About Show Dogs …

149
show dogs

We’ve recently gotten feedback on Facebook and Twitter regarding our review of the movie Show Dogs. I was the one who reviewed the pic, so, if you just happened to be wondering why this silly kid’s movie is suddenly so controversial on the Focus Facebook page, I thought we should talk for a moment or two.

The controversy swirls around a running gag in the film—one we call out in our review under our “sexual content” section.

The movie is about a police dog that goes undercover as a contestant in a show dog competition. And as part of the process, the judges have to inspect the animal’s private parts (that’s a part of real dog shows, by the way). Since Max the cop dog has never been through this process, his human trainer tries to prepare him for being examined in that way—much to Max’s chagrin. They tell him to try not to think about it and go to his “zen” place. It’s played as a growl and snap joke in the movie.

But some people interpreted the scene, and the following judge-inspection scene, as perhaps a nod to child sexual abuse and, at its very worst, even delivering a message to kids on what they should do should they be so treated.

Blogger Terina Maldonado, who writes the popular blog Macaroni Kid, labeled it as a “dark and disturbing message, hidden, not so subtly between the fluffy dogs and glamorous parties of the show dog lifestyle.” From her blog:

During the movie, I kept thinking, “This is wrong, it doesn’t need to be in a kids movie. Everything else in the movie is good fun except for this.”  Afterward, my husband mentioned that he picked up on this message too, as did my mother who saw the movie with us.  My daughter, on the other hand, said her favorite part of the movie was when Max got his privates touched and the funny reaction he had. I decided to use that moment to help reinforce what we have taught our children since they were little, private parts are just that, private.

Later on in her blog, Ms. Maldonado explained her reaction further.

With the #MeToo movement and all the talk of sexual predators in Hollywood, I couldn’t help but think this message, that is blatantly in the open for adults to see, but over a child’s understanding, is meant to groom children to be open to having people touch their privates, even though they don’t want it.  It gives them the idea of a ‘zen place’ to go to mentally when they are touched.

Many people, including many Plugged In readers, either read those original comments or picked variations of those thoughts elsewhere. And they responded in kind.

“This is absolutely infuriating. There’s no such thing as innocent humor involving touching private parts in kids’ movies. Ever. Children’s brains cannot separate that from a predator’s lies saying his actions are fun and fine,” one of our users tweeted.

And another one said: “Folks, I love movies, and am not disturbed by a variety of adult situations in movies—but this is predatory grooming of CHILDREN, & you need to know what’s going on here”

Now, I don’t believe the movie’s makers were referencing or condoning child abuse. One thing we try not to do at Plugged In is infer motive, because that’s a game with no real end. Our objective at Plugged In is always to tell you what’s in a film as accurately as we can and let you, the reader, draw your own conclusions and make your own decisions. When I saw this sequence, it translated as simply as an over-long potty joke that wasn’t particularly funny in a silly movie that wasn’t particularly good.

But movies, even the most straightforward of movies, are incredibly complex things. It’s not just the moviemaker’s story that’s at play here: It’s our own stories, too. We all bring our own experiences and sensitivities and baggage to every movie we see. And so, in many respects, even when we watch the very same movie, the messages it gives can be very different. Unique.

Ms. Maldonado’s reading was not, I believe, what the filmmakers intended. But her reading is still a valid one.  She has every right to call out negatives as she sees them. And we should all certainly take the issue of abuse very, very seriously. But we all see things through our own filters, which is one of the reasons why we do our best at Plugged In to let the content speak for itself as much as possible.

As I was writing this blog, a colleague of mine took a phone call on the issue. The caller—a mom—had some concerns about the review. Once we explained what we try to do in our reviews, including this one, she understood, and she added that the whole controversy actually inspired her to talk with her own kids about sexual abuse.

That’s a wonderful reaction, I think. Whatever take we have on this movie, whether we see it or not, I applaud Maldonado for talking with her own children about these very important topics the movie made her consider. I applaud our caller for—even though neither she  nor her children had seen the movie at all—opening up this line of dialogue in her own family. Whatever the movie’s intent was, these are important conversations to have. And safe kids and safe families are definitely on the top of both our lists.

Who wrote this?

Bob Hoose is a senior associate editor for Plugged In, a producer/writer for Focus on the Family’s Adventures in Odyssey, a writer of plays and musicals and one-half of the former comedy/drama duo Custer & Hoose. He is a husband, father of three and a relatively new granddad.

Have something to say? Leave a comment.

Anonymous More than 1 year ago
I agree that the scenes about the genitals could influence a child in the wrong way, and is inappropriate for a kids' movie.  However, I don't understand how FOTF, being a Christian organization, seems totally ok with "misuses" of God's name, as if it's not a big deal.

