Originally Posted By markedward I was bugged by that scene when I watched Cars with my seven and four year olds. On the other hand, I don't generally take my four year old to movies without previewing them first. I did with Cars, and was generally very pleased with it for him. My two cents worth: If you want to show a popular character performing a potentially deadly act, one that kills people every month, and show it without any consequences whatsoever, feel free. It's a free country. But I've got one word for it: PG! I've always been amazed at how much Disney gets away with because it's animated. A movie about a teenager violently confronting the abusive uncle who murdered his father. Another about a handicapped young man whose been kept locked in a church attic all his life. None of these would be G if they were live action. And I think the semi-realism of Pixar films makes them a little closer to the live-action expectations.
Originally Posted By cstephens markedward wrote: > My two cents worth: If you want to show a popular character performing a potentially deadly act, one that kills people every month, and show it without any consequences whatsoever, feel free. It's a free country. But I've got one word for it: > PG! But then your objection is with the ratings board, not Disney. But I still wouldn't agree with changing the rating for that one little thing. BTW, according to the MPAA, here's what a G rating means: This is a film which contains nothing in theme, language, nudity and sex, violence, etc. that would, in the view of the Rating Board, be offensive to parents whose younger children view the film. The G rating is not a certificate of approval nor does it signify a children’s film. Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated films. The violence is at a minimum. Nudity and sex scenes are not present, nor is there any rug use content. Seems to describe "Cars" perfectly to me. Maybe people just don't understand what a G rating means? /cs
Originally Posted By cstephens Ooops, must be something I did wrong in the cut-and-paste since it's correct on their site. "nor is there any drug use content". BTW, here's the link to the film ratings page of the MPAA: <a href="http://www.mpaa.org/FilmRatings.asp" target="_blank">http://www.mpaa.org/FilmRating s.asp</a>. Lots of tabs to go to from there. /cs
Originally Posted By danyoung >The scene made me very uncomfortable and I have teenagers.< My first reaction is pretty cold - thin the herd. But that's just mean, & I'm not a mean guy. So I'll just say that if a kid is on the edge between racing a train and not racing a train, and he's influenced by a Pixar animation to go ahead and race the train, then this is a really dumb kid. It's a sad world we live in at times, but I don't believe we need to be in the business of protecting everyone from themselves. Someone does a dumb thing and society says that we have to find some way to keep others from doing the dumb thing. In many cases this is a good thing, but this Cars thing isn't one of them, IMO.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead "rug use content" I believe that applies to all William Shatner films?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper danyoung...I understand the sentiment...but that didn't stop McDonald's from having to put disclaimers on their coffee which warns consumers that their hot coffee is, in fact, hot. Nor does it keep candy manufacturers from having to put, "Please open and remove outer packageing before eating" on their candy bars.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Maybe, while that scene was happening in 'Cars,' they could have put a little disclaimer at the bottom of the screen... 'Race with speeding locomotive simulated'
Originally Posted By danyoung I keep seeing the McDonald's thing used in discussions like this. While I agree that it's dumb that they decided to put a disclaimer on their cups, the actual suit wasn't a case of someone spilling a cup of normally hot coffee - it was a case of someone spilling a cup of coffee that was heated to a temperature far greater than it should have been. McDonald's was indeed at fault in this case, and their lawyers did the normal knee jerk adjustment after the fact by putting the warnings on the cups. But your candy disclaimer is just ludicrous - do they really do that?
Originally Posted By smeeeko <<But your candy disclaimer is just ludicrous - do they really do that?>> ^you know I wouldn't be surprised! =) but just to be gullible I went and looked at what we have around the apartment.. On the FRUIT & NUT TRAIL MIX BARS I like to snack on, they have the key allergic ingredients listed TWICE.. once in the correct order of where they come in the order of ingredients and then once again at the end in BOLD lettering.. just in case you didn't realize there were nuts in the 'fruit & nut' trail mix bars. On the Peanut M&Ms there is an allergy warning that says "may contain Almonds" (in case the Peanuts don't get you, I guess.. Most the food we have in the apartment has milk & egg & nut warnings even if they don't contain nuts.. but nothing about opening the container first.. more like HEAT FIRST on the microwave meals or meat products (one would hope you wouldn't eat frozen meat).. lol.. oh well. It's a sad state that folks have to be saved from themselves.. but I think like the hot coffee warning that it's to protect the business from being sued from folks.. I don't care how hot the coffee is.. it's HOT coffee. Frivilous.. I've been badly burnt by the hot water at McDonalds when I worked there in high school.. never occured to me to sue my employer for having such freaking HOT water coming out of the coffee machines.. It was my fault for letting my need to hurry up & serve the decaf cup overide common sense to let a customer wait for the pot to fill. (I learned that lesson pretty quick too). It's not worth me going to the hospital outpatient ward so you can have a packet of Sanka.. live & learn. =P
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Heck, have you seen commercials lately? Anytime a car is shown travelling faster than pulling out of the driveway, they seem to have to have 'Professional Driver on Closed Course' at the bottom of the screen. It's all legal gobbledeegook, in case anyone drives the car and crashes, the company is covered. It's like all the 'Reamin Seated Please' signs in the Disney parks.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's like all the 'Reamin Seated Please' signs in the Disney parks.<< Well, that sounds uncomfortable, and not very Disney-like at all.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...it was a case of someone spilling a cup of coffee that was heated to a temperature far greater than it should have been. McDonald's was indeed at fault in this case...<< Actually, no. According to a very entertaining site ( <a href="http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html" target="_blank">http://www.stellaawards.com/st ella.html</a> ) The woman in question (Stella Liebeck) was burned by McDonald's coffee that was between 180 and 190 degrees. Here's a statement from the site: >>The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit."<< McDonald's did pay a settlement, but wasn't entirely at fault. I suppose if some kid gets in a cartoon car with big googly eyes and tries to outrun a train painted up to look like a tiger, there will be a lawsuit involved. But Pixar shouldn't be entirely at fault...
Originally Posted By danyoung ^^ Interesting - that is not what I'd heard. Always good to learn new stuff!
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Well the case was big play in our home as DW worked for McD corp for 17 years -- and the facts are all over the board here... the final damage suit was $480K by the way,not the millions the goofy jury decided on...and since the woman had a 7 day or so hospital stay...and unfortunately McD may have come across as callous in the suit ( the woman was founf to be 20% at fault also for placing the coffee where she did) - this was what came out of it. <a href="http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm" target="_blank">http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdon alds-coffee-lawsuit.htm</a>
