Rated PG-13 Movies for Kids - **Exploitation at it's finest level!!

[audioicon]

What I don't understand and please correct me here, why do movie studios release movies that are rated PG-13 but then do direct marketing to kids.

 

There is a lot of promotion going on for the Iron Man toys but the problem is the movie is not very suitable for children.

So why are there so many movies, Spider Man, well, you can name as much as I can, will contained lots of voilence but at the same time all the marketing are design to attract people "children" the movie in my opinion are very unsuitable for.

 

Don't you think there should be some sort of edited version? I know there was once a company editing movies and removing violent scenes but that gig was shut down after a court ruled it was violating the rights of the movie industry.

 

I rented Iron Man, there are so many iron man toys out there for ages as low as two, but are they expecting these kids to want to watch the movie.

 

This is the same as selling drugs, honestly if I had the time and money I would sue these people. If you are going to make a movie that sells and appeals to kids, then make an edited version that parents can watch with their kids.

 

How am I suppose to rent Iron Man for my kid, get him the blankets but tell him, no you can't watch the movie.

 

What are your views?

 

AI

[tfortier]

dont buy the blankets!

 

I dont know, my kids only cares about Dora, ampaman and winnie...

 

Anyway, I feel if they have good education they will be able to know what is good and what is bad. I dont see my kids going on a rampage at the zoo...

 

Still I agree with you its paradoxal...

 

When I went to see Dark Knight, there was a 6 years old boy with his mother and the poor kid cried all the movie at each joker appearence... mother did not care, she was perfecting her make-up and sending message on the cellphone. bitch!!

 

pfff I need a coffee...

[Lee Knight]

As a parent, you've got to limit what your kid watches. Camel cigs used to market to kids, according to their detractors. Joe Camel and all that. And now, Iron Man Spider-Super-Transforming whatever's next.

 

Truthfully, the flick is less violent than what most kids watch on Saturday mornings. But you're right, it's not for the young ones. It was written and produced to appeal to adults. Young adults as well. Hell, my 11 year old daughter watched it, and it was fine. But... what about a 6 year old boy? He's going to be chomping at the bit to see this, right?

 

It is a mixed message for sure. You're too young to see this movie... but hey, buy the doll! And its accessories!!

 

Still, as always, it comes back to the parent. It is not the end of the world for a kid to be denied something they want. Admission to the flick in this case. So parents, I believe, need to grow a pair and draw the line. Be the bad guy with all the right intentions. And who knows, maybe your kid will respect you for it. Mine does.

[Billster]

It's a brand recognition ploy. Get the name in front of them young. I do find it slightly creepy.

 

There's a fine line with that stuff IMO, because completely isolating a child from popular culture risks the "forbidden fruit" syndrome, and also creates the potential for mistreatment by his peers, who won't believe that your child has no idea who Batman (or whatever) is.

 

Then the next question is "My friend's dad let him watch"

 

I encourage watching sports - then I only have to explain the ads for beer and Viagra.

[BlueStrat]

 

What I don't understand and please correct me here, why do movie studios release movies that are rated PG-13 but then do direct marketing to kids.

 

 

It's all about the benjis. They do it because it makes a ton of money, pure and simple. Same reason booty shorts with the word "Porn Star" across the rear end and thongs get marketed to 10 year olds.

[Lee Knight]

It's all about the benjis. They do it because it makes a ton of money, pure and simple. Same reason booty shorts with the word "Porn Star" across the rear end and thongs get marketed to 10 year olds.

 

Of course it is. That, I assume, is quite obvious. They do it to make money? How long have you been sitting on this information?!?!?

 

Sorry. The real question is, how do you handle it as a parent?

 

(I do realize you were responding to what I consider to be a naive question. Just teasing)

[TimOBrien]

Everything is money.

 

By the way, I picked up the DVD on the first day it was released; good thing they edited the movie the way they did..... the deleted scenes show several shots where Downey was with his party girls and encouraged them into foursomes and lesbian sex ("Why don't you girls go ahead and start without me??") at a party in his Dubai mansion. Much more of a porn atmosphere.

 

Looking over all the deleted scenes, what they cut wasn't necessary and the movie flowed fine just the way it was released....

