To keep consistent, if the first film is G, the sequel will always have to be rated PG, no matter how rude the humour may be.

And that’s not even counting the wolf attack and battle, as well as Gaston whipping the town into a murderous frenzy, and then shooting the Beast with an arrow and threatening to bludgeon him to death. This is exactly what I meant about the context of the 1990s ratings and the lack of consistency. What G and PG mean can be somewhat arbitrary, but they should mean something, and this requires some level of consistency. If the difference is merely that G is perfectly suitable for toddlers to watch alone while PG has some scary stuff, then so be it, Tangled gets a PG for sure, but that sure wasn’t what the ratings meant in the 1990s, and those G ratings will stick around forever.

Well, at least within the 1990s the MPAA was consistent in handing out G ratings to anything that was animated, but these days I don’t get how Bolt could get a PG rating while The Princess and the Frog and even Toy Story 3, at least in comparison to Bolt, got G ratings. The ultimate point here is that the MPAA’s ratings are pointless, which is of their own doing.

Gaston stabbed the Beast in Beauty and the Beast right before he fell to his death. You even saw blood on the knife and blood running down the side of the Beast from the wound. Beauty and the Beast was rated G. However, in Tangled, you see no blood on Mother Gothel’s knife and only a quick spot on blood on Flynn. To me the incident in Tangled was much less graphic than in Beauty and the Beast, but still got a PG rating. It just feels like they’re not being consistent in their rating system.

Well, for me, regarding the most recent WDAS movies, the context of the 1990s MPAA ratings of their movies is essential. In my opinion, Frozen was correctly rated PG, due to the intensity and violence of certain scenes, and the immediate peril to sympathetic characters. It has a number of dark aspects, as well, which are fully dramatized–more than any other recent WDAS movie, it feels like a Disney Renaissance or Golden Age movie in these ways. Tangled is lighter and jokier almost throughout, so a case could be made for it to be given a G rating, although there is that bloody, fatal stabbing of a main character to consider, so I won’t dispute its PG rating. Now, Wreck-It Ralph and Big Hero 6 probably should have gotten G ratings instead of PG, in my opinion, despite the “heavy” aspects of the latter. And of course they all should have gotten G ratings if the 1990s movies got them, but that’s a different way of looking at it; conversely, it could be argued that the 1990s movies all should have been PG, for consistency if no other reason.

As for Toy Story 3, I was a bit surprised that it got a G this day and age, but then again I don’t personally think it’s particularly disturbing for children, so the G rating is OK.

Unfortunately, the new Ratchet and Clank game got pushed back to next year. I’m assuming they’re wanting to release the game and the movie around the same time so that one can promote the other. It just makes sense when it comes to marketing, but it sucks because this was one movie I was really looking forward to this year. It bugs me that they won’t release one without the other, but I guess there’s nothing that can be done about that.

I agree. Can you believe Tangled and Frozen both got PG ratings? And for what? There was nothing in them that should have gotten them a PG, not compared to earlier Disney movies. Can you believe that Toy Story 3 snuck by with a G rating? How in this world? It had some very dark parts and also that scene near the end where all the toys were about to be burned up. I’m not sure what’s going on with the MPAA lately, but it’s like they’re not even watching the movies or something. The ratings just don’t make any since. If it were me, I’d give Toy Story 3 a PG rating and Tangled and Frozen both a G. That just makes sense.

All of the Disney Renaissance movies got G ratings when arguably all of them merited PG ratings for one reason or other, which was usually violence, cruelty, peril, various other “dark” elements, and occasionally innuendo. Not that I’m complaining because as a group I love those movies (sometimes for these reasons–these movies are pretty intense for American animated features that are supposedly “intended for children”), but even back in the day their G MPAA ratings were in question, and those who wondered even included people like me who think that parents and the MPAA are frequently overprotective of children nowadays.

Additionally, it’s not just about the inconsistency between different eras, but within the current one as well. Chicken Little and Meet the Robinsons both got G ratings, but that makes sense because they’re extremely tame, “soft” movies–so much so that they’re barely recognizable as WDAS movies. But then The Princess and the Frog got a G rating, too? A good guy got killed in it, not to mention all of the demonic stuff. And this is after Bolt got a PG rating. For what? Some peril-free action near the beginning (Bolt seemed invincible) and mild peril near the end? It’s almost as “soft” and gentle as the previous two movies. I realize that much of this is subjective, but I’m seeing some pretty major and obvious discrepancies here.

Don’t remind me :'(

Haha, same here! It’s a shame that the Crash Bandicoot series is not longer owned by Naughty Dog 🙁

I agree with the fact that you agree with me good sir 🙂 Ratchet and Clank was the Toy Story of the PlayStation 2 era. The game looks absolutely gorgeous and the movie seems to be very promising! 😀