What does a G rating really mean?

In the US, many families include guns and shooting in their family activities that they consider wholesome. It is part of much of our culture. Parents who don't happen to belong to that part of our culture, or don't want their kids to, need to treat this like any other legitimate cultural difference. "Other people do that, but we don't, because it goes against your parents' personal values. But we respect others who make a different legal choice." But the mere existence of guns / shooting in a film doesn't stop it from being appropriate for a "general" audience of American kids.

I think it's impractical to try to hide the existence of guns and shooting from growing children. Sooner or later, they will see it. Like other value differences, it seems it would be better to discuss it than to try to hide from it.

And I think anyone who has any involvement at all with meat, leather, etc., has no business to pretend that they don't believe in violently killing animals. When I was a child, we knew that the meat we ate came from animals whose lives were violently taken. Even the most "ethical" slaughter is still violent. Sad for kids to consider, but it's part of our culture, and it would be dishonest to gloss it over. (What do such people tell their kids about where their chicken or beef dinner came from?) Not to mention the fact that our nation's existence and borders are the result of guns and killing. I think it's a disservice to kids to pretend otherwise.

As for playing with guns, I'm sure the comlainant did so as a child and apparently didn't grow up wanting to be a mass murderer, so why doesn't she give her kids that much credit?

Reply

There is a documentary about the film rating process and just how arbitrary it is. The title of the documentary is "This Film is Not Yet Rated." Although I didn't agree with everything the film had to say (i.e., the opinions of porn stars on what is appropriate entertainment is not something I take under advisement), the film makes important points about censorship and parental responsibility, and just how scary it is to let any outside agency, including the government, be who decides what movies are or are not appropriate for your children.

Check it out. http://imdb.com/title/tt0493459/

Reply

I had a feeling that I would be bashed because guns are a "part of our culture." I am not saying that we do not have guns in our country and I know guns play a role in our society. All I was saying is that I want to take my young children to G-rated movie and enjoy it without worrying that I am going to have to discuss gun violence afterwards. Everyone has their own opinions on what role guns should play in our society and in our own personal lives. That is not the point I was trying to make. I realize that someday I will need to discuss this topic with my child. In the meantime he is too young to understand that if someone or something is shot - that they can get hurt or even killed. Why do I have to try to teach this lesson to my child after watching a movie that is marketing towards children? I don't understand why I need to worry about this subject when viewing a G-rated movie. Perhaps a PG rating would have been more appropriate for this film.

Reply

Thank you Roger for the link to Kids-in-Mind. I will certainly use this site in the future!

Reply

Personally, I wonder how old the child in question was. It seems to me as if parents are taking their children to movies younger and younger these days; when my eldest son was small, it was very much frowned on to take a child out to the movie theater if they were too young to be in school. Now when I take my youngest to children's movies, I constantly see parents there with infants and toddlers.

Ignoring the issue of guns in our culture and what sort of cartoon violence is acceptable and what isn't, I personally don't think a child should be seeing movies made for a wide age range (that is to say, not specifically made for toddlers) until they're old enough to subsequently understand and participate in discussions about the good things shown in the movie and the bad things.

It's in some ways a good thing that websites like the one noted exist, but I still think that if one's children aren't yet capable of understanding the discrepancy between fantasy and real life consequences, they can always hold off on seeing movies for another year or two - and I further think it's a good thing for kids to occasionally be exposed to grown-up or difficult issues in a G-rated context, so that they have the opportunity to talk about them later with their parents. Tools like that website do have their advantages, but I think they also allow parents to over-shelter their children in ways that might later prove to be to their detriment.

Reply

SKL obviously hasn't seen Ratatouille.

I read a lot of reviews of the movie, and I read the website www.commonsensemedia.org to find out if it would be suitable for my children. NONE of them mentioned the shotgun scene, the yelling, the knives. I wish I'd had that link to Kids in Mind before.

The issue isn't "guns" or "no guns." The gun in this movie is a shotgun, and it is LOUD which is an issue for my toddler. It is also fired at the hero of the movie, the character my child "identified" with. And, the scene is LONG. The shotgun is fired repeatedly, then she runs out of ammunition, re-loads, and fires some more.

I would never make an argument that "no guns" should be a requirement for a G rating. But I might make an argument for "no guns fired repeatedly at the hero." I don't want my child to fear being a victim of gun violence.

In general, I think that the things that are going to scare kids vary wildly by kid, so sites like Kids in Mind are more useful than ratings. But I also am surprised that I couldn't find a comment on the shotgun scene until after I saw the movie. It makes me think reviewers have forgotten what kids find frightening.

