First off, I don't have kids. But I've seen what the media is trying to force kids to be. Any hint of whimsy or innocence is smashed out of them by the casual violence and adult (yeah, ADULT) storylines they're expected to understand and accept. I loved going to the movies when I was a child, but Disney was still creating films for children at that time and streaming was in the distant future. Several people have mentioned the impracticality of today's so-called kid-friendly movies by pointing out that they are LONG. Even the HP films (which I enjoyed as a young adult) are over two hours long, and by the end kids were either sleeping or screaming, assuming they lasted that long. A Disney retrospective done in the theater sounds like the perfect solution for children and parents alike. It's shocking that Disney has chosen to ignore their history in the interest of focusing on films for the childless masses. They're not banking on the power of nostalgia (which is mighty), instead choosing to reinvent the definition of what they are. You can all call me old fashioned now.
I suspect a lot of the people attacking Matt don't actually have kids, because if they did, they'd realize there's structural differences between movies made for kids and movies kids might enjoy. The attention span of a 5 year old is nearly non-existent, and the best movies aimed at them take that into account. My 8 year old loves superheroes and their stories, but I'm not about to sit him down to watch Iron Man; all content concerns aside, there's long stretches of that movie where he's just going to be BORED, no matter how much he loves the character, and he's going to want to do something else.
I take my kids to a lot of super hero movies. And they are most definitely not always appropriate for my 8 year old. We had to leave the Incredibles 2 a couple times because it was too scary. Just because a movie looks like it's a family movie doesn't mean it is - it's why those common sense movie sites exist and why a lot of parents will read Wikipedia summaries of movies before they buy tickets.
@Josh: "To point out that those films have flaws, and to point out that they may not suffice for the whole family, is vexing if you have chosen to make these films your whole cinematic identity"
I've beat this drum before, and I'm guilty of it too in my writing, but I think some of this comes down to the way we communicate in the social media age. "I think the MCU is dumb" sounds like an opinion, and is easier to accept (or dismiss, if you disagree, as such). "The MCU is dumb" sounds like a statement of fact (even though the "I think" is implicit) and is more prone to inspire ire in a disagreeable reader, especially when they've got their entire identity wrapped in whatever is, to them, being dismissed in a definitive statement.
If someone asked for recommendations for kids' films (especially for "little kids", as specified here), I would assume they were looking for rating certificates below PG-13 (or UK 12A).
We all know that PG-13s covers quite a wide range. Within the superhero genre, I'd say that things like The Dark Knight, Batman v Superman, and Multiverse of Madness are at the upper end for violence, horror, jump scares, and general intensity. The first Shazam film didn't quite push the rating that far, but it did have the office attack scene that a lot of people said was scary for younger kids, and some relatively raw/grounded (for the genre) emotional stuff about Billy's mother abandoning him. I haven't seen the sequel, but assuming that it aims for a similar tone, it would not be my first recommendation for a PG-13 film that younger kids can happily see!
Heck, I watched Shazam right around the time my oldest was Billy's age at the beginning and the whole abandonment plot wreaked me and gave me little interest in ever watching it again.
I have zero skin in this game but I feel like Disney has made such little money in theaters for their animated releases vs how popular they get on Disney+ (which I’m sure is because of various reasons) that they just want to go all-in on D+. The movies that tend to reliably make money in theaters are their MCU, Star Wars, and now Avatar movies because they’re allegedly four-quadrant films. I feel there’s some shift happening in theaters. After all, most films are on streaming about 45 days later, so pretty much everyone I know will just wait. And I’m a weirdo so I also wait cause no one will go with me and I don’t want to go alone.
I recently asked my parents if they remembered the first movie I saw in the theater, and they said Fantasia. This was in the 80s, though maybe the 1990 reissue.
I also remember seeing Cinderella at the dinky local theater.
I distinctly remembering seeing men in tights and dumb & dumber in theaters but then I would have been 2 which seems really unlikely but not impossible, I guess.
And people wonder why I refuse to go back on Twitter. Those comic book movies aren't for kids--they're for adults who act like kids. Not the same thing. I was so effing bored at Donner's SUPERMAN movie when I was 8 that I begged my parents to take me home. A lot of kids would rather watch something pitched for them. Matt's innocent tweet hit a nerve with a-holes. And like you, I'm surprised Disney hasn't done an old-school Disney Summer Hit Parade for its 100th anniversary. Instead, they give me a mermaid movie with cinematography that's so dark you can't see that the mermaid is Black. (BAD ODIE!)
I am frankly so baffled by the trailers, posters, and screenshots for the new little mermaid. How in the hell did this pass any QC? You can’t see ANYTHING. Which as you said, is an especially bad look considering how many non-white folks are in the cast.
My wife and I have been lamenting that there’s nothing to take our 7-year old daughter to until Mario. That will nave been four months since we went to see Puss In Boots. Shameful. The kid loves going to the movies, but there’s no way she is going to sit through Ant Man or Shazam. And I hate when parents bring the littles to those movies, because they ultimately end up causing issues in the moviegoing experience. We need more kids movies in the actual theaters, not on the streamers.
People getting on Matt are being absolutely ridiculous. I have an 11 year old son and an 8 year old daughter who isn’t interested in the superhero movies. I took him to see Ant Man and promised to take her to a movie, and there’s just...nothing. The only thing appropriate for her that she might actually like (and she’s open to plenty of movies!) was Puss in Boots, which she already saw because it’s streaming.
No, she is not interested in Shazam 2. I have to question if those stating that any kid regardless of age would obviously love to see that movie (and it’s totally appropriate for anyone!) are trolling or what, because that’s ridiculous.
Anybody claiming a 2hr+ film is appropriate for a 5-year-old has never met a 5-year-old.
