Chalk up another one for Pixar

[Mysterious F.]

Which are the ones you didn't see, Maggy?

And, since Shika did it, my list of the Pixar films in order of preference, and how many stars I'd give them out of four and a basic explanation:

1. Finding Nemo (3 Stars) (You'll likely forgive the familiar plot because of the rich characters, the humor, and the strong and vibrant animation)
2. Ratatouille (3 Stars) (The story of a rat wanting to be a chef sound incredibly cliched, but there is enough laughs to keep it going, not to mention the detailed animation)
3. WALL-E (3 Stars) (You'll likely forgive the overdone political and social commentary because of how it succeeds in story, mood, and animation)
4. Cars (2 Stars) (Slow moving and predictable, I've heard multiple critics say this plot was stolen from another movie; however, it is still worthwhile entertainment for children)
5. The Incredibles (0 Stars) (I much prefer director Brad Bird's The Iron Giant and Ratatouille compared to this needlessly violent movie, where guns are fired at children, people get punched by smiling attackers, children gladly participate in fighting, and the ending smells of a sequel)

[MagmarFire]

Which are the ones you didn't see, Maggy?

Ratatouille, WALL-E, and Up (that's out, then, right?). That's, like, 33% of the total. >.<

[Mysterious F.]

Actually, you've missed 30%, which is less than the percentage I missed.

[DW]

The Incredibles, needlessly violent? They are SUPERHEROES. Violence is what they do, and the child endangerment helped drive a lot of the morals home.

Also, I forgot to mention Ratatouille is probably one of my favorites. The depth of the story and just the pure adult-ness of it really shocked me and made it my favorite film to actually examine the characters.

[Mysterious F.]

The Incredibles, needlessly violent? They are SUPERHEROES. Violence is what they do, and the child endangerment helped drive a lot of the morals home.

My main concern really isn't the violence, but how it basically tells little children that violence is little more than a fun sport, and doesn't show any of the negative sides of violence, at least without covering it up with the fun attitude.

[DW]

And I suppose you're children?

[Mysterious F.]

What I'm saying is that by saying or suggesting such, it will have a major affect on children's attitudes towards violence. You see, unlike adults and (to lesser extents) teenagers, children take movies much more literally and realistically. If a movie presents pointing guns at a child and firing randomly in a positive manner, than children will think it has the same position in real life. Of course, needless to say, that isn't exactly something that is acceptable in the real world. When, in cartoons, villains get blown away with only a bruise on the cheek, people actually die.

[darkphantomime]

What I'm saying is that by saying or suggesting such, it will have a major affect on children's attitudes towards violence. You see, unlike adults and (to lesser extents) teenagers, children take movies much more literally and realistically. If a movie presents pointing guns at a child and firing randomly in a positive manner, than children will think it has the same position in real life. Of course, needless to say, that isn't exactly something that is acceptable in the real world. When, in cartoons, villains get blown away with only a bruise on the cheek, people actually die.

Today's afterschool special was provided by the letter W. for Who Cares?

[MagmarFire]

Actually, you've missed 30%, which is less than the percentage I missed.

Oh, wait, you said previous nine in your first post. My bad. ;)

[DW]

children take movies much more literally and realistically.

...

Umm, as far as I know, adults watch the more realistic movies. Seriously, kids are all up in the fairy tales and such. And seriously, have you studied child psychology? Because I know I watch violent movies as a child and I'm not a violent person. With all the kids who have seen violent movies, a suggestion like yours would mean we had a teenybopper mafia running around or something.

[Mysterious F.]

children take movies much more literally and realistically.

...

Umm, as far as I know, adults watch the more realistic movies. Seriously, kids are all up in the fairy tales and such. And seriously, have you studied child psychology? Because I know I watch violent movies as a child and I'm not a violent person. With all the kids who have seen violent movies, a suggestion like yours would mean we had a teenybopper mafia running around or something.

No no, you misunderstood. I'm sure little kids would not bring guns to school and shoot every day, but I had used that as an example. Remember when another member had told us that a child, imitating a technique from Naruto, got buried in sand and died? Well, you see, he took it literally, so what's stopping other children from taking such literally and dying? There have been many instances when a child has taken something meant to be a light, impossible fantasy as reality and got harmed or harmed someone else in the process, and that isn't exactly something that we want happening, now do we?

Also:

Another confrontational word out of anyone will result in a warning.

What I'm saying is that by saying or suggesting such, it will have a major affect on children's attitudes towards violence. You see, unlike adults and (to lesser extents) teenagers, children take movies much more literally and realistically. If a movie presents pointing guns at a child and firing randomly in a positive manner, than children will think it has the same position in real life. Of course, needless to say, that isn't exactly something that is acceptable in the real world. When, in cartoons, villains get blown away with only a bruise on the cheek, people actually die.

Today's afterschool special was provided by the letter W. for Who Cares?

I'm just going to put it outright and ask that he get a warning for that.

[darkphantomime]

children take movies much more literally and realistically.

...

Umm, as far as I know, adults watch the more realistic movies. Seriously, kids are all up in the fairy tales and such. And seriously, have you studied child psychology? Because I know I watch violent movies as a child and I'm not a violent person. With all the kids who have seen violent movies, a suggestion like yours would mean we had a teenybopper mafia running around or something.

No no, you misunderstood. I'm sure little kids would not bring guns to school and shoot every day, but I had used that as an example. Remember when another member had told us that a child, imitating a technique from Naruto, got buried in sand and died? Well, you see, he took it literally, so what's stopping other children from taking such literally and dying? There have been many instances when a child has taken something meant to be a light, impossible fantasy as reality and got harmed or harmed someone else in the process, and that isn't exactly something that we want happening, now do we?

Also:

Another confrontational word out of anyone will result in a warning.

What I'm saying is that by saying or suggesting such, it will have a major affect on children's attitudes towards violence. You see, unlike adults and (to lesser extents) teenagers, children take movies much more literally and realistically. If a movie presents pointing guns at a child and firing randomly in a positive manner, than children will think it has the same position in real life. Of course, needless to say, that isn't exactly something that is acceptable in the real world. When, in cartoons, villains get blown away with only a bruise on the cheek, people actually die.

Today's afterschool special was provided by the letter W. for Who Cares?

I'm just going to put it outright and ask that he get a warning for that.

I'm sure depriving children of all these violent things and protecting them under a state of censorship is the perfect damn thing to do. Have all our children grow up with the reality of ignorance. Wonderfully astounding idea, chap!

[Gamefreak]

I'm going to jump in and say that if we can have perfectly calm political debates, why can't we ever have a movie topic with the same leisure?

[Mysterious F.]

Once again, a misunderstanding. I'm not saying that you should censor violence, I'm saying that the portrayal of violence in a positive manner is far worse than attempting to sweep it underneath the carpet. Peter Pan has been criticized for its offenseful portrayal of Native Americans. If positive portrayals of racism is considered unexceptable for children's movies, what make positive portrayals of violence any different?

And, Gamefreak, if you're referring to me asking JQ get a warning, I asked so because JQ ignored Zant's announcement that all confrontational posts will recieve warnings and did it anyway.

[Gamefreak]

I was speaking in general.

No offense Whocares, but pretty much all the movie topics go through the same routine.