[Will Chen]

I'm not a fan of the marketing decisions surrounding these types of movies. Sure, they typically tie in an animated series with the box office version. Yet more, and more often the animated version is just as violent as the big screen version (Gotham Knight a prime example).

[audioicon]

It's a brand recognition ploy. Get the name in front of them young. I do find it slightly creepy. There's a fine line with that stuff IMO, because completely isolating a child from popular culture risks the "forbidden fruit" syndrome, and also creates the potential for mistreatment by his peers, who won't believe that your child has no idea who Batman (or whatever) is. Then the next question is "My friend's dad let him watch" I encourage watching sports - then I only have to explain the ads for beer and Viagra.

 

LOL, so what do you say when the Viagra commercial comes on? Hey son, some day you are going to need that? :lol:

 

AI

[audioicon]

 

dont buy the blankets! I dont know, my kids only cares about Dora, ampaman and winnie... Anyway, I feel if they have good education they will be able to know what is good and what is bad. I dont see my kids going on a rampage at the zoo... Still I agree with you its paradoxal... When I went to see Dark Knight, there was a 6 years old boy with his mother and the poor kid cried all the movie at each joker appearence... mother did not care, she was perfecting her make-up and sending message on the cellphone. bitch!! pfff I need a coffee...

 

 

Well, I'm not saying I buy the blankets for these movies, what I'm saying is clear and simple. Well, so I think, how can you market things to kids that are not "suitable" for kids? So you are watching Dora and then on comes a commercial for a Batman toy with references to the movie, "that's direct marketing to the kid."

 

I'm not blaming these people for child violence because parents also has a choice but on the other hand, they doing direct marketing to the kids.

 

Personally I'm surprised, that there has been no law suits regarding this matter.

 

AI

[Billster]

LOL, so what do you say when the Viagra commercial comes on? Hey son, some day you are going to need that? :lol: AI

 

I don't say anything, and he's still too young to ask. It does kind of bring up a companion point to your first post though.

 

The sports leagues like to promote themselves as good family entertainment, and for the most part they are. But then you watch the games on TV and the networks litter the commercial breaks with Viagra and promos for whatever inappropriate programming is on after the game - like Fox network showing baseball and constantly plugging stuff like "Prison Break". The worst is probably the Versus network (which has the NHL and Tour de France) plugging their other staple programming, MMA cage fighting. :facepalm:

[the stranger]

What's really shocking is what's going on over at the Food Network:

 

[YOUTUBE]GRda_A4zXpI[/YOUTUBE]

 

Thanks, skippydmongoose down at OJ.

[Lee Knight]

Thread the cob!

[the stranger]

That's seriously amazing culinary talent, my friend!

 

I'm in

[slight-return]

 

Well, so I think, how can you market things to kids that are not "suitable" for kids?

 

 

For a number of reasons I suppose (at least in USA, other places...dunno)-

 

the MPAA rating system is a voluntary process and they only rate the film (not products associated with film such as blankets)

 

The language of the PG cautions is just that, a caution "PG" stands for "Parental Guidance" and claims "may be inappropriate"

 

It isn't until "R" do we get to actual restrictions

[Hard Truth]

The reason is simple: PG movies generally do better at the box office than G movies. The problem with G movies is that they are too detached from reality, even a "damn" can earn a PG rating, and the movies often lack any suspense or tension.

[slight-return]

 

I know there was once a company editing movies and removing violent scenes but that gig was shut down after a court ruled it was violating the rights of the movie industry.

 

 

There were abt 3 or 4 of those companies -- the case was "Cleanflicks (et al) v Soderbergh (et al)" if you are lookign for it

[UstadKhanAli]

There's so many seeming contradictions in this sort of thing that you can drive yourself insane wondering about it, especially if you are a parent.

 

And like Hard Truth says, PG movies make much more money.

[slight-return]

 

There's so many seeming contradictions in this sort of thing that you can drive yourself insane wondering about it

 

 

 

You know what really burns my ass?

 

a flame about 3ft high

[Lee Knight]

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute. The content in the Iron Man movie, the Spider Man movies and their ilk are fine for a 13 year old kid with a head on their shoulder. Sure, there may be some sexual innuendo, some cars blowing up, etc. some bad guys getting their comeuppance, but for the most part, those Marvel type movies are fine for a 13 year old. PG-13, remember?

