Voices in Animation
  Anything Animation
  G Rated movies violent?!

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   G Rated movies violent?!
RZetlin
Artist

Posts: 776
From:State of Influx
Registered: Oct 1999

posted May 24, 2000 03:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for RZetlin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Continuation of nicholas_disney post

This is just so funny. G Rated movies violent?! They use that cruddy movie Quest for Camelot as an sample in their test study?!

The people at Harvard School of Public Health needs to get out more.

I wonder if the religious right is behind this study?

This is one of the reasons why animation in American will never be a respectable medium.

------------------
"Close the World, Open the Next."-Serial Experiments Lain

[This message has been edited by RZetlin (edited May 27, 2000).]

IP: Logged

sterfish
Artist

Posts: 440
From:Chicago IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted May 24, 2000 04:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for sterfish     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The problem with the study is that they looked at violence objectively. That sounds stupid, but most violence in kids movies are done for comedic effect. Come on now, Tigger jumping onto and bowling over Pooh?? That's just plain nitpicking. A character deliberately attacking another with evil intent...that's the type of violence they should be looking at. Heaven forbid they ever watch an hour of Looney tunes.

RZetlin-The religious right is not behind this study...if they were, a Disney movie would be "the most violent"

IP: Logged

Gordg
Artist

Posts: 709
From:Canada
Registered: Sep 1999

posted May 24, 2000 04:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Gordg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
'Quest for Camelot' was ranked the most violent movie...talk about kicking someone when their down. (oops! a violent post)

I understand their concerns regarding the portrayal of violence in the movies. Movies do have an impact on our psyche. But pulling scenes of violence out of context of the over all story is a gross misrepresentation of the affect or intent of the portrayal.

Violence is innate, it's part of our survival instinct (flight or fight). It has assured the continuation of the species since the beginning of time and as such has been a benefit as well as a detriment. To categorically denounce the representation of violence in movies as negative, is short sighted (unless you're applying for research grants ).

Violence is a natural part of a child's psyche and environment. Children must learn to understand and cope with this natural response, so they will know what is and is not an acceptable expression of violence in our society (chasing away an attacker for example). They must also learn how to emotionally cope with violence directed toward them (the school yard bully).

If the portrayal of violence is part of a social, moral or ethical lesson (as the majority of children's animated features are) then violence has a natural place in those features. If it is a gratuitous and purely visceral representation with no social, moral or ethical consideration then it deserves to be rebuked.

Citing Tigger's exuberance as violence is as ridiculous as saying your mother is being violent when she hugs you too tightly.

BTW: To imply all these portrayals have a negative affect - when the researchers themselves state they don't know how these representations of violence affect children - is irresponsible science/journalism.

Rant off.

[This message has been edited by Gordg (edited May 25, 2000).]

IP: Logged

D.E.P
Artist

Posts: 425
From:hull, quebec, canada
Registered: Oct 1999

posted May 24, 2000 05:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for D.E.P     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
AH AH AH AH AH AHAAHAHHA!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, but that stupid research article must be the funniest thing I've read in a long time!

P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(I had to edit more laughing in there it's so funny)

[This message has been edited by D.E.P (edited May 24, 2000).]

IP: Logged

Shoevg
Fan

Posts: 11
From:San Francisco,Ca. USA
Registered: May 2000

posted May 24, 2000 06:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Shoevg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That study is almost as funny as when Jerry Fallwell (or whatever his name is) said that he suggested they ban all disney movies because of ***ual content. Whoops! I guess I can't say that here. Sorry! Please...is our society getting a little parnoid or what? Parents have a way bigger issue to deal with than their kids watching cartoons.

[This message has been edited by Shoevg (edited May 24, 2000).]

IP: Logged

Penanimate
Artist

Posts: 724
From:Menlo Park, CA USA
Registered: Oct 1999

posted May 25, 2000 08:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Penanimate     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
All this "study" proves is that if you have an axe to grind and someone handy who knows how to write a research grant, you too can get money from the Federal Government.

