MovieChat Forums > Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (2010) Discussion > Why do people keep calling this a kid's ...

Why do people keep calling this a kid's movie?

posted 13 years ago by mythosrattus
29 replies | jump to latest

Seriously, I'm seeing a lot of threads on here about 'this supposed 'childrens' movie is really inappropriate for kids.' Why is this a 'kids' movie exactly? Where in the billing does is say it's a kids movie? Where in the trailers? The story it's based on is from a 'young adult' book series that's particularly dark and violent and the director is not exactly known for doing movies full of happiness and warm fuzzies.

Just because it's animated and not rated-r doesn't mean it's a children's movie. I see this mistake made a lot and it drives me up the walls honestly; "Oh boy, an exciting animated movie! It's no doubt fun and happy and full of wonderful fluffiness! I think I'll go take my toddler to see it without attempting to find out anything more about it and just assume it will all be just fine." Seriously, I work at a video store and I've had parents try to rent movies like Watership Down for their kids, thinking they're alright for children based solely on the cover image ("Ooh! Lookit the fluffy bunnies! I'll bet this will be perfect for my 4-year-old. After all, what could possibly be wrong in a movie about cartoon bunnies?"). They never look at the rating, they never read the back of the cover box to see what it's about, they don't try to watch it first themselves to make sure there's nothing about it that they might disagree with their kids seeing... and suddenly it's my responsibility to do that part of their parenting for them. It's disgusting and as far as I'm concerned, people who can't be bothered to research whether something is ok for their kids shouldn't be allowed to have children in the first place.

This film deals with a lot of heavy moral issues and I honestly would not recommend it for anyone under the age of 10 at best, preferably none under 12. This is NOT a kid's movie. There is a refreshing lack of blood, guts, cursing and nudity but that doesn't make it a 'kids movie'. It's a very good movie -the plot is classic and ultimately uplifting, the animation is stunningly beautiful, the voice talent is wonderfully expressive, and the film has a lot of good old fashioned action throughout that keeps the pace from lagging in any way- but it is not a kids film.

Try looking up the plot of the books, there's a whole wiki just for Ga'Hoole. Within the plot description of the first book (which the movie is partly based on along with the second and third books) I was thinking to myself 'Well this is certainly not a kid's movie; there's no way they could keep half of this in the movie without it scaring the crap out of most little kids.'
First of all in the book Kludd is found by Nyra before he leaves the nest and to prove to her that he's as dedicated to the Pure Ones as he says he is, he *kills his parents* and tries to kill his brother by pushing him out of the tree, then, assuming Soren is dead, takes his little sister with him when he leaves. Then, just to impress Nyra (because he's in a relationship with her by now) he challenges the High Tyto to mortal combat and wins, though he loses about half his face in the fight, thus becoming Metal Beak.
And that's the tip of the iceberg for the story in the first few books. The movie doesn't even go into the Sleep March or the full extent of how Moon Blinking works or any of that.
The story deals with things like the theft of individuality and personal identity, ethnic/religious supremacism, the harsh reality of the consequences of war, murder, betrayal... I could go on. It's really more a 'young adult' or 'teen' than it is a 'kids' story and the film stays as close to the story as it can all things considered.
So, between the book plot, the chosen director, and the actual content of the movie, where, oh where, did anyone ever get the idea that this movie was ok for small children?

[–] RipperRoo28 13 years ago

I couldn't agree more. Just because smomething is animated doesn't mean it's neccessarily for kids, people! Parents really should start doing their job better. I know when I have kids, I'm definitely going to read reviews and pre-screen movies before I take them.

[–] RainCoatandAxe 13 years ago

Take Watership Down and Plague Dogs for example. Definately not kids movies.

You Fools! These are good biscuits and they cost £4!

Julious Nicholson

[–] Tronic2 13 years ago

The book could have been for adults (I have not read it) but children's stories weren't always like they are now. Consider e.g. Arabian Nights (A Thousand And One Nights), a collection of deep and often quite brutal stories written many centuries ago.

The movie, however, clearly took a rather kid-oriented approach and seemed like something aimed for 10-year olds. The movie begins and ends with telling scary bedtime stories and the main character is a kid who participates in the story and saves the world.

While I did watch the entire movie, I did find it quite boring because there really wasn't anything interesting to grab onto and there were too many deus ex machina (moon blinking, the blue substance, etc).

