Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

[DKampy]

I believe exposing children to age-inappropriate content can be harmful to their development and mental health. So from that perspective, I certainly do care if parents take their children to see violent horror movies. That the US (together with Anglophone Canada) is such an exception in this regard should tell you something.

ETA: To be clear, I don’t count Deadpool and Wolverine among those films that would cause a child harm, even if I think it’s inappropriate viewing for them.

Personally If I had children I can say I would not take young kids to violent horror movies …and I don’t think most would… I go to the movies every week and I almost never see kids in R rated movies even Deadpool I did not see any… which I was surprised at considering the character is now apart of the MCU…. I may take a teenager depending on the situation

With that said I don’t think I am in the position to tell others how to raise their kids… as someone who grew up in the 80’s at the height of the slasher flick… I knew plenty who watched such content and they turned out alright

 

[LittleBuford]

With that said I don’t think I am in the position to tell others how to raise their kids…

We live in societies that continually and in multiple ways tell people how to raise their children, imposing countless restrictions and requirements on parents. Preventing a child from being taken to the cinema to watch a violent slasher movie is hardly draconian or out of keeping with all the other societal safeguards we live with.

 

[Disney Irish]

It's no doubt possible for parents to be unaware of kids TV and internet viewing, but are they putting in some effort? Using parental controls? Checking watch history? Looking in occasionally while their kids watch TV?

There may be less control but there's no reason for parents to be completely in the dark. How do kids watch an entire Netflix series without any parental awareness?

I don't think it's about morality. It's more about things like emotional maturity. I have no moral qualms about a movie in which fictional dinosaurs eat people, but it might give a very young child nightmares.

When parents fail to have reasonable restrictions, that's when the question about laws comes up.

I'm not a child psychologist or anything but media can be traumatizing for children. Heck, as an adult I know there are things I shouldn't watch for my own mental well being. I can make that determination. Kids need parents to protect them to a degree.

I agree that parents need to be more diligent in what they let their kids watch in terms of TV shows and internet content. However that is a different situation then a parent consciously taking a kid to a rated R movie, as the parent is actively involved in that situation.

I do believe its a question of morality, as everyone parents their kids differently based on their personal beliefs. Its not up to you or anyone else to tell me what to do just because its against your personal beliefs. Such as the example that I shouldn't take my kid to an R rated movie, that should be my choice as a parent even if you don't agree because its against your personal beliefs. For example some people's religion doesn't allow them to watch R rated movies at all, even as an adult. And so I don't like when people try to make laws for moral reasons just because people do things that go against their personal beliefs, that I think is wrong. We as a country, the US, should not legislate in terms of morality. Unfortunately this has changed over the last couple decades, and I vote against it every chance I get.

 

[Disney Irish]

We live in societies that continually and in multiple ways tell people how to raise their children, imposing countless restrictions and requirements on parents. Preventing a child from being taken to the cinema to watch a violent slasher movie is hardly draconian or out of keeping with all the other societal safeguards we live with.

Except here in the US it would be considered draconian in this situation, as many parents would have an issue with the government now telling them its against the law to do something with their kids. And luckily, at least for now, its not against the law. And I hope that never changes.

 

[LittleBuford]

I agree that parents need to be more diligent in what they let their kids watch in terms of TV shows and internet content. However that is a different situation then a parent consciously taking a kid to a rated R movie, as the parent is actively involved in that situation.

I do believe its a question of morality, as everyone parents their kids differently based on their personal beliefs. Its not up to you or anyone else to tell me what to do just because its against your personal beliefs. Such as the example that I shouldn't take my kid to an R rated movie, that should be my choice as a parent even if you don't agree because its against your personal beliefs. For example some people's religion doesn't allow them to watch R rated movies at all, even as an adult. And so I don't like when people try to make laws for moral reasons just because people do things that go against their personal beliefs, that I think is wrong. We as a country, the US, should not legislate in terms of morality. Unfortunately this has changed over the last couple decades, and I vote against it every chance I get.

