The Incredibles is rated PG for Action Violence

Just Myself · Post by **Just Myself** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 7:22 pm

First the second trailer disappoints, then Pixar leaves Disney, and now it's G-rated only image is shredded. I think we got another Bug's Life here...

Disneykid · Post by **Disneykid** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 7:27 pm

Secret Disney Man wrote:First the second trailer disappoints, then Pixar leaves Disney, and now it's G-rated only image is shredded. I think we got another Bug's Life here...

1. The first one is strictly opinion.

2. They may come back.
3. People will still flock to see it despite the rating. It didn't stop Lilo and Stitch or the Shrek films.
4. A Bug's Life was a great film and made a decent 162 million domestically, so I don't know what you're alluding to.

I expect The Incredibles to be a great film given Pixar's track record. Will it make more money than Nemo? Personally, I doubt it, but who cares? Since when does box office take ensure a good film (or bad box office ensure a bad one?).

Post by **Luke** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 7:37 pm

I'd be delighted if it's another "A Bug's Life"...provided that means it will be innovative, funny, exciting, and visually stunning.

I wasn't disappointed by the second trailer, and I'm not disappointed by what the MPAA assigns it. The rating system seems pretty arbitrary and it's not like there haven't been good PG-rated animated films. Lilo & Stitch, Teacher's Pet....it's a short list, but that's only because the MPAA has made a "G" more difficult to get and has been throwing "PG"s at most animated films.

What it comes down to is the MPAA's rating has no effect on how good or bad a movie is.

Just Myself · Post by **Just Myself** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 7:50 pm

Luke wrote:What it comes down to is the MPAA's rating has no effect on how good or bad a movie is.

Five words: The Cat in the Hat

MickeyMousePal · Post by **MickeyMousePal** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 7:50 pm

The Incredibles is PG oh well it won't make enough money to beat Shrek 2. But I predict it will make more money then Finding Nemo.
When the rating is PG less kids could see the film because parents think the film will influence their children in a bad way.
I'm going to see The Incredibles when it comes out in November.

Just Myself · Post by **Just Myself** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 7:53 pm

I doubt it would make that much with other family films like Polar Express, SpongeBob and Christmas with the Kranks. Like I said I bet it stops at $230 million.

Loomis · Post by **Loomis** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 9:25 pm

Luke wrote:I'd be delighted if it's another "A Bug's Life"...provided that means it will be innovative, funny, exciting, and visually stunning.

I was about to say that same thing. Except here and with different words.

Apart from Julia's pronunciation of the word "Warriors" ("Woyers"), I thought it was probably one of Pixar's best. Having said that, they've all been gold.

In fact, the Incredibles is probably the first to break the typical "buddy movie" mould - with the exception of A Bug's Life.

I think I'm more than a little sick of people taking random things from before a film (ratings, trailers) and predicting the course of a film's box office (which is, of course, the least important thing for fans).

MickeyMousePal wrote:The Incredibles is PG oh well it won't make enough money to beat Shrek 2. But I predict it will make more money then Finding Nemo.
When the rating is PG less kids could see the film because parents think the film will influence their children in a bad way.

Criswell has spoken!
Well, Pixar seems to have gone from strength to strength with their last few films. And this one has all the elements that has made recent superhero movies, the Spy Kids franchise and 3D animated films a success. I can't see why this won't do well at the box office.

And if a PG rating is an idication of a Disney flop, then I guess nobody told Pirates of the Caribbean. (That PG flop took over $300m in domestic box office, and now has two sequels in the works).

Paka · Post by **Paka** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:00 pm

Loomis wrote:I think I'm more than a little sick of people taking random things from before a film (ratings, trailers) and predicting the course of a film's box office (which is, of course, the least important thing for fans).

Ah, don't sweat it, Loomis. Secret Disney Man has, for a while, seemed hell-bent on prematurely condemning Incredibles for some time; dunno why, either - the film certainly doesn't have "flop" written on it... O_o

Loomis wrote:And if a PG rating is an idication of a Disney flop, then I guess nobody told Pirates of the Caribbean. (That PG flop took over $300m in domestic box office, and now has two sequels in the works).

Hmm... are you lumping the two "PG"-type ratings together (PG and PG-13)? 'Cause certainly you remember that Pirates is a PG-13? Hehe... and that is a definite difference from PG.

