Too intense and brutal for children
Not what I expected from the movie posters featuring happy, smiling faces of a dinosaur and little boy.
Your point about the marketing is valid.
I felt the movie did a particular disservice to kids by tacking lots of violence but attempting to maintain the "politically correct" PG view of the world where nobody actually kills anybody else (except when it's a "prop" character with no lines).
Sure, we have the dad dying, which is like the mom dying in the beginning of Nemo (my kid cried), but it's a kharmic death - stolen right from the pages of the Lion King - without the "good vs. evil" angle of scar stabbing the king in the back.
And then we have scene after scene of fighting where nobody is allowed to kill the bad guys. Almost every fight ends with the enemy getting flung off into the horizon. Velocoraptors are literally inside a T-Rex jaws, and the next scene they are up and running around trying to kill the little boy. Same thing with the teradactlys - that was the laziest finale ever: the shark fins in the clouds was a nice visual, but then it's the same losers who were in the T-Rex mouth a dozen scenes ago, back fresh as new?
I guess the T-Rex was not allowed to use lethal force because he was not in eminent danger personally? So he could only pick them up like kittens and throw them out of the way? Sounds like the standard some reporters hold inner city police to today.
And the scene with the psychotropic fruit? "Just say no" must have been in an alternate dimension! Now the guy pushing E on the playground can say: it's cool, it's like that stuff the good dinosaur ate and he was all like putting his head on the human body and stuff. You'll love it.
How Pixar can go from something as artistic and tasteful as Wall-E to this kind of garbage...
I guess the T-Rex was not allowed to use lethal force because he was not in eminent danger personally? So he could only pick them up like kittens and throw them out of the way? Sounds like the standard some reporters hold inner city police to today.
Now, I agree with a lot of what you said, including this part in the context of the world of TGD (not really civilized, and has no sense of law and order larger than each family or other small group), but in the real human world both the law and basic morality say that lethal force may only be used when one is in imminent danger of losing one's life or being grievously injured (we may also defend others who are in such extreme danger, of course). This is true even in the United States, which has some of the loosest laws around when it comes to using lethal force. Furthermore, one is never permitted to deliberately kill someone else--apply lethal force if you must (and ONLY if you must), but only to stop the threat against life and limb, not to ensure that the assailant is dead. To reiterate, unless you are a state executioner in the act of carrying out your official duty, you are never allowed to deliberately kill another person. That's the law in any civilized society (by the way, warfare lies outside of this context), not just the standard of some reporters or whatever.
Sorry about going off-topic, but I think a lot of people don't understand this, and it's important (especially if, heaven forbid, you ever have to resort to using lethal force in self-defense). Police are held to the same legal standard for the use of lethal force as anyone else, at least in the US. The only difference is that they are given a lot of leeway and legal immunity when it comes to going after criminals because it is, after all, their sworn duty to enforce laws and thereby protect society. Regular citizens can actually do the same, including making arrests, but can far more easily get into trouble if something goes wrong because it is not their duty to do so (could be viewed as looking for trouble)--usually their duty is to retreat if possible or they can elect to stand their ground in some states, but pursuit is a risky proposition legally (that's what the police are for). share