Finding Nemo

[nanoteuthis]

...except every little girl in the second grade class I went to give a talk to last week had a crush on Steve Irwin!
Greg

Ahem.... some 53-year-old little girls have a crush on him too

On the subject of violence and kids: A very complicated subject. I don't think there is a "one size fits all" answer -- it depends upon the kid. Against my wishes, my husband let our son play such computer games as DOOM and SPEAR OF DESTINY when he was quite young, and a few years ago he (our son) was very much into WWF (now WWE, thanks to a suit by the World Wildlife Foundation!) Wrestling on TV, which we used to watch together (I found it absolutely hilarious).

The upshot was that our squidling grew up to be one of the most non-violent adolescents in existence. In middle school he was physically harassed by bullies (who did so after school so the teachers couldn't be called to intervene) and he didn't even want to fight back until we told him it was OK to defend himself. Ironically -- though he was a brown belt in Tae Kwon Do -- he said that it was the wrestling holds he learned by watching WWF which helped him to defend himself successfully against the bad kids!

So, again, it depends upon the child's background. I took my son -- now 15 -- to see 8 MILE (the Eminem pic) in the theater this year, because he wanted to see it but with its R-rating he couldn't go alone. It had sex scenes, violence, and (of course) lots and lots of explicit language, in both dialogue and rap songs. Believe it or not, we both loved the film, which had a lot more depth and intelligence than its press might indicate. One of the things, for example, that my son commented on was the fact that -- although Eminem has been accused of homophobia -- in the film he cleverly defends a gay friend from his harassers by coming up with a perfect spontaneous comeback (in rap, naturally). We also talked about how Eminem took the wind out of a rap rival's sails by admitting (again, in a rap) all the things that the rival planned to use against him as a putdown.

My point is, perhaps a 15-year-old with a different upbringing might see the film as an incentive to curse out strangers, get into unprovoked fights, or have random unprotected sex. But a film of any kind includes more than what is seen onscreen -- it also includes what the viewer brings to it. That's why I believe in age restrictions but am opposed to censorship (with the exception of child porn or non-consensual sex) -- I believe it is the responsibility of the parent to judge what is or isn't appropriate for their child, because that always varies according to the child him/herself.

As for Disney animations, they are usually watered-down from the original versions. From what I gather, Grimm's fairy tales in their uncensored forms are pretty.... well, grim. On the other hand, every once in a while Disney throws in some dark stuff as well. In THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, the most shocking (to a child, anyway) song was a number called "Hellfire", in which the bad-guy judge confesses his sexual obsession with the Gypsy heroine Esmeralda. In mood and concept, it is almost identical to a song from SWEENEY TODD -- sometimes censored out of the stage version -- where the bad guy (also a judge!) flagellates himself with a whip while fantasizing about his young ward Johanna. I suspect -- again, depending upon the child and his/her age -- that a straightforward duel scene would be far less disturbing to a child than the very adult psychology behind "Hellfire".

A very important and interesting issue, though rather off-topic.

Have a ceph, anyone?

The Tanster

 

[tonmo]

I still say it's on-topic! :P

And regarding Hellfire, yes, most definitely! That was a creepy one.

 

[Phil]

This is all very interesting. I may have a faintly jaded point of view on these things, never having had children and lets face it, I probably never will now.

I see no problem with TV and film depicting death in childrens films providing it is tastefully done. I think children quickly recover from on-screen unpleasant events if they are presented with an element of hope and triumph over the fall. I remember being upset by Ben Kenobis' death on seeing Star Wars when I was seven years old in 1977 yet it was quickly forgotten by the time of the next action sequence. Bambi's mothers death was sad too for a child, yet the rest of the film was entertaining. Goodness knows how many on-screen deaths there were in Dr Who, a staple of seventies viewing for most of the children at school, yet in all these cases there was an element of hope. We knew that come the end, the main protagonist would survive and overcome the odds.

On-screen deaths certainly did not create a generation of psychopathic children in the seventies, and I don't think Disney's trend of including death should be necessarily loooked upon as a bad thing. Indeed, far more damage is done in the school playground through bullying and taunting, coupled with breakdown of relationships at home. It seems to me that children need to be exposed to a certain amount of darkness at an early age in order to begin to deal with real-world problems when they begin to arise. (I know I am speaking the obvious here).

In addition, Disneys films are primarily fantastical and are divorced from reality yet have to appeal to a discerning family audience. They require a modicum of dark imagery to appeal to the adults who are going to have to sit through an hour and a half of otherwise childish fare. How many adults would willingly take their children to see something like 'The Smurfs Movie' over 'Anastasia'. Adults probably generate so much of Disney's revenue that some adult material is a prerequisite!

Having said that, did anyone see Disneys Atlantis? Now that was a weird film. One character died from an internal haemorrage! It tried to be too ambitious, IMHO, and despite being a 'family' film somehow failed to really appeal to either adults or children. I really could not see exactly who that was aimed at!

