Fantastic Four Rise Of The Silver Surfer

[Junkyard]

Yeah, when watching Incredibles, there was a scene where the guy throws a train car at a couple of henchmen, and I just said to myself,
"Those guys just had a huge metal thing thrown at them. They're jelly."
I liked the movie, but there were more than  a few "not for little kids" moments.

[J-Proof]

Well -- I wouldn't be mad at Disney or Pixar for the rating that it received. That's up to the people in charge of ratings for whichever country you live in. Incredibles got a PG here in America, which equates it to Star Wars, or Shrek in terms of violence level.

As for Disney stepping too far away from its roots or something -- that's up to the studio to decide. The content that Disney produces is up to Disney itself, and nobody else. It's completely unfair to assume that because something has the mouse-ears remotely related to it (or because the CG Cinderella's Castle is at the beginning) that the movie is going to be no less violent than Steamboat Willie.... I'm glad (to an extent) that Disney has branched over different areas and demographics. The Incredibles is an awesome movie, and it's not something Disney should apologize for.

I call shenanigans on the whole notion that animated-Disney is stepping farther from its roots anyway! In Cinderella, I seem to remember three fairies enchanting a sword so that the prince could then throw it through the heart of a witch who had taken the form of a black, fire-breathing dragon. I also seem to remember Ichabod Craine having a jack-o-lantern thrown at him by a headless zombie who chased him on a ghost-horse through a haunted forest. Peter Pan and Captain Hook swash-buckle their way around a ship, while little kids throw crap at the rest of the pirate crew. Robin Hood is ripe with arrows and sword-play as a stoned rooster sings oodalalay. Beast gets stabbed in the side and dies. And finally, the Little Mermaid winds up naked on a beach and combs her hair with a fork.

Honestly, Disney has done a lot to tick me off in the past, and that was mostly /dumbing down/ their animation department and sacrificing the quality of their stories. However, I was never stunned by Disney being too violent or too intense as to warrant a PG-13 movie rating. The Death Star blew up Alderaan and thousands of people died, followed by a space battle that resulted in many pilots being killed in battle. The Incredibles shows a bunch of super heroes fighting it out in a super-hero-ish manner. Both movies got the same rating. Are we to say that because "little kids" are more apt to go see the one that it deserves a more severe rating than the other? That' a pretty subjective line if you ask me.

Also - I LOVE the Lion king. In terms of modern 2D animated movies, that is Disney's pride and joy.

[Chaos]

Let me clarify, J-Proof - and I apologize if I was not clear on this before.

Personally, on the whole, I like Disney. Beauty and the Beast was a great story. Pirates of the Carribean was an awesome film, that I enjoyed immensely. I loved the Lion King FOR MYSELF. But it was rated G, and it graphically shows a child watching his father fall to his death. That is NOT appropriate for a 3 or 4 year old to see, under any circumstances - but the G rating clearly says "this film can be seen by anyone."

I do not disagree with Disney, or any other company, branching off into new territory. I personally enjoy a lot of what they do. What I have a problem with is putting too much violence or inappropriate material in a movie that is clearly geared towards small children. If you watch "The Happy Little Elf," you should be able to expect NOT to see the elf get crushed by a bus and die.

I absolutely agree that the body or group that gives the actual rating holds a large part of the responsibility for that rating - but the studio that advertises the film with that rating (and in many cases, puts pressure on the ratings group to make sure they get the rating they want) also holds some of the responsibility.

You also can't safely compare a movie from 40-50 years ago to a movie from last year with similar ratings, because times have changed and we have become more aware of the potential ramifications of the things children are exposed to. If you look at a movie that is the equivalent of a rated G movie from 1950 and 2000, you will see a big difference in what sorts of material is shown (they showed more back then, ala Sleeping Beauty and the dragon / sword bit)... just as you will see a big difference in what sorts of material is shown in a rated R equivalent movie from 1950 and 2000... back then, there would almost be no such thing as a "slasher" flick full of gore like Friday the 13th - you would have the basic premise, but it would not show all of the blood and gore that you can see today... the movies back then were all swung more towards the middle of the road.

[J-Proof]

Your points are well noted, but my point still stands. The studio makes a movie and its rating is not determined by the studio. The Lion King is arguably geared toward tweens - sure, and I think tweens can and should be able to handle the idea of death in a cartoon. Especially one that furthers the story in the way it does in Lion King (which is basically the safari version of Shakespeare's classic "Hamlet").

For a good site where you can check the play-by-play action in a movie before you take your kids to see it, check out this place:
www.kids-in-mind.com

The site features a rating of violence, sex, and profanity, and gives you details as to what happens in the movie. I have some gal-friends that I like seeing movies with who are a little sensitive about different subjects, so I always consult the above site before taking them to something.

[Chaos]

Thanks for the tip, J-P. We'll check that one out next time we want to know ahead of time whether or not it's a good choice.

[J-Proof]

No prob! - some of the entries in that site are downright hilariosu though. They list the Silver Surfer under the sex portion of the movie's review and this is how they describe him =P

An alien appears to be made of silver, it has the shape of a human male mannequin: his bare chest, abdomen, smooth crotch and buttocks are visible.

Here's some hilarious entries for both Bug and Hostel II (respectively) lol:

A man and a woman have sex, they kiss and saliva strings trail when their lips separate; the man then kisses the woman's bare breasts and we see her breast and nipples, his bare buttocks, her bare buttocks and pubic region and she thrusts on top of him -- we also see her face when it is implied that he is performing oral sex on her (we do not see the act).

We see a man's genitals during a torture scene, and they are later severed and tossed to a dog, which eats them (they are clearly discernible).

And finally - here's an entry from Shrek the third:

An ogre stands nude in front of a commencement ceremony (in a nightmare) and the audience points and laughs (we see his bare back and chest).

[Junkyard]

It sounds like porn for the desperate.

[Tripe]

I don't think it's the same site but I remember when Armageddon came out , there was this Christian website that flagged it for "suicide disguised as heroism" genius!

[J-Proof]

Here's Armageddon's profanity warning:

Two F-words, one F-word derivative, a profane hand gesture, many mild obscenities, many scatological references, many anatomical references

[Pak-Man]

And animal cookie sex. :^)

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

im not reading the whole thread.  so i apologize if im bringing up something already discussed. 

the hemi line made me want to throw up, then beat up the director. 

[Junkyard]

"Hemi line?" Please explain.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

johnny - does it have a hemi?
mr fantastic - of course

sarc -  GRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA DAMNED PRODUCT PLACEMENT!!!!!!

[Douglin]

Yeah nobody in the theatre got that when I saw it, you could hear the "huh?" of a hundred people...guess it's more of a US thing.

I assume that it was meant to somehow link back to johnny & reed's suit/sponsorship/logo conversation earlier on, but it got all mangled up in the re-writes...

[Junkyard]

Yeah nobody in the theatre got that when I saw it, you could hear the "huh?" of a hundred people...guess it's more of a US thing.

I assume that it was meant to somehow link back to johnny & reed's suit/sponsorship/logo conversation earlier on, but it got all mangled up in the re-writes...

Well, if you have a line you need to say, and it take's away from the film's dignity, which 2 of the 4 would you rather have say it? I say, Johnny and Reed. The worse of the actors.