Danielle A More than 1 year ago
As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse and a mother of a daughter, I appreciate that you have chosen to address the controversy surrounding this film.  You are right we do bring our own experiences and sensitivities to a movie, in fact those experiences are something that impact every aspect of our lives.  I am so glad that people have spoken out about the mentioned scenes and that people are talking about this issue.  I just find it sad that so many people thought those scenes were just humour.  
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
There is no reason to have that garbage in a movie.. disgusting... how can you think the movie is ok.. I was shocked to see a 4 star review..  Sin is no joke. 
Sarah McKee More than 1 year ago
The movie literally normalizes unwanted sexual contact. It makes me wonder what other films were misrepresented by FOTF
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
what's frustrating is we used your initial review on this show and almost saw this movie--how can you miss this?!
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
According to CNN, the film is going to be edited to remove the disturbing scenes. The studio issued a real and unequivocal apology, unlike this reviewer and website. So I now have a lot more respect for the studio than I do this reviewer. So will the reviewer keep his original rating for a version of movie that has now been widely condemned by groups nationwide and which wil be withdrawn by the film's studio as being totally inappropriate for kids as facilitating/encouraging abuse? Honestly, I hate it when I google family websites for movie reviews to see if something is ok for kids, and I end up having to wade through some reviewer's take on the quality of the movie and story as a whole. Just tell me if there is inappropriate material. This review utterly failed in that one critical task and the non-apology just made things way worse. Everyone makes mistakes. Just take real responsibility and do better in the future.
Nathan Beebe More than 1 year ago
Respect for the studio? Pretty sure they new what they were doing and putting in their film. If they didnt get "caught." They would never have pulled it. Its all about money loss now.
Minty McB More than 1 year ago
Funny how you think it's "open to interpretation" but the movie is actually going to the expense of removing the scenes & re-distributing the film because the National Center for Sexual Exploitation (which might be considered more of an authority on the matter) has said "Children’s movies must be held to a higher standard, and must teach children bodily autonomy, the ability to say ‘no’ and safety, not confusing messages endorsing unwanted genital touching," 

I would say Christian movie review sites should also have a higher standard than saying movies which show dangerous messages to kids are a-ok. 
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Posted by subtlevariationsofblue

Thanks for letting us know. I already thought the scene was dangerous for young kids anyway.

Upon reading one of the recent news articles about this, I learned that one of the film's credited screenwriters denies having written this scene, saying that he wrote the original script but twelve uncredited writers made edits to it. Hmm. This could be interpreted a number of different ways. On the one hand, could a deviant hiding behind anonymity have written the scene with evil intent? But if there were so many writers, why didn't one of them consider the interpretation the scene would have and remove it?

Honestly, I want to believe all it was was stupid potty humor in a B-grade kid's movie gone wrong. Maybe it was added at the last minute and no one considered how it would be seen? Because surely the filmmakers wouldn't all be perverts who would want to lose ticket sales by enraging audiences! Ugghhh, I dunno.

I'm just not happy that people are attacking Bob Hoose (and PluggedIn/FotF) for this, when I /highly/ doubt he intended any harm. Yes, at this point it's likely in my mind that he made a mistake, but he's human. Hopefully everybody's concerns will be addressed in a new post or something soon.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
The problems I have with Bob Hoose and Focus on the family

1) Rated this movie a 4/5 when most other critics and review sites gave it a 1-2 out of 5. Or lower. 
2) As a Christian movie reviewer, appealing to a more conservative crowd, left out details that have enraged even liberal movie goers. (His original review made no mention of the character being told to go to his "zen" place when he was uncomfortable with being groped.) 
3) Issued a non apologetic blog post, essentially "blaming the victim" for seeing abuse where non exists.  Blames those who have suffered sexual abuse for seeing things through that "filter". Wouldn't that filter better equip people to recognize grooming when they see it? Since they have experienced it?  Bob's blog response is so callous and dismissive of abuse survivors and their expertise on the subject. Also seems like he does not understand just how pervasive CSA is in our culture today. 
4) Left out MORE details that even liberal reviewers have picked up on as disturbing. Example:
"There is another small scene in Show Dogs that looks strange in the context of the movie’s confused approach to consent. Philippe goes to visit his former trainer, who is at the competition with a new dog. They had a falling out years ago when the trainer injected Philippe with illegal substances, which left Philippe disgraced and alone. When Philippe sees his owner again before the show, he shares the blame, saying that he would have resisted if he had been stronger. To me, the scene was almost more disturbing than Max’s inspection, because it wasn’t played for laughs: It was a straightforwardly tender reconciliation between an abuser and his victim."

https://slate.com/culture/2018/05/show-dogs-movie-accused-of-spreading-unsafe-ideas-about-child-sexual-abuse.html

5) Potty humor would be burps, farts and poop jokes. Anything involving genitals would be sexual content and should be labeled in reviews as such. 

I am a second generation Adventures in Odessey fan and Focus on the family magazine subscriber. That has changed due to this incident. Focus on the Family says they take CSA very seriously but their actions show otherwise by supporting a movie like this. As well as the sentiments issued by their own Bob Hoose. If they listen to their own podcast on sexual abuse this movie would have alarmed them as much as it has many many parents. 

Did Bob Hoose (and FOTF) miss the inappropriate content? Than they are failing at the job we have entrusted to them. Was the content intentionally left out of the review? Than there are even more questions that need to be asked in particular about Bob Hoose. Either way, this is a big problem and Focus on the family will have to address it. Bob Hoose is out of touch with what your reader base expects from you when it comes to movie reviews. He does not understand what is important to (the majority of) parents. He should not be writing movie reviews for Focus on the Family. 

Not anonymous-Rebekah Huber
[removed] More than 1 year ago
This comment has been deleted
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
I must add that I'm not saying that movie scene isn't dangerous. I'm just saying, stop blaming Bob Hoose and PI for everything.

~subtlevariationsofblue
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
The fact that the movie bombed should influence his rating especially when you look at part of the reason WHY. 
I do have a problem with Bob Hoose and PI/FOTF because while main stream media and even more liberal sites have issued corrections to their reviews and warnings to parents, Bob made a minimal correction, still not addressing all of the content of concern. No apology, no warning to parents but rather a defensive statement. Even pointing fingers at victims of sexual abuse as being the ones with the problems.
Bob Hoose should not be writing reviews when he clearly does not understand