Why?
Well in.the first 5 min, the lead character says he's watching ” sex and violence”. They say ”jackass”, make references, to porn, a boy leers at a freeze frame of a woman's butt, a hunky guy says he has a ”boyfriend”....there are more but that gives you an idea. I am no prude, and all for progressive films, but I don't need to explain to a 7 yr old wtf that stuff is at a PG film I thought was innocent.
Rock/Paper/Scissors/Lizard/Spock
www.myspace.com/kickasskunoichi
When did people become such prudes? Do you really think anything in this movie will mess up a kids mind by watching it? This movie is wholesome as hell. Stop being such cry babies.
"Gentlemen. You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"
This movie is wholesome as hell.
Are you saying that no young person in the history of ever has been killed? It happens, and a kid over 10 understands that it happens, that's why they rated the movie the way they did. What if a ten year old's sibling died, are they too young to handle that information, should they somehow be blocked from it?
No! Death happens to everyone, even in PG movies,it's not an adult situation, it's a fact of life, get over it..
"Gentlemen. You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"
'The Hunger Games' should have been rated R, btw. It is a lot more violent than pretty much every single PG-13 movie in the last ten years except 'Priest' and 'Taken', and right now I can't think of a PG-13 action movie done recently that is more serious in tone.
However the only reason the original Star Wars trilogy was not PG-13 is the fact that this rating didn't exist at the time so they had to rate it either PG or R.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
Still, as I mentioned earlier, it was not such a great idea to show a little girl receive such severe punishment in a trial. She also does indeed die. Some audience reactions for this film thought that some scenes were too dark & scary for kids. I also remember the Broadway production of 'Mary Poppins', which is not a direct adaptation of the 1964 film, had a song called "Temper, Temper" where Jane & Michael's toys came to life and the children were put on trial by the toys. Parents thought that the song was dark and scary and apparently the American producers did not like the idea of the children being on trial as well. So a new song was added that was not as scary and there is no trial. And as I mentioned earlier in most versions of 'Alice in Wonderland' especially the 1951 animated version, the trial is not scary.
shareJesus...
People die. Even kids die. The sooner a child learns about that, the less painful it will be.
And... Well, the kids' favorite ghost Casper is a dead child... Kids' favorite fairy tales include things like an wolf eating an old woman and her granddaughter, an evil step mother enslaving her step daughter - and she forces her real daughters to cut their toes of, btw; an evil queen trying to kill an innocent girl...
Dark? Scary?
Have you read "The Little Match Girl" by Hans Christian Andersen? I studied it in school when I was 8. A little girl dies in it.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
I think it should have also, but the rating system is such a joke that they rarely get it right. I assume the more mature referencing would go over kids' heads, but it is actually pretty freaky. Of all the dark animated movies of this breed over the last few years, this seems the scariest to me. Not for young kids.
I feel like it was probably intended for older kids to teenagers and adults, so anyone thinking their little kids would enjoy it or should watch it is dumb. It isn't an issue of being prudish or overly sensitive, it is just common sense. Age appropriateness is something to consider. Why do young children need to see something like this? They probably wouldn't get the themes and morals and most likely, would just be creeped out by it.
Might as well target it and rate it accordingly for the audience it is intended for.
lol at people that think simple stuff like this is so inappropriate. It's not like they're showing nudity, gore, or excessive cursing. I mean really, when you're a kid, do you even notice those simple stuff? I sure didn't, and I'm sure most people didn't either when they were little.
shareI just watched 'Super 8' which had a very similar theme to this movie and it was rated PG-13. Both that film and 'ParaNorman' had violence, cursing, and scary scenes. So maybe 'ParaNorman' should have been rated PG13.
share'Super 8' is live action, has at least one clearly spoken F-word and is a lot more violent than 'ParaNorman'. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't it have a scene where the alien bites a soldier's head of?
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
[deleted]
I think this film is flawed for a number of reasons. I saw it and I believe that it should not have been PG. I really believe that it should have been PG-13. The younger audiences at my theater found it too scary and the creative team also chose to be liberal on a social issue that might seem confusing to children. If they wanted families & kids to see this film, then they should have been bipartisan and not take any political sides. They should have know that it was going to cause a debate between the two political sides. I think all other PG animated films from 2012 were rated for the right reasons but this one was not.
shareThere's nothing political at all about this movie, shut the hell up.
-----
Long live the new flesh.
My Top 25: http://www.imdb.com/list/KPl-XW7orjw/
I returned to posting for first time in a while. I've gotten to know some people who are gay and I think they are nice individuals. I also saw what a video of a former actor named David Yost describing the awful experience he went through and I felt bad for him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmlcuY8bOUk
These are my last words on this subject on this motion picture. I believe that the subject of homosexuality is best to be introduced by parents and teachers not Hollywood. I still also think that the film should have been PG-13 because Mitch's line at the end of the movie was risque humor like the stuff used in the 2007 film, 'Stardust'. I think 'ParaNorman' is fine for teenagers and young adults, but I don't think it's a kids movie.
I would also like to add onto my opinion that I watched 'Stardust' for the first time yesterday since I am a huge fan of Claire Danes from 'Homeland' and 'Romeo & Juliet'. One of the reasons why that film was rated PG-13 for risque humor. Mitch's line at the end of 'ParaNorman' was risque humor as well. This film is fine for teenagers and young adults, but I don't think it's a kids movie.
ETA: And with that note I am out of here.
DUDE, OP, why is any of what you just mentioned difficult to explain to a 7 year old? What the eff is hard about explaining a woman's butt, porn, the word "jackass", sex & violence, or gay characters? That's easy as eff to explain. I could so easily explain every single one of those to any 7 year old in an age-appropriate way, and I'd be happy to do it.
At least the movie wasn't about quantum physics. Imagine trying to explain that to a 7-year-old! :)