Cars 2 -- how did this movie get a G rating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took my 2.5 & 4.5 year olds and thought it was fine. It was certainly no more violent than when they play make believe Star Wars (and they've never seen Star Wars). I really think people have become too sensitive if you think this movie was bad.

Do your kids act out torture scenarios? You don't see any difference between acting out generic violence like cops and robbers, and tying someone down, making their "blood" heat up until they explode? Not only that, but even though they got the information they wanted, they killed him anyway. I thought it was pretty unnecessary.

Come on! You are taking this movie- and its "violence"- way too literally. I'm not concerned that my child is going to start torturing people because he saw a movie where a car heated up the gas of another car. I believe in sheltering kids, but this is too much.

It's not about sheltering them. It's about the fact they cannot process such extreme examples. You can, but they can't. And if they grow up seeing this stuff as the norm, they can develop irrational fears and/or become immune to the horror of violence. I' not against violence in media, but it has to be age-appropriate. This scene was not.

Yes because talking self aware cars are so real

To my 4 year old, they are.

[Anonymous]

Then there is your problem. My 4yo knows they are charatcers in a story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took my 2.5 & 4.5 year olds and thought it was fine. It was certainly no more violent than when they play make believe Star Wars (and they've never seen Star Wars). I really think people have become too sensitive if you think this movie was bad.

Do your kids act out torture scenarios? You don't see any difference between acting out generic violence like cops and robbers, and tying someone down, making their "blood" heat up until they explode? Not only that, but even though they got the information they wanted, they killed him anyway. I thought it was pretty unnecessary.

Come on! You are taking this movie- and its "violence"- way too literally. I'm not concerned that my child is going to start torturing people because he saw a movie where a car heated up the gas of another car. I believe in sheltering kids, but this is too much.

It's not about sheltering them. It's about the fact they cannot process such extreme examples. You can, but they can't. And if they grow up seeing this stuff as the norm, they can develop irrational fears and/or become immune to the horror of violence. I' not against violence in media, but it has to be age-appropriate. This scene was not.

Yes because talking self aware cars are so real

To my 4 year old, they are.

Agreed. You need to look at it from a young child's perspective, not your own.

[Anonymous]

I just came back from seeing Cars 2 with my 3, 5 and 8 year old...have you all lost your minds? The "torture" scene (and to even call it that is pushing it) went over all the kids heads...we all loved the movie and had a great time-tons of car chases and crashes, my oldest son focused on the relationship between Mcqueen and Mater-talked about that on the way home..way better than the first one-I just don't get you all-do you just find fault in everything? Maybe we saw a different version.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The film makers are in cahoots with the ratings people, I think. There is very little difference between an R and PG13 now, too. They want to desensitize everyone to sex and violence so they can get the largest viewership possible. It's very subtle usually, but seems to have taken off quickly in the last couple of years.

You need to watch PG-13 movies from the late 70's or early 80's. There were lots of boob shots in those movies and the dialog, oh, it was about on par with what is allowed in R rated movies now.
E.T. was rated PG and Elliot called his brother "Penis Breath".

There are no "PG-13" movies from the late 70s or early 80s. PG-13 was created in 1984. Many thought Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins were too violent for the PG rating it had so this led to the creation of PG-13. I really don't think Indiana Jones was that "violent". Action packed, yes. Fighting, yes. Blood and gore? No. But you see more "blood" in PG today than PG then. And frankly, boobs and some sexual material were not as "concerning" 30 years ago. Its only since the late 80s that we've gotten overly sensitized about boobs.

OK there are from the early to mid 80's then. Sorry the time span was wrong, I was going from memory, not Google. According to a google search it was Red Dawn that was the first pg-13 movie. A movie I didn't think was too disturbing until I watched it right before bed on Sept. 10, 2001.

[Anonymous]

Just took my 2.5-year-old daughter to go see Cars2. That was perhaps the biggest mistake I've made as her parent to date. I feel like a horrible person for subjecting her to that. We left after the first few scenes. I called Disney and left multiple messages asking for my money back with no replies yet. Very, very disappointed in Disney, Pixar and myself. I will never, ever again take her to a movie without first reading plenty of reviews first and I will never again assume that because a movie is rated G that it is safe for my kids.

[Anonymous]

To the PP with 2.5 year old -- really? Any movie is pretty much too much for that age. It's not Disney's fault.

I say that as one of the early posters on this thread who was waiting with anticipation for this movie to come out and then did not take my 7 and nearly 5 year olds b/c I heard that it was too intense. (Note, a lot of movies in the theater are "too intense" b/c the sound is loud, the screen is huge and there is nothing else for the kids to look away to). So, I just rented it a few weeks ago to play it on our small screen with the intent that I could fast-forward through any scenes that were "threatening."

Well my kids LOVE, LOVE, LOVED it! They thought it was the best movie ever (and they think "Monster Inc." is too scary!). I asked and they didn't think there were any parts too scary for them.

My point is that you as a parent have to make an informed decision about what is appropriate at different ages. Just b/c a movie is made by Disney doesn't mean it is appropriate for every child. Did you let your child watch Lion King too? B/c that one is very scary for kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just took my 2.5-year-old daughter to go see Cars2. That was perhaps the biggest mistake I've made as her parent to date. I feel like a horrible person for subjecting her to that. We left after the first few scenes. I called Disney and left multiple messages asking for my money back with no replies yet. Very, very disappointed in Disney, Pixar and myself. I will never, ever again take her to a movie without first reading plenty of reviews first and I will never again assume that because a movie is rated G that it is safe for my kids.

OMG sooooooooooooooo funny!!!! I hope they are replaying your messages over and over and laughing as hard as I am. My kids, including a three year old loved it, fact we just bought the dvd..

[Anonymous]

According to the MPAA, a "G-rated motion picture contains nothing in theme, language, nudity, sex, violence or other matters that, in the view of the Rating Board, would offend parents whose younger children view the motion picture."

Clearly they were wrong about this one. The fact that some of you have no problem with a character being tortured to death and characters screaming "Kill him!" and multiple gun fights doesn't excuse the fact that MPAA got it wrong. The proof is all the parents who were actually offended.

[Anonymous]

I went and saw it by myself and was VERY glad I didn't have any kids with me. I was shocked by the violence and appalled by the number of [/list][list]times they said Kill him or something similar. I loved the first movie and was very much looking forward to this sequel but I found the plot boring and violent. Very disappointing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the PP with 2.5 year old -- really? Any movie is pretty much too much for that age. It's not Disney's fault.

I say that as one of the early posters on this thread who was waiting with anticipation for this movie to come out and then did not take my 7 and nearly 5 year olds b/c I heard that it was too intense. (Note, a lot of movies in the theater are "too intense" b/c the sound is loud, the screen is huge and there is nothing else for the kids to look away to). So, I just rented it a few weeks ago to play it on our small screen with the intent that I could fast-forward through any scenes that were "threatening."

Well my kids LOVE, LOVE, LOVED it! They thought it was the best movie ever (and they think "Monster Inc." is too scary!). I asked and they didn't think there were any parts too scary for them.

My point is that you as a parent have to make an informed decision about what is appropriate at different ages. Just b/c a movie is made by Disney doesn't mean it is appropriate for every child. Did you let your child watch Lion King too? B/c that one is very scary for kids.

When I was that age I loved the Three Stooges and Tom & Jerry. Not sure that made those shows good for kids.