MovieChat Forums > Rango (2011) Discussion > I changed my mind... This is NOT for kid...

I changed my mind... This is NOT for kids.

posted 14 years ago by nielw
78 replies | jump to latest

When I first saw this film, I thought it was perfectly innocuous. I thought it was really well done, funny, and entertaining, not to mention the amazing CG. Then I came onto this board and saw all the people complaining about how inappropriate this movie was for kids. I thought back to the movie and only remembered a couple damns and hells. So I figured these people were Christian purists who get offended at the slightest things.

Then I checked the content guide. 21/50. The TECE says "20-25 is going to be pretty darn adult". I wondered why this would be so high for a harmless kids film. I read through it all, and realize now how desensitized I've become to all this content. Read the parents guide at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1192628/parentalguide and you'll notice all sorts of things you may not have caught during the film. Or maybe you did and didn't think anything of it at the time.

Lines like "I'm going to slice your face off and use it to wipe my unmentionables." "You missing your mama's mangos?" and "Mama had an active social life." The guide also says there are about a dozen or so uses of the word hell. I thought to myself "How did I miss all those hells? I only remember a couple." When I was a little kid, I was taught that it's a swear word, and was highly sensitive to it.

Like I said, I really enjoyed the movie. But some of the posters on this board don't understand why some parents would get so offended by this content. Remember, they're watching the movie through a kid's filter, while the rest of us don't use any filters at all.

My main point here isn't to say who is right or who is wrong, but that some of us are more desensitized to adult material than others. And we don't realize it when we come on here and complain about people sheltering their kids.

[–] tiger86-2 14 years ago

But some of the posters on this board don't understand why some parents would get so offended by this content.
___
I certainly don't understand. May be it is because I am not American but that is the way it is.

Sometimes I really think most of the Americans are seriously messed up when it comes to movies. I don't want to sound offensive and I will try to explain why I think so.

People are OK with Tom and Jerry constantly trying to kill each other using extremely violent methods. Yet the same people get upset with seeing characters using the word "hell" in a movie like 'Rango'. What the... HELL!!! Sorry but "HELL" is just a goddamned WORD. It is NOT PROFANITY AT ALL, for Christ's sake. I mean, it is OK for a family movie about the Ancient Greek mythology to contain the word "Tartarus" - which means "hell" - but when it comes to the Christian mythology the same word becomes offensive. How is that? This is just an example, of course, don't take it literally. Still, i don't get why so many Americans consider the word "HELL" to be offensive. But, well, from what I've read many of the Americans are religious idiots who want their kids to study creationism in their biology classes so may be that is not something to wonder about... No offense meant, by the way.

30 years ago a movie like 'Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Arc' would be rated PG despite all the violent killings but a comedy movie with only ONE F-word and no other profanity or innuendo would be rated R.

Now you can easily turn a PG-13 action movie into an R-rated one just by adding brown CGI blood and ONE scene with only three F-words in it - that is what happened to 'The Expendables'.

You can have in your PG-13 movie a guy graphically shredded to pieces but if you are put more than one F-word in it it gets R-rating. The movie is 'Live Free or Die Hard' and it is a great movie but...

You can have all the violence, shootings, killings, etc., and your movie would still be PG or PG-13 as long as it does not have F-words, N-words or fake blood. Is that a double standard or what?

It is OK to show a guy stabbing another guy in the heart with a sword and you can see this in many family movies but to some people it is not OK to show Rango asking a broken barbie doll if her **** are real... Why is that?

What should also be mentioned is the fact that 'Rango' is not oriented only at kids. There are references to many classic western movies, some of which were R-rated for good reason - 'Django', for example. There is a HUGE reference to 'Apocalypse Now' as well as references to many other adult-oriented movies - 'Fear and Loathing is Las Vegas', 'China Town', etc.

Of course, I am speaking from a Bulgarian point of view. Here we are not as strict as the Americans when it comes to movie ratings. All the 'Die Hard' movies were rated 12+, when they were aired on the TV. 'Princess Mononoke' was considered a movie for kids despite the fact that had it been a live action movie it would be definitely R-rated in most countries for violence. 'Wanted' was rated 16+. 'Rambo' was rated 12+. So was 'The Expendables'. Etc. Still, the explicit nudity, especially combined with extreme violence and profanity, is not allowed to kids and teenagers but I have been watching supposedly R-rated action movies like 'Lethal Weapon', 'Die Hard', 'The Terminator', etc., since I've learned how to walk.

I guess that is why I don't get many people's obsession with the R-ratings...

[–] dth_blade 14 years ago

You better not let them go to school then, or anywhere in public. You hear more "bad language" in public than all movies combined, except maybe the "true" adult movies. I know from experience that every other sentence coming out of teenagers contains "bad words". Also, if you really want to shield them from all the "evil" in the world, don't allow cell phones or the internet or they might experience the "bad stuff" from home.

