I remember reading one time that the reason Land Before Time wasn't as big as Lion King was because it was looked at as too violent and tragic for children. But in my opinion, Lion King was ten times worse. I guess that means children of the 90s were more strong minded than children of the 80s. Makes me kind of proud to be a 90s child.
shareNot sure where you read that. But movies in the 80's were much darker than movies in the 90's. The Lion King being the one exception. But on the whole, 80's kids movies were darker.
You can make all the excuses you want. But you're the one who decides how to live your life. -Mugen
I was born right a the beginning of the 90s so I saw both 80s and 90s films as a child and 80s films were much darker for sure. And I don't think Lion King was all that dark honestly. A death isn't always mean a movie is dark. Suggestions of or outright alcoholism, depression, suicide, and murder make a film dark. Deaths make a film sad and sometimes more complex. If you want a dark children's movie look to Who Framed Roger Rabbit? or even one of the best examples: Pinocchio.
share"Who Framed Roger Rabbit" is not a childrens film. It's very much adult material. Just beacuse something is animated or contains animated sections/characters does not automaticly make it a childrens film. Would you show "Fritz the Cat" to a kid, or even the soft-pornograpghic "Fire and Ice"? Well, I guess you could, but it still doesn't make 'em childrens films.
Sorry about the spelling errors. :)
First, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is labeled as a family movie.
Second, it is listed on many a site as a dark children's film. They weren't all idiots.
http://hubpages.com/hub/6-Terrifying-and-Scarring-Childrens-Movies
It doesn't have to be an adult movie to have adult humour in it. You'll find it in pretty much all half-decent children's animation shows today.
Who's feeling Peanutty?
Of course kids films can contain adult humour, I really don't make a difference in humour, since I consider it age-less in most cases.
But "Roger Rabbit" obviously is mis-labeled. I still enjoyed it as a kid because of the bright colors, but I didn't understand it at all. And it does contain scary, unsettling things, smoking, swearing, violence and sexual themes. It didn't scar me because I believe you have to be a certain type of human to be scarred and/or influenced by that type of mediums in the first place. Kids know what's real and not from a very young age, as well as get (hopefully) good morals from their parents. And as their parents are the most important and influencal forces in their young lives, that's what matters.
However, "Roger" has NO childrens themes, but rather adult and youth, say 16 and up.I suspect it was a hard film to sell to adult audiences only, and that's the reason behind the rating. I'd have to ask the producers though, to know for sure.
By the way, I haven't called anybody idiot. You choosed that word. Makes you seem hostile in your writing.
The scarring thing was just a joke in the article. It was only a device used to exaggerate how dark/adult themed the movie is.
I didn't call anybody an idiot either? Actually, I said quite the opposite. I said that all these people who watched the film as children and are now understanding the film for what it is aren't dumb. It really was/is a family film regardless of what peoples opinions are on the should be rating.
Who's feeling Peanutty?