Comments on: Toy Story 3: ‘Contains Mild Thematic Elements Not Appropriate for Older Viewers’

By: Banchsh

Banchsh — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:59:00 +0000

I agree this movie was a bit strong for young kids but i think pixae qas aiming at rhe kids who first saw the movie in 1995 who are now adults. I dont think the movie was intended for our 3 and 4 years olds

By: UnpopularTruth

UnpopularTruth — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 04:47:00 +0000

Pixar is free to “evolve” their movies all they want, but if TS3 is any indication, they’re going to have to stop marketing them to children. This was not a children’s movie, even though it’s being used to sell toys. My wife and I agreed TS3 was the most disturbing “kids” movies we have ever screened. Because we love them, our children will never see it. If this had been a live action film with real people, it would have been considered an action/horror movie and received a PG-13 rating at a minimum. The disturbing scenes throughout were unnecessary
and offensive. Watching the toy bear bully a toy baby, including hitting in the chest with his stick in anger? Watching a toy monkey with bulging eyes scream and hiss at the other toys and sit on Woody while violently beating him in the head with his cymbals? Watching the horror on the toys’ faces as they are about to be burned in an incinerator? Putting that garbage in a “children’s” movie was sick. Whoever decided to market that psychological trama to kids should be prosecuted, not praised.

By: Jim Sutton

Jim Sutton — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:55:14 +0000

Hi Ann,

I am a returning subscriber here. Thanks for writing this post. Our 2 year-old grandchildren have seen at least Toy Story 1, which was shown to them by a day-care provider. I appreciate your "warning" about Toy Story 3 as they mention Buzz and Woody frequently. There is the point that fairy tales such as Hansel and Gretel are equally disturbing in thematic content. That brings up the point of reading a story versus seeing it in a movie.

Jim

By: sensiblemom

sensiblemom — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:55:20 +0000

This may be true, but you're forgetting about the feelings that movies are meant to evoke. I would have really enjoyed this movie on my own, as there were some really great laughs, etc, but through the eyes of a child, and the connections they have with their toys, it would be pretty disturbing. I'll be telling all my mom friends not to take their children to this movie.

By: sensiblemom

sensiblemom — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:47:30 +0000

Just saw this movie with my 7-year old. Wish I hadn't. He cried throughout the incinerator scene, as I consoled him. Much too intense! What was Pixar thinking? Afterwards when asked about the movie, he had a list of things he didn't like about the movie. I really don't think was a movie aimed for a G audience. They certainly caught us off guard.

By: KC

KC — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:58:30 +0000

Poigncnacy is good, when done in a way that captures the heart and mind of a child. You think this movie did that? This movie was rated G (suitable for all ages). Do you know many five year olds reading Hans Christian Andersen? And yes, I guess I am that milquestoast parent you speak of if that means I am a parent who chooses to protect the fragile and fleeting innocence of a 5 year old. He will read Hans soon enough. He will know dark poignancy soon enough. Today, I'd like to preserve, if just for a moment, his belief that life isn't scary.

By: Katiecassis

Katiecassis — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:31:51 +0000

Hilarious. I couldn't agree more… my husband and i sat in the theater with our 4 year old and 6 year old dumbfounded at the G rating. My four year old sat on my lap whispering for most of the movie, “Mommy, I'm scared. I don't like this movie”. G rating? I don't recall that reaction during Horton Hears a Who or Curious George (both G rated). Anyway, thanks again for your insights. Very funny.

By: Burbanked

Burbanked — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:57:04 +0000

I got – and quite enjoyed – your intent! But a number of commenters responded with a desire NOT to see it, which caused me to have one of those Very Cinematic “NOOOOOOO…!”-type reactions.

By: annhandley

annhandley — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:44:58 +0000

I couldn't agree more, Alan. In part, this was a tongue-in-cheek piece… calling for new MPAA ratings is a silly idea, and the title alone “not suitable for older…” kinda makes fun of the whole concept.

I love TS 3, and I love Pixar movies. If anything, I was celebrating Pixar's ability to move me — a supposed grownup! — with its “cartoons.” I definitely hope folks see TS3 and any and all Pixar productions!

By: Burbanked

Burbanked — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:51:44 +0000

This is a terrific piece, but it dismays me that it seems to be persuading folks not to see this amazing movie.

Pixar movies are evolving. Never content to be the standard-bearer for animated technology and quality, they've advanced the nature, structure, possibilities – and the marketing – of animated movies through the creation of amazing characters, multi-layered stories and emotional rollercoasters made for adults and kids. Of any studio making animated features – which has always been a movie art form; just not one traditionally rewarded for its OVERALL (i.e., not just pretty pictures) artistry – the filmmakers of Pixar represent the very best chance of breaking free from the “it's just an animated film” mentality to instead represent “this is purely extraordinary filmmaking.” It's no small feat.

With all respect, instead of “Pixar should inform us what we're in for” I'd suggest “when we see a Pixar movie, we should understand that more will be offered to us than we might expect”. That is not a good thing; it's a GREAT thing.

Someone in the comments suggests “Maybe Pixar should leave the heavy lifting to a different studio brand.” That would be a shame. There's just about no one better in Hollywood doing this kind of heavy lifting.