How To Train Your Dragon didn't sport a very original story either and in it too the main character was a kid (even if sufficiently older to behave like an adult). Still, the way the story was told added a lot of depth to it, the characters (both vikings and dragons) felt far more real and even at the very end of the movie there was a beautiful twist. Because of all this, I rated dragons nine stars, while giving owls only six.

[–] peccadillo 13 years ago

I don't know why we're so quick to label things nowadays. If I like something and I'm not a kid, then it's not just for kids.

And I mean, the fact that we're even here talking about it should be an indicator that a film's not "just for kids". I have serious doubt many (if any) of us are nine-year-old children.

Of course a film should have a target audience with it's content matter and all that, but there's no reason to be limited with it.

[–] ladybast 13 years ago

I'm not so worried as the rest of you about younger, children seeing this film. Yes, there is the image of violence, but no blood, no maiming. And no one who is good, with the exception of Strix Struma, dies. Even Soren's parents turn up alive at the Great Tree at the end. My reaction in seeing it was more like "Mercy, they've shredded the plot!" --but I could see that all the changes were done to make it more suitable for young children. Dead parents would be too intense. Seeing wings sliced off obviously ditto.

In fact, I suspected that Zack Snyder was extremely alive and sensitive to what I think of as "the Bambi issue." As we all know, when Bambi loses his mother in the film it can cause feeling adults to lose it, much less small children. At all costs, no one wants to make a similar cartoon which WILL induce parents--thank you OP for pointing this out so clearly--to take young ones to see it who will come out of the theatre sobbing and traumatized.

The problem that I see is that events are suggested, or happen offstage, that are even more horrible to imagine than they would be if actually shown. Clearest example of this I can think of is after Soren kills Metal Beak, and his mask rolls away and the young owls stare at his disclosed and mutilated face. But we don't see Metal Beak's face--instead we see the faces of Soren and Gylfie and the others staring in terrified fascination. Children are creatures of imagination, and that one scene has the potential for years of night terrors, because no screen images are there to limit its potential for imaginative development.

But over all, yes I WOULD take a young child to see ths movie. All harms are restored at the end, and the film, I think, makes wonderful points about family love and personal aspiration. In reading the books, I was overwhelmed by the reality with which Kathryn Lasky talks about learning to fly--how hard it it, how steep the learning curve is, how much intelligence and effort and just plain courage it takes to learn to fly and navigate the skies and the weather and the stars. Nothing I know of in the human world could be so hard. And yet all the birds do it. And that flight, that struggle to master that, is a deep and complex metaphor for what human beings do, in learning to rely on themselves and navigate their own path clearly.

[–] BriankDK 13 years ago

WOW - nice and inpirational posting - thank you for that :-)

(and its not ironic, i mean it)

[–] TheDoctorMan 13 years ago

That's not what deus ex machina means, sorry.

[Neytiri is CGI]

[–] BusinessDog 13 years ago

Yeah I was surprised with how dark it actually was!
Personally, I wish they had thrown out the PG rating and bumped up the violence a little more to make it more for grown ups. You know, let Zack Snyder do what he does best and pitch it to the older crowd who follow his work.

Maybe then it would have done a little better at the Box Office ;)

[–] dragoncane 13 years ago

Perhaps it has something to do with the previews being shown before other "kid" movies. Every movie I took my kids to see last year, had the previews for this shown before it. Also, from the way the previews were edited, it pretty much said, "bring your kids to see this movie".

My daughter was very excited to see the "owl" movie, but it came and went out of the theaters before we even had a chance. We'll be watching it this weekend finally.

[–] BriankDK 13 years ago

Excactly !

And i just watched the trailer: "Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole -- Trailer #2" - It has KIDSMOVIE written ALL over it !

But im glad you posted this warning, now i will watch it with my 13 years old daughter, but my 10 years old son, will have to wait.... unless someone says that it is a kid movie after all ?

Because the trailer sure looks like its a kids movie, about courage, honour, etc - it even gives a small incentive that it is funne at some points......

[–] BusinessDog 13 years ago

I think that was it's downfall, and I don't think they knew WHAT category to make it fall into.

It's advertised as a kids movie (talking animals + cgi + 3D), so it turns off the more mature audience.... but it's not really a "kids" movie either, so kids under 10 wouldn't sit through it without getting bored.