 

[nanoteuthis]

Having said that, did anyone see Disneys Atlantis? Now that was a weird film. One character died from an internal haemorrage! It tried to be too ambitious, IMHO, and despite being a 'family' film somehow failed to really appeal to either adults or children. I really could not see exactly who that was aimed at!

I think it was aimed at all the Michael J. Fox fans -- present company included -- who were glad to at least hear him do a voiceover, since unfortunately it is doubtful he will ever be able to do a live-action film again.

Speaking of unexpected tragedies onscreen and offscreen, has anyone here ever seen the film HOOK, with Dustin Hoffman as the eponymous Captain and Robin Williams as a very grownup Peter Pan? (SPOILER WARNING ahead for anyone who hasn't yet seen the film and intends to rent it.)

For about three-quarters of the way through HOOK, all the bad stuff that happens to characters is of the fantasy-comedy type. However, towards the end, during a battle scene on the pirate ship, the leader of the Lost Boys -- a handsome teen named Rufio -- is fatally stabbed by Captain Hook. It was especially shocking, even for adult viewers, because the Rufio character was both appealing and youthful, and there was nothing earlier in the film to prepare the viewer for such an event.

This was quite different from a film such as, say, THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK, where it is common knowledge that the young girl and her family will ultimately fall into the hands of the Nazis; while tragic, it is not unexpected in the film's context. In the lighthearted, fantasy context of HOOK, however, the very realistic stabbing was practically an assault on the viewers, especially if they were young children.

This "shock tactic" can be used to great effect, but IMHO should only be done in a film directed towards an adult audience. (An example of the appropriate use of this technique occurs in the "mutant shark" adventure DEEP BLUE SEA, where at one point in the film something so unexpected happened that the entire audience jumped up and spilled their popcorn at the same time!)

I'm enjoying this discussion immensely, even though we should probably re-name the thread "A TONMO Garden of Non-Sequiturs"....

 

[WhiteKiboko]

how about just calling it "Finding Other Things to Talk About"?

 

[krin]

KRin, I would like to hear about when you met the head writer of B5 -- I don't remember his name, but I would consider him a genius for creating such a complex, believable future universe.
Tani

As I have a memory like one of those things with holes in it... and a damn cold... I think it was at the Science Fiction Worldcon in Melbourne in 1999. I be honest, the man was a bit of a tosser! Yes, B5 was a great show but I'm not sure it was a brilliant was he was making out! You have to remember he also wrote "Captain Power and the Rangers of the Universe" (or something like that).

I was more impressed to meet William Gibson in 1995 - I was his minder at another convention.

KRin (more tablets, more cough mixture please)

 

[rrtanton]

Regarding Finding Nemo: Just to clarify a couple things (clem might have pointed this out): Pixar is NOT Disney! Disney merely distributes their movies, and gets most of the ownership privileges of the movies. That’s one reason they’re different enough from traditional Disney stuff to be better. That’s also probably why this one got a bit edgier. Pixar is NOT Disney, has been VERY independent from day one, aggressively resists influence from Disney, and is currently trying to decide whether it even wants to continue its distribution partnership with Disney.

SPOILER ALERT:

The scene in question is the very opening scene. It involves Marlin (Nemo’s dad) and Coral (Nemo’s mom) discussing their new anemone on the edge of the reef–much like new parents discussing their brand new house, and their plans for the future, with a mixture of excitement and trepidation. We see that they’re expectant parents...there’s several hundred eggs stashed away in a little cove beneath the anemone. We know immediately this is a Bad Thing, because this movie is only about Marlin and Nemo. Sure enough, a barracuda, not a shark, appears. After a brief tense standoff, Coral attempts to rush to the eggs to guard them, Marlin attempts to stop her, Marlin gets slapped hard and knocked, unconscious, into his anemone, and we go black. He wakes up to find no Coral, and no eggs...save one, that miraculously is left behind. This is Nemo.

This is, I agree, remarkably scary for certain ages. But I must stress, we never SEE anything. It’s all through implication–scary toothy barracuda, you know Coral’s going to rush to the eggs, then everyone moves at once–and we wake up with the eggs and Coral gone. I don’t see it as THAT much more intense than the Bambi’s mother scene. But the movie has several other bits about equally scary. Some “on the wagon” sharks are present, and one loses control when he gets a whiff of Dory’s blood–a scary chase scene ensues. The deep-ocean anglerfish scene is very cool...but again, scary. The jellyfish scene is also scary. I don’t think Pixar failed to realize this was a notch higher in scariness than Toy Story, but I think they were confident enough that reviews and word-of-mouth like this would be sufficient to warn parents about very young kids. But I am NOT a parent...maybe that’s not enough for parents, yet I’m not sure how else parents can be better informed than to do as we are here. I’d rather not say “Pixar, Disney, Dreamworks, etc, you can’t make slightly edgier kids’ movies.” I think they should be able to if they want. Any ideas?

rusty

 

[rrtanton]

Regarding B5: Uh-oh...NOW the gloves are off! I confess my isolated American perspective limits my ability to understand words such as "tosser" but I gather from the context it's not precisely a compliment.