It's not about morality, as demonstrated by the fact that such restrictions are in place throughout Western Europe, which is far more socially liberal than the USA.

 

[Disney Irish]

It's not about morality, as demonstrated by the fact that such restrictions are in place throughout Western Europe, which is far more socially liberal than the USA.

Agree to disagree on that. Just because there is a law against it in a socially liberal country outside the US doesn't mean its still not a law based on a moral stance.

 

[LittleBuford]

Except here in the US it would be considered draconian in this situation, as many parents would have an issue with the government now telling them its against the law to do something with their kids. .

US law already prevents parents from taking their children to see certain films (those rated NC-17). These same parents already face a host of laws (pertaining to seatbelts, drinking, smoking, education, etc.) telling them what they can and can't do with their children.

 

[Disney Irish]

US law already prevents parents from taking their children to see certain films (those rated NC-17). These same parents already face a host of laws (pertaining to seatbelts, drinking, smoking, education, etc.) telling them what they can and can't do with their children.

And watch how quick that will get backlash. All you have to do is look at how quickly across the nation there was backlash against a certain law from a certain swamp state with a Disney Park, and that was suppose to be "for" parental rights.

 

[LittleBuford]

And watch how quick that will get a backlash. All you have to do is look at how quickly across the nation there was backlash against a certain law from a certain swamp state with a Disney Park.

Whether a law deserves to be instituted or not shouldn't be based on the level of backlash it may receive.

In any case, we're clearly not going to come to any sort of agreement, and I don't think I have anything left to say on the issue.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

We live in societies that continually and in multiple ways tell people how to raise their children, imposing countless restrictions and requirements on parents. Preventing a child from being taken to the cinema to watch a violent slasher movie is hardly draconian or out of keeping with all the other societal safeguards we live with.

To me this is an argument over what to prioritize more than an argument over whether there should be safeguards, safeguards are a good thing to a certain point, that point will vary by person though, a kid going to a rated R movie WITH his or her parents is so far down the priority list it just doesn’t warrant much concern for me.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I was generally not allowed to see R Rated movies when I was young

Same, not even at home on HBO until I was actually 17!

I am of the belief no one should care what their neighbors are doing…. As long as they are not hurting anyone and they are happy it should not matter… even if I don’t agree with them

Same. If asked, I’ll offer my opinion; but I wouldn’t force that opinion on others via the law.

 

[LittleBuford]

a kid going to a rated R movie WITH his or her parents is so far down the priority list it just doesn’t warrant much concern for me.

I'm not sure if this will make sense, but it's almost for the same reason that I feel as I do. Of all the things that could raise a fuss, tweaking the existing age guidelines into a true rule seems very far down the list to me. I can't imagine it would be a particularly difficult or controversial matter to close a loophole that few parents seem to take advantage of anyway. That said, the last several pages have surprised me quite a bit, so I might well be mistaken.

 

[Disney Irish]

Whether a law deserves to be instituted or not shouldn't be based on the level of backlash it may receive.

Agree, but it also shouldn't be based on whether someone finds what another person does with their kids as distasteful or wrong based on personal belief. Its a slippery slope at that point. Because how far should someones personal beliefs be used to infringe on another persons right to raise their kid how they see fit? The US has come a long way in fighting for personal freedoms over the last 60-70 years. Putting laws that restrict that just seems to go backwards in my opinion. I know some in the country want that, but I'll fight against it.

In any case, we're clearly not going to come to any sort of agreement, and I don't think I have anything left to say on the issue.

Agreed we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this, as this is a matter of personal freedom to me.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I'm not sure if this will make sense, but it's almost for the same reason that I feel as I do. Of all the things that could raise a fuss, tweaking the existing age guidelines into a true rule seems very far down the list to me. I can't imagine it would be a particularly difficult or controversial matter to close a loophole that few parents seem to take advantage of anyway. That said, the last several pages have surprised me quite a bit, so I might well be mistaken.

