Disney Movies G-rated?

[UmbrellaFish]

The rating system was first put in use in the late 1960s in America, so I'd say a lot of the G-ratings were tacked on because they were "Disney" films.

But what if the movies I mentioned had been released after or around the 60s? Would that earn them a higher MPAA rating?

I said a lot of Disney films, meaning I was referring to the pre-sixties films.
I believe it was Don Bluth who said that he thought Disney films got a little bit of slack when it came to ratings. And it seems, at least the ones that stick closer to the Disney tradition, do.

[PeterPanfan]

I guess, for most animated movies, especially 2-D ones, it's easier to differenciate what's real and what's fake for a child, in comparison to a live-action film.

[Super Aurora]

You know this is why I think the Japanese are awesome sometimes. Some of their kids programs: DBZ, ONe Piece, Sailor Moon etc. have minor swears, bit of violence(not too graphic though), and some sexual jokes that not too crude. The parents in Japan don't cry like flippin' babies about those things on a damn cartoon show for kids.

Make us look like bunch of pussy wuss for getting upset over these things.

I rather tell my kids, if I ever have any, about these things rather than "protect" and shield them from it.

When kids watch cartoons, they don't care about nudity or swears. They just like watching the damn cartoon and seeing the hero kick some major ass. Adding some violence/blood wouldn't bother the kids either.

[Wonderlicious]

Afaik all Disney animated films here in the UK were rated U apart from Black Cauldron which was PG.

I think The Black Cauldron was rated U (for all those ignorant people outside the UK..."U" is equivalent to the American "G"), though I looked on IMDb and saw Bolt got a PG. Let's also not get on the whole subject of how Toy Story somehow got a PG.

Also, I believe that Snow White originally was deemed "too scary" by the cautious pre-WW2 British censors and got a rating that prohibited under-16s seeing it without an adult. Of course, nobody aside from them really gave a damn, and loads of cinemas just let children come in in their thousands.

[pinkrenata]

I know it's ironic in thread about the boundaries of film ratings, but let's remember to keep the language PG!

[Mayhem]

I think The Black Cauldron was rated U (for all those ignorant people outside the UK..."U" is equivalent to the American "G"), though I looked on IMDb and saw Bolt got a PG. Let's also not get on the whole subject of how Toy Story somehow got a PG.

I stand corrected. I looked it up on the BBFC and the original 1985 certification was indeed a U here in the UK. Wonder what made me think it was a PG then...? Maybe because it was in the US...

Lilo and Stitch was cut to make a U here in the UK afaik though.

[dvdjunkie]

I personally think this topic is totally out of place and out of date. When Walt Disney was alive and in charge of all the productions that came out of his studio, the Animated Classics were all rated G because they were 'family films'. They were made in the day when Mothers and Fathers TOOK the kids to the show and they all went as family. And I have never found anything offensive about any of the original Disney Animated Classics that have been mentioned, although I can honestly say I never liked "Black Cauldron" and don't think any of my grandchildren have seen it. It is probably one of the more mature of the DAC's.

I find nothing offensive today in most of Disney's films except there lack of decent actors and actresses, because the Disney studios are trying to foist a bunch of no talents on us with these 'teenage-aimed' films that are truly very disappointing for their topics and the handling of such topics.

It just shows how much families have grown apart in our wonderful country. Something that I try to keep up with is making sure that my wife and I took our kids to the show when they wanted to see a movie, we just didn't throw some money at them, drop them off, and went off shopping at the mall or something.

Today, we take our grandkids to the movies almost every weekend. It is still a "family" thing for us. Don't know how many of you can say that you go see "High School Musical" or "Hannah Montana" as a family, but I can truly say that we go as a family or we don't go at all to see those Disney films we think fit into the family mold. We have gone as family to see all of the Pixar films including the recent "UP".

If more families boycotted those Disney movies that are NOT family films, maybe Disney would go back to making more family-oriented films.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Remember when PG actually meant something and not just something that was slapped on to anything that might be slightly unpleasant?