 

Should the movie have been made PG instead? Wouldn't that be more in line with the comic books themselves? Does Spidey get laid in the comics? I don't believe so but I admit I may be out of touch there. But they chose to write, cast, film, edit, and ultimately market these films to the 13 and above crowd. For the $$$. It made sense based on the studio's experience, market research, etc.

 

And then they make a doll aimed at a 5 year old. I feel the OP's reservations about this arrangement but...

 

...buying the doll does not mean the kid should go see the movie. A little uncomfortable "I wanna go" yearning isn't going to kill little junior.

 

So. What exactly is the problem? You don't want your kid to own a doll about a character that might have premarital sex and sells weapons for a living then gets a conscience? Even if Junior is unaware of any of that? Fair enough, that's certainly not a bad choice, not one I'd make but I get it. So don't buy the doll either.

 

It's marketing and they're marketing to you and yours. Vote with your $$$.

[Dean Roddey]

I think that there's no real mystery or conspiracy going on. The gotcha, as I understand it, is that a bigger budget movie that is rated NC-17 or R is just not going to have the size market available to it to make it a profitable enterprise. So they are always trying to create movies that walk the line where it can be PG-13, but not be completely boring for adult viewers either. That way, they can get the market they need to support a bazzillion dollar movie budget. A lot of people complain that there aren't very many adventure or fantasy type of films for adults as well, which is just the flip side of the same problem.

 

Pan's Labyrith, one of the most obvious recent ones I can think of, only cost $18M to make. I doubt anyone would have taken the chance on it at $50M or more. In retrospect they'd have done well, but it was a bit of an abberation I think. It had huge visibility and critical acclaim, but in the end it only cleared $83M, from the numbers I'm looking at. That's not bad at all considering the production costs, but a movie with that kind of visibility that had had the whole young and adult audience available to it would have probably been enormous.

 

It actually kind of squeeged me out even as an adult really, though I thought the ending was brutally emotional.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

And then they make a doll aimed at a 5 year old. I feel the OP's reservations about this arrangement but... ...buying the doll does not mean the kid should go see the movie. A little uncomfortable "I wanna go" yearning isn't going to kill little junior.

 

 

I thought of this as well, but since there's an obvious tie-in to the movie, it seems like it's kind of marketing the movie anyway. But of course, you are right, the kid does not have to see the movie.

[audioicon]

 

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute. The content in the Iron Man movie, the Spider Man movies and their ilk are fine for a 13 year old kid with a head on their shoulder. Sure, there may be some sexual innuendo, some cars blowing up, etc. some bad guys getting their comeuppance, but for the most part, those Marvel type movies are fine for a 13 year old. PG-13, remember? Should the movie have been made PG instead? Wouldn't that be more in line with the comic books themselves? Does Spidey get laid in the comics? I don't believe so but I admit I may be out of touch there. But they chose to write, cast, film, edit, and ultimately market these films to the 13 and above crowd. For the $$$. It made sense based on the studio's experience, market research, etc. And then they make a doll aimed at a 5 year old. I feel the OP's reservations about this arrangement but... ...buying the doll does not mean the kid should go see the movie. A little uncomfortable "I wanna go" yearning isn't going to kill little junior. So. What exactly is the problem? You don't want your kid to own a doll about a character that might have premarital sex and sells weapons for a living then gets a conscience? Even if Junior is unaware of any of that? Fair enough, that's certainly not a bad choice, not one I'd make but I get it. So don't buy the doll either. It's marketing and they're marketing to you and yours. Vote with your $$$.

 

 

 

Why do we move transfat from food, why do we have age limit on cigarettes and alcohol? Lets remove regulations from these products and the parents can take charge. It's up to the parents, right?

 

Honestly, if I had the time and money I will sue, arguing that the fact parents must fight to keep their kids away from products directly marketed to those kids are causing "extreme emotional distress."Pirates of the Carribean toys were given to kids for free when they purchased a kids meal at McDonalds. Parents alone cannot shield their children from everything.

 

It's like remove all form of regulations and let "the people" decide whats right for them. Unless you are going to move to Mars and packaged your kids in a bubble, every child will be exposed one way or the other.

 

 

It's exploitation and dangerous marketing.

 

AI

[rasputin1963]

My dad was taking my little brother... from the age of four up... to "R" rated movies.