Makes sense, in the big picture it would be an easy change, I just don’t think it would affect much, the number of kids seeing rated R movies in the theater with their parents is likely a very small number, my guess is 99% of the kids who see Deadpool will see it online in some form, whether a streaming service or a pirated version, and likely without their parents knowing, changing the theater rules won’t affect that.

 

[LittleBuford]

Agree, but it also shouldn't be based on whether someone finds what another person does with their kids as distasteful or wrong based on personal belief. Its a slippery slope at that point. Because how far should someones personal beliefs be used to infringe on another persons right to raise their kid how they see fit? The US has come a long way in fighting for personal freedoms over the last 60-70 years. Putting laws that restrict that just seems to go backwards in my opinion. I know some in the country want that, but I'll fight against it.


Agreed we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this, as this is a matter of personal freedom to me.

I'm happy to disagree, but I wish you would stop implying that my stance is contrary to personal freedom. That argument is invoked all the time by those who oppose all manner of commonsense restrictions and safeguards, many of which I'm sure you agree with. Not wanting to see a seven-year-old at the same screening as me when I go to watch a slasher film does not make me an enemy of personal freedom.

 

[Frank the Tank]

Agree, but it also shouldn't be based on whether someone finds what another person does with their kids as distasteful or wrong based on personal belief. Its a slippery slope at that point. Because how far should someones personal beliefs be used to infringe on another persons right to raise their kid how they see fit? The US has come a long way in fighting for personal freedoms over the last 60-70 years. Putting laws that restrict that just seems to go backwards in my opinion. I know some in the country want that, but I'll fight against it.


Agreed we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this, as this is a matter of personal freedom to me.

Agreed. I have a massive issue with government restrictions on access to movies, books or other materials in the name of supposed morality as a general matter. Tools like Common Sense Media should certainly be used and available to parents to make their own judgments on what their kids are allowed to watch, but it’s not the job of the *government* to police whether a kid gets to watch an R-rated movie or not.

I can tell you that judging by the audience at the viewing of Deadpool and Wolverine that I was at where at least half of the audience was under 17 (and many straight up pre-teen kids, much less teenagers), supposedly “non-controversial” government restrictions would indeed be extremely controversial.

 

[Disney Irish]

I'm happy to disagree, but I wish you would stop implying that my stance is contrary to personal freedom. That argument is invoked all the time by those who oppose all manner of commonsense restrictions and safeguards, many of which I'm sure you agree with. Not wanting to see a seven-year-old at the same screening as me when I go to watch a slasher film does not make me an enemy of personal freedom.

Except when you suggest that laws should be instituted to prevent a parent from making a choice for their own children to me is an enemy of personal freedom. Whether you think its a "commonsense" issue or not doesn't mean its still not a restriction of personal freedom.

 

[easyrowrdw]

US law already prevents parents from taking their children to see certain films (those rated NC-17). These same parents already face a host of laws (pertaining to seatbelts, drinking, smoking, education, etc.) telling them what they can and can't do with their children.

For what it's worth NC-17 is not a legally enforceable rule. It's a rating given by the Motion Picture Association of America and is generally followed by movie theaters, but it's not a law.

 

[erasure fan1]

If I didn't believe it I won't be posting it. Its not up to you to tell me whether my kid is not advanced enough to handle a movie, that is my job as a parent.

Wow, that's one of the worst takes I've read on the boards in a long while. So because you think your kid is advanced enough, that trumps science? I'm not going to tell anyone how to parent because it should be understood that it's not the best for the child. Well at least for a semi functioning person. So who should tell me wether my kid should be able to drink, smoke, go to school, or eat candy for every meal? And please don't say harm to the child because there's plenty out there that says that type of violence exposure to a child is bad for them.

 

[LittleBuford]

Except when you suggest that laws should be instituted to prevent a parent from making a choice for their own children to me is an enemy of personal freedom.

By that logic, one should have nothing to say about parents who choose not to put seatbelts on their children or who choose to give them alcohol.