[ajmrowland]

and the scarf.

Actually the whole stripper dance....which apparently they used Demi Moore's scene from Striptease as a model for it.
I just feel between the violence, adult themes, and sexual innuendos, it deserved a PG rating.

And when I was 6, I didn't even notice any of those things, except for the violence. I agree that it should be PG, but that's more for Frollo's doings than anything else.

[milojthatch]

I think the MPAA are a joke. The stories I have heard, you really can't go by the rating system for anything! I find the rating system on this web site to be far more accurate when it comes to what is in films.

http://www.kids-in-mind.com/

I know for a fact that "The Lion King" was almost given a "PG" rating, but it barely passed through without one.

[ajmrowland]

I think the MPAA are a joke. The stories I have heard, you really can't go by the rating system for anything! I find the rating system on this web site to be far more accurate when it comes to what is in films.

http://www.kids-in-mind.com/

I know for a fact that "The Lion King" was almost given a "PG" rating, but it barely passed through without one.

This is off-topic, but I think you'd like this.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/

[milojthatch]

I think the MPAA are a joke. The stories I have heard, you really can't go by the rating system for anything! I find the rating system on this web site to be far more accurate when it comes to what is in films.

http://www.kids-in-mind.com/

I know for a fact that "The Lion King" was almost given a "PG" rating, but it barely passed through without one.

This is off-topic, but I think you'd like this.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/

I think I have actually seen some of this. I firmly side with the concept of "edited for content" versions of films. I don't believe in making that THE ONLY version, just that such versions should be made public. I believe in the concept that films and tv shows are "products" first, items for sale, and "art" second. I have a group on Facebook all about it.

Anyway, as a result, I have been doing a lot of research on this topic. Some of the things I have found really tick me off! But I did run across parts of this on YouTube. Very interesting. Funny how both sides of this issue don't care for the MPAA very much.

[Widdi]

I firmly side with the concept of "edited for content" versions of films.

No, just no.

Censorship in any form in unforgivable. Parental Control is not censorship in my eyes. If you don't want your child to see something it is your job as a parent to make sure they don't. Editing films, books or music not meant for certain audiences so that other audiences may see them is a slap in the face to the person who created that work or art.

Censorship is also a way for lazy parents to get out of actually explaining things to their children. "If they don't see it we don't have to talk about it" is an attitude that only leads to trouble when your child is exposed to something later in life that you have not told them about.

[milojthatch]

I firmly side with the concept of "edited for content" versions of films.

No, just no.

Censorship in any form in unforgivable. Parental Control is not censorship in my eyes. If you don't want your child to see something it is your job as a parent to make sure they don't. Editing films, books or music not meant for certain audiences so that other audiences may see them is a slap in the face to the person who created that work or art.

Censorship is also a way for lazy parents to get out of actually explaining things to their children. "If they don't see it we don't have to talk about it" is an attitude that only leads to trouble when your child is exposed to something later in life that you have not told them about.

While your at it, never ever, EVER paint your house, alter your clothing or doodle on your backpack. You would be damaging the artist expression of the architect, clothing maker and backpack maker.

We'll just have to disagree on this, but movies, books and music if sold become consumer products first and fore most. My feeling is if the artist don't want their "art" to be altered, they better start giving it out for free. Till then, it's an open issue and one I am firmly willing to fight. My research has come across a lot of interesting interpretations of the First Amendment and a lot of hypocritical actions on the part of the Hollywood Studios.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Don't like it, don't watch it. If something has to be edited in the first place for you to like it you probably should stay away from it.

[Super Aurora]

While your at it, never ever, EVER paint your house, alter your clothing or doodle on your backpack. You would be damaging the artist expression of the architect, clothing maker and backpack maker.

Now you're just being desperate to counter-argue.

We'll just have to disagree on this, but movies, books and music if sold become consumer products first and fore most.

