Disney to young moviegoers: GET LOST

[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!

 

[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.