As far as Quest for Camelot goes, the only violence I remember is that which was done to my psyche and my wallet when I paid good money to see it

IP: Logged

JDWeil
Artist

Posts: 410
From:Lodi, NJ, USA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted May 26, 2000 07:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for JDWeil     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

I can't believe that only 74 features were put on video cassette if that's all they counted. There certainly must of been a lot more. Were any anime features involved in the study? They are certainly a lot more violent than "Quest for Camelot", and they are available in this country.


"Thre are lies, Damned lies, and statistics."

IP: Logged

Mike2D
Artist

Posts: 564
From:Valley Glen, Ca., U.S.A
Registered: Oct 1999

posted May 27, 2000 09:33 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mike2D     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
WHO IN GODS NAME WRITES THIS STUFF?!?! I swear...now we have another article mutated from that crap a*ss study! Society is getting so muffled up over "protecting their children", it's crazy. It's very simple:
1. Take your kid to see a movie
2. If something occurs in the movie that the parent doesn't think is appropriate, just leave, or at the end of the movie explain to them what's right and wrong, reality vs. fantasy. EASY!
ARRGH....I can't think of anything else to say...too early....need caffine....

IP: Logged

RZetlin
Artist

Posts: 776
From:State of Influx
Registered: Oct 1999

posted May 27, 2000 10:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for RZetlin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by JDWeil:

I can't believe that only 74 features were put on video cassette if that's all they counted. There certainly must of been a lot more. Were any anime features involved in the study? They are certainly a lot more violent than "Quest for Camelot", and they are available in this country.

Was there anime included in the study?

The answer is yes.

Kiki's Delivery Service and My Neighbor Toroto was included in the study.

These two titles scored the lowest on the violence scale compared to the American animated movies.

Kiki's Delivery Service scored a 35 on the violence scale.

My Neighbor Toroto scored a 6 on the violence scale.

(There are violence scenes because there are physical contact between the characters. Magic is counted as violence too. )

Compare this to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs which scored a 474 on the violence scale.

Don't believe me, see the research table yourself.

Click here for to see the offical report on the JAMA Medicine home page.

This could be a great promotional point for Hayo Miyazaki's films.

I can see the commerical now.

(An announcer comes on)

"Are you tired of all the violence in Disney films and G-rated American films?"

"Now you have a choice, enter the world of Kiki's Delivery Service or My Neighbor Toroto!"

"Scientifically proven to be less violent than the average American G-rated movie."

"2 out of 3 scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health approves of Kiki's Delivery Service or My Neighbor Toroto."

"If you buy both of the films now, you can get Laputa: Castle in the Sky for free!"

"Buy now, don't delay!"

[This message has been edited by RZetlin (edited May 27, 2000).]

IP: Logged

Gordg
Artist

Posts: 709
From:Canada
Registered: Sep 1999

posted May 27, 2000 12:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Gordg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
WARNING!
If you're bored and looking for something to do on a slow Saturday afternoon, try this rebuttal. If you think psychology is a load of Ph.D. B.S. , skip to D.E.P.'s reply

The following is derived from the thoughts of Carl Jung and VERY loosely annotated by me. I'll call it....

Metaphors, Fantasy, and Depotentiate (see end of reply for definition) - It Must be an Animated Film.

quote:
Psychologically . . . the archetype (see definition below) as an image of instinct is a spiritual goal toward which the whole nature of man strives; it is the sea to which all rivers wend their way, the prize which the hero wrests from the fight with the dragon.

Archetypal images, as universal patterns or motifs which come from the collective unconscious, are the basic content of religions, mythologies, legends and fairy tales.

An archetypal content expresses itself, first and foremost, in metaphors. If such a content should speak of the sun and identify with it the lion, the king, the hoard of gold guarded by the dragon, or the power that makes for the life and health of man, it is neither the one thing nor the other, but the unknown third thing that finds more or less adequate expression in all these similes, yet-to the perpetual vexation of the intellect-remains and not to be fitted into a formula.["The Psychology of the Child Archetype," CW 9i, par. 267]

DEFINITION:Archetype. Primordial, structural elements of the human psyche.