So it kind of ended up in the middle and had no strong, target audience (outside fans of the books).

-------
PRESTO!
-------

[–] machtyn 13 years ago

That was my feeling after watching the movie. It's main problem is that it mislabeled its target audience. Was this the studio's fault? Do studios automatically see a movie as being "family" friendly if it has cute fluffy talking animals? If so, the studio really screwed the filmmakers.

I really liked this movie, but it is definitely a young adult/adult oriented movie, with themes of kidnapping, child slavery, and the brutality of war. If there are more books (which I assume there are), I hope they decide to do another movie to continue the unfinished business. Look at the production costs verse their gross, it may not happen.

Perhaps the producers can convince the studio to advertise it correctly the next time.

[–] Candicemomof3 13 years ago

Actually my 7 year old just sat through it and thought it was awesome. I found the plot good and the visuals stunning. It was a great movie. I don't know why so many are knocking it but I guess to each their own. My 11 year old was asking about a sequel. I hope so too!

I WAS surprised at how much they changed the plot from the books though. I do want to borrow my 11 year old's books and read it now! lol That's how I got into HP too. Watched the movies first and then read the books. If a movie gets children (or anyone) reading then I'm all for it!

[–] dragoncane 13 years ago

We watched it Sunday. My daughter, who is almost 6, was bored out of her mind after about 15 minutes. I was pretty bored, too. I stuck it out. She decided to play Shrek on her DS instead. Anyway, I've never read the books. And from this movie, I really can't tell you what it is supposed to be about really. Mostly, the owls were really pretty to look at, imo.

[–] piedex 13 years ago

mythosrattus,

Just one problem with everything you said and it's that the movie studio billed this as a kid's movie. There was nothing in the previews that sold this as adult animation. Nothing. To top it off it's rated PG which is saying to parents you don't need to spend an hour researching this film because there is no blood, nudity, or bad language.

[–] machtyn 13 years ago

Agreed. Everything surrounding this movie indicates its target audience is the 4-14 crowd. But IT IS NOT. The movie was advertised along with other child friendly movies in the theater. The previews on the Netflix DVD has at least three child related (2-5 y/o) movies/videos advertisements in it. The comedic element was shown in the movie's previews.

I wanted to watch it because of the obvious excellent artwork. However, I made the intelligent decision to watch it before I allowed my young daughters to watch it (which they won't now) because I didn't know what I was going to get.

[–] Candicemomof3 13 years ago

I don't see anything wrong with this movie. It seemed like a kids movie to me. Maybe an older kids' movie (my 11 year old saw it in the theatre) but my 7 year old enjoyed it too. I think that people are really hung up on ratings. They are there to warn parents of really adult orientated stuff but I didn't think there was anything really bad in this movie. Nothing that will cause my 7 year old nightmares or anything. :P

[–] rgcustomer 13 years ago

No, just a not-so-subtle message promoting gullibility.

[–] lemonyvfd 13 years ago

Well, let's consider Where the Wild Things Are. A very nice film, very well made, interesting story, and all based upon a popular CHILDREN'S book. However, being based on simply a 10 page picture book, the story was adapted further into something much more intricate, more emotional, and much more mature than would be typically assumed of a "children's" movie. Many were upset that the film was adapted in that way, but I think the bigger problem was just that it was protrayed in the theaters and in the trailers that it was a cute little kid's film about a little boy who goes off to where the wild things are and has all sorts of silly adventures. Apparently, as we can see with even Legend of the Guardians, parents don't often look into a film before they take their 5 year old to see a movie because it was animated and had a kid in it. Legends had the same impression, I'm sure, because "look, cute owls!"

Granted, it isn't fair that the marketers do that to parents, but they really don't care what parents think. The fact is, you bought the ticket. They don't care if it torments your child because it's sort of scary, or if your kid gets bored. So the finger comes around to the parents that really need to look into films before taking their kid to go see it. I'm only 18, so I don't really understand what it's like having to take a kid to the movies :P However, if you're going to complain about 10 bucks you wasted at the movies, you could look into it a little more beforehand.

And false advertising doesn't always make it a bad movie. Just a different movie.

[–] the_urban_prince 13 years ago

TvTropes gave this phenomena 2 names "Animation Age Ghetto", and "What Do You Mean It's Not For Kids?"