But yeah, unlike the discernible gap between PG and PG-13, G and PG are really one in the same these days. Those that bother to check the ratings usually aren't deterred anyway, and those that are bothered by a PG - well - they're a smidgen uptight, if you ask me. And The Incredibles may not have a strong promotional campaign right now, but come October (or maybe even September) they're gonna slam us hard. Of course, Disney could decide to be babies about it and underadvertize because they're mad at Pixar for splitting, but hey. My other point, anyway, was gonna be that this film is sure to have strong word-of-mouth, which is the best kind of advertizing you can get in general. So I doubt that this will be a "flop" for Pixar. They're going to have a fairly crowded playing field this November, family film-wise, but not a lot of true competition, if you ask me. The only film that could give TI some trouble at this point is SpongeBob, in my opinion. Shark Tale will be a month old, Kranks has yet to prove itself, and one film that is sure to be a flop is The Polar Express. The mo-cap in that film is downright creepy - Tom Hanks or no Tom Hanks. The look of the film is instinctually, involuntarily repulsive. And yes, even kids will sense it.

And I'm not trying to be a Disney or Pixar cheerleader here, either. This is just my personal opinion. After all, a film's pedigree doesn't mean it's gonna be a good dog. LOL

pinkrenata · Post by **pinkrenata** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 5:13 am

Um, is there any film nowadays that isn't rated PG or higher? And how exactly would a PG rating cause it not to do as well as Shrek? If I remember properly (and I'm sure I do), both Shrek films were also rated PG and most definitely have more content that parents may find questionable than The Incredibles will.

Uncle Remus · Post by **Uncle Remus** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 6:55 am

pinkrenata wrote:Um, is there any film nowadays that isn't rated PG or higher? And how exactly would a PG rating cause it not to do as well as Shrek? If I remember properly (and I'm sure I do), both Shrek films were also rated PG and most definitely have more content that parents may find questionable than The Incredibles will.

Well the only rated G movie that I can think that is coming out this year is the Princess Diaries 2 Royal Engagement. i really think the first one should have been rated PG.

Loomis · Post by **Loomis** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 7:10 am

Paka wrote: Hmm... are you lumping the two "PG"-type ratings together (PG and PG-13)? 'Cause certainly you remember that Pirates is a PG-13? Hehe... and that is a definite difference from PG.

Oh, Ok. I don't understand the US ratings system.
We have a G, PG, M, MA (must be 15+) and R (18+). Then there is X, but that is only allowed in one state in Australia. And then there is an RC which is refused classification (effectively banning it).

But still, my point stands. A PG-ish rating doesn't necessarily spell the end for Disney. I mean, people took young kids to see Lord of the Rings here, and they were at least M...

TheZue · Post by **TheZue** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 8:10 am

I personally think the PG rating will help it. It will make it seem a little edgier for people that don't have a four year old. It'll make some teens more likely to go; along with all the adults who are getting sick of super herro movies. But that is only if people pay any attention to what a movie is rated.

The ratings are getting totally arbitrary. There are things that are rated lower than they would have been in the 80's & 90's. The best example is how Santa Clause 1 is PG, while Santa Clause 2 is G. If anything the second one deals with worse things when the kid is acting out. I haven't noticed a rating on a film for a really loooonnng time. Even when I'm looking for stuff for my son to watch with us, I base it more on what I know about the movie than what the rating is. Best example is that I turned off his "tale of Tom Kitten" movie after the rats kidnapped him to turn him into a pie (don't remember that from the books I read lol).

I think this movie will be a pretty big hit. I don't know if it will be as big as Shrek 2; but I wouldn't be surprised if it beats Nemo. And I honestly don't think Spongebob will be that big of a threat since he anoys a lot of parents, many would probably prefer a root canal to two hours of the spongebob laugh lol. I'm even a Spongebob fan and think I will wait until it comes out on video.

Post by **Luke** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 2:04 pm

Secret Disney Man wrote:
Luke wrote:What it comes down to is the MPAA's rating has no effect on how good or bad a movie is.
Five words: The Cat in the Hat

I'm not sure what you're point is. Is it that the MPAA gave "The Cat in the Hat" a PG rating because the movie was bad? Or that "The Cat in the Hat" was a bad movie because it shot for a PG rating? The former seems pretty ridiculous and if it's the latter, it doesn't apply here, since we don't know what Pixar was shooting for. In all likelihood, I'm sure they would have liked a G rating, but I doubt they added this "action violence" merely to be an "edgy PG."

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 2:44 pm

I agree with the majority here. I think The Incredibles has great potential. It has something in common with Nemo that the other Pixar films didn't- an extra genre.

In addition to being a family film, Nemo was a comedy. That's not to say that the other films weren't funny, but they can't stand alone in the comedy genre (which is fine- they didn't aim for it). The comedy genre brought in a lot of the older kid/teenager/childless adult audience, which led to big bucks.