JMS is indeed brilliant...to a point. No one could have pulled off the little miracle that is B5 without a certain degree of genius. Through low budget, bleeding edge and often therefore questionable CGI, often mediocre acting, and repeated attempts by studios to just plain kill it (plus a run of remarkably bad luck) the show shone, primarily because it had such a persistent focus on a good story, maniacally enforced by JMS.

As for the quality of other shows...well, if YOU were asked to do Captain Power, what would YOU do? As a writer/director/producer, you’re always limited by what freedom you’re allowed, and you can’t just refuse to do anything except a B5-style project–you gotta eat, and you need practice anyway. Further, we all know from example that sometimes, a “genius” makes a movie...or...let’s say, THREE movies...movies about battles amongst the stars...that just plain blow us away, and then never really manage to do so again. So even if JMS’s other stuff before and after B5 (none of which I’ve seen) is not great, that doesn’t diminish my opinion of the show, or of him. I suspect Ridley Scott is this way...he CAN make really great movies, but it’s very hit-and-miss–the good movies seem almost accidental.

Now...I will say that from my readings on the subject (TONS of useful information and commentary from JMS himself can be found on The Lurker’s Guide to Babylon 5, at: The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 ) I get the impression that JMS is not superficially warm. The way he responds to certain questions, and criticisms, and just general comments from him give me the impression that, although he’s not a jerk, one might think so upon a brief meeting. He'll speak his mind without too much diplomacy. I can’t explain it terribly well here. So I wouldn't be surprised if he's unimpressive upon meeting.

rusty

 

[tonmo]

I’d rather not say “Pixar, Disney, Dreamworks, etc, you can’t make slightly edgier kids’ movies.” I think they should be able to if they want. Any ideas?

Oh yeah, definitely -- let me quickly say that I'm not suggesting that any regulations should be enforced or anything like that that would prevent these companies and their creatives from doing pretty much whatever they want. We do have that movie ratings organization (can't remember the acronym, something like RAII) to keep them in check and to inform parents whether it's appropriate for their kids, so that's all fine... and it's totally up to the parents to determine whether they want to subject their kids to such intensities or not. (However, there could be an argument that perhaps there's now a need for something lower than a "G" rating).

ANOTHER SPOILER ALERT:

Now, I haven't seen this movie, so I realize I'm producing quite a bit of hot air over something I've never seen, but here we are. But another neighbor told us that she took her 3 year old to see Nemo -- he was scared at various parts and sat on his mom's lap during certain parts. Apparently there's one idea that all sink, tub and toilet water leads to the ocean, so Nemo tries to find a way to get flushed to escape the pet store he's in (or some such). Eventually, I guess he does, and goes flushing through some dank, scary pipes. So the 3-year-old after the movie was crying/whining "please don't send me down the sink!!"

Well, I dunno what to make of that I guess. Kids have imaginations and they're going to see things that might scare them, in movies or in real life or wherever. It's up to the parent to soothe them, reassure them, and/or teach them to be careful.

Guess my point is that I believe a lot of parents / movie producers underestimate the psychological impact and effect that such imagery has on young children. They soak stuff in at that age and it is important to them, and makes a big impression, and does help formulate their thoughts. The whole idea with movies, IMO, is to entertain your kids, not to freak them out by exploiting the extremities of their emotions. That's why I think that the younger the child, the more "calming" programming they should be presented with. With every year of age, that bar can be lifted slightly higher, because we gain confidence and can do a better job at compartmentalizing and rationalizing as we get older.

*shrug!*

 

[WhiteKiboko]

i had been thinking something for a couple months and then a week or two ago a movie critic hit it on the head.... the mpaa has gotten a bit liberal with its ratings, particularly with pg-13.... i know this isnt the same as a g, but i think theres a certain amount of trickle down.... as for something below a 'g' movie, once in a blue moon dont NR (not rated) movies come out? of course this could be on either extreme....

 

[rrtanton]

It's probably a pain to introduce or modify a rating system. Yet, toys often come with recommended ages on them, voluntarily done by the manufacturers. Dunno... "Rated G6?" "G" but preferably for kids 6 and older? Teletubbies would be G1, I suppose.