Simply put...stories in animated features for children are metaphorical and are expressions of their inner spirit.

quote:
In myths the hero is the one who conquers the dragon, not the one who is devoured by it. And yet both have to deal with the same dragon. Also, he is no hero who never met the dragon, or who, if he once saw it, declared afterwards that he saw nothing. Equally, only one who has risked the fight with the dragon and is not overcome by it wins the hoard, the "treasure hard to attain." He alone has a genuine claim to self-confidence, for he has faced the dark ground of his self and thereby has gained himself. . . . He has acquired the right to believe that he will be able to overcome all future threats by the same means.["The Conjunction," CW 14, par. 756.]

The battle metaphor(in this case with a dragon) represents the child facing their inner fears and dark thoughts -- defeating them and winning self-confidence.

...be prepared, it gets a little involved here.

quote:
The grand plan on which the unconscious life of the psyche is constructed is so inaccessible to our understanding that we can never know what evil may not be necessary in order to produce good by enantiodromia (see definition below), and what good may very possibly lead to evil.[The Phenomenology of the Spirit in Fairytales," CW 9i, par. 397.]

DEFINITION:Enantiodromia. Literally, "running counter to," referring to the emergence of the unconscious opposite in the course of time. This characteristic phenomenon practically always occurs when an extreme, one-sided tendency dominates conscious life; in time an equally powerful counterposition is built up, which first inhibits the conscious performance and subsequently breaks through the conscious control. [Definitions," ibid., par. 709.]


What this means is...ignoring part of our nature (in this case anger and aggression, which leads to violence). Does not illiminate it but instead drives it into our unconscious where it will eventually be expressed in other forms. (i.e. kicking the dog )

So violence in animated movies for children is an excellent fantasiful tool for a child to explore their darkside and become more fully aware and whole individuals.

The term Jung uses is "depotentiate" (see definition below).

DEFINITION: Depotentiate. The process of removing energy from an unconscious content by assimilating its meaning.

If you made it this far...give yourself a cookie.

[This message has been edited by Gordg (edited May 27, 2000).]

IP: Logged

RZetlin
Artist

Posts: 776
From:State of Influx
Registered: Oct 1999

posted May 27, 2000 01:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for RZetlin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
ARGH! This report is spreading across the world now. Even the Australians are getting this silly-@ss report. Did the article say that Australians censor G-Rated movies?! What the @@#%#!

We have to stop this inflection before it's too late.

All we need now is some ultra righteous politician to step in now and create a law that stops the violence in G rated movies.

A watchdog will be setup to regulate the type of material the writers would come up.

We would be stuck with inane, boring animated movies!!!!!

ARGH!! I can't take it!

And yes this type of censorship can happen in America.

It happen with Comic Books. (The Comic Book Code was created.)

It happen with video games. (Some Retail Stores are not carrying M rated video games now.)

It will happen with animation with we don't stop this madness!

Stop the madness NOW!

------------------
"Close the World, Open the Next."-Serial Experiments Lain

[This message has been edited by RZetlin (edited May 27, 2000).]

IP: Logged

ScottJenkins
Fan

Posts: 2
From:Chicago, IL USA
Registered: May 2000

posted May 27, 2000 03:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ScottJenkins     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The study was specifically concerning feature length animated G rated films spanning the period from 1937 to 1999. No matter what their findings are, how can they be valid if the MPAA Ratings systems began on November 1, 1968?

IP: Logged

D.E.P
Artist

Posts: 425
From:hull, quebec, canada
Registered: Oct 1999

posted May 27, 2000 10:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for D.E.P     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Gordg:
WARNING!
If you're bored and looking for something to do on a slow Saturday afternoon, try this rebuttal. If you think psychology is a load of Ph.D. B.S. , skip to D.E.P.'s reply


Humm, I'll take that as a compliment Gord...

And I'm still trying to pronounce Enantiodromia. (I mean what is that?)

IP: Logged

Gordg
Artist

Posts: 709
From:Canada
Registered: Sep 1999

posted May 28, 2000 01:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Gordg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Of course it was a compliment D.E.P... it wasn't a cheap gag about initials.

Your point was very direct.

BTW:I have absolutely no idea how to pronounce Enantiodromia or what it means...but it sure looks impressive when you type it.