Reply

I took my daughter, who is 3, to see this today. Had I known about the guns - and another scene - I would not have taken her. As for whether or not she should be at movies at all, there are all kinds of movies or cartoons she sees at home, like Winnie the Pooh, so I don't think it is inappropriate to take a child to a movie - it depends on the content. One of her schoolmates has seen all 3 Spiderman movies at age 3 and I think THAT'S much - but I'm not his parent.

Oddly enough, the scene that stuck out for me was the one with all the rats hanging dead in the window. It just seemed so grim. My daughter did not appear to be unusually interested or at all disturbed by it, however (or the gun scene). I didn't make a deal of it afterwards, and she says she liked the movie, but the only part she didn't like was the "bad man" chasing the rat. I was happy that she focused on the part that was more explicable as opposed to death and shotguns. But this is the first time she's been to a movie, precisely because I find that many of the movies marketed towards kids include crude humor or what I think are age-inappropriate subjects. We try to keep it very mild - despite whatever she is eating or wearing, there just doesn't need to be discussion of certain subjects until she is old enough to understand it without being scared or confused. She got here by procreation, but I don't let her watch pornography or sex scenes - so I'm not really understanding how just because people eat meat or wear leather that we leap to the conclusion that it's okay to show young kids gun violence, even in a cartoon context, or that by not wanting to do so we are somehow "glossing over" our killing of animals. Why does everything have to turn into that sort of debate?

Reply

How about everyone stop complaining and parent instead? So there were guns in the movie, next time do a better job looking into the movie ahead of time and then don't take you child to see it! Personally I hate how many G rated movies use words like 'stupid' and 'shut-up'. But I don't let me 3-year-old watch much tv and movies, and if and when he hears it I talk to him about it if it's needed. That's my job, not anyone else's.

Reply

leian, I don't care how soon people talk to their kids about guns and dead animals. But it strikes me as ridiculous when parents say "oh gosh, my kid saw a gun, now he's playing shooting games, and he won't stop, what am I gonna do???" This is not an isolated incident. Some parents seem to believe we have a trans-national crisis at the preschool level.

If a preschooler gives another kid a peck on the cheek, we don't freak out and have him tested for VD, do we? I just don't get why parents freak out when their kids discover the existence of guns. Or how they expect the whole movie rating system to change because of their individual sensitivities.

Pretty much every "G" movie has something I would not approve of my preschooler doing - whether it's talking disrespectfully to another person, disobeying or lying to a parent or teacher, being violent or inconsiderate, sneaking behind the bleachers with a person of the opposite sex, whatever. Not to mention many potentially disturbing scenes where kids are being pursued by ill-intentioned adults or vicious animals. If I nevertheless allow my child to watch a movie, I discuss these things with him so he knows my thoughts about them, to the extent his age permits. If he is too young to understand my comments, he's also too young to be cognizant of what's happening in the movie.

Personally, I am more concerned about the bad behavior modeled in "G" movies than gun violence, because most kids understand the gun violence is make-believe, while they may not see the disrespectful behavior of real-looking kids as make-believe.

Reply

Katheryn, that's the point of the post -- Stephanie *was* trying to do her job as a parent, but it turns out that relying on the "G" rating isn't adequate. That's the problem.

SKL -- kids simply do NOT understand that "gun violence is make-believe." Young children believe that Big Bird is real, that the Tooth Fairy really does need all those teeth, and that there is a monster living under their bed. These same kids are supposed to be able to tell the difference between real and make-believe violence? It doesn't work that way.

Reply

Roger,

Let's get real. Anyone who has ever seen a "G" movie knows it is likely to have violence and other scary stuff in it. Why is that OK as long as it's not "gun violence"? That's really the point I was making.

If you don't want your kid seeing anything disturbing in movies, screen all movies before you let your kid see them. Or just don't take your kid to movies at all.

Stephen Spielberg once said he used to be so scared by movies, his parents would only let him watch Disney. Nevertheless, he still had nightmares after watching "Bambi" because it contained a forest fire.

"G" doesn't mean no child could possibly be disturbed or negatively influenced by the movie. Anyone who doesn't know that hasn't been to a "G" movie in a very long time.

Reply

Maybe what we really need is a new rating: perhaps "F" for "Fluff only." Or "T" for "Toddler mentality."

Reply

"Anyone who has ever seen a "G" movie knows it is likely to have violence and other scary stuff in it."

