yet so the only idea they have if it is approrpiate for their kids or not is the film's rating - which is there as a tool to help parents decide! Disney didn't put this rating on the film, it was put by an indpendent group - disney didn't decide it was PG-13 - that is there to help parents know to use their best judgement about their children viewing the film.

And I have seen 6 year olds freak out completely riding pirates of the carribean with my own eyes, and I am sure that it has scared kids older than that. What they said in the disney magazine was if your kid could handle the ride, they could handle the movie. The ride has disembodied voices warning of a curse, skeletons manning a the steering wheel of a ghost ship, a cannon firefight between a ship and a fortress, a sword fight (in shadow at disneyland, but with real animatrnonics at paris), a sacked city, the mayor bound and forced to be dunked in a well as torture to interrorgate him while his wife pleads for mercy from the upstairs window, an auction of captured women, presumably as sex slaves, drunken partying and singing, a village being burned down, prisoners trapped in a cell while the building burns down around them, officers of the guard tied up and gagged, drunken pirates shooting firearms around kegs of gun powder that actually surround the audiance, and pirates fighting each other over the treasure on the way out until they are just dead skeletons. What do you think the film board would rate that? Shame on parents for letting their young children view such things! What is our society coming to?

PG-13 means that parents should pay extra attention to the film if they have children younger than 13, and make the decision of whether their children can handle it. If you are under 13, you have to go with your parent. I may be wrong, but I believe that children under the age of 13 must be accompanied by an adult to ride the attraction. Please correct me on that if I'm wrong - what is the official policy - I know there isn't a height requirement to prevent young children on it at all (the height requirements are based on physical safety of the restraints of the attraction, which do not exist on pirates) - but I do not believe that young children are supposed to board attractions unattended by an adult -

People have different values, and families come in different shapes and sizes. Zoog Disney in the evening doesn't hurt Playhouse Disney in the morning, and Disney was never, EVER geared only towards toddlers - if you mistakenly believed that, sorry to tell you that you were wrong. Here I am talking about: "if it already has a targeted, defined equity, turn it 180 degrees away from that, preferably overnight." - this implies that Disney was only for toddlers, but that having a movie rated PG-13 is a 180 degree overnight turn from that. That is so wrong I don't know where to begin to tell you how wrong that is. Disney has not, was not, wasn't ever only for toddlers, and appealing to older kids is not a turn from that. I am not sure who you think parent trap, davy crocket, black hole, witch mountain, tron, the computer who wore tennis shoes, blackbeard's ghost, moonspinners, 20K leauges under the sea, etc. etc. etc. right up to princess diaries, the rookie, holes, and lizzie mcguier were aimed at, but it wasn't toddlers. It was older kids and younger teens, just like this movie. It is a family movie. If it doesn't fit the current shape and form of your family, fine, don't go see it, but don't start trying to impose your values and egocentric definition of family on mine or other people's. Your kid can see it when he is old enough.

DR

[raidermatt]

The Disney Brand is stifled in its own label and it isn't merely due to poor quality. It is due to the 'cartoon' affiliation which older kids disengage themselves from. This limits product marketability. The only place for expansion is into an older age bracket. Being somewhat pressed for time, I'm taking the direct approach today, so here goes:

That's a bunch of hooey.

EVERY brand that has ANY value has limited marketability. In the highly segmented world of entertainment, it just comes with the territory. The ONLY problem with the Disney brand is that its not supplying its core audience with products that consistently satisfy them. They're being fed Atlantis, Treasure Planet, and Piglet's Big Movie. Consequently, the brand is feeling the pain, but the solution isn't going to come from repositioning the brand.

Disney the COMPANY can and has entered the "un-cartoon" markets through other branding strategies, which allows for growth.

The potential problem is not that Disney the company has made a pirate movie aimed at teens... the problem is merely the brand they chose to issue it under. The teens that are going to go because of Bloom would have went whether it was Touchstone, Disney, or Acme films.

Disney already has the brands to go after these markets, just as it has the Disney Studios brands to go after other segments. There's simply no need to try to mix the two.

[d-r]

FWIW, the PG rating was introduced in 1970. It took 9 years before a disney movie was rated PG. The PG-13 rating was introduced in 1984, taking 19 years for disney to catch up.

[raidermatt]

FWIW, the PG rating was introduced in 1970. It took 9 years before a disney movie was rated PG. The PG-13 rating was introduced in 1984, taking 19 years for disney to catch up.
Catch-up with what?

How about a Disney Studios R rated film? Would that be a strong strategic decision?

NC-17? XXX?

After all, some families have nobody under age 17. Some families have no kids and adults who love porn.

You and others are arguing the philosophy of having a "family" studio brand equate to G and PG, when really, you just have a different idea of where the line should be drawn. To YOU, family apparently means PG13 and below. To others, it means R and below. To still others, it means anything you don't have to rent while wearing shades and lurking in the back corner of a video store.

Arguing that because there are families who can handle mature rated films it means a "family" brand should release films with that rating is pointless.

The fact is that releasing a PG13 IS a change for the Disney Studios brand, and make no mistake, most certainly it is a conscious, calculated decision.

The question is whether they are merely making an exception in an effort to capitalize on the PoC name, or if they are really changing their policy.

The real discussion isn't about some kid being traumatized, its about brand strategy. You can pooh-pooh that idea all you want, but the same folks that made this decision you are hailing made the decision based on a brand strategy, or at least in spite of it. Not because they feel the ratings their movies get are irrelevant to the brand.

[crusader]

Disney already has the brands to go after these markets, just as it has the Disney Studios brands to go after other segments. There's simply no need to try to mix the two

Hooey?

Now wait just a minute................ (Ha!)

You're telling Disney Studios to only put out the wuss stuff because that's what the customer expects? No way. They should put this movie out even if they do own other labels to diversify. Why? because if they don't then Disney Studios remains confined to a grade schooler which in turn unfortunately associates the brand disney to this demographic. They certainly can keep this market and expand their name to appeal to older consumers.