[–] Eightythreeyearoldguy 14 years ago

I can understand a parent being concerned about a movie's content, because a movie gives an impression that all this is perfectly okay, that everybody does it, so you can too. I was liberal with my son and we saw several R rated movies together while he was in high school, and don't regret that. But different parents have different standards and shouldn't be criticized for preferring to limit a kid's exposure until the kid has enough maturity to handle it sensibly.

I'm the kind of guy, when I move - watch my smoke. But I'm gonna need some good clothes though.

[–] vcanfield 14 years ago

For all you know the person's kids are under the age of 5. Cut the poster a break. I was a bit put out by the number of curse words, it didn't stop me from showing it to my kids,over the age of 9, but I still wasn't happy about it. And just because my kids are exposed to curse words all over the place I'm still going to consider the appropriateness of the movie before I let them watch it. Heck, kids are constantly exposed to sex. You gonna rent a copy of unrated Caligula for your kids to watch? It's nice to see some parenting going on. I teach middle school kids and I see plenty of the opposite--no parenting.

[–] svenrufus 10 years ago

Of course there's a balance in what to let your kids see, but he examples listed in the OP are a bit off beam for my reckoning. For example, the 'Do you miss your mama's mangoes' line - sorry, bu my daughter (7) will just be thinking about mangoes, not the smutty allusion that is hidden within it. Kids films now are often done in a way to give something for grown ups too - that's not always a good thing, a film can be just for kids - and when it happens it is usually possible to take a view that if the kid understands it, they're ready to hear it. If they don't understand it, then what's the harm.

I am very cautious about what my daughter sees, but mostly about violence and scary scenes. A bit of language...? not so much - I get the bus with her daily and she hears all sorts. The thing is to recognise that she'll hear it and use it one day, and I want to be honest with her that what matters is knowing when, and more importantly, when not to use it.

Everyone though has their own take on parenting, and while I'm very happy with what I do, and how it's working out, who am I to tell anyone else what to do?

But having said that, this is definitely a film for kids, but there is plenty there for adults too.

My biggest problem though is that I'm just not so sure it's very good at doing either very well.

[–] vcanfield 14 years ago

Wow, rant much? Well, age of consent in Bulgaria is 14. I guess our expectations for our children are different.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vcanfield 14 years ago

Age of consent is for male and female, which also makes you a sexist since you only mention girls. I don't see Rango as violent--never said that. I simply said it may not be age appropriate depending on the child's age. Yeah, I'm delusional and my own failings are just killing me. Man, being American sucks. Wish I could live in Bulgaria. Bored now, moving on. Yawn

[–] novimovieman 13 years ago

tiger86-2
You may have noticed that in the over 100 years of movie making not a single person was ever actually killed on screen. Screen violence is not real. Most of it isn't actually believable. Have you ever been in a fist fight? I suggest you head down to the local boxing gym and get in the ring. After that experience watching an on screen fight will NEVER be believable again as it takes you two weeks to recover from three well placed punches. Its called acting. The use of profanity is however real. The use of sex in pornography is real. The use of sexually based language is real. If you see these things as just words then you have become so desensitized to the impact of language that you are now hopelessly lost. No you don't see it (does the Christian in your bigoted opinion see that he is an idiot?) And as far as not wanting to insult anyone thanks for being an anti-American anti-religion bigot. Oh did I insult you, I didn't think that was possible.
I am an author and in one of my books I spend six chapters explaining the meaning of the word 'obscene." I spent a little time in the late 80's debating with Frank Zappa over censorship. That was the impetus for writing the book. He never got to read it. Why six chapters? Because so many individuals are so deeply desensitized that they need to step way way back into their mindset to put the situation into perspective. That requires breaking the problem down into tiny digestible pieces. I have received over a thousand letters and e-mails from people who say they were deeply moved and troubled when they read those six chapters. They had no idea how far down their lives had sunk via language. Many however have become angry with my words. (No I won't tell you who I am or the name of the book. I used to get around a dozen crackpots calling me every year wanting to harm me over my position but its too late, the book is already out there!. Thankfully that has subsided as I am sure they are off threatening someone else. My publisher has refused to help and suggests I spend some of the nearly three quarters of a million dollars I have earned from its sale and hire private security. Just recently I published a two paragraph piece on atheism in a regional newspaper and within a week had received enough threats to warrant opening a case file with local police.)

[–] defucter 13 years ago

^^^ delusions of grandeur.

[–] tiger86-2 13 years ago

@novimovieman
WHAT THE FROG???

Of course I know that the violence in movies is not real. Neither is the use of profanity, neither are the nude scenes, by the way. NOTHING in movies is what a sane person would consider real. That is why they are movies. Movies are not real life. Movie characters don't even TALK like real life people.