Click on CAPCon Alert
image for explanation
A service to His little ones (which includes at-home teens) through you, their parents and grandparents, in His name by His Word
Analysis Date: June 13, 2003
CAP Score: 65 out of 100
CAP Influence Density: 0.62
Give your visitors clear access to ALL CAP movie analyses. Put the link above on your web page. FREE! Click it to test it and to see what you will get!
NO processing fees if you do not want to pay them.
All donations are tax deductible.
|To subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) our FREE text-only versions of our Entertainment Media Analysis Reports as they are calculated, visit our Mailman. If you experience difficulty with Mailman, send us your request. Your email address will NOT be given or sold to other parties.|
(2003), PG -- ... a nose-in-the-air to the manners mother taught you.
Cast/Crew Details Courtesy Internet Movie Database
Production (US): Klasky-Csupo, Nickelodeon Movies
Distribution (US): Paramount Pictures
Director(s): John Eng, Norton Virgien
Producer(s): Eryk Casemiro, Gabor Csupo, Albie Hecht, Arlene Klasky, Tracy Kramer, Julia Pistor, Patrick Stapleton, Terry Thoren, Hal Waite
Written by/Screenplay: Kate Boutilier
Music: George Acogny
Dialogue Editing: Kimberly Lowe Voigt, Eliza Pollack Zebert
Sound: Anne Couk, Patrick Cyccone Jr., Tammy Fearing, Michael Keller
Film Editing: John Bryant, Kimberly Rettberg
Viewed At: Driftwood Theater 6
Please recall that the CAP Entertainment Media Analysis Model treats onscreen animated behavior as equivalent to that of live actors and actresses if the demonstrated behavior can be reasonably duplicated by or subjected to a child.
It's happening. As PG-13 movies have sunk slowly into the R stratum (see R-13), this PG movie is clearly equivalent to PG-13 movies in the CAP comparative baseline database of movies. In the baseline database, PG movies earned scores from 86 to 68 out of 100. Rugrats Go Wild earned 65 out of 100 making it a "13-PG." Even if I could I would not massage the numbers to make the movie's score or the credibility of the CAP analysis model any better in your eyes. Even the audience made its claim on the ugliness of this movie. The appropriate age stratum laughed only twice throughout the whole show. While the show is an action- and peril-packed outing for the younger adolescents, it is sometimes harsh and abrasive in many ways to wholesome values and ethics. And who said body function/fluid toilet humor is acceptable? Rugrats Go Wild is a nose-in-the-air to the manners mother taught you.
The Rugrats clan decide to take a cruise. Stu Pickles arranges passage. Upon arrival at the dock, the ocean liner they thought was their vessel left without them. Then appears Stu on a tugboat-looking "Gilligan's Island (tm)" small craft. In a storm the craft is capsized and the party ends up on an uninhabited jungle island where Nigel Archibald Thornberry and family happen to be trying to get footage of a rare clouded leopard. Both clans are in full force as is the toilet and crude humor and the meanness. And while the teen freely shows the token arrogance toward her parents, they show little regard for her as well [Mat 18:10].
Examples of the humor used include a dog sniffing and sneezing on the leopard's posterior, three or four of the babies dropping their diapers and mooning, toddlers eating live bugs, a toddler letting a baby lick his feet, "I ate one of Chuckie's diapers - that was spicy." Additional toilet and crude humor includes "I can't even smell my own [posterior]", bird droppings in faces and, of course, urination [Eph. 5:4, Ps. 12:8]. I call attention to Eph. 5:4 and Ps. 12:8 to warn of the creeping desensitizing power of this sort of "entertainment."
This 74 minute animated movie puts Buggs Bunny(tm) and Road Runner(tm) violence to shame. Toddlers are repeatedly attacked by predators (with no harm, of course), action violence at sea and peril at sea plus great falls push the limits of acceptable let alone the limits of wise. But this new installment in the Rugrats/Thornberrys franchise of Nickelodeon also pushes the sexual limits by presenting one of the mothers removing her skirt to enable her to swim better. If this were not challenging of the threshold of acceptability, why would the writers have the woman's husband hold his hand over the eyes of another man when the woman took her skirt off? Additional programming bordering sexual was the Thornberry's teenage daughter in positions and dress that clearly indicate attempts at portraying sensuality. And some of the music score was about as acidic and conducive to arrogance/impudence as I have ever heard. If this movie was pristine, it wouldn't have been rated PG.