Pirates is perfect to bridge this gap. It is an attraction already associated with the parks so it carries Disney beyond the cartoon into a more mature arena. Maybe space and everest can as well. The benefits far outweigh the detriments here.

[laceemouse]

I have to say that my family is very disappointed with this rating. Our oldest is 12 and I'm pretty sure she could handle it. The younger 3 I'm not so sure. The whole idea of 8 yr. old boys like my son saying "WOW COOL" when someone is bleeding to death makes my skin crawl. Having the Disney name attached to this is upsetting to me. "Nuff said...Lacee

[laceemouse]

One more thing, the whole idea that movies have to SHOW violence to attract a more mature audience is crazy. Alfred Hitchcock scared us to DEATH with very little actual blood and guts!!!

[raidermatt]

One more thing, the whole idea that movies have to SHOW violence to attract a more mature audience is crazy. Alfred Hitchcock scared us to DEATH with very little actual blood and guts!!!
But its so much EASIER to shock/scare by merely increasing the graphic visuals than to actually create shock/fright using story and creativity.

Sort of like its easier to thrill someone by putting them on a 80mph coaster than with true story and show....

ah, never mind.

because if they don't then Disney Studios remains confined to a grade schooler which in turn unfortunately associates the brand disney to this demographic. They certainly can keep this market and expand their name to appeal to older consumers. Disney Studios has more than grade school appeal, but I do understand your point. I just disagree with it. The Disney Studios brand was built and developed around a certain market, and in trying to expand into some other segments, they will exclude members of their established market.

If curse is going to be a PG13 level film it would be better for the long term brand to release it under one of the other brands. I realize that the PoC tie-in makes that a tough choice, but I still feel the long term brand consistency is more important.

[Peter Pirate]

I simply see no significance to a PG-13 rating whatsoever and particularily since the 'PoC' is a Disney theme park classic...Further, should the day come when Disney releases an "R" rated movie my sole criteria shall be how good the movie is. The days of relying on someone else, even Disney, to do the right thing for your child is over and in fact never really existed. I was damn near traumatized by 'Bambi' (thanks Walt!) as were many in my age group and my oldest daughter had a heck of a time reconciling Mufassa's death. It is always incumbant on the parent to make the right decision for their family and if Disney decided to release 'Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs - The Untold Story" as an NC-17 film I simply would not go...Well, not with the kids anway!;)

As for comparisons to Alfred Hitchcock films...I agree that the master was just that and his intended affect on me as a viewer was always successful. But times are different and subleties unfortuneately don't past muster any longer. My daugter has seen 'Pyscho' and wasn't scared in the least...But 'Joe Dirt' scared the whole family!:o

[d-r]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Catch-up with what?

Society, Matt.



How about a Disney Studios R rated film? Would that be a strong strategic decision?

NC-17? XXX?


You missed the point, and this is hyperbole anyway. Take the example from that article that was posted earlier. It said that "Midnight Cowboy" which was rated X when it was released would be rated R now. It suggested that this was ratings slide. On the contrary, Midnight Cowboy was released in 1969, and the ratings system was revised in 1970. It would have been rated R if it was released after 1970, because the distinction between R and X changed in 1970 when the PG rating was added to the scale. Before that, anything that wasn't R was GP meaning that anyone could see it. R was what parents should be warned about and kids couldn't see alone, X was what minors couldn't see at all.

After that, the PG-13 distintion was added. And XXX. And NC-17.

So, before 1970 you had a rating scale that was GP-R-X. After 1970 you have a rating sale that was G-PG-R-X. After 1984, you had a scale that was G-PG-PG-13-R-X-XXX. Then, I think the early 1990's, you had G-PG-Pg-13-R-NC-17-X-XXX.

Get it? There are more points on the scale. The black Hole, 1979, was the first Disney PG film, nine years after the scale expanded. Prior to 1970, all Disney films had been GP, the "family safest" 1/3 of the rating scale. After the black hole, the "highest" a disney film had been rated was PG. This was position 2 of 4 or 5; at any rate it was on the "family safe" side of the scale. Since the 1984 addition of PG-13, and later of NC-17, this is the first Disey film to reach into that third position, PG-13. Position number 3 of 8. Still on the "Family safe" side of the scale. If there was an 8 point scale when 20Kluts was released instead of a three point scale would it have been rated at the tamest point on that scale? I highly doubt it, and I don't think anyone could argue that it would. Where would black hole be rated on today's scale? I'm not sure.

The point is that the rating scales have changed, have become more differentiated, and continue to be somewhat arbitrary for that matter. This is the first disney film that caught up with these changes in the rating scale and for that matter, our society. You have to consider that the rating scales have mirrored changes in our society, from the early attempts to censor out Mae West et al. and material that the censors thought was unfit for polite company - those views have changed quite a bit since the 1930's and 1940's, and since the 1970's for that matter.


After all, some families have nobody under age 17. Some families have no kids and adults who love porn.

This is a straw man, you're missing the point. Sorry I wasn't more clear.


You and others are arguing the philosophy of having a "family" studio brand equate to G and PG, when really, you just have a different idea of where the line should be drawn. To YOU, family apparently means PG13 and below. To others, it means R and below. To still others, it means anything you don't have to rent while wearing shades and lurking in the back corner of a video store.

No. Again, sorry I was not more clear, I'm a little frustrated. What I was arguing against was the idea/perception that all things with the Disney name on them are targeted at preschoolers or Toddlers. As I pointed out this is not the case, and I gave examples - but instead of refuting them you come up with this straw man argument. Look - a gaggle of people on this very board complained and continue to complain that the products carried at the disney store the last few months were geared only to children 4-8, that there should be more adult stuff, that not all disney fans were preschoolers. And yet here we are arguing for continuing this misperception that Disney is only for the toddler set, or that "Family" means only families with toddlers. Balony. That was never the case with Disney films or Disney parks for that matter. This is exactly parrallel to the arguments about attractions in the parks, that all should be accessible to everyone. I just don't agree with that or think it is really possible today. Just as teens today wouldn't get geared up for the mine train through nature's wonderland, you aren't going to keep their interest with watered down films.



