can I say that I agree? RotF deserves this. so long as the toys don't get pulled before I finish getting the autobot cars.Forgotten wrote:My girlfriend & I have a 3 year old son who we clash quite a bit about what he watches and whatnot. She had a very strict christian upbringing & lived a very sheltered life and she wants to do the same thing to our son. I raised myself starting when I was 11, I've been hooked on drugs, been to rehab for alcohol, been an enforcer for the local MC(Motorcycle Club) and I pretty much grew up in bars(with my parents) so I have somewhat more lenient views. But I must say though I love Transformers and so does my son, I even felt dirty when I took him to the theatre to see ROTF. we had been watching trailers and following it for over a year and he was very excited. Me & my girl agreed to take him to it because the first one wasn't that bad and our son knows the difference between reality(people with guns and strangers with candy) and fantasy(giant robots that turn into inanimate objects and whatnot). Since it was rated PG-13 the same as the first one we decided he could come to see it. Imagine my disdain for the ratings system and Bay when within the first 5 minutes they had already said "ass" and frequently got more foul as the movie went on. I can't really understand how it managed to have the same rating as it's predecessor, just seems like the MPA dropped the ball on that one quite a bit. I think that the whole ratings system needs a dramatic overhaul so that it is a bit more clear for parents to used it to deem things appropriate for their children. But ultimately I believe that it's the parent's duty to filter what their children view. Sorry for the long rant but I figured this would be information that helped explain just how strange I think these ratings are.
PS: i'm not a bad parent just because I had a "colorful" life, I do not want my son to have the same experiences I did, but i'm not going to completely shut him off from the world or take anything away from him that might help him grow into the man he'll become.
Hard Hacker wrote:This is silly. The very audience for Transformers istelf is underneath that age.
Seibertron wrote:Hard Hacker wrote:This is silly. The very audience for Transformers istelf is underneath that age.
While the majority of the audience for the toys might be under that age, I doubt that can be said for the film franchise. I have always felt that it is a conflict of interests to have a film that is rated PG-13 or R that has an accompanying toy line that is obviously directed to an age younger than the film is rated.
My parents were pretty strict about which films I could watch when I was growing up and they adhered pretty strongly to the PG-13 rule being for 13 and up, with a few exceptions. When I was a kid, we didn't have a lot of PG-13 movies (or R for that matter) that featured products or characters that were geared toward me. I think Batman might have been really the first for my generation, or at least for me personally, where the film was PG-13 and there was a massive push of toys to younger kids.
I'm a new parent. I don't have to worry about this with my 4 month old at the moment. But I will one day. I don't know where I'll stand on all of this stuff. My fiancee watched all of the crazy horror movies as a kid and she doesn't feel that there's much wrong with that whereas I'm not desensitized to all of the violence, gore, etc and am glad that I'm not. Hopefully we'll be able to figure out a happy compromise because I don't feel that my daughter should be exposed to that.
I'm still not sure what I think of a kids toy line getting turned into a film not geared toward kids (I'm basing that statement solely off the film's rating). Definitely a conflict of interests in my opinion.
While I have some conflicting views on all of this, the bottom line is that I want it to be MY choice. Not the government's. Not someone else's. My fiancee and I will figure out what is appropriate for our children.
Convotron wrote:While I don't agree with agencies like the FCC, I can understand at least part of the intent of their operations. However, I object to the use of organizations, independant or government run, to create systems of censorship. I believe that ultimate responsibility comes to the parent(s) of children with respect what they are allowed to watch.
Another matter to consider is that in the wide realm of media control, censorship rulings have not shown consistency in their results.
Take the movie "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" for example. The following poster was banned by the MPAA for US theatre posters:
The reason was that it suggested sexual conduct. However, I understand that the MPAA didn't object to the following poster for "Good Luck Chuck", which was in theatres a year prior and its imagery could be interpreted in a similar fashion:
Now I know this discussion is about the FCC, not the MPAA, but I see many parallels in the failures of the efforts of both organizations.