People simultaneously wanting superhero movies to be more adult and getting mad when you don’t want to take your kindergartener to them
First off, I don't have kids. But I've seen what the media is trying to force kids to be. Any hint of whimsy or innocence is smashed out of them by the casual violence and adult (yeah, ADULT) storylines they're expected to understand and accept. I loved going to the movies when I was a child, but Disney was still creating films for children at that time and streaming was in the distant future. Several people have mentioned the impracticality of today's so-called kid-friendly movies by pointing out that they are LONG. Even the HP films (which I enjoyed as a young adult) are over two hours long, and by the end kids were either sleeping or screaming, assuming they lasted that long. A Disney retrospective done in the theater sounds like the perfect solution for children and parents alike. It's shocking that Disney has chosen to ignore their history in the interest of focusing on films for the childless masses. They're not banking on the power of nostalgia (which is mighty), instead choosing to reinvent the definition of what they are. You can all call me old fashioned now.
I suspect a lot of the people attacking Matt don't actually have kids, because if they did, they'd realize there's structural differences between movies made for kids and movies kids might enjoy. The attention span of a 5 year old is nearly non-existent, and the best movies aimed at them take that into account. My 8 year old loves superheroes and their stories, but I'm not about to sit him down to watch Iron Man; all content concerns aside, there's long stretches of that movie where he's just going to be BORED, no matter how much he loves the character, and he's going to want to do something else.
I take my kids to a lot of super hero movies. And they are most definitely not always appropriate for my 8 year old. We had to leave the Incredibles 2 a couple times because it was too scary. Just because a movie looks like it's a family movie doesn't mean it is - it's why those common sense movie sites exist and why a lot of parents will read Wikipedia summaries of movies before they buy tickets.
@Josh: "To point out that those films have flaws, and to point out that they may not suffice for the whole family, is vexing if you have chosen to make these films your whole cinematic identity"
I've beat this drum before, and I'm guilty of it too in my writing, but I think some of this comes down to the way we communicate in the social media age. "I think the MCU is dumb" sounds like an opinion, and is easier to accept (or dismiss, if you disagree, as such). "The MCU is dumb" sounds like a statement of fact (even though the "I think" is implicit) and is more prone to inspire ire in a disagreeable reader, especially when they've got their entire identity wrapped in whatever is, to them, being dismissed in a definitive statement.
If someone asked for recommendations for kids' films (especially for "little kids", as specified here), I would assume they were looking for rating certificates below PG-13 (or UK 12A).
We all know that PG-13s covers quite a wide range. Within the superhero genre, I'd say that things like The Dark Knight, Batman v Superman, and Multiverse of Madness are at the upper end for violence, horror, jump scares, and general intensity. The first Shazam film didn't quite push the rating that far, but it did have the office attack scene that a lot of people said was scary for younger kids, and some relatively raw/grounded (for the genre) emotional stuff about Billy's mother abandoning him. I haven't seen the sequel, but assuming that it aims for a similar tone, it would not be my first recommendation for a PG-13 film that younger kids can happily see!
Heck, I watched Shazam right around the time my oldest was Billy's age at the beginning and the whole abandonment plot wreaked me and gave me little interest in ever watching it again.
I have zero skin in this game but I feel like Disney has made such little money in theaters for their animated releases vs how popular they get on Disney+ (which I’m sure is because of various reasons) that they just want to go all-in on D+. The movies that tend to reliably make money in theaters are their MCU, Star Wars, and now Avatar movies because they’re allegedly four-quadrant films. I feel there’s some shift happening in theaters. After all, most films are on streaming about 45 days later, so pretty much everyone I know will just wait. And I’m a weirdo so I also wait cause no one will go with me and I don’t want to go alone.
I recently asked my parents if they remembered the first movie I saw in the theater, and they said Fantasia. This was in the 80s, though maybe the 1990 reissue.
I also remember seeing Cinderella at the dinky local theater.
I distinctly remembering seeing men in tights and dumb & dumber in theaters but then I would have been 2 which seems really unlikely but not impossible, I guess.
And people wonder why I refuse to go back on Twitter. Those comic book movies aren't for kids--they're for adults who act like kids. Not the same thing. I was so effing bored at Donner's SUPERMAN movie when I was 8 that I begged my parents to take me home. A lot of kids would rather watch something pitched for them. Matt's innocent tweet hit a nerve with a-holes. And like you, I'm surprised Disney hasn't done an old-school Disney Summer Hit Parade for its 100th anniversary. Instead, they give me a mermaid movie with cinematography that's so dark you can't see that the mermaid is Black. (BAD ODIE!)
I am frankly so baffled by the trailers, posters, and screenshots for the new little mermaid. How in the hell did this pass any QC? You can’t see ANYTHING. Which as you said, is an especially bad look considering how many non-white folks are in the cast.
My wife and I have been lamenting that there’s nothing to take our 7-year old daughter to until Mario. That will nave been four months since we went to see Puss In Boots. Shameful. The kid loves going to the movies, but there’s no way she is going to sit through Ant Man or Shazam. And I hate when parents bring the littles to those movies, because they ultimately end up causing issues in the moviegoing experience. We need more kids movies in the actual theaters, not on the streamers.
People getting on Matt are being absolutely ridiculous. I have an 11 year old son and an 8 year old daughter who isn’t interested in the superhero movies. I took him to see Ant Man and promised to take her to a movie, and there’s just...nothing. The only thing appropriate for her that she might actually like (and she’s open to plenty of movies!) was Puss in Boots, which she already saw because it’s streaming.
No, she is not interested in Shazam 2. I have to question if those stating that any kid regardless of age would obviously love to see that movie (and it’s totally appropriate for anyone!) are trolling or what, because that’s ridiculous.