The rating for Secret of NIMH?

Finally got a DVD player and two DVDs, one being Secret of NIMH and the other being All Dogs go to Heaven. The question can be the same for both but after seeing NIMH and seeing it's rated G, for some odd reason, that doesn't seem right. I mean compared to all the violence towards the end and with Justin saying "damn," I would say NIMH should be rated PG. Like I said, the same can be said with All Dogs go to Heaven, being it's pretty violent when it comes down to little kids watching it, with all the gang activity the movie has. Does anybody agree or disagree, on the rating(s)?

Not sure exactly... I'd agree with you, though, they're definitely dark for G-rated movies. My guess is that in the 80's they still regarded animation as being explicitly "for kids" and so the rating folks at the MPAA didn't pay much attention to them as far as content went and just gave them a G.

But I could be wrong.

That could be it, being they were made in the 80s and being annimation. I bet if they were made now, they probably would be rated PG, or a slight chance of them being PG-13.

PG, I could believe. But I doubt that it would get more than that. PG-13 would be more than a little far-fetched -- these are still "kids movies" after all.

I would tend to agree that perhaps Secret of NIMH should have had a rating other than "G." I would also agree with you as far as the folks at the MPAA being "blinded" by the fact that this was an animated feature and as such, it was treated as just something for kiddies. Unfortunately, unless there is something really outrageous going on on-screen (Fritz the Cat comes to mind) I'm afraid that animated features in this country at least will continue to be treated as just kiddie fare which to me would be a crying shame.

Peace :)

I rented that movie on DVD and had myself a look. As the movie wore on I noticed all the voilence and gore (yes gore, rabbits getting scratched and bloodied all over the place, specially during the final act), and suddenly it struck me that I got this from the kids section of Blockbuster. So I take a gander at the box and it say "G". No way in the world was this film a 'G' film under the guidelines of the MPAA. At the very least, it looked to be PG-13 level, if not R. It just goes to show ya. :roll:

i couldn't believe its rating either. should have been pg.

When you look at it there were alot of movies in te 70s and 80s that seem to have gotten odd ratings as well. SPACEBALLS was rated PG even though it had alot more highly suggestive dialogue and scenes with sexual content, and Airplane was rated PG and it had highly suggestive dialogue and a bare chested women walking up to the screen.

Heh, welcome to the 'new age of enlightenment', where violence is promoted on the news and everyone is paranoid about it when it shows up in a movie... <shrugs> Oh well...

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

In terms of what kids can easily see on TV without trying hard, or what they can see in school, I think a bit of animated violence and 'mild' swearing is nothing unusual. Not in this day in age.

I personally believe its all in how you present violent media to children. When I was something like 10 or 12 I my parents took me to see Robocop. Which turned out to be an entirely gorier movie than they expected. However they explained to me it was just a movie and nobody really got hurt etc. So I knew from a young age what I saw in movies wasn't 'real'.

Most people these days IMO find it easier to blame others than take into account their 'stand back' and uninvolved parenting skills. Heaven forbid anyone actively take a role in explaining to their kids what's right and wrong, and what's real and what's fictional.

Kids today just use that whole "But Bugs Bunny did a stunt off the TV and I thought it would be fun wouldn't hurt anyone" thing as an excuse to get them out of court, and wouldn't you know it, their parents beleive them and sue whoever made what and go on and on about "Your material caused my son to do a crime".

Let me start by saying, if your child at the age of (let's say 5) and tries to stab his sister with a knife because he said he saw something off of TV doing it, it is your fault for not introducing him to the differences between"fantasy" and "real-life" or keeping a close watch on him, not the company or studio that made the movie, videogame, or cartoon. Stop suing and sit down with your kids for once in your life. It's not hard!

Kids today just use that whole "But Bugs Bunny did a stunt off the TV and I thought it would be fun wouldn't hurt anyone" thing as an excuse to get them out of court, and wouldn't you know it, their parents beleive them and sue whoever made what and go on and on about "Your material caused my son to do a crime".

