[ SECRET POST #2779 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2779 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.







Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 047 secrets from Secret Submission Post #397.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: spoilers? ish

[otakugal15]

Yet the Racoon is the one who has hell of a mouth on him, not to mention Peter Quill himself ("you said yourself, bitch. we're the guardians of the galaxy" not exactly a line you want 9 year-olds to say.). Not exactly a kids movie when it's rated PG-13.

Re: spoilers? ish

[mekkio]

Not to mention it can be pretty violent. Not in the Hannibal way but that one scene with Youndu where we finally see his whistle arrow in action left me going, "Whoa." That wasn't exactly a kid friendly scene.

Re: spoilers? ish

[herpymcderp]

And yet I'd argue that it definitely was acceptable for kids, given how the scenes actually looked on screen.

There was no blood, there was no gore, there were no drawn out deaths (aside from the possible exception of the villain being disintegrated at the end, and Groot beating the guys against the walls). There was nothing that was terribly horrific or realistic about any of the violence.

Re: spoilers? ish

[mekkio]

With that sort of thinking then Psycho should be re-labeled as a kid's film because the violence was filmed the same way and there were no sex scenes and the language was mild.

Re: spoilers? ish

[herpymcderp]

I watched Psycho when I was ...9 or 10. Today's standards are absolutely different than yesterday's.

My point is, the reason I wouldn't call Psycho a kid's film and I would call GotG a kid's film is the tone of the film, not the content.

Re: spoilers? ish

[(Anonymous)]

'Cept content matters, dumbfuck.

Re: spoilers? ish

[herpymcderp]

On a scale of 1 to anal fissure, how much does your ass hurt?

Re: spoilers? ish

[herpymcderp]

Hahaha depends on how you parent. My 2 year old nephew already knows a half dozen "bad" words (my family all talks like sailors, we've all slipped up a dozen times around him).

Which was my earlier point, really. Everything in that movie is pretty well not going to traumatize a child, hence the rating. It's up to parental discretion as to whether or not you want to expose your kids to mild violence or the occasional curse word.

Re: spoilers? ish

[(Anonymous)]

My 2 year old nephew already knows a half dozen "bad" words

Just because your nephew has been exposed to bad language does not make bad language appropriate for kids either. We do not call things "kid's movies" based on your sibling's shitty parenting.