Just as a little piece of trivia, following are the scores for the three Rugrats movies we have analyzed:
Ninety-one in 1998. Eighty-four in 2000. Sixty-five in 2003. For visual comparison following are the data dispalys (the CAP Thermometers) for the three movies:
Sort of corroborates my concern for Rugrats movies getting darker and darker, doesn't it. And the above display provides dynamic evidence of the usefulness of the CAP analysis model.
Am I being extreme in pointing these matters out to you? Are they really harmless or is such programming the "age-appropriate" version of stealing childhood from children? Is such behavior, even in animation to be held as the standard for our same-aged children? [Prov. 30:12] Since Jesus told us that whatever we do to His little ones we do to Him, is conditioning of our kids such as this (whether intentional) how we want Him treated? [Matt. 25:40] There is far too much danger and peril and worldliness to make this an enjoyable cartoon [Matt. 18:10].
Please read the listing in the Findings/Scoring section before you decide whether this movie is fit for your kids.
If needed to focus or fortify, applicable text is underlined or bracketed [ ]. If you wish to have full context available, the Blue Letter Bible is a convenient source. If you use the Blue Letter Bible, a new window will open. Close it to return here or use "Window" in your browser's menu bar to alternate between the CAP page and the Blue Letter Bible page.
***Selected Scriptures of Armour against the influence of the entertainment industry***
As always, it is best to refer to the Findings/Scoring section -- the heart of the CAP analysis model -- for the most complete assessment possible of this movie.
Wanton Violence/Crime (W)
Offense to God (O)
NO processing fees it you do not want to pay them!!!
Donations to the CAP Ministry are Tax Deductible!!!
Christian Media News
|NOTE: While the Summary/Commentary section of these reports is precisely that -- a summary in commentary format which can be and sometimes is subjective, the actual CAP Analysis Model (the Findings/Scoring section) makes no scoring allowances for trumped-up "messages" to excuse, for manufacture of justification for, or camouflaging of ignominious content or aberrant behavior or imagery with "redeeming" programming. Disguising sinful behavior in a theme/plot does not excuse the sinful behavior of either the one who is drawing pleasure or example of behavior or thought from the sinful display or of the practitioners demonstrating the sinful behavior. We make no attempt to quantify the "artistic" or "entertainment" value of a movie -- whether a movie has any positive value or "entertainment" value is up to mom/dad. The CAP analysis model is the only known set of tools available to parents and grandparents which give *them* the control they need, bypassing the opinion-based assessment of movies by others and defeating the deceit of those who would say anything to convince their parents otherwise. The model is completely objective to His Word. Our investigation standards are founded in the teachings and expectations of Jesus Christ. If a sinful behavior is portrayed, it is called sinful whether Hollywood tries to make it otherwise. That the sinful behavior is "justified" by some manufactured conditions does not soften nor erase the price of sin. Whether there is application of fantasy "justification" or "redemption" is up to mom/dad.|
|"There are some in the entertainment industry who maintain that 1) violent programming is harmless because no studies exist that prove a connection between violent entertainment and aggressive behavior in children, and 2) young people know that television, movies, and video games are simply fantasy. Unfortunately, they are wrong on both accounts." And "Viewing violence may lead to real life violence." I applaud these associations for fortifying 1 Cor. 15:33. Read the rest of the story. From our more than eight years of study, I contend that other aberrant behaviors, attitudes, and expressions can be inserted in place of "violence" in that statement. Our Director - Child Psychology Support, a licensed psychologist and certified school psychologist concurs. For example, "Viewing arrogance against fair authority may lead to your kids defying you in real life." Or "Viewing sex may lead to sex in real life." Likewise and especially with impudence, hate and foul language. I further contend that any positive behavior can be inserted in place of "violence" with the same chance or likelihood of being a behavior template for the observer; of being incorporated into the behavior mechanics and/or coping skills of the observer. In choosing your entertainment, please consider carefully the "rest of the story" and our findings.|