Disney, Adoption and The Avengers...

[Scurvy]

Originally Posted by skater

I totally agree with you, and have always been careful with media.

But tell that to the people who are marketing that moview to young kids with toys and ads . Obviously, I'm still the parent, and I make the choices. Still, its worth noting that the rating matters not a bit to the "movie maker." You can bet they want those young kids in those theaters. So, I can blame them a little I think .

There are books, costumes and games for children based on the Avengers license, plus the toys, including Legos. Disney and Marvel are marketing the property as a whole to children, not specifically the movie. The movie itself is rated PG-13 for lots of reasons. Disney and Marvel might want to maximize their audience for the movie, but the ads for the movie itself haven't been aimed at small children. (At least that I have seen. Did I miss some?). Parents have the responsibility to make an educated choice when they decide what movies to let their children see and the rating is one very important tool at their disposal. I see nothing wrong with parents taking kids younger than 13 to The Avengers if they think their kids can handle the kinds of things that are likely to come up in a Pg-13 movie. It's unreasonable for a parent to take their child to see it because Disney wants young kids in the theater and then get upset because their child wasn't ready for some things in the movie. It seems as though more and more often on here I see people (not you specifically) who disregard the rating of a movie because there were happy meal toys for that movie, or because "it's Disney" or "it's animated so it's for kids" and then they get upset when the movie is not appropriate for smaller children. The studio can sell toys or books or make cartoons based on the property or market the movie however they choose to. Ultimately, the parent is the one who chooses whether their child can see the movie and no one else is to blame if they choose poorly.

ETA- I can certainly understand a child who is otherwise ready for a PG-13 movie having a moment of confusion like the one the previous poster mentioned, which he was then able to explain to his child. Obviously his child was ready for that movie. But in the case of someone whose child is so sensitive to jokes about adoption that two words can ruin the movie for them and traumatize them enough to need 90 minutes of soothing, I think it is the parent's responsibility to be extra vigilant when checking the content of movies before exposing the child to potentially upsetting jokes. A movie where the villain has previously mentioned that his motivation is the fact that he is adopted might not be the best choice for a child who might be upset by negative mentions of adoption since adoption is almost certainly going to come up in some capacity. It might be wise for the parents of children who are especially sensitive to particular things to watch the movie first before allowing their child to see it.

[skater]

Originally Posted by Scurvy

There are books, costumes and games for children based on the Avengers license, plus the toys, including Legos. Disney and Marvel are marketing the property as a whole to children, not specifically the movie. The movie itself is rated PG-13 for lots of reasons. Disney and Marvel might want to maximize their audience for the movie, but the ads for the movie itself haven't been aimed at small children. (At least that I have seen. Did I miss some?). Parents have the responsibility to make an educated choice when they decide what movies to let their children see and the rating is one very important tool at their disposal. I see nothing wrong with parents taking kids younger than 13 to The Avengers if they think their kids can handle the kinds of things that are likely to come up in a Pg-13 movie. It's unreasonable for a parent to take their child to see it because Disney wants young kids in the theater and then get upset because their child wasn't ready for some things in the movie. It seems as though more and more often on here I see people (not you specifically) who disregard the rating of a movie because there were happy meal toys for that movie, or because "it's Disney" or "it's animated so it's for kids" and then they get upset when the movie is not appropriate for smaller children. The studio can sell toys or books or make cartoons based on the property or market the movie however they choose to. Ultimately, the parent is the one who chooses whether their child can see the movie and no one else is to blame if they choose poorly.

ETA- I can certainly understand a child who is otherwise ready for a PG-13 movie having a moment of confusion like the one the previous poster mentioned, which he was then able to explain to his child. Obviously his child was ready for that movie. But in the case of someone whose child is so sensitive to jokes about adoption that two words can ruin the movie for them and traumatize them enough to need 90 minutes of soothing, I think it is the parent's responsibility to be extra vigilant when checking the content of movies before exposing the child to potentially upsetting jokes. A movie where the villain has previously mentioned that his motivation is the fact that he is adopted might not be the best choice for a child who might be upset by negative mentions of adoption since adoption is almost certainly going to come up in some capacity. It might be wise for the parents of children who are especially sensitive to particular things to watch the movie first before allowing their child to see it.

I mostly agree with you and this is pretty much the way I parent my children. I believe (maybe I don't know what I'm talking about ) that the toys are part of marketing the movie. I guess I shouldn't blame the movie people though for trying to make money - you're right in that we are the ones who must be vigilant though its getting harder to do that.

I think how much that one line will affect a child depends on the child and what else is going on in his or her life. My youngest is sensitive because he was adopted at an older age and has lots of memories of the first part of his life. Adoption was NOT his first choice, and we have to discuss emotional issues on a fairly regular basis. I think he can handle that one line, but its good we were able to talk about it ahead of time. I would be more upset if I didn't know it was coming - and lots of people probably have no idea. Its not like we have a transcript of the movie available. There are great websites to help censor movies, but I'm not sure that this was evident at first. Maybe it is now though!