Arguing that because there are families who can handle mature rated films it means a "family" brand should release films with that rating is pointless.


That isn't the argument, and I think you must realize that, surely. The "point" is just because someone doesn't think that this film is suitable for their four year old doesn't mean that this is not a film suitable for families, or, for that matter, suitable for children who are old enough to handle the attraction (as was mentioned in the disney magazine article). I don't know if that is true or not, having not seen it. Again, are children younger than 13 allowed to enter the attraction without an adult? I honestly don't know.


The fact is that releasing a PG13 IS a change for the Disney Studios brand, and make no mistake, most certainly it is a conscious, calculated decision.


And so was the release of the black hole in 1979. Again, there are more spots on that rating scale today. The PG-13 rating is there as a tool to help parents evaluate if the movie is appropriate for their children or not. It sounds like people are using it, and that is great, isn't it?


The question is whether they are merely making an exception in an effort to capitalize on the PoC name, or if they are really changing their policy.


They have been clear on what the policy is, and that this film is not a change of it.


The real discussion isn't about some kid being traumatized, its about brand strategy. You can pooh-pooh that idea all you want, but the same folks that made this decision you are hailing made the decision based on a brand strategy, or at least in spite of it. Not because they feel the ratings their movies get are irrelevant to the brand. [/B]

No. They didn't choose the rating. The rating was assigned by the MPAA. The makers of the film made a film. Not a brand strategy. They had a good idea of what was acceptable by a certain rating point and what wasn't. Disney execs were also, I don't doubt, clear about what their policies were. If only everything was truely as calculated and well thought out and put together as that. Bull. Things are much more haphazard, chaotic and sloppy than that. As a consumer you decide what you will purchase, you don't have to buy all of it, watch everything, or ride every ride.

Just mho-
DR

[d-r]

Now let me be clear here. I think that Disney does have a trust with the general population and their fans and that they should stick to that if they are going to continue those relationships (and make that money) and if they loose that trust they will never get it back. I wouldn't be OK with Disney releasing an R film in our current society and with the current rating scale. I'm just not at all convinced that this film violates that trust. After all, the rating is there to inform parents and give them a clue about what to expect. And it looks like that system is working -

It isn't the shift in the rating scale that is bothering people, imho. It is that Disney made something that doesn't appeal to their particular family and they wanted it to.
DR

[Another Voice]

Mark this day for it shall long be remembered in history. This is a post that Mr. Pirate might actually agree with.


The movie rating system is so dysfunctional at this point there is very, very little Disney could have possible down to keep any movie called 'Pirates of the Caribbean' from being rated PG-13.

There are no firm rules that truly guide the ratings process. And for every movie that gets a PG-13, you can point a PG or an R rated movie that had something similar. At this point in time (the rules change with each movie) any time one character uses a weapon to attack another directly pretty much is an instant a PG-13 rating. Sometimes movies with a fantasy setting or just gunshots can get by with a PG. But if you see a character using a weapon – say a pirate with a sword chasing down another pirate with a sword – you get stuck with a higher rating. It doesn't matter is the pirates are nice, it doesn’t matter the plot, it doesn't matter the situation, it's just the use of the weapon that causes the "problem".

So unless the entire movie was about them going fishing, you have a PG-13 flick before you even get to the ghouls and the horror bits. And even if they went fishing they would probably have been tagged PG for violence against animals.

In the end movie ratings are nothing but a pointless marketing gimmick. It frees the studios from worrying about the impact of their film, it excuses parents from having to really think about what they let their children see, and it gives people from both extremes the ability to censor what's shown to the public. Why would anyone want to change a system that works so well for so many people?


I'll leave my comments about the movie itself until later (hint: at least Bruckheimer isn't debasing a real event this time). People who want to like it will like it; everyone else won't. Mildly strong opening weekend, fifty percent plunge the next week (about average for "big time studio" summer movie), buy yours on DVD before Thanksgiving and then forget it ever existed.

[ErikdaRed]

Just to clarify, XXX was never a MPAA rating. It rose from the fact that the MPAA never TMed the X rating, but it did the others, so the adult film industry was allowed to use to without going through the MPAA (and XXX was just 3x an X, or a marketing gimmick). The X was replaced by the NC-17 ( a TMed rating).

But on to the point at hand. Like AV said, the ratings system is a total marketing joke. Just cut out 3 seconds of blood and you go from R to PG-13 and get a potentially bigger audience. PG-13 is only a disclaimer that says the parents might want to think about letting their children see it, kinda like PG+. It doesn't stop any random 6yo from buying a ticket to see it though. The only reason it was introduced was because Temple of Doom was a little bit too graphic with the hearts getting ripped out for the PG rating it got.

[Lesley]

"I may be wrong, but I believe that children under the age of 13 must be accompanied by an adult to ride the attraction. Please correct me on that if I'm wrong - what is the official policy - I know there isn't a height requirement to prevent young children on it at all (the height requirements are based on physical safety of the restraints of the attraction, which do not exist on pirates) - but I do not believe that young children are supposed to board attractions unattended by an adult -"


The age for riding non-restricted rides without an adult is 7yo. Now, I know my ds would have been capable of behaving responsibly on a ride alone at that age (no fear of him trying to climb out or anything....) but he was not at all ready to do so. We did give him the option once or twice and he chose not to ride anything without us (we're talking Dumbo and Peter Pan....nothing extreme)

My 3yo has always joined us on POC....the one time she got a little upset at the very beginning was because the sound was turned up very, very loud that day (she was under 2 at the time)......she thinks the pirates in the town are funny....has no clue what they're really up to. I really don't understand the statement in Disney magazine that the movie is suitable for anyone who can handle the ride....from the previews it looks completely unsuitable for a preschooler in a movie theater setting...way too intense. However, we'll probably rent the video when it comes out...things are much less overwhelming on the small screen and if the plot doesn't interest little ones they'll usually go do something else.