And the point I was making is that a "G" movie is supposed to be acceptible for even the youngest children, so the ratings system doesn't really work. The problem is that it is far too imprecise. What you see as suitable for your kid may not be what I think is okay -- but how are we supposed to know? All we know is that a "G" rating means a group of parents somewhere thinks it's okay. We don't know why they think so or what they think is acceptable. Apparently, they think a woman emptying -- and reloading -- her shotgun at the movie's hero is okay for everyone. Whether or not you agree, you have to understand that for those who don't agree, they have no way of knowing that they'll find the movie unacceptable.

That's why a site like Kids-in-Mind is much more useful -- it provides the detail needed for parents to make their own decision, rather than leaving it up to some faceless panel owned by the movie industry. You can use that site to decide for yourself what movies are acceptable or you can abdicate that decision and just go with the MPAA's ratings.

I think a lot of parents thought that following the MPAA ratings was being a good parent, but it turns out that's not necessarily the case.

Reply

Uncle Roger - What you want is someone to do your job for you. You don't want your kids to see movies which most parents approve of, yet you don't want to pre-screen your kids' movies. Instead, you want some ratings board comprised of just anyone to figure it out for you. If you want a breakdown of every potentially inappropriate scene, watch every dang movie before showing it to your children.

Reply

No Bobbi, Uncle Roger wants to have information about the movies he takes his kids to so that he can choose the ones that are the most appropriate for them. He is also suggesting that the movie rating system isn’t good enough.

I like the web site mentioned above, because I can't afford to go to a movie to "prescreen" it and then take my child to it later. They have "prescreened" it for me so I can decide if my son can handle the violence or not. It also allows me to decide which movie I want to go to or get on DVD for my husband and myself to watch without our 4 year old.

Sure, I like the idea that someone else has "prescreened" the movie for me and given me a list of things that I can consider before deciding to spend my hard earned money on it. The bottom line here is that I still have to decide what is best for my family, Kids-in-Mind just gives me more information to make that decision with.

Reply

I agree with some of what SKL wrote and with some of Roger's.

And I'm going to add two things...

It's great to have web sites that pre-view movies for parents, BUT it's still people doing the previews and writing the reviews for them. Same as Movie rating system. People opinions differ so much. That's why it's the parents job in the end to do your homework and not let/depend on someone esle to do it for you.

As far as the actual movie goes? Did no one see the trailers for it on TV????? They showed the gun scene in several of them....

Reply

I think every American has realized by now the rating system is completely arbitrary. Bottom line: You must view the movie first if you want to ensure what your young children are going to see. Period. Get over it, not everyone has kids and not everyone with kids cares about the small amount of violence in G-rated movies. Seems to me that Bugs Bunny would be considered off the hook violent these days.

Reply

"If a preschooler gives another kid a peck on the cheek, we don't freak out and have him tested for VD, do we? "

No. "We" file a sexual harassment charge against the kid and have him/her removed from the daycare/preschool/KG etc.
And yeah. It does and has happened!

As far as ratings go. Good for you all for caring what you bring your kids to see.
We went(without our 4 yo daughter, who doesnt like movies) to see the Transformers movie (PG I believe) over the weekend.

Sitting in the dark one seat over from me was a little boy. Maybe the kid was 3. Big maybe. He was scared to death and spent most of the movie turned around with his head buried in the seat cushion. Dad was sitting next to him, but was busy enjoying the movie with the older son, who was probably 6 or 7. The guy was totally oblivious to the fact the younger boy was upset. At one point I wanted to move over one seat and hold the poor kid.

I remember when my parents, and the neighbors parents would go and see the movie first. Then take us if they deemed it child appropriate. But then again we all saw Star Wars when it came out. I was 7. My husband was 4. We then "played" the parts. complete with lightsabers and laser weapons. Neither of us own guns. Although I can handle a fire arm quite well.

We use every. EVERY opportunity to teach our daughter about the world she lives in. If she sees something that we feel might upset her or we feel she needs to know about. We tell her and teach her about that and how it affects her. She is a happy and very well adjusted child. Who doesnt play with guns. But she did watch the ER doctors put 10 stitches in her knee last summer. Gotta love George Clooney in ER!!!

Reply

m4mommy, Transformers is PG-13, not PG!!!
The Simpsons movie coming out Friday is also PG-13

IMO, I think the G "cutoff" would be 6 years old to see any movie (the E rating in video games says for ages 6+ or 10+ [kind of like PG] and the two systems are pretty close other than that (E=G, E10+=PG, T=PG-13, M=R, AO=NC-17)

Reply