 

And my dad is ultra-conservative.

 

He just figured a little violence and some non-explicit sex wouldn't hurt a red-blooded American boy. Was he right?

 

I remember my folks taking me to see BONNIE & CLYDE and the Sam Peckinpah westerns in the 1960's when I was 4, 5, 6. These were the days when there were only three (American) ratings: G, M (Mature) and X. I'm certain these 60's movies mentioned were "M" films, (and easily "R" films by today's standards) but in those days, I think the ratings systems were just considered "suggestions" and were loosely-- if at all-- enforced.

 

My parents used to tell me that movies were an elaborate form of "Let's pretend". I pieced together that, no matter how realistically horrifying was the onscreen imagery, pretty young Faye Dunaway was not actually getting plowed to ribbons by a B.A.R. at the end of BONNIE & CLYDE. I was a bright kid, and understood the concept of "acting". (But do most kids?)

 

I think the MPAA stepped in in a bigger capacity as soon as they started using the "F" word onscreen... around the time of the movie PATTON in 1969... IIRC. (Can any of you remember how shocking it was to hear "{censored}" uttered on the screen for the first time?) As those of us old fogeys here will recall, the Oscar-Winning Best Picture of 1969 was X-rated: MIDNIGHT COWBOY.

 

My Dad was just a South Texas guy who felt that life was rough in general, and it did no good to shield a kid from its rougher elements. That we kids might grow up ill-equipped to understand life's rougher influences, harder edges, was something my Dad was unwilling to let happen. Call it white liberalism, call it child abuse, call it "Tough Love", call it what you will: the Sixties had a different vibe than today.

 

 

My mother is a play therapist and child psychologist.... Exploring children's neuroses and behavior disorders and psychoses is what she does all day. She said to me recently, "You would not believe all the children who were traumatized--- and I use that word literally and clinically, not figuratively or hyperbolically-- by JURASSIC PARK and its sequels. Many, many, many children took that movie literally and believed every moment of it, even children as old as 12."

[UstadKhanAli]

Honestly, if I had the time and money I will sue, arguing that the fact parents must fight to keep their kids away from products directly marketed to those kids are causing "extreme emotional distress." Pirates of the Carribean toys were given to kids for free when they purchased a kids meal at McDonalds. Parents alone cannot shield their children from everything. It's exploitation and dangerous marketing. AI

 

I see your point.

 

But where do you stop? What's considered exploitative? What's considered unhealthy? Where do you draw the line? What sort of litigation are we talking about?

 

If two children go into McDonalds because they want the Pirates of the Carribean toys, and one purchases a salad while the other purchases a Big Mac, can only one sue McDonald's?

 

If both children choose a Big Mac and a salad, can they both sue? Or not?

 

Or is this a class action suit?

 

If that's the case, should children be allowed to eat "unhealthy" food occasionally? What's "occasionally"? Or never? Or once a week? Or once a month? Or are they allowed to eat only at restaurants that don't have toys but still offer "unhealthy" food?

 

What's the definition of "unhealthy"? Is the salad unhealthy? What if you add blue cheese dressing? Is it now unhealthy and therefore subject to lawsuits?

 

McDonald's has a clown. Lots of kids love clowns (I was not one of those kids - their creepy smile never changes!). Should we have sued them years ago for having a clown? That's marketing to kids! I loved Mayor McCheese. Should we sue his giant ass too?

 

Are we just talking about kids?

 

Carl's Jr. sells burgers dripping with cheese and advertises giant milk shakes. Can a diabetic sue Carl's Jr.? What about a morbidly obese person? This food is awful for a diabetic or a morbidly obese person. What about someone attending OA meetings? Can they sue too? Someone from an OA meeting may have more difficulty with self-control than a 17-year old or a 13-year old. That's not fair, is it?

 

Carl's Jr. had an advertisement with a girl eating a burger while riding a mechanical bull. I love this ad. Urhm, um, but where were we? Is this dangerous? The poor girl could choke on that burger! What kind of message are we sending kids here? Should we be able to sue them? What if every kid started riding mechanical bulls while eating burgers? Someone might choke! Someone might fall off!! Let's have that girl ride something else...I have one idea...

 

So...okay, we need to figure out a bunch of lawsuits here. You can figure this out while I go get something to eat.