Similarly, we didn't take her to see Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets even though she's seen Sorcerer's Stone at home (I took her big brother and she stayed home with her dad) . I knew some scenes would be too intense in the dark on the big screen. She has since seen it on our own tv.......no problem at all.
Same with the Star Wars movies. If she were generally glued to the violent scenes or scared of them I wouldn't allow it....but I think she finds violence rather boring (like her mom!)

[Peter Pirate]

I do agree with Another Voice! ... But really I don't disagree with the content of what you write nearly as often as the context of how it was written. This has long been the misunderstanding of my opinions that many 'legends' around here never quite grasped.

I'm sorry to hear that 'PoC' may be forgettable as it really looks good and like I said I like Johnny Depp & Geoffry Rush.

But back to the debate, my opinion is that a rating enters into the 'Disney Magic' perception in the most minimal way (if even at all) that any rating or rating controversey should be looked at with disdain or skepticisim...Perhaps both...Judge the movie (any movie) for it's merit (or lack of) and use the ratings as a minor guide (if you must)...

[mikeymars]

>>Disney has not, was not, wasn't ever only for toddlers<<

Gross, misinterpreting spin of my original point.

I never said Disney was only for "toddlers" are even "kids." I said its position as a movie studio was to be focused/targeted at the FAMILY market.

Repeat, FAMILY.

Any thoughtful person knew what I meant by that: films that can appeal to and be appropriate for ALL ages. Obviously, that presents a challenge, since your product has to be designed well, particularly in appealing to teens and adults but at the same time not being too violent or vulgar for the young.

And earth to the poorly read on Hollywood history: IT CAN BE DONE. Anyone saying "you can't make a film that will appeal to teens and young adults without it being provocative and edgy" apparently forgot about:

Every Star Wars Film

Gone With The Wind

Shrek

The Court Jester

Close Encounters Of The Third Kind

And scores more that I'll not bore the more well read with.

The bottom line here: weak, less-than-visionary people are in charge at Disney Studios, which selected a lackluster, derivative director for this film. Or, to quote a thoughtful writer from another on-line board that is discussing this film:

"I think a truly creative mind would be able to make a film for all ages without sacrificing its box office appeal

[raidermatt]

No. Again, sorry I was not more clear, I'm a little frustrated. What I was arguing against was the idea/perception that all things with the Disney name on them are targeted at preschoolers or Toddlers. OK, I must have missed where somebody said everything Disney was targeted at preschoolers or toddlers. I agree, that's a ridiculous assertion.

Regarding "Curse", if it's true that simply chasing an old bald man around with a sword, ala Benny Hill, makes a movie PG13, then I agree, there isn't much that could have been done.

Generally speaking, though, I've seen a difference in the "graphicness" of violence in PG movies vs. PG13. However, if that's not the case here, and its simply some bizarre rule about chasing with a weapon, ok.

But if the film really is a PG flick with a PG13 rating, Disney may end up getting the business end of a marketing sword, as the teens/action fans are going to want PG13 level violence and won't get it, and some of the "family film" fans will avoid the PG13 rating.

Either way, I guess we'll find out soon enough.

[d-r]

Originally posted by mikeymars
>>Disney has not, was not, wasn't ever only for toddlers<<

Gross, misinterpreting spin of my original point.

I never said Disney was only for "toddlers" are even "kids." I said its position as a movie studio was to be focused/targeted at the FAMILY market.

Repeat, FAMILY.

Any thoughtful person knew what I meant by that:

Apparently I'm not thoughtful, but I at least I don't get into name calling. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant, so could you please explain your response to this:


>>I prefer Disney Branded towards everyone, not just the Toddler set.<<


By saying this:

One of the better lessons I learned at HBS:

Want to erode your brand?

Rather than focusing and differentiating it, try to make it all things to all people. Better yet, if it already has a targeted, defined equity, turn it 180 degrees away from that, preferably overnight.

And I'll even predict the next case study the professors write up to illustrate those scenarios:

Walt Disney Studios.



does not mean that 1. you disagree with the line you posted, that Disney films should appeal to everyone, not just toddlers
and 2. that you believe that making a film that does not appeal to the "toddler set" erodes the disney studios brand name, because it already has a "targeted, defined equity."

How does that NOT mean that you don't believe that disney films should be for the toddler set? That is what you just said!

And talk about 180 degree turns! You were disagreeing with this post that said that the films should appeal to "everyone, not just the toddler set" and now you are saying that by "family" you mean everyone!! Before you said it was a mistake to try to "be all things to everyone." Now you argue that this is possible if people are creative!! Now you say "films that can appeal to and be appropriate for ALL ages."

Look, I'm not arguing either one of these positions, I'm just no longer sure what point you are trying to make! I was clear in that previous post which post I was referring to. I am not able to keep up with your line of reasoning, please explain where I've gone wrong.


I never said Disney was only for "toddlers" are even "kids." I said its position as a movie studio was to be focused/targeted at the FAMILY market.


No, I don't see it. Frankly, I think you still mean "films that appeal to me and my family."

Thank you,
DR

PS Sorry that I got that wrong about XXX. I had looked last night at an old official guide and it said that children under 7 must be accompanied by parents in the parks, and under 10 at the water parks, consistent with what was posted here. Thanks.

[emmagata]

LOL. This is really funny. (to quote our famous flkhou)

All this debate and prejudgment about a movie that no one has seen.


Personally, I would use the rating system as general guideline but not as the final measuring stick as to whether a movie is appropriate for your children. Only you will know whether they can handle it or not.