I still don't love that one line. I don't know if I'm exactly offended or if its more like disappointed and concerned. It was a teaching moment for us. For others - especially those who were surprised, I can understand how the feelings might run even stronger.

[PatMcDuck]

Originally Posted by Doug7856

I took my son to see The Avengers on Saturday. In one key scene, as the Avengers are assembled they review the evil committed by Loki. Thor confronts the rest of the Avengers because Loki is his brother. When the Avengers list the atrocities he has committed, Thor volunteers that “Loki was adopted”. It got quite a laugh from the audience, yet it implies that an adopted sibling is less family than biological children.

Children don’t need to be told they are inferior or defective or less of a family member because they were adopted, especially from someone as trusted as the Walt Disney Company. There are 73.8 million children who are a part of families created through adoption. It’s odd that Disney would choose to send a message that adopted children are less part of a family than biological children, but in my opinion, that’s exactly what happens in The Avengers.

Did this scene bother anyone else?

NO. It did not bother me, because I did not take it that way. I took it as "he is adopted, and not biologically related to ME", not that all adopted children turn out to be murderers or something. The context being Thor defending Loki and saying he is from the same world as him, AND he is my brother, then being reminded that he killed 80 people in a few days, then Thor saying in a funny way, "well, he WAS adopted" or something like that. I also think people laughed because Thor is funny, the way he speaks, etc.

But, I can understand how you feel, as I have a son with Down Syndrome, and many times I am hurt by comments on TV shows, the word "retard", or the expressions like, "I am so retarded sometimes" or "what are you retarded or something?" I have no problem saying my son is retarded, because he IS, but when it is equated with being stupid or ignorant, I get annoyed.

[tjevans]

I can see how some may be offended by the line. I can also see how others who are adopted or who love adoptees are not offended.

Given the huge number of people who have seen the movie, I think it would be almost impossible for some line in the movie to not have found something to be offended by.

What I wonder is whether this controversy started before the North American release of the movie. It was released almost a month earlier in the UK and other countries, but I never heard of this controversy until after the US debut.

[LuvsDragonflies]

Originally Posted by PatMcDuck

NO. It did not bother me, because I did not take it that way. I took it as "he is adopted, and not biologically related to ME", not that all adopted children turn out to be murderers or something. The context being Thor defending Loki and saying he is from the same world as him, AND he is my brother, then being reminded that he killed 80 people in a few days, then Thor saying in a funny way, "well, he WAS adopted" or something like that. I also think people laughed because Thor is funny, the way he speaks, etc.

But, I can understand how you feel, as I have a son with Down Syndrome, and many times I am hurt by comments on TV shows, the word "retard", or the expressions like, "I am so retarded sometimes" or "what are you retarded or something?" I have no problem saying my son is retarded, because he IS, but when it is equated with being stupid or ignorant, I get annoyed.

You seriously use the word "retarded" when speaking of and to your son? I'm flummoxed. Retarded isn't a word I would think any parent would ever use pertaining to their child.

There being so many other ways to express that your child has developmental problems, autism, Down's Syndrome, etc....why would you choose one so hurtful and derogatory?

[Planogirl]

Isn't it strange how many different ways people can take one comment?

[EricQelDroma]

Look, I've been clearly and strongly "jazz hands-ed" here, so I'm going to clarify one thing in particular, a few things in general, and then try very hard not to argue.

My daughter is seven. I took her to a PG-13 movie. Had she or I had a problem with the action, the violence, the death, or the language, and if I were on here lambasting the creators of the movie for these things, those of you critiquing my parenting might have a point. But you don't. She didn't have a problem with those things. I know my daughter and I know what she can and can't handle. The entire "too young for the movie" argument completely misses the point and merely distracts from the actual issue:

The line is offensive. It's a cheap shot at adoption's expense. It doesn't need to be there, and if it were referencing any of a number of other groups (minorities, women, gays, etc.), it would A) never have been included and B) generate a ton of outrage.

I was offended. My wife was offended. My daughter was confused and disturbed. Some of you weren't; that's fine. But to presume to say that others are overreacting by being offended and being public about it, to belittle those who protest is to avoid the actual topic by resorting to ad hominem attacks.

I included stuff about my daughter's reaction as a counter to those who said that no kids would even notice the issue without coaching. Alissa has not been "coached" and noticed two of the three major problems with the line ("do they think adoption is funny?" and "do they think Loki's bad because he's adopted?") completely independent of any comment from me, and she did it in the space of fifteen seconds after the line was delivered. I talked about how upset she was to emphasize that your mileage may vary when reacting to the line and to show how hurtful these ideas can be.

However, the basic offensiveness of the line is not dependent on a single seven-year-old's reaction nor on any other person's lack of reaction. I don't have a strong personal reaction to someone performing in black-face; it's still offensive for a litany of reasons.

So there you go. I think I've stated my opinions as clearly as I can and that I've addressed what I think are inaccurate or misleading arguments made since I signed off last night. I hope I've done so politely and rationally.

I'll leave it there out of respect for the "jazz hands" signal and apologize for any mismatch between my personal style and this site.

