What makes a movie questionable for kids

Do not worry there are no spoilers in this discussion. However I want to talk about movie rateings and what is appropriate and unappropriate for kids. I recently saw Transformers 2 and for a pg 13 movie I was shocked at the content.
If anyone else out there has seen this movie please give me your input on this movie alone.
I know all the big things like nudity and things of that nature is out but what makes a movie borderline. Going back to Transformers 2, I feel anyone under the age of 15 should not see the movie. So what do you guys think. What are the things people should watch out for or what are the factors that would make you say no to your kid.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sarah Lenore on July 9, 2009 at 8:03pm: It's a bit uneven, some of this stuff they rate movies on. Most people are so afraid to expose their kids to sexual themes, which is understandable, but no one pays makes a fuss when there's excessive violence. It's okay to show little Billy lots of blood and guts and violence, but for heaven's sake don't show him a tit!!! I think it all comes down to the maturity level of the child (can they separate the content from real life) and what the parent thinks is acceptable content. I do agree with your opinion about Transformers 2 though. Any movie that contains violence OR nudity should be put at a higher rating so the parents can decide whether their kids are mature enough to watch it.

However, I do think that some of these ratings are a bit overprotective. I work at an elementary school as an aid, and we can't show anything above a rated G movie without the parents' signatures. This would normally be a splendid idea, exept that most of the movies they like are all rated PG or above, even the Disney movies that I have been watching since the age of four. The only rated G movies are thinks like Winnie the Pooh which way too young for second graders. We had to have the kids bring home permission slips to watch Hunchback of Notre Dame because it was PG due to "comic mischief".

Also, one thing I think they SHOULD pay more attention to when rating films and cartoons is stupidity. In my opinion, letting kids watch stupid cartoons is more harmful than letting them watch violent ones. Does the Hunchback of Notre Dame, a good movie that teaches children about accepting those who are different, really deserve a PG rating when something like Spongebob Squarepants is perfectly fine?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sorcha on July 10, 2009 at 4:59pm: I agree with all of your points, except one.
Spongebob Squarepants- stupid?!
I think it can be incredibly clever at times :)
x; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sarah Lenore on July 10, 2009 at 5:02pm: Well, the older ones I still like, but I've seen some of the newer episodes and it's gotten to be quite stupid.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Emma Nordmeyer on July 13, 2009 at 10:54am: yeah, good point. i still love it though!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Devin on July 9, 2009 at 8:16pm: I started a thread about this movie after I had seen it recently: http://nerdfighters.ning.com/forum/topics/transformers-rise-of-the

I agree about the content, it was rather ridiculous for a pg13 movie. It sends all kinds of wrong messages to kids.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by billythehick on July 9, 2009 at 9:52pm: http://www.empireonline.com/empireblog/Post.asp?id=142; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Lilly-wa on July 13, 2009 at 12:55pm: i would have been really disappointed if i were under 13 and i couldnt see the film. especially since i read it when i was like, 10; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by TEH on July 9, 2009 at 9:59pm: I am probably going to get some shit for this, but I would honestly show my kids gratuitous sex rather than gratuitous violence.

Still, I think the whole ratings system is flawed and the responsibility lies with the parents to educate their kids on violence, drugs and sex.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jason dickey on July 9, 2009 at 10:12pm: Studies show that kids that are introduced to sex at an early age are more likely to be more responsible. I don't think sex should be as taboo as people make it. However, I would not take my 4 to 17 year old to see a porn. I think if it is done in an appropriate mannor and setting it could be benificial.
I think simply putting a tit so to speak in a film just because they can is silly. Most of the time nudity in movies comes out of no where and makes no since at all.
I agree though. If I had to choose gratuitous sex would be shown before gratuitous violence. Sex will only make kids want sex which is human nature anyway. Violence however, can really warp kids minds; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Danni on July 9, 2009 at 10:34pm: i would rather my kid see a bit of normal, fun sex rather than at least a dozen shots of Megan Fox fulfilling every stereotype there is, pouting ridicuously into the camera with a metric tonne of lip gloss on, bending over her 'ride' and running towards the camera in slo-mo with her breasts bouncing around. I mean, of course she's hot, but pa-leese! Is this what girls should be thinking they should do to be beautiful?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by 0mnipotent0verlord on July 9, 2009 at 11:15pm: THIS!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jason dickey on July 11, 2009 at 9:39pm: No not at all. Infact I believe that Megan Fox is the exception and not the rule so to speak. Despite her looks I think most guys want her not because she is hot but because they know thay cant have her. It's proven that men and women want what they cant have. I mean think about it. I only know what she looks like. I don't really know who she is or what she stands for as a person. It is all about lust. I am one of those typical guys that say "oh what I would do if she was naked in my bed" but in reality I don't know if I would want her naked in my bed. For me beauty is all about personality. If she could not keep me involved mentally I would dump her in a heart beat.
Take you for instance and don't worry I am 27 years old and I am not hitting on you. I only use you because you brought it up. I can look at a Megan Fox pic and they are all the same. They are just subliminal messages for sex. She is mostly half nude and I believe this kind of hurts her image. Your pic is nothing like that at all yet its cute. Your big heart glasses and the way you have your hand. It is a cute pic that shows personality. I guess I will stop blabbing and just get to the point. You are a real girl that has many personalitys. It is easier to relate to a gal like you then Megan Fox. So no you do not have to do all that stuff to be hot. You just have to be real.; ▶ Reply to This