What Do You Mean, It Needs Fixing? (Cleanup thread for pages on the What Do You Mean, It’s Not An Index? index)

The entry isn't making enough of a case for why this is any more "mature" than its contemporary family movies, IMO. And the "wolf scene" is no context.

Thank you, I removed it while citing this thread.

From YMMV.Octopath Traveler II:

• What Do You Mean, It's for Kids?: This game is rated T, meaning it's marketed partially towards people twelve and thirteen years of age - and honestly, that may not be enough. Though the game never quite uses truly profane language, constant sexual allusions abound, and there is basically no ambiguity over the fact Scaracci wants Throné to give him a handjob and that Reiza tries to kill Temenos by offering to give him a blowjob. Though it never gets really bloody, there are several gruesome, horrific death scenes, including the mass extermination of Ku's commonfolk and the genocide of an entire town and the people closest to Castti. What really tests the age rating, however, are the attempted suicide of Ori and the successful suicide of Petrichor, both of which go into graphic detail and use sounds that really sell exactly what they're doing to themselves, only cheating their way through any censors by not facing the camera or having the action take place just offscreen. It's even possible to get Throné killed in a Non-Standard Game Over during a game of Russian Roulette with a slaver using poisoned chalices. Overall, the game is not shy with its themes or imagery, and this is all before getting into the child sacrifce Harvey participates in during Osvald's endgame and everything having to do with Claude.

I think this whole entry misunderstands what a T rating means...

Remove with prejudice.

This on The Super Mario Bros. Movie is really pushing it:

• What Do You Mean, It's for Kids?: Despite being a Mario movie made by Illumination, and therefore squarely aimed at kids, it nonetheless has some surprisingly dark elements. Bowser is very much a case of Vile Villain, Saccharine Show here, lacking many of the redeeming elements that the games have given him over the years. He mercilessly invades other kingdoms, is a Bad Boss towards his army, and feels Entitled to Have You to Peach, trying to pull a Forced Marriage on her under the threat of wiping out her entire kingdom. Never Say "Die" is averted numerous times here, with Bowser, in particular, making several graphic threats towards his enemies and his subordinates and following through on some of them (notably, the Koopa Troopa he incinerates with his fire breath on-screen, reducing him to a Dry Bones), in addition to heroic characters like Toad and Cranky Kong dropping casual references to death and killing.

Most of Bowser's actions in the movie are pretty tame overall imo, that he lacks many of his redeeming qualities doesn't feel true when he seems legitimately in love with Peach, the scene where he turns a Koopa into a Dry Bones is Played for Laughs (specially since he's still alive as a Dry Bones) and this is making it sound like if averting Never Say "Die" was something unbelievable in modern kids' media. Honestly I don't think there was anything in the movie that made me say "this is a kid's movie?!?"

Edited by Rhino8888 on Apr 12th 2023 at 9:20:22 PM

I agree that Bowser is really not that far to say he is a vile villain. So the example should be cut.

It's a little grim by Mario standards, but only because the animation is more detailed so they have more fun with things like destruction scenes and the creepy movement of the Dry Bones. It's really not that "mature" or "adult."

On the Film page, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish and The Super Mario Bros. Movie were re-added. The latter in particular is a wall of text that fixates on every marginally intense thing in the movie, which in general isn't pushing what's acceptable in a kid's movie. It has plenty of lighthearted stuff and it doesn't make one think it shouldn't be a kid's movie.

Honestly, not every kid's movie with dark stuff needs to be there. Finding Nemo for example is intense at times and sad at others, but it is still perfectly family-friendly.

If someone re-added it despite consensus to cut, that's an issue for ATT.

Found this on Silent Night, Deadly Night:

• What Do You Mean, It's Not for Kids?: Just because it's a film about Santa, think it's for kids? Heck no it isn't, and the people who saw this movie with their kids need some serious parenting lessons.

I really don't think people are gonna see the poster and go "hmm yes perfect for my kids", let alone the foreboding name or heavily advertised premise. Good for a cut?

Never mind the poster, just the title tells me it's not kid-friendly. Unless someone digs up evidence of it being mistaken for such, remove.

Easy cut. The title is a dead giveaway that it's not suitable for children.

Edited by Nen_desharu on May 8th 2023 at 10:51:13 AM

I noticed some What Do You Mean, It's Not for Kids? entries refer to things I couldn't possibly see a parent mistaking for something aimed at kids (EAS Scenarios for example) on the basis that they have many kid viewers/players/readers. Are these proper examples or is it just a significant Entertainment Above Their Age Periphery Demographic?

(x6) I see the Puss in Boots 2 entry is still there. Remove it. Yeah, it talks about morality and death. So what? As if plenty little kids have never learned/been taught the concept of death by their parents/guardians already.