If you think the content of a movie might adversely affect your child, you should take the time to see it first before making that decision AND before casting any stones at Disney for not living up to your standards.

[raidermatt]

LOL. This is really funny. (to quote our famous flkhou) Well, THAT certainly helps your credibility...;)

Two points. (1) This is a "rumors" board that allows debate, hence there are many threads filled with debates about hypothetical situations, as well as "rumored" situations. (2) Of course nobody can truly judge the content of a movie without seeing it, but ratings are meant to be used as a guideline. Its not always practical for a parent to screen a movie first, then take their child.

[KNWVIKING]

No, but it's great for the movies gross sales.

[emmagata]

Originally posted by raidermatt
Well, THAT certainly helps your credibility...;)


http://www.disboards.com/images/icons/icon10.gif


Its not always practical for a parent to screen a movie first, then take their child.

True, but I think it's unfair to pass judgement based solely on the ratings.

[raidermatt]

No, but it's great for the movies gross sales. Maybe that's a good strategy... release films with more mature ratings and bank on more adults going the screen route than going the skip route...

True, but I think it's unfair to pass judgement based solely on the ratings. Of course it is, and certainly some have done that. My point was more about the strategy of releasing films with more mature ratings under the Disney Studios brand, which in no way is an attempt to judge the film itself. Just the marketing/business strategy. It very well could be a fine family film in the best tradition of 20k Leagues...

[KNWVIKING]

never mind, mis read your post. why can't posts deleted ?

[DisneyKidds]

Regarding "Curse", if it's true that simply chasing an old bald man around with a sword, ala Benny Hill, makes a movie PG13, then I agree, there isn't much that could have been done.
I would generally agree that the MPAA rating system is probably a sham. However, that isn't the point. Sure, fine - PoC was destined to be a PG-13 flick for the reasons AV stated. Anyone inside of Hollywood knows how the rating system works and even the idiots at Disney knew from the beginning that, because of the pirates brandishing swords, the movie would be PG-13. Again, that is fine as I would expect that any good pirate action adventure flick would have some sword play. So, the question becomes..........................

.......................given what everyone, including Disney, knew the rating would be, should Disney have chosen Walt Disney Pictures, as opposed to Touchstone, to release the film? Furthermore, should Disney have been more careful so as to not advertise this film to kids under 13 (via the Disney mag, etc.)?

I believe that in this case synergy won out over tradition. I think Disney would be better today if they stuck with more of the old traditions.
Now let me be clear here. I think that Disney does have a trust with the general population and their fans and that they should stick to that if they are going to continue those relationships (and make that money) and if they loose that trust they will never get it back. I wouldn't be OK with Disney releasing an R film in our current society and with the current rating scale. I'm just not at all convinced that this film violates that trust.
Sorry, my good DR, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that Disney has (had?) a trust they should honor (in this particular case a trust of not having any Walt Disney Pictures release have any content that would necessitate a rating stronger than PG), and then say it is ok in your opinion, in this instance, to break a tradition and violate a trust. Furthermore, while you may draw the line at an R rated Disney film, that is a completely subjective and arbitrary position. There are some who might draw the line at PG-13. Who is to say who is right about that. That is why I would stick with the only somewhat objective guide we had on the subject - Disney's apparent policy and history of PG and below Walt Disney Pictures releases. Disney has other studios available to release films with stronger content and should have used one in this case.

In the past people trusted that they could take their family to a "Disney" film and not have it contain any objectionable content. If PoC has substantial enough violence to warrant a PG-13 rating (whatever that might be), it is quite possible that that trust people had may no longer exist for some people. I only hope the revenue Disney derives from having both "Disney" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" in the title (as opposed to simply calling it "Pirates of the Caribbean", released by Touchstone - and face it, anyone who knows Pirates of the Caribbean would have recognized it without the "Disney") are worth it in the long run. Based on what AV implies, this film will be forgotten quickly, but will those who felt a trust was violated be so quick to forget?

Let me say here what I should have said from the beginning. That is I don't give squat about this film. Looks ok - maybe I'll rent it on video some day. With respect to the film itself I am completely objective. I don't care what rating it gets, and regardless of rating I (not the MPAA) will be the determiner of what my kids do and do not see on film. So I am trying to objectively look at this topic from the standpoint of what is good for Disney, as opposed to what is good for this film.

[emmagata]

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
never mind, mis read your post. why can't posts deleted ?

The only thing you can do is go back and erase the text.

The OP can delete the thread.

[mikeymars]

Well, the lashback I predicted back in June has started.

This morning, while driving to work, the talking heads on the particular station I was listening to (which is rather popular) got into a rather interesting discussion. It went something like this:

"Hey, what's with this new Disney Pirates of the Caribbean movie? Apparently, Johnny Depp plays a drunken rock star in it."

"What?"

"Depp apparently based his character on -- get this -- Keith Richards. Not Blackbeard, not Henry Morgan, not Captain Kidd, but....Keith Richards. He walks around in a drunken stupor through half the film."

"Gee, that's really appropriate for the kids. I mean, come on, this is a Disney movie, right?'

"Yeah."

"And they're promoting the hell out of this to kids as usual?"

"Yeah."

"Wow, the brain trust at Disney really knows how to strip mine their legacy, don't they?"


By the way, Moviemom (http//www.movies.com/moviemom) -- THE best source for intelligent reviews of whether films are appropriate for children -- states that POTC contains "a lot" of violence for a PG-13, revealing bodices and some sexual references, including prostitutes, as well as "some strong and colorful pirate language" and drunkeness. Their final verdict?

Innappropriate for anyone under 12.

[mikeymars]

Some more "is it family friendly" verdicts from various on-line reviews:

“I do not recommend taking preteen kids to see this movie due to the violence which does get intense at times and watching the undead kill people will give them nightmares.”

“the movie was too dark and violent for the little ones”

“The creepy cursed-pirates-in-moonlight may disturb younger audience members”

[crusader]

Define "preteen". Because a 10-12 year old is playing video games way more violent than this movie. The effects are fantastic.

