The Disney Corporation...

"Yes, an extremely vast majority of small children are unfamiliar with death…and almost NO small children are familiar with the hatred behind the murdering of their own parents…so why make a kid's show about it? The villain vaguely going away is one thing. Seeing the shadows of hungry hyenas viciously eating him alive…hungrily tearing his body apart…and hearing the painful cries of agony as the person is murdered in a horrific manner, is definitely quite another." "It is fine, I agree, in a pg-13 movie…but not in a movie shown to 3 year olds." The point is not that the same thing could be shown in a G and a PG-13 movie, it is that how you show things makes can determine how it affects people. Since this relates to what you said above I'll deal with it all at once. How graphic something is, the level of realism shown (in this I'm not talking about whether a child believes in a character, but how much the scene looks like real life; animation doesn't look like real life even if the child thinks the characters exist). Blood is a major factor, as are seeing real wounds. When Mufasa dies he doesn't have any cuts or bruises on his body, and no one actually sees Scar's flesh getting torn off. And since young children will probably not have the life experience to fill in these gaps; they don't know what someone should look like after falling off a cliff. When I made the comment about the difference between PG-13 and R movies, I was saying that both can involve a gruesome death, but in the R movie that death will be shown full-out, and in the PG-13 one it will only be implied or half-shown. In a PG movie there might be blood, and in a G movie there probably won't be. And in regards to realism, I am talking about it on a visual level; it's not hard to tell the difference between animation and real life. This creates a distance even if you're involved emotionally in the story. "Any good psychologist would tell you that using yourself as an example does not work, miserlou. You can not prove that you did not have sub-conscious feelings (by definition you don't consciously think about them). Also, that would be 14 years ago, and you were 3…so this is not a reliable example, once more." True, but I also know little children who are Disney fans, two particularly of the Lion King, who haven't had any issues. "An infant watching his parents eaten alive by a hungry cheetah is not "horrible"?!! Geez, man… I think any one with a sense of morality could reasonably say that an infant watching his parents eaten alive could be considered "horrible"." An infant is not watching his parents getting eaten alive. First of all, those those characters aren't his parents (and even if they identify with the character there is still a distinction). And for my reasons why the "eating alive" part isn't as bad as that, I'll say what I said before about scenes being graphic. "1) If it gave them a marketing advantage…of course they would! Why not? You think that capitalist corporations are not capable of being immoral for the sake of making money?" They are, but the way your theory would work is too far of a stretch to up their profit considerably. Even if kids did feel detached, there's no guarantee that it would drive them straight for Disney merchandise, and anyway at that age the parents are still doing the buying. A couple of strict and Disney-disapproving parents are going to put a stopper in that idea, and if the movies were seriously harming kids, more would disapprove. Which brings me to yours and mine next point: "2) Of COURSE parents are complaining. Or maybe, as you might suggest…I am the only person in the entire world who complains about Disney…that is a bit far fetched, however…and I can easily disprove that statement. You might want to concede that many parents are complaining." I wouldn't say you're the only one in entire world, but you're certainly the first one I've heard of, and that includes my parents and all the parents I know. At any rate I think the vast majority don't have a problem with it. "You have already agreed that children associate with Disney characters. You have already conceded that they have little differentiation between a cartoon characters and real characters. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that when a cartoon character (with whom they associate) has their parents harshfully murdered, they would, at least sub-consciously, think of it on personal grounds." They think of it personally as you would think of a close friend, but a child isn't going to replace their parents with a cartoon's. If my friend's parents died, I wouldn't feel detached from my parents; I'd be grateful that they were still around. "Yes…but there is a difference between reading a textbook, and watching a movie. It is hard to frighten or traumatize someone with a text book. The simple knowledge of information itself (such as history) is not what is traumatic…it is how the movie is made, and the way it is shown to them. It is also things characters say to each other. " I wasn't reading a textbook, I was reading historical fiction; it wasn't just information it was a story just like these movies. "Do you deny that having kids feel detached from their parents, and thinking of them as gone (sub-consciously…slightly) would not help marketing? Also, for kids and parents who feel they need to spend more time together (because they feel detached), a great way to do so…is to go to the movie theater and watch Disney movies." But I still don't see how these movies would make kids feel detached. And if parents want to take their kids to see a Disney movie, that's their decision. Some decide to do other things. Again, what would happen is too circumstantial for Disney to base gaining profit of it. Yeah, it could work, but there's nothing they can do to ensure it will without being a lot more obvious. So I don't see why executives would waste their time. "WOW!, doesn't sound like a kid's movie does it? If they made it in real life, with actors, it would have been rated pg-13, but no, it was not…only because the characters who acted out this nightmare of a movie were cartoon fishes. You, however, have already conceded that they think of it as real…so it does not matter that it is a cartoon." Even if they feel the characters are real, the manner in which it is done is a major factor. Finding Nemo had its serious parts and its moral, but it was also a comedy. If they made it in real life, with real actors, but kept the same script, musical score, and everything else, people would think it was kind of weird but not bad. If they took the same plot and made it a lot more serious and more realistic (again, I'm referring to realism in terms of how things look ect., not whether kids believe in it) than it might be rated PG-13. "Oh yes, and I would also like to squeeze in more about pirates of the Caribbean two. IN the pirates of the Caribbean two, a movie intended for small children who like coloring books" It was not intended for small children; it was rated PG-13. A lot of parents ignored that rating, but I've seen them do that with all sort of movies that aren't Disney. It's true that Disney marketed it in some ways to kids, but that's the exception, not the rule, and the solution is don't take them to see that one. The other movies are perfectly fine for children.