[Victorian Squid]

Hi all -

Just got back from seeing the movie, when I got home I checked to see if there was some discussion online as I anticipated there would be when I heard the line in the theater and observed both the audience response (hilarity) and my own reaction which was different than theirs. When I heard the line delivered and the accompanying howls of laughter, I felt for a brief second a sort of gut punch of sadness tinged with even a touch of guilt (by association, I guess). It was no huge deal or anything, but it did take me mentally out of the film for a few minutes to sort of process what had just happened. I couldn't actually tell you what happened in the film then, as those thoughts were grinding around in my head. All of that happened independently of the fact that I've been reading comics for decades and know Loki's background, indeed have felt a sort of kinship to it. The line evoked a very visceral response, which I know adopted people everywhere have felt before, will feel again, and can deal with.

I think adopted people of any age could have various reactions to the line, but some of those reactions would be hard to imagine if you aren't adopted.

[WowLookAtThat]

I have to ask. For those who are offended and even went so far as to write Disney, what do you hope to accomplish? Do you expect for the company to write you an apology? Remove the line from the film? Just curious.

[EricQelDroma]

Originally Posted by WowLookAtThat

I have to ask. For those who are offended and even went so far as to write Disney, what do you hope to accomplish? Do you expect for the company to write you an apology? Remove the line from the film? Just curious.

1. Raising awareness is partial victory, especially for future movies.
2. Video games are art, too, but I'll be darned if I sit through the Mass Effect 3 red/blue/green non-choice again. Games and movies are also entertainment. ME3's ending and this Avengers line are not entertaining to me and I'd be thrilled to see them gone.
3. I'd honestly be happy with a director's commentary where Joss says, "Yeah, that's an insensitive line and I'm a jerk for letting it through. I wish I could go back and unmake that part."
4. I'd be happier with an Avengers: Extended Cut where Stark makes the joke instead and Thor slams him up against a bulkhead and says, "Do NOT presume to mock my family... Ever Again." And then Spider-Man shows up.

Honestly, I think about your questions in terms of so many offensive lines, terms, epithets, etc. that have been significantly reduced in the last fifty years because people called the studios and creators on them, and I think this kind of complaining is more important that people might initially believe.

[WowLookAtThat]

Originally Posted by EricQelDroma

1. Raising awareness is partial victory, especially for future movies.
2. Video games are art, too, but I'll be darned if I sit through the Mass Effect 3 red/blue/green non-choice again. Games and movies are also entertainment. ME3's ending and this Avengers line are not entertaining to me and I'd be thrilled to see them gone.
3. I'd honestly be happy with a director's commentary where Joss says, "Yeah, that's an insensitive line and I'm a jerk for letting it through. I wish I could go back and unmake that part."
4. I'd be happier with an Avengers: Extended Cut where Stark makes the joke instead and Thor slams him up against a bulkhead and says, "Do NOT presume to mock my family... Ever Again." And then Spider-Man shows up.

Honestly, I think about your questions in terms of so many offensive lines, terms, epithets, etc. that have been significantly reduced in the last fifty years because people called the studios and creators on them, and I think this kind of complaining is more important that people might initially believe.

Wait..what does Mass Effect's ending has to do with this *I agree it sucked*

[EricQelDroma]

Originally Posted by WowLookAtThat

Wait..what does Mass Effect's ending has to do with this *I agree it sucked*

Another example of disgruntled fans asking for changes to something that can be called "art." I'm just trying to show that I publicly griped about that, too, and while I'd like to see an improved ending, what's really happening is fans saying to BioWare/Disney/Marvel/Joss, "Fooled me once, but not again."

[Victorian Squid]

All I want is to send good wishes to all the other adopted people out there, and to strongly urge parents to talk and listen to their children about stuff like this when it happens, or any time complicated issues of identity come up from little everyday things other people take for granted.

[MAH4546]

Originally Posted by EricQelDroma

1. Raising awareness is partial victory, especially for future movies.
2. Video games are art, too, but I'll be darned if I sit through the Mass Effect 3 red/blue/green non-choice again. Games and movies are also entertainment. ME3's ending and this Avengers line are not entertaining to me and I'd be thrilled to see them gone.
3. I'd honestly be happy with a director's commentary where Joss says, "Yeah, that's an insensitive line and I'm a jerk for letting it through. I wish I could go back and unmake that part."
4. I'd be happier with an Avengers: Extended Cut where Stark makes the joke instead and Thor slams him up against a bulkhead and says, "Do NOT presume to mock my family... Ever Again." And then Spider-Man shows up.

Honestly, I think about your questions in terms of so many offensive lines, terms, epithets, etc. that have been significantly reduced in the last fifty years because people called the studios and creators on them, and I think this kind of complaining is more important that people might initially believe.

In other words, your are hyper-sensitive to things and want to stifle free speech and use censorship. Wow. Just pathetic.

[EMom]

Originally Posted by MAH4546

In other words, your are hyper-sensitive to things and want to stifle free speech and use censorship. Wow. Just pathetic.

In other words, you failed to comprehend the content of his post. There was NOTHING in it approaching censorship. But then, that is not surprising in a person who tosses around the term "pathetic" in the way you do.