These comments are heavily exaggerated to say the least!!!!
And Johnny Depp is enthralling - even if he does look like a glam rocker. Everytime he shows up you can't help but grin!!! The guys got talent!

Mikeymars go see it. Don't take this stuff seriously.

[d-r]

Mikeymars I am glad you came back.

Wow, the "talking heads" on the "radio" actually said


"Wow, the brain trust at Disney really knows how to strip mine their legacy, don't they?"


When you had made this very prediction, well, that Business Week would say it:


Or, as the article in Business Week will probably label the discussion, "HOW TO STRIP MINE YOUR BRAND."


Neat.

[mikeymars]

>>These comments are heavily exaggerated to say the least!!!!<<

Trust me, the opinion of Movie Mom has a much larger audience and much more credibility than ANYTHING said here by the "Disney-can-do-no-wrong" apologists.

[crusader]

Moviemom is applying the rating system which I do not dispute. (although the refence to under 12 was interesting) I was referring to those other internet comments you mentioned.

Look, I'm not a disney can do no wrong apologist and I wouldn't label you as a disney can do no right advocate.

We may disagree but you really should make your own determinations here. There will always be two sides to an argument which brings us ultimately to several heightenend exchanges.

But you should go see the movie. It's low end violence with nominal sexuality not much more than is portrayed in the attraction itself. It's just live, that's all and it is properly rated PG-13. That leaves the parent to determine what they feel their child can or cannot view.

[d-r]

"By the way, Moviemom (http//www.movies.com/moviemom)"

This url doesn't work, and there is no movie mom that I could find at movies.com - do you have an accurate link? Thanks so much=-

edit - nevermind, found it, she is on yahoo entertainment, not movies.com

[d-r]

Mikeymars, I generally disagree with you.

Well, let's start here with the movie mom reviewer. Here is what she actually said about POTC-


Parents should know that this movie has a lot of violence for a PG-13, and while it is not especially graphic, there are images, including the literally skeleton pirate crew and a false eyeball that keeps coming out, that may be disturbing to some viewers. There are some revealing bodices and some mild sexual references, including prostitutes (not explicit and no nudity or sexual situations). There is some strong and colorful pirate language. Characters drink rum and get tipsy.


She says the intended audience is 12 and up, and gives it a "B" rating.

Let's remember this now:


By the way, looks like Dreamworks in going to pound Disney into the ground again in early July, just like they did with Shrek.

For at the same time Disney is telling me and my son (and the other millions of people like us) to get lost, Dreamworks will be inviting us and the rest of the "families with younger chldren" crowd into the theater to enjoy their pirate story, with Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (rated PG, opening July 2, a week before Disney's "Pirates let's-get-edgy-just-to-appear-currrent of the Caribbean." Interestingly, Sinbad's voice is being done by Brad Pitt, who apparently doesn't feel the need to play him like a drugged out "rock star."



And here is what Movie Mom said this about sinbad-

Parents should know that the characters are almost constantly in peril ranging from enormous snow-hawks to giant squid to sailing off the edge of the world. Very young children might be frightened by the threat of beheading and the masked executioner one character faces for a crime he did not commit


She says the audience is 7 and up, and gives the film a "B."

Here is another review of Sinbad from parents televesion council "Family Movie Reviews"

http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/moviereviews/PTC/sinbad.asp

Although two of the biggest names in Hollywood, Brad Pitt and Catherine Zeta-Jones lend their voices to the movie’s main characters, the movie falls flat with inferior animation of the main characters and a plot too complex and too dark for younger viewers.
...
The MPAA has rated this film PG for adventure action, some mild sensuality and brief language. My eyebrows were raised when the word “freakin” was used, and another character continued to utter “What the…” without finishing the expletive.
...
I feel the PG warning about sensuality and violence are justified. Viewers can expect to see plenty of knives, swords and daggers used in fighting scenes against monsters, as well as in typical sailor activities like boat repair and to cut rope. Sometimes the sailors handle weapons in unsafe manners, such as holding a knife in one’s mouth, so parents may need to discuss the dangers of knives post-viewing. Sinbad and his crew encounter several scary looking monsters, which may frighten younger viewers. The four year-old boys sitting in the row in front of me spent most of the film covering his eyes, sitting on his father’s lap.
...
There were a few scenes of mild sensuality that may not be appropriate for younger viewers, but, frankly, are not any worse than what is typically seen and heard in most children’s entertainment today. After one fighting scene, a portion of Sinbad’s naked bottom is visible through a gash in his pants. When Marina and Sinbad’s dog are forced to be bunkmates, Sinbad remarks, “If he starts hugging your leg, it means he likes you.” Also, the bodies of the female characters are cartoonishly disproportionate and clad in tight clothing. In one scene, Eris lolls in her bathtub and her nudity is hidden by copious amounts of bath bubbles. In another scene, the sensual singing of Sirens – who in Greek mythology lure sailors to watery deaths, almost dangerously enchants Sinbad and his sailors. The most befuddling and unnecessary interaction of the film is between Sinbad and his bare-chested first mate, Kale. When the water in which they are sailing suddenly freezes and the air becomes cold, Sinbad comments that Kale’s nipples could poke his eyes out. This remark will thankfully go over the heads of most children, and is no worse than the hidden innuendo in other children’s films, but still deems a warning.


And here is a funny line from a Sinbad review -

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1122323/reviews.php?critic=columns&sortby=default&page=5&rid=1172944

It's bad news when a six-year-old walks out on a movie, which is exactly what happened during a recent showing of Sinbad. The Dreamworks film, yet another in the latest line of action flicks aimed at kids, simply doesn't work. It's not just that there have been an abundance of better-animated (Treasure Planet) and live-action (Spy Kids) films recently. It's not just that the animation takes the viewer back a generation (not something kids would notice anyway). It's not just that neither Brad Pitt nor Catherine Zeta-Jones should ever, ever be cast for their voices. It's not even that the script is stilted, the dialogue poorly written and racial stereotypes abundant. It's that the sum of all of the above equals a really bad movie. Kids won't notice any of the specifics—except maybe the animation—but they'll get it in their own way: They'll get up and leave.