IP: Logged

sterfish
Artist

Posts: 440
From:Chicago IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted May 28, 2000 02:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for sterfish     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This whole thing is about whether or not people think that society is getting worse. Apparently, people do and they want a scapegoat. It has to be violence and ***, it must, they say. While shielding kids away from excessive violence is something parents should be doing anyway, they want Hollywood to censor themselves. Hollywood does everything short of censoring and people don't take advantage. The ratings system is clear without giving away content--how simple is it for parents to notice PG-13: Parents Strongly Cautioned Material May Not be Suitable for Children Under 13? The position most take as opposed to actively taking a role in determining what kids watch is that of "you fix it because I'm not going to bother."

The fact is, society is not getting worse. We always think it's getting worse but after a while we get used to it then it continues. At one point, people thought African-Americans were inferior and any other view was radical. Or that women should stay in the home. These were all mainstream ideas at one point that were shattered and the conservatives wanted to keep things the same. We all know now that they should have been shattered in the first place.

What does this have to do with G rated films?? Answer: People think society is getting worse and decide to make mountains out of molehills. Do G-rated films have violence? In the broadest and most objective definition of violence, yes. Have they had violence in the past? Yes. Will they continue to have violence? Yes. Is that a big deal? No, provided we don't see bloody murders in G-rated films in 10 years. People need to grow up and stop whining about insignificant things like this or how society is going to hell because of excessive violence and ***. As parents, they can turn off the TV, take away money for video games and movies, take away internet privelages, and monitor what their kids listen to. It's not that hard to do but it's time consuming. And remember, most every freedom and liberty we have was at one time a radical idea.

I hope this wasn't too off course and too much like Gordg's classic posts (no offense, in fact most are very good).

IP: Logged

Gordg
Artist

Posts: 709
From:Canada
Registered: Sep 1999

posted May 28, 2000 10:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Gordg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sterfish:
I hope this wasn't too off course and too much like Gordg's classic posts (no offense, in fact most are very good).

Thanks Sterfish......no offense taken. But I'd rather characterize my posts as "the road less traveled" than "off course".

But I am happy to receive a "most are very good" appraisal since many of my replies are squeezed into a very chaotic "real" life and often take the form of "quick thoughts" as opposed to carefully constructed assertions. Sometimes I "hit", sometimes I "miss" -- sometimes people get it, sometimes they don't. But, like everyone else in the forum...I'm just saying what's on my mind.

In regards to your post....

I agree it is the responsibility of the parent to ultimately decide what their children view. I also believe it is their responsibility to be informed.

But it is also society's responsibility to allow families the time to be families. Today it requires a double income and long hours on the job to merely financially support a family . There is very little time available for a family to spend time together. (unfornuately these days "latch key kids" refers to the latch on the gun rack)

Instead of spending tax dollars on extra day care or more youth programs, they should initiate a shorter work week and actively seek out programs that will bring families together-- not give them more time to work.

I also agree, blaming movie violence as the root of our increasingly violent society, is an easy out and dangerously over simplifies the problem. We need to look at the bigger, deeper issues.

I know, I'm on the "road" again.

IP: Logged

Bas
Fan

Posts: 26
From:Delft, Holland
Registered: Nov 1999

posted May 30, 2000 09:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Bas     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I don't think people need two fulltime jobs to be ble to support their families. Maybe if you are fooled into believing that you need five televisions, two cars, a swimming pool and the latest game-console. All this expense stuff is of very little importance.

Hmmm, what I am trying to get at is, that I think many parents are not willing to have a real interest in their kids. That spending time is seen as playing watchdog. And that a scapegoat is needed (after all, it can't be the parents fault, they only see their kids about one hour a day).

But why bother about feature-length animated movies in the first place. If a kid is lucky (of course depending on your definition) he/she might see one a week. Just one hour of 'regular' television tops the violence easily.
How many drive-by's, burning crosses, robberies and (last but certainly not least) wars have been started with Snowy White?

And don't blame those scientists. Probably a bunch of studenst who thought it would be funny to get a grant for watching cartoons.

IP: Logged

Gordg
Artist

Posts: 709
From:Canada
Registered: Sep 1999

posted May 30, 2000 11:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Gordg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bas, I agree with a lot of what you're saying...there are people with the wrong priorities. But there are also many families with little to no disposable income or are below the poverty line.