TI does the same- it looks like a comedic superhero action flick, perhaps with a Rush Hour feel. The trailers and, as Paka said, word of mouth will likely appeal to a bigger audience.

It's almost certain to pull in a substantially larger profit than A Bug's Life, not that ABL was by any stretch of the imagination a flop. It's my least favorite Pixar movie, but it's still great.

Paka, I disagree about The Polar Express, though. I don't particularly like what I've seen from the trailers, either, but I think that the story is so well-known and well-loved by kids, and that the marketing campaign is going to be so huge, that it will be a success. And Tom Hanks doesn't hurt.

-Aaron

Ciaobelli · Post by **Ciaobelli** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 3:07 pm

The higher the rating, the less whining little brats in the theaters. I don't want to be the only 16 year old in the friggin' theater along with 50 screaming little children with their careless mothers who are watching finding neverland.

Paka · Post by **Paka** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 3:37 pm

awallaceunc wrote:Paka, I disagree about The Polar Express, though. I don't particularly like what I've seen from the trailers, either, but I think that the story is so well-known and well-loved by kids, and that the marketing campaign is going to be so huge, that it will be a success. And Tom Hanks doesn't hurt.

-Aaron

Not to go off-topic here (hehe), but for Polar Express, I agree that the book is well-known, it's got props (Caldecott Medal for illustrations, etc.), and that it's got star-power. The marketing may be big too - who knows. But what I see happening is it opening to mixed or poor reviews, people going to it in fairly healthy numbers for the first week or two, but then the film will sink like a stone. Like we were saying earlier, whereas The Incredibles will (probably) have good word-of-mouth and earn money steadily, I see Polar Express having poor word-of-mouth because of the look of the film at least. People will be repelled by what they see. The film may also have "Dr. Seuss Syndrome" - where a short, sweet little story from a children's book is bloated out into a 90-minute film, and along the way loses its original appeal.

Again, though, this is just my opinion. Everyone I've talked to - online or in life - isn't too eager to see the film, to say the least. Of course, I'll be very willing to eat my hat if the film soars past its $150 million budget with ease, but as I see it now, the film ain't gonna "fly" for very long.

Paka · Post by **Paka** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 3:40 pm

Ciaobelli wrote:The higher the rating, the less whining little brats in the theaters. I don't want to be the only 16 year old in the friggin' theater along with 50 screaming little children with their careless mothers who are watching finding neverland.

Whoa, I never thought about that. Hopefully there won't be a bunch of squalling brats in Finding Neverland... O_o And hopefully not in The Brothers Grimm a few months after that, either.

AwallaceUNC · Post by **AwallaceUNC** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 3:42 pm

Paka, you do make some very good points. I think it will open to a big audience, but you may be right about it tapering off shortly thereafter. We'll have to wait and see.

If it was live-action (and I still can't understand why it's not), I think it would stand a better chance at success, and of pleasing me.

-Aaron

Ciaobelli · Post by **Ciaobelli** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 10:32 pm

Paka wrote:
Ciaobelli wrote:The higher the rating, the less whining little brats in the theaters. I don't want to be the only 16 year old in the friggin' theater along with 50 screaming little children with their careless mothers who are watching finding neverland.

Whoa, I never thought about that. Hopefully there won't be a bunch of squalling brats in Finding Neverland... O_o And hopefully not in The Brothers Grimm a few months after that, either.

sorry I worded it kinda weird. What I meant to say was that while the mothers watch the Johnny Depp movie they will leave the 50 screaming brats at the Incredibles. But hopefully the PG will limit that.

Paka · Post by **Paka** » Sat Jul 31, 2004 11:19 pm

Ciaobelli wrote:sorry I worded it kinda weird. What I meant to say was that while the mothers watch the Johnny Depp movie they will leave the 50 screaming brats at the Incredibles. But hopefully the PG will limit that.

Ah - I see now.

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if I saw kids at those other two films - "Oh, look! It's about Peter Pan AND it has Johnny Depp in it! It must be kid-friendly!" Or how about, "Hey! It's a movie about those fairy-tale guys!"

Bleah. Hopefully the ad campaign for both of those films will make it clear that they ain't for kids. And the happy little trailer they've got out so far for Finding Neverland (you can see it here) isn't doing the best job of selling it to adults. O_o

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

The Incredibles is rated PG for Action Violence

The Incredibles is rated PG for Action Violence

Re: The Incredibles is rated PG for Action Violence