Let's go back to this

By the way, looks like Dreamworks in going to pound Disney into the ground again in early July, just like they did with Shrek.


And take a look at the numbers -
First the reviews - rotten tomatoes shows that 49% of reviewers thought Sinbad was Fresh, whereas, to date, 79% of the critics thought POTC was Fresh.

So, did the public agree with you or the critics?

Sinbad made 1.5 million on its opening day a week ago, one of the worst openings in history. After one week of release - seven complete days - this bomb has totaled less than $12.3 million.

On its opening day - a Wed. - POTC made $13.5 million!

That's right, in ONE DAY POTC made more than Sinbad in ONE WEEK!

In fact, POTC has already passed Sinbad's 8 day take of $13.4 million!

Sinbad was such a flop these comments I am writing right now will probably be the last time anyone ever brings it up anywhere, so let's mention this one last little thing -


Interestingly, Sinbad's voice is being done by Brad Pitt, who apparently doesn't feel the need to play him like a drugged out "rock star."


Most every review and comment from anyone who has seen the films heap praise all over Depp, and talk about how awful Pitt was.

Finally - here are some threads about POTC and kids -


http://www.rottentomatoes.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=250514

http://www.laughingplace.com/default.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-37808-P-2&Refresh=0710114741&C=1

FYI -= 3572 yahoo users have rated it an average of A+. The user rating at imdb is currently 7.9/10.

[Castillo Mom]

Originally posted by Mi3sons
I agree with DisneyKids on the fact that disney released a PG-13 movie has upset people as opposed to a Touchtone film being PG-13. I also think all you pirate haters should all just relax!
;)

I agree. Who says Disney can only make movies that target four year olds. My kids have grown up on Disney, and yes, we still go see the animated films. But my boys are also older now, ages 9-14. We took them to see Pirates of the Caribbean yesterday and they all loved it. Our nine year old was somewhat hesistant but has seen both Mummy movies and was fine and this film seemed much tamer (and was). I don't think Disney should be slammed for making a movie for an older crowd. I remember when we took the boys to see the Lion King, my middle child was very upset when Simba's dad was killed. It was a G rated movie and I had no way of knowing there would be a death in the film. I What I'm trying to say is, whether a movie has a particular rating doesn't necessarily mean it's either completely appropriate or inappropriate for a particular age group. You have to use your discretion as a parent.

As for comparing the movie to the ride, the movie has a rating to warn you of the content, the ride doesn't, so of course they would have to make sure the ride is appropriate for everyone that visits the parks.

[Magix]

I don't think you'll ever see a rated R film put out under the Disney banner. PG-13, however, does still fit into the category of "family" - yes, families with slightly older children, but families none the less. Under mikeymars' own examples of films that managed to be suitable for everyone, without losing their edge, he cites "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". I don't know about anyone else, but I saw that movie when I was rather young and although I enjoyed it, it was extremely intense. I'd wager it would sport a PG-13 or R these days.

And since Disney should only release G or PG movies, do you think something like "Jaws" would be appropriate for them? It was, after all, rated PG when released. I know that I still carry some very serious psychological scars from that movie and I'd wager many others of my generation do, too.

It just goes to show you that you can't rely on ratings alone to tell you whether a movie is appropriate for your family. The only person who can make that determination is YOU. And you bear the responsibility for it, not Disney or any other studio and not the MPAA.

If you dont' like what Disney is doing, don't see the film. It's that simple. If enough people feel the same way you do, the film will do poorly and Disney will learn an important lesson. Disney has the right to do what they feel makes good business sense. You don't have to agree with them. You can bemoan the loss of the age-old values you hold so dear. The rest of us can enjoy some light summer entertainment and so can the children in our lives that we feel are capable of handling it. We can take the younger set to see "Finding Nemo".

[emmagata]

Mikeymars, are you going to see the movie yourself and then decide if it's too intense for your child(ren)?

[BibbidyBobbidyBoo]

Well, all I can say is this definitely isn't the "normal" type of movie for Disney. In fact, this will probably be the first (and maybe only) Disney movie in the history of all time- that my husband wants to see.
LOL
I don't think it's for kids at all- and wouldn't be even without the PG-13 rating. The whole plot of the show is not for children, IMHO. It's right up my husband's alley though.
So either we'll find a time we can go see it without the kids, or he'll go see it alone, or we'll buy it soon as it comes out in video and he can watch it to his heart's content. The kids won't be seeing it. And they wouldn't want to anyway!

[BibbidyBobbidyBoo]

he cites "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". I don't know about anyone else, but I saw that movie when I was rather young and although I enjoyed it, it was extremely intense. I'd wager it would sport a PG-13 or R these days.
Ditto. I don't remember a ton of movies from way back then, even though I saw a lot and/or read a lot of books that were movies... but that is one I remember pretty darn vividly. I don't remember being scared- but apparently it was intense to be one that I remember so well.


And since Disney should only release G or PG movies, do you think something like "Jaws" would be appropriate for them? It was, after all, rated PG when released. I know that I still carry some very serious psychological scars from that movie and I'd wager many others of my generation do, too.


Ditto that too! Yes, psychological scars from that movie too- and that's why you'll probably never see me on a cruiseliner. LOL But I've watched those jaws movies recently and they are so FUNNY ... so obviously fake and all that. But does that change how I feel about sharks now? Uhuh... sure don't. LOL

[RustManFan]

I personally feel that the movie and its rating were just right. I am one adult that doesn't care at all for "scary" movies and find little in the theaters that suits my taste. This did and it was wonderful!! If it had been made as a movie for really young children it wouldn't have interested me in the least........

