Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Frozen 2 should be Rated R

interconnected.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 22 posts

Re: Frozen 2 should be Rated R

#11

Post by techjamie »

Grombobulous wrote: post #4

Apparently the author didn’t actually watch the movie carefully. Arendelle was already evacuated. No people were in danger from the tidal wave. Elsa was just saving the city from physical destruction. I think you can also make a converse argument to the author very easily: death and disaster are common, almost universal, so avoiding discussing them in children’s media is over-protective. In any event, I think there’s…

Looking at what movies got away with in the 80s while retaining a rating of "PG" definitely shows we're sliding on what we call acceptable.

There are numerous lists online that can be found with a search, but here's one by an IMDB user: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls020284330/

You could get away with some stuff in the 80s and keep PG.

Re: Frozen 2 should be Rated R

#12

Post by afandian »

IveSeenItAll wrote: post #9
afandian wrote: post #3

I was horrified by the literal waterboarding scene in Shrek. Granted it was a year or two before the USA started trying to normalise that form of torture. I don’t know what was in the popular consciousness in the US at the time. But it’s very spooky. Children’s fiction has always had a very dark side though.

There is no 'literal waterboarding scene' in the theatrically released Shrek. In the scene you've seen, unless you're deep into dubious fan-remakes, Gingy 'just' gets dipped in milk (mostly off-screen) by an executioner-style heavy, then Lord Farquaad taunts them with their torn-off legs, which suggests legs-first dipping, not the head-first submersion that is the entire point of waterboarding. Still pretty bad (even…

I'm referring to this scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYcm_9YELQE

At the opening of the scene, the gingerbread man is being drowned in milk. You see from the shadow, and the voice, that he's having his head submerged in liquid. then Lord Farquaad says "enough! he's ready to talk". So that's simulated drowning as part of interrogation to get information.

Nit-picking about the exact _orientation_ of the victim, and therefore what type of simulated-drowning torture this constitutes, is somewhat missing the point I was trying to make! i.e. that torture is normalised to the point of being slapstick in a children's film.

Re: Frozen 2 should be Rated R

#13

Post by afandian »

Grombobulous wrote: post #7
afandian wrote: post #3

I was horrified by the literal waterboarding scene in Shrek. Granted it was a year or two before the USA started trying to normalise that form of torture. I don’t know what was in the popular consciousness in the US at the time. But it’s very spooky. Children’s fiction has always had a very dark side though.

Yeah, I think the “adult media disguised as kids media” has been a thing for a long time. But I also think that a lot of teen and preteen media has very little functional distinction from adult media. A lot of non-parents don’t realize that the difference between G and PG can be huge. Shrek sounds like it should be something for a 3 year old but it really isn’t. Even without the torture scene it’s immediacy really sc…

It's been dark since the Grimms, and likely long before!

I just rewatched it (link in sibling link). It's mocking Farquaad, but I think is clearly meant to be taken as slapstick. Implying that torture is no big deal.

Re: Frozen 2 should be Rated R

#14

Post by ahofmann »

techjamie wrote: post #11
Grombobulous wrote: post #4

Apparently the author didn’t actually watch the movie carefully. Arendelle was already evacuated. No people were in danger from the tidal wave. Elsa was just saving the city from physical destruction. I think you can also make a converse argument to the author very easily: death and disaster are common, almost universal, so avoiding discussing them in children’s media is over-protective. In any event, I think there’s…

Looking at what movies got away with in the 80s while retaining a rating of "PG" definitely shows we're sliding on what we call acceptable. There are numerous lists online that can be found with a search, but here's one by an IMDB user: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls020284330/ You could get away with some stuff in the 80s and keep PG.

Oh my, I saw half of these movies as a kid and all of them left scars on my soul. Watching Poltergeist as a kid is like watching Event Horizon as an adult (I recommend watching Event Horizon though).

Re: Frozen 2 should be Rated R

#15

Post by zulux »

ahofmann wrote: post #14
techjamie wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at what movies got away with in the 80s while retaining a rating of "PG" definitely shows we're sliding on what we call acceptable. There are numerous lists online that can be found with a search, but here's one by an IMDB user: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls020284330/ You could get away with some stuff in the 80s and keep PG.

Oh my, I saw half of these movies as a kid and all of them left scars on my soul. Watching Poltergeist as a kid is like watching Event Horizon as an adult (I recommend watching Event Horizon though).

David Lynch's "Elephant Man" was considered a good kids' movie for my 5th-grade class.

