Disney to young moviegoers: GET LOST

mikeymars

DIS Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2001
Messages
717
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."
 
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?
 
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."
 
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.
 

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.
 
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...
 
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
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)?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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!
;)
 
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?
 
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.
 
>>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."
 
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?
 
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:
 












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE











DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top Bottom