And about Harry Potter....wouldn't be a bit surprised if some of the future movies are rated PG-13 also. Each book does get darker and darker and they are expecting that the young audience that enjoyed movie 1 is also growing up along with Harry and his friends/classmates.

[Jeff in BigD]

Originally posted by thedscoop
Mikeymars: I think its a little disingenous for you to take this approach about today's Disney while ignoring those porn and snuff films Walt made in the late 50s.

Smells like another Car #3 double-standard to me.
Ok, I'll bite - what are you talking about?

[DisneyKidds]

I personally feel that the movie and its rating were just right.
I know I keep beating the same drum, but with a few new folks on board this thread it warrants repeating.......

RMF......I agree that the rating was just right and the film was made to appeal to the right audience. I don't think the film should have been made for the toddler set. So, you are correct in your post. But the real question, IMHO, has less to do with the rating and content of the film, and more to do with which studio Disney chose to release the film, and how Disney chose to advertise the film.

Walt Disney Pictures had never released a PG-13 film before this one. Should they have this time, or should Touchstone have been the studio that released it? Also, should Disney have advertised this film in a way that was bound to get younger kids excited about the film when they ultimately would be determined to be too young to see it? Those are the relevant questions I had, not whether the ultimate film should have been PG-13.

[luvmk]

I have a question--how is disney targeting children for this movie? The reason I ask is because my kids watch toon disney and playhouse disney and I haven't seen POC advertised during these times. I know there is a McDonalds tie in, but I don't think they are offering POC toys in happy meals. I have also been to the disney store several times in the last two weeks and have never seen anything related to POC. I know with Nemo, they had merchandise in the stores way before the movie was released. I know they may be advertising on disney in the evenings, but this would be about the right age group. I guess I'm not sure that disney is trying to target an age group that this movie wouldn't be appropriate for. Is the argument based solely on the fact that the movie is based on a ride that all children are able to ride? Just wondering.

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by luvmk
Is the argument based solely on the fact that the movie is based on a ride that all children are able to ride? Just wondering.

Did you happen to read the first post on this thread? I think the person who started this thread made their case there.

[luvmk]

Yes, I did read the first post. I guess I didn't make it clear that I'm not arguing the op. I understand their frustration with the PG-13 rating. In fact, the only marketing question I saw in the first post was about an issue of disney magazine stating that the film would be appropriate for anyone who would ride the attraction. I guess I don't consider an article in disney magazine targeting young children.

I was actually referring to the post that stated "And they are promoting the hell out of this kids as usual." I was surprised because as I said before, I Haven't noticed much promotion aimed at the younger children. Maybe disney is doing more promotion in other markets, I just haven't seen it here.

[DisneyKidds]

I have a question--how is disney targeting children for this movie?
As for my take............I don't think Disney was blatently targeting young kids in their advertising. I also didn't feel mislead by the advertising as I knew this film would not be appropriate for my kids as they are very young (4 and 2). I do think those with kids in the 8 to 12 range have more reason to take issue with the, albeit subtle, advertising that might have gotten this set excited about the movie. What advertising is that? I suppose any advertising in the Disney mag. Also, POC is front and center when you log onto Disney.com. I would imagine there are lots of 8 to 12 year olds who can do this, and up until POC Disney.com was probably a website devoid of PG-13 content or advertising. All that is subtle, yes, but enough to probably attract the attention of many kids under 13. Couple that with articles that may have led parents to believe that the movie would be suitable for any child who could ride the ride and I can see where one might take issue.

[luvmk]

I can definately understand parents' frustration if it is showing up on disney.com and they have a child that isn't ready to see the movie. Fortunately, our ds7 hasn't been on disney.com lately so he hasn't seen it. This is a good thing, because he wanted to go to the movie, but we told him he probably isn't old enough. For this reason, we are waiting to tell him about the HM movie. That is one of his favorite rides and I know he will want to see it. I just knew that I hadn't seen the typical disney advertising for POC i.e. happy meal toys, tons of merchandise and advertising on toon disney. I really hope HM comes out with a PG rating. Although, if POC is a success, I wonder if this will increase the chance that HM will have the PG-13 rating?:(

[scooby-the-doo]

Originally posted by Planogirl
. I have a bigger problem right now, namely why Terminator 3 is rated R. That is causing plenty of fuss in this household. :rolleyes:

All the Terminator films have been R-rated.

[emmagata]

We just got back from seeing the movie. We both thought it was well done. The acting was very good. The scenes were fantastic. The special effects were very good as well. The only negative I will say is that it runs a bit long (2hrs 24mins). I won't give any spoilers to those that haven't seen it yet other than you must stay until the credits are over.

The only reason (IMO) that this got a PG-13 rating is because of the fighting and killing. I've heard others mention sexual overtones. I didn't see any. There was some kissing, and not even that much. Now if one considers a buxom wench a sexual overtone they probably think that Victoria Secrets ads on TV are X rated.

I would say that most kids 10 and older should have no problems with this movie. Is it ok for a 5 year old? IMO no. Some of the scenes are intense and loud. Was it scary? Not to an adult but maybe to a small child.

So to answer the OPs "rant" (that's what is was), from what I've seen in the advertising of this movie, it was not directed at a really young audience. If someone was quoted as saying if a young child can go on the POC attraction, they can see the movie, they made a mistake. IMO, it was advertised to a much broader age group. We were at the early (11:30am) show and it was mostly adults. I saw more younger kids at the Terminator 3 movie than at POC movie. T3 was NOT a movie for a younger audience because of the language.

[ErikdaRed]

Please, lets let the parents decide which movie is right for THEIR children. Taking kids to an R rated movie is the parent/guardian's choice. If the MPAA didn't want kids to see it at all it would be NC-17.

That being said, PG-13 is an unrestricted rating and I see no reason why Disney shouldn't release a feature with that rating.