Let me start by saying, if your child at the age of (let's say 5) and tries to stab his sister with a knife because he said he saw something off of TV doing it, it is your fault for not introducing him to the differences between"fantasy" and "real-life" or keeping a close watch on him, not the company or studio that made the movie, videogame, or cartoon. Stop suing and sit down with your kids for once in your life. It's not hard!

Also, in most cases, of kids partaking in violence, regardless of the age, especially the older children (columbine for an example?). Is either one, or both of two things, 1: ignorance of the concequences. Or 2: there were some MAJOR emotional and/or psycological problems in the child to begin with.

Well said Xavier! You too Maxx. I'm glad there are others who seem to think that it's the personality of the person observing the violence that determines how they react to it. You wouldn’t get a well adjusted kid with supportive parents becoming psychotically deranged simply because he saw Tom hit Jerry with a frying pan. I also think that more often than not you have to wonder what part the parents have in cases of children imitating violence in the media. I worked in a shop that sold computer games for a bit. You got parents coming in and buying Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (an 18 Certificate for extreme violence, racism, language and sexual content) for their five year old. When told that it may not be suitable they just said, "As long as it keeps them quiet for five minutes"! I was disgusted, especially as there wasn't anything I could do. I sometimes wonder why people have children if they're going raise them like that. As a caveat I will say that there're loads of potential factors in cases like this, and exceptions at every turn, but you can't help but notice patterns...

I've noticed the same in various stores that sell games. I watched these 10 +- year olds begging their parents for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, and the parents are more than willing to buy it for them, they don't even look at the ESRB rating. The rating system for video games is the best rating system of ANY media, be it compared to movies, music whatever. I have on more than on one occasion interrupted and informed the parents of the content of various games, especially Grand Theft Auto. In most cases they suddenly no longer plan on buying the game for their children. I also make a point when I talk to parents to ask if they know about the ESRB ratings. I really think stores need to display explanations and notices about the ESRB ratings on games. Make it easier for a parent to find what the ratings mean.

It seems in this day in age, parents don't want to have an active role in what content reaches their children. They assume all video games are 'safe' like they were a decade ago or so ago, or want to let a piece of software protect their children from 'adult' content on the internet instead of taking part of that role themselves. As good as most 'adult content' blocking software is, most kids today are more tech savvy than their parents, and it's only a matter of time before they find a way to circumvent the filters. Heck, when I was in high school I managed to find a way to get around the schools content-blocking firewall.

From my observation, and experience, albeit the experience is a bit lacking. If you explain to a child when they see violence in movies or games, that it's not real, and it was all 'acting' and 'make believe' they view it entirely differently. Now explaining violence in say a news broadcast might be a bit more tricky, but its a lot less likely for kids to sit through more than a minute of an news program ;).

If anyone hasn't already, and is interested in this type of discussion, you should check out the movie "Bowling for Columbine" It makes some good points on the subject, and also looks at violent behavior in various cultures in general. However it focuses on North America primarily.

At the time NIMH was released, there was no PG-13 rating; a movie was either a G movie (for kids/family) or PG (for teens). It wasn't until "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" was released in 1984 that the MPAA added the rating PG-13.

At the time, NIMH fell into the G category. Today? I believe it would still be there as well.

At the time NIMH was released, there was no PG-13 rating; a movie was either a G movie (for kids/family) or PG (for teens). It wasn't until "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" was released in 1984 that the MPAA added the rating PG-13.

At the time, NIMH fell into the G category. Today? I believe it would still be there as well.

Now that you mention it, you're quite right. I had forgotten -all- about that aspect. Good post Robin!

Heeheeh...any chance I get to show my age is rather embarrassing, but hey. ^^;;

Nice to know that it's not just us young people who like NIMH.
Great post, BTW. If you hadn't mentioned that bit about PG13 not existing when the movie came out, I would have never known.

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