Put it this way: My dad used to beat me, and that was less traumatic than that movie.

Re: Frozen 2 should be Rated R

#16

Post by larrry »

techjamie wrote: post #11
Grombobulous wrote: post #4

Apparently the author didn’t actually watch the movie carefully. Arendelle was already evacuated. No people were in danger from the tidal wave. Elsa was just saving the city from physical destruction. I think you can also make a converse argument to the author very easily: death and disaster are common, almost universal, so avoiding discussing them in children’s media is over-protective. In any event, I think there’s…

Looking at what movies got away with in the 80s while retaining a rating of "PG" definitely shows we're sliding on what we call acceptable. There are numerous lists online that can be found with a search, but here's one by an IMDB user: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls020284330/ You could get away with some stuff in the 80s and keep PG.

An example of modern ratings being oddly strict: Öoo is rated T by the ESRB[1]. It’s laughable that a nonviolent puzzle platformer about a caterpillar is less age appropriate than Breath of the Wild, which is rated E10+[2] despite also having bombs and a lot more violence.

If Öoo is rated T, should games staring Donald Duck be rated 18+ because he doesn’t wear pants and would be showing his crotch to children?

[1]: https://www.nintendo.com/en-ca/store/products/ooo-switch/

[2]: https://www.nintendo.com/us/store/products/the-legend-of-zel...

Re: Frozen 2 should be Rated R

#17

Post by jmye »

billyp-rva wrote: post #5

Some might quibble with using AI for research, but this at least feels directionally correct. I'm not sure if ratings/MPAA is the right avenue to fix it, but the sheer laziness of manufacturing stakes by catastrophe instead of through characters definitely feels like its gotten worse.

[dead]

Re: Frozen 2 should be Rated R

#18

Post by techjamie »

larrry wrote: post #16
techjamie wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at what movies got away with in the 80s while retaining a rating of "PG" definitely shows we're sliding on what we call acceptable. There are numerous lists online that can be found with a search, but here's one by an IMDB user: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls020284330/ You could get away with some stuff in the 80s and keep PG.

An example of modern ratings being oddly strict: Öoo is rated T by the ESRB[1]. It’s laughable that a nonviolent puzzle platformer about a caterpillar is less age appropriate than Breath of the Wild, which is rated E10+[2] despite also having bombs and a lot more violence. If Öoo is rated T, should games staring Donald Duck be rated 18+ because he doesn’t wear pants and would be showing his crotch to children? [1]: h…

I wonder if it's because it got labeled "Mild Violence" whereas the violence in LoZ is considered "Fantasy Violence."

Maybe Mild Violence is more commonly applied to more real world violence and therefore scores higher in rating considerations or something. Because that's the only way I can make sense of that labelling.

Re: Frozen 2 should be Rated R

#19

Post by larrry »

techjamie wrote: post #18
larrry wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An example of modern ratings being oddly strict: Öoo is rated T by the ESRB[1]. It’s laughable that a nonviolent puzzle platformer about a caterpillar is less age appropriate than Breath of the Wild, which is rated E10+[2] despite also having bombs and a lot more violence. If Öoo is rated T, should games staring Donald Duck be rated 18+ because he doesn’t wear pants and would be showing his crotch to children? [1]: h…

I wonder if it's because it got labeled "Mild Violence" whereas the violence in LoZ is considered "Fantasy Violence." Maybe Mild Violence is more commonly applied to more real world violence and therefore scores higher in rating considerations or something. Because that's the only way I can make sense of that labelling.

Maybe Nintendo engaged in more back and forth with the ratings board to negotiate a low rating for Zelda, and the indie dev just accepted what they got?

Genuinely puzzling for sure

Re: Frozen 2 should be Rated R

#20

Post by Grombobulous »

afandian wrote: post #13
Grombobulous wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think the “adult media disguised as kids media” has been a thing for a long time. But I also think that a lot of teen and preteen media has very little functional distinction from adult media. A lot of non-parents don’t realize that the difference between G and PG can be huge. Shrek sounds like it should be something for a 3 year old but it really isn’t. Even without the torture scene it’s immediacy really sc…

It's been dark since the Grimms, and likely long before! I just rewatched it (link in sibling link). It's mocking Farquaad, but I think is clearly meant to be taken as slapstick. Implying that torture is no big deal.

Yeah and I guess there are two directions you can go with slapstick like that: “it’s minimizing torture in a disturbing way,” or “all slapstick comedy necessitates suspension of disbelief.”

Makes me think of the Home Alone series.

Post reply on HN