Is anyone else disappointed that 'The Hobbit' is rated PG-13?

[jediracer]

Fine. Great. Wonderful. Like I said, I'm still giving Peter Jackson my money.

[kmeyers]

My fingers are most certainly not in my ears. Quite frankly, I'm not sure I've heard any "legitimate arguments." I've heard a lot about how the MPAA has some elaborate conspiracy to rule the galaxy, and a lot of 'who give a shit, the kids will be okay,' and 'it needs to match the other movies,' but there seems to be few argument about how maybe this is the best way to most faithfully adapt the source material. And those few are laden with snide and snarky remarks. It's all irrelevant anyway, like I said, I'm still going to see the movie in the theater.

Then you need to learn how to read. Because there have been plenty of examples you refuse to acknowledge. Such as battles, war, blood and death, scary monsters, and many, MANY other examples of why this story(yes, the actual source material) would be rated PG-13 by today's standards.

But you keep burying your head in the sand so you can cry "children's literature!" and continue to complain about it.

[jesse_custer]

There have been legitimate arguments, you're just selectively ignoring them. For example, Hobbit was filmed in a way that would keep it consistent with the feel of the Lord of the Rings movies, or perhaps The Hobbit isn't as "childrens literature" as you think it is.

More simply, Peter Jackson doesn't direct children's movies, even if he probably should.

[Vibranium]

or...if you really cared and wanted to enjoy it with your kids, you wouldn't ditch them at home with your wife and go see it by yourself

[T Hedge Coke]

More simply, Peter Jackson doesn't direct children's movies, even if he probably should.

The Frighteners says otherwise. King Kong. And, really, the number of kids who did go for the Rings flicks.

He doesn't seem interested in making a G-rated movie, no, but he's been making movies that appeal to kids for quite some time. (Depending on the kind of parent, perhaps from the beginning.)

[passer-by]

Meanwhile...

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 13 MINUTE TV SPECIAL HD

[DennyK]

Was watching Shaun of the Dead (again) over the weekend with my step-daughter and was surprised to see Martin Freeman; she has a huge crush on him and just about jumped off of the couch when he was on the screen. I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[ProfessorX]

I don't see how the rating makes a real difference. To me, it doesn't matter. I'm seeing it no matter what.

[The Black Guardian]

The Frighteners says otherwise. King Kong. And, really, the number of kids who did go for the Rings flicks.

He doesn't seem interested in making a G-rated movie, no, but he's been making movies that appeal to kids for quite some time. (Depending on the kind of parent, perhaps from the beginning.)

None of those were "children's movies." Appealing to children has nothing to do with it. Freaking Jason and Freddy appealed to children.

[DeadXMan]

None of those were "children's movies." Appealing to children has nothing to do with it. Freaking Jason and Freddy appealed to children.

F*ck yeah we grew up watching friday the 13th and elm st marathons

heck there was a freddy tv show

[T Hedge Coke]

None of those were "children's movies." Appealing to children has nothing to do with it. Freaking Jason and Freddy appealed to children.

And, see, I just think you're misjudging who the producers and some of the filmmakers and talent knew they were reaching and did encourage it. I've never seen, once, Robert Englund freak because kids like Freddy. He seems to genuinely enjoy it and so do the kids, and yeah the movies got hammier and hammier, which especially appealed to kids, as they went along.

Jackson's been clear that he's entertained by kids getting a thrill out of King Kong or laughing at The Frighteners.

The moment you sell toys in Toys R Us, or toys that are divided into for older kids and toddler versions, as happened with Rings and King Kong, you're explicitly bucking for a child audience. Not just Jackson/or purely Jackson, but the director isn't the progenitor of the movie, he's just the fall guy, to paraphrase John Carpenter.

Nudity and gore sells to many kids. The promise of nudity and gore appeals to many kids. And, really, King Kong nor any Rings movie had either of those. It did, however, have sword fights, big monsters, and elves, which also appeal to kids. And, pretty men swinging the swords and being elves and stuff, which, judging by folders I saw kids with, appeals to a lot of them, too.

You can gauge those, for yourself, and for those under your control, as being not child appropriate, but others don't have to share that belief until the point it's mandated by local law. Otherwise, we're just arguing whether they're "only for children" movies, and really, I think in a world where they're trying to sell Transformers to adults and made that oh very po-faced Where the Wild Things Are, "only for children" movies are pretty much a myth.

[jesse_custer]

The Frighteners says otherwise. King Kong. And, really, the number of kids who did go for the Rings flicks.

He doesn't seem interested in making a G-rated movie, no, but he's been making movies that appeal to kids for quite some time. (Depending on the kind of parent, perhaps from the beginning.)

I haven't even heard of The Frighteners, so I'm going to leave that one alone. I don't recall King Kong being a hit with kids. And I don't think The Lord of the Rings trilogy was made for kids.

I watched a LOT of movies when I was a kid and enjoyed almost all of them, but that doesn't make any of them a children's movie.

The term "kid's movie" becomes much clearer when you have kids. You become much more aware of movies that you would've never paid attention to otherwise.

You can gauge those, for yourself, and for those under your control, as being not child appropriate, but others don't have to share that belief until the point it's mandated by local law. Otherwise, we're just arguing whether they're "only for children" movies, and really, I think in a world where they're trying to sell Transformers to adults and made that oh very po-faced Where the Wild Things Are, "only for children" movies are pretty much a myth.

No, they're not. Trust me.

[T Hedge Coke]

No, they're not. Trust me.

What was the last movie you saw that was intended to be appropriate only for small children, that never made one attempt at getting a joke/reference/point past the preteens to appeal to a teenage or reach adult audience also in the room?

[jesse_custer]

What was the last movie you saw that was intended to be appropriate only for small children, that never made one attempt at getting a joke/reference/point past the preteens to appeal to a teenage or reach adult audience also in the room?

I'm not sure, mainly because I don't remember all the titles. But as a parent, I can tell you they exist.

Moreover, a kid's movie that has a reference for adults is still a kid's movie. A few references do not mean the movie is "appropriate" for me; it just means the movie is trying to make my life easier.

[T Hedge Coke]

I'm not sure, mainly because I don't remember all the titles. But as a parent, I can tell you they exist.

Moreover, a kid's movie that has a reference for adults is still a kid's movie. A few references do not mean the movie is "appropriate" for me; it just means the movie is trying to make my life easier.

I should clarify, I missed a word in my own post. I should have said "mostly a myth." I'm more than open to the potential there are such (plus I think we're using two different sets of criteria).

I think references that are meant for you, as an adult, do mean the movie is appropriate, or at least aimed, at you as well as the kids. Whether it appeals to you, personally, is something different, but such references, such moments are meant for a generic adult, not a kid.

I can think of one, and really, only one movie that definitely qualifies, in years and years of watching movies with kids and as a former kid.