Edited by AudioSpeaks2 on Nov 12th 2023 at 12:35:09 AM

Yeah, I just decided to remove the Puss in Boots: The Last Wish entry myself. Christ do I hate this trope, but I digress.

The sole entry on the YMMV page for the Milo Murphy's Law episode "The Island of Lost Dakotas" is this:

• What Do You Mean, It's for Kids?: Cavendish being repeatedly killed off onscreen and in a relatively graphic manner for a kid's show can elicit this effect. It doesn't helps that the episode dwells on the effects that saving his partner's life ove and over has on Dakota's being.

This doesn't quite sit right with me, so I'm bringing it up here to ask if it's a valid example or not.

For one thing, can individual episodes qualify as What Do You Mean, It's for Kids?, or does it have to be the whole work? (For what it's worth, Milo Murphy's Law is rated TV-Y7 and there's really nothing in it that's made me question that rating.)

Also... I wouldn't necessarily say that Cavendish's Death Montage really violates the aforementioned TV-Y7 rating. It was a little unusual for a kids' show, admittedly, for a few reasons - Cavendish is one of the show's main characters (which made me doubt that he'd actually be Killed Off for Real), and it's extremely rare for anyone to be killed off in MML (or its predecessor Phineas and Ferb, for that matter) - but it still seems acceptable for the age rating. The deaths were completely bloodless and pretty cartoony, for that matter, so the wording of "in a relatively graphic manner" feels like an exaggeration.

"The Island of Lost Dakotas" deals with slightly more mature subject matter than most episodes of MML, but I don't really think it's enough to warrant a "Are we sure this is a kids' show?" reaction. Should that be cut?

From YMMV.A New Hope:

• What Do You Mean, It's Not Political?: The fact that Lucas acted shocked and disappointed that fans would actually prefer "Han shot first", and then went on to assert that the original version basically has Han shoot Greedo in cold blood. George's attitude has led to analogies being made to the "gun control" debate of today (not helped by the fact that despite Lucas's aforementioned statement, Greedo is clearly holding Han at gunpoint for the entire conversation and openly says he plans to kill him, making Han shooting first clear-cut self-defense, as one legal professor points out).

I don't know how anyone could interpret this as political, the "gun control" debate sounds so forced (hehe).

I'm more concerned with how it's going on about something George Lucas said once, instead of the actual work.

This example was recently added to YMMV.The Loud House:

• What Do You Mean, It's for Kids?: Aside from the Demographically Inappropriate Humour, there have been several episodes that have instances where someone could’ve died, especially in "The Loud House Movie."

I'm not sure if this example is valid, to be honest.

That's anything but valid. Get rid of it.

EDIT: Did it myself.

Edited by jandn2014 on Dec 19th 2023 at 1:02:24 PM

This is on WhatDoYouMeanItsForKids.Western Animation:

• The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack: G Rated Drugs in the forms of candy and maple syrup, stories full of bizarre, dark events that would make A Series of Unfortunate Events look like a Bowdlerised Grimm's fairy tale, a lot of off-color jokes that make SpongeBob SquarePants look really tame, extensive amounts of extremely gratuitous gross-up close-ups, lots and lots of gruesome violence depicted in extremely graphic detail (complete with tons of very brutally and graphically extreme slapstick), Nightmare Fuel scenes that make Courage the Cowardly Dog and The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy look like child's play, extreme amounts of gross-out humor, and Deranged Animation that makes Ren and Stimpy (both the original and EVEN its adult reboot) look as sane, on-model, and beautifully animated as your average Disney Animated Canon film. In short, this is easily Cartoon Network's darkest show, which says a lot.

I think this is a tad exaggerated, even if Flapjack does have some infamous scenes like that cat closeup.

That's incredibly exaggerated, and even with the scary/gross-out/profane elements, I'm not sure if it even counts. If it does, the show's YMMV does have a much more concise entry:

• What Do You Mean, It's for Kids?: The series is ostensibly meant for a young audience, and at first glance it really doesn't look like it's not. After a few episodes though, the large quantities of Surreal Horror, graphic Body Horror and dark humor were and still are more than a bit unnerving for its target demographic.

I loved Flapjack as a kid. And everyone I talk to about it also agrees. Kids loved that surreal humor; it was a staple of kids shows back then and before then.

I think the show does count (personally as a kid I found it a bit unsettling even when I watched it, and I do agree a lot of the surrealism wouldn't look like kids' show stuff out of context) but with the more concise entry.

YMMV.The Lion Guard has this very long entry:

While I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and note that (from what I can tell) the show does seem to be more violent and action-focused than your average Disney Junior show, this entry is nonetheless far too lengthy and full of the classic What Do You Mean, It's for Kids? cliches, such as scary italics. And nothing here seems more violent than anything in the Disney Animated Canon (though that's not to say the entry is outright invalid).

Edited by jandn2014 on Jan 7th 2024 at 10:55:40 AM