ORLY? If I remember correctly Walt Disney himself was more about making animated movie with perfection and excellent artistc measures. When people didn't think a feature length animated movie would work, Walt still went ahead and now look how successful his company become. As snow white wasn't "good enough", he even went further to improve and make Pinocchio and even finer masterpiece.

Seriously, this is one thing business people these days DO NOT get: artistic concept has always revolutionize change aspect of the world. Most business are afraid to take risk just so they can be "safe" with their business.

My feeling is if the artist don't want their "art" to be altered, they better start giving it out for free..

That's like saying Andy Warhol should change his ideas and concept of the work just not to offend someone if want make money.

Seriously, Political Correctness and censorship is fucking bullshit.

[2099net]

Seriously, Political Correctness and censorship is fucking bullshit.

I don't think it is. Of course it depends on the offence involved though.

You wouldn't want a film or TV program made for a mainstream family audience today to feature outlandish racial stereotypes, the "N" word, or people laughing at or bullying a homosexual - especially if it was presented in a way that made all such behaviour appear normal and showed no negative consequences at a result of such behaviour.

It wouldn't be accepted. And therefore, such "politically uncorrect" aspects of historical movies shouldn't be accepted either for the same audience.

So I think in those instances, it's fair enough to edit the movie. Such edits should always be labelled as such though.

However, that's just making the film appropriate for that specific audience. Which is fair enough if the film was made with a family audience in mind in the first place.

However, that doesn't mean I think the original film should be vaulted away. It's perfectly acceptable to release the original film to a collectors/enthusiast/educational audience, presenting it in some form of context (even if only sleeve notes printed on the back of the packaging). Indeed, the original SHOULD still be available.

As for Disney's films, they have two issues. First is as milojthatch pointed out, they are a Business. And nothings going to change that - so their films have to be aimed at the mainstream family audience with today's sensibilities above everything else. I don't care what Walt would do - because Walt himself censored The Three Little Pigs and Fantasia.

Secondly, and more important, Disney has a "reputation" that is almost impossible for a company to live up to. Disney have to be whiter than white at all times - more so than any other film studio.

Look at all the fuss over Dogma when it was going to be released by Buena Vista - so much fuss that Miramax ended up dropping the film, due to all the negative publicity form people who HADN'T EVEN SEEN THE FILM. Did the same protectors picket Sony when they picked up the film? No, only about 1/8th of them did. Meaning, that to 7/8ths of them, the issue wasn't the film as such, but the fact "family friendly" Disney was somehow involved.

Disney doesn't have films with anything approaching the content I suggested at the top in my argument supporting self-censorship, but they do have the Disney brand, and the Disney brand is so big, people just don't expect to be offended, how slightly, by a Disney film. Personally, I don't think Disney have to edit any of their films, but I can understand why they feel as though they do.

But remember, Disney has had the foresight to release its Treasures sets unedited (at least, that was their intent, despite a few accidental goofs). We even got Mickey's Mellerdrammer - short where the corporate symbol of Disney, dresses as a black slave! You've got to give them credit for that - even Warner Bros are holding back on their so-called Censored 11 from DVD release.

[DisneyJedi]

I'm really hoping they release Fantasia uncut on their BD release.

Hang on. They censored Three Little Pigs, too? How?

[Super Aurora]

You wouldn't want a film or TV program made for a mainstream family audience today to feature outlandish racial stereotypes, the "N" word, or people laughing at or bullying a homosexual - especially if it was presented in a way that made all such behaviour appear normal and showed no negative consequences at a result of such behaviour.

It wouldn't be accepted. And therefore, such "politically uncorrect" aspects of historical movies shouldn't be accepted either for the same audience.

So I think in those instances, it's fair enough to edit the movie. Such edits should always be labelled as such though.

