Disney to young moviegoers: GET LOST

[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...

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.