I am not aware of what the situation is in Holland but in Canada poverty and economic insecurity remain grave threats to healthy child development. In 1994, 1.4 million Canadian children lived in households struggling to survive on incomes below Statistics Canada's low income cut-offs, and many families lived far below these poverty lines. Many more children lived in modest-income households whose earnings have declined over the last decade while the costs of raising children have gone up and the supply of secure, full-time employment has dropped.

Also, Canada does not provide any recognition in the tax system of the costs associated with raising children and despite considerable pressure, has refused to create a national child care system.

All this in a country that was ranked as one of the best places in the world to live.

So income is a factor.

But I also think...if families spent less time worrying about the content of the entertainment they're watching and more time worrying about the amount of entertainment they're watching...they could find more time to be involved in the lives of their family. But it's too easy to tune out and blame someone else.

[This message has been edited by Gordg (edited May 31, 2000).]

IP: Logged

Penanimate
Artist

Posts: 724
From:Menlo Park, CA USA
Registered: Oct 1999

posted May 31, 2000 08:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Penanimate     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Bas:
I don't think people need two fulltime jobs to be ble to support their families. Maybe if you are fooled into believing that you need five televisions, two cars, a swimming pool and the latest game-console. All this expense stuff is of very little importance.

Like Gordg, I am unaware of the economic conditions in Holland. If you are able to raise a family on one income, you are indeed fortunate. But you should be careful of making blanket statements such as the one above.

When my family and I lived in Orlando, Florida, we were able to do quite well on one income. But when we moved back home to California, one income just didn't cut it, despite a 15% pay increase. The cost of living in California, especially around Silicon Valley, is extremely high, as it is in any desirable area of the country or the world. As animators, we don't (yet) have the luxury of living where we want and being able to find work; we must live where the work is available.

Fortunately, my family is in a position where my wife goes to the office during my son's school hours, so she's home when he gets out of school. But her additional income is necessary, and not to support five TVs, two cars, etc., but for luxuries like heat, light, food, etc.

As I've said before in these forums, one should be very careful when assuming that conditions around where one lives are typical of the world at large. It just isn't so, and making judgements based on those assumptions can look naive at best, and ignorant at worst.

IP: Logged

CheriéPenguin
Fan

Posts: 2
From:Daytona Beach,FL USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted February 02, 2002 11:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for CheriéPenguin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As a mother of one 8 year old girl, I see nothing wrong with the so called "violence" in these films.Real life is full of violence..I am confident that I am capable of raising a kid who can recognize the difference between entertainment and true violence.I have been criticized for allowing my kid to view such shows as The Simpsons and Powerpuff Girls.. because they contain violence.Parents who are leary are simply insecure about their own abilities.Should we also ban stories in history textbooks that portray war and violence? Wouldn't be much left to teach would there? People who write articles like the one in question need to get their heads out of their butts and become a part of reality.And give some credit to the children..they are not all impressionable morons.

IP: Logged

CheriéPenguin
Fan

Posts: 2
From:Daytona Beach,FL USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted February 02, 2002 12:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for CheriéPenguin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You basically hit the nail on the head Sterfish! I am a telemarketer who sells cable TV upgrades.Often I push certain shows for kids to encourage them to upgrade.I can't tell you how many times I have heard responses like,"I don't want that crap in my house","I prefer that my kids do other things than watch cartoons," "I don't want my kid glued to the TV watching cartoons",etc.Poor kids.. ..these are the ones that I believe will grow up to be the serial killers and social recluses.. Basically it tells me that they are a parent who can't, or doesn't want to bother to take the time to monitor how much and what their kids watch.It's a total copout!I feel sorry that they have never snuggled on the floor with their kid watching senseless cartoons and laughed out loud together.I may be way off base here because I am a huge fan of cartoons/animation,but something tells me I'm not.TV from Sears:$200,Betty Boop Video:$4.99,Watching Pudgy try to take on a mean alleycat with your kid:Priceless!

[This message has been edited by CheriéPenguin (edited February 02, 2002).]

IP: Logged

All times are PT(US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Animation Artist Magazine | Privacy Statement

All material is (c)copyright 2000 - Animation Artist Magazine

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c