Yes, the ratings have drifted a bit in appropriateness. There's tremendous pressure to achieve or avoid a certain rating, as the movie industry has very specific knowledge of how many viewers they gain or lose based on a rating. Generally, lower (less than "R") is better, so LOTS of movies get shoehorned into PG13 that really should be R.

rusty

 

[nanoteuthis]

The matter of ratings is a tricky one, at least here in the US. For a long time here, parents would get all upset about nudity and sex in cinema, while casually taking their kids to see, e.g., blood-soaked RAMBO films. I personally am of the opinion that it is a lot healthier for kids to see a tasteful onscreen presentation of loving, consensual sex, than seeing those same people getting their throats slashed or their heads blown off.

I remember the big furor in 1968 (yes, I'm dating myself again ) over the brief nude scene in Zeffirelli's ROMEO AND JULIET, never mind that the young Verona couple were supposed to be married and so in love that in the end, of course, they give their lives for each other. I find it ridiculous that any parent would forbid their young son or daughter to see that beautiful interpretation of a Shakespeare tragedy -- unless they had a problem with the romanticization of suicide (which is an entirely separate, and not unreasonable, concern).

Fortunately, nowadays film violence is subject to ratings commensurate with those for film sex. But again, I believe that even in the context of violence, the individual parent should consider the effect on their child as an individual, as well as the overall value of the film. In historical films about war, it would be unrealistic and even reprehensible to sugar-coat man's appalling inhumanity to man. Unlike the RAMBO films in which the violence was merely gratuitous, in a brilliant Civil War film such as GLORY, both the violence and the racism accurately reflect the nature of the historical period, and make the heroism of the "colored" Union brigade that much more apparent.

from a mom and movie fan,
Tani

 

[krin]

Regarding B5: Uh-oh...NOW the gloves are off! I confess my isolated American perspective limits my ability to understand words such as "tosser" but I gather from the context it's not precisely a compliment.

He'll speak his mind without too much diplomacy. I can’t explain it terribly well here. So I wouldn't be surprised if he's unimpressive upon meeting.

rusty

Well, no, tosser is not a compliement but I do have a little more than one brief meeting to make that my opinion. Two friends of mine were the people who ran the B5 fan club here in Australia and had many dealings with the man. He was just a little pompous, thats all. Nice enough guy, but I just felt he looks down on the fans just a little. Yes he did create a series that was head and shoulders over anything avaialbale at the time in the science fiction TV field. I'll leave myself wide open here and say I prefer LEXX myself... (KRin runs for cover)

 

[nanoteuthis]

I'll leave myself wide open here and say I prefer LEXX myself... (KRin runs for cover)

No need to run for cover, KRin, you are not alone. LEXX was a hoot, even when it was difficult to determine exactly what was going on (or who was doing what to whom). For starters, Michael McManus and Xenia Seeberg were among the most breathtakingly beautiful human beings of either sex I've ever seen. (I don't know if there's any way to be objective about this, but if I were a guy I'd rather be stranded on a desert planet with "Xev" than with "Zev".) Also, Brian Downey's "Stanley Tweedle" was consistently hilarious, as was that endearingly annoying robot head "790". The plots were often incomprehensible, but always fun to watch.

IMHO there was a subtext to LEXX that went far beyond the surface of softcore space porn. The fact is that of the four main characters, each was the exact opposite of what their identities suggested. For example, Stanley -- the captain (by default) of a spectacularly powerful starship -- was in reality a petulant, cowardly wannabe, a slave to his hormones, lacking power or heroism. Kai, a walking corpse supposedly devoid of compassion and trained to kill without mercy, regularly performed acts of heroism and kindness on behalf of his fellow crewmembers. Xev, a gorgeous "love slave" whose body distracted most men (and occasionally women) from any of her other qualities, was often the most intelligent, resourceful, and fair-minded of all the characters. And "790" -- a disembodied electronic head whom one would expect to be a passionless calculator -- was a bundle of irrational emotions ranging from obsessive love to vengeful jealousy to whining sarcasm.

So, yes, there was redeeming social value in LEXX.... and even for those who couldn't grasp it, there was always that great theme song!

"V'yo hey ho, yo vaha ray...." (or something like that)

 

[WhiteKiboko]

this headline caught my eye:

Kids Be Warned: Don't Flush Your Fish
By The Associated Press
published 08:31 AM - JUNE 06, 2003 Eastern Time

Kids be warned: Flushing your pet fish down the drain will not send it safely into the ocean as depicted in the new computer-animated movie "Finding Nemo."

A company that manufactures equipment used to process sewage issued a news release Thursday warning that drain pipes do lead to the ocean - eventually - but first the fluid goes through powerful machines that "shred solids into tiny particles."

"In truth, no one would ever find Nemo and the movie would be called 'Grinding Nemo,'" wrote the JWC Environmental company, which makes the trademarked "Muffin Monster" shredding pumps.

In the unlikely event Nemo survived the deadly machines, the company added, he would probably be killed by the chlorine disinfection.


i smell a Pixar cross-over....Muffin Monsters Inc.