I'm not talking about that when come to political correctness. I'm referring to how people take the issue to the extreme that it effect content of medium.
Example, in pokemon (a kids game and show) there is a certain pokemon by name Jynx. Originally she this pokemon with Blonde hair, jet black...face?, and big eyes and big lips. A certain disgruntled black mom who probably has so much free time that she complained to Nintendo how that Pokemon is offending blacks.



Seriously. It's a damn pokemon for one, two it did nothing radically stereotyping. And yet this mother has to complain and bitch over that crap? Kids wouldn't even give a damn. They see it as another pokemon. This is why adults mostly take fun out stuff with political correctness bullshit. It was same deal with Mr. Popo during the US manga run.

If you're talking about Disney, how about the little mermaid fiasco? Obviously that was the Priest's knee, but when people make big deal out of it saying it was a boner and when the Little Mermaid came back on DVD it was edited, you know the Disney submits to parents bickering.

However, that doesn't mean I think the original film should be vaulted away. It's perfectly acceptable to release the original film to a collectors/enthusiast/educational audience, presenting it in some form of context (even if only sleeve notes printed on the back of the packaging). Indeed, the original SHOULD still be available.

Now this I agree with on.

As for Disney's films, they have two issues. First is as milojthatch pointed out, they are a Business. And nothings going to change that - so their films have to be aimed at the mainstream family audience with today's sensibilities above everything else. I don't care what Walt would do - because Walt himself censored The Three Little Pigs and Fantasia.

They are a business yes, but that shouldn't be the sole reason to be held back over censorship issue. By Fantasia you mean the black centuars? He probably edit that way after like in the 60's or so. If it something else I'm not aware of it. Never knew 3 Pigs was censored.
But what I was saying in my previous post is that even if your in a business, artistic value and original content shouldn't be secondary importance. I was using Walt as an example. This is goes for everything

Secondly, and more important, Disney has a "reputation" that is almost impossible for a company to live up to. Disney have to be whiter than white at all times - more so than any other film studio.

Yes this big fact annoys the hell out of me. It's like the audience/consumers is TELLING the company what it has to be. One of the reason I like Touchstone. Yet even in Touchstone they had to edit Roger Rabbit. I don't believe that movie suppose to be a family movie like say The Little Mermaid or something.

Look at all the fuss over Dogma when it was going to be released by Buena Vista - so much fuss that Miramax ended up dropping the film, due to all the negative publicity form people who HADN'T EVEN SEEN THE FILM. Did the same protectors picket Sony when they picked up the film? No, only about 1/8th of them did. Meaning, that to 7/8ths of them, the issue wasn't the film as such, but the fact "family friendly" Disney was somehow involved.

Which is bullshit, I agree

But remember, Disney has had the foresight to release its Treasures sets unedited (at least, that was their intent, despite a few accidental goofs). We even got Mickey's Mellerdrammer - short where the corporate symbol of Disney, dresses as a black slave! You've got to give them credit for that - even Warner Bros are holding back on their so-called Censored 11 from DVD release.

I give em credit for that but again, these are more than likely are aim for enthusiast like us rather than to a family. I'm still puzzled why Warner Brothers doesn't release the censored 11.

Bottom line I'm trying to make is: Censorship & Political Correctness is BS because people complain about useless stuff in a cartoon that they shouldn't even be bother to complain about.

[Widdi]

While your at it, never ever, EVER paint your house, alter your clothing or doodle on your backpack. You would be damaging the artist expression of the architect, clothing maker and backpack maker.

Once you purchase something it is your own choice what you do with it. For example if you wanted to fast forward through a scary part of a movie you bought on DVD you have the right to do so. When you take that scary part out of the movie completely and then sell it as a product that has been censored is when I take issue with something.

As for political correctness there is self censorship, which means you as the creator makes something politically correct originally and then there is taking something that already exists and editing it to be PC... which is wrong. What is write is explaining to viewers that what they saw is wrong. This is what should have been done to films like Fantasia... had someone explain that the movie was made when it was acceptable to portray people of colour in that light and that we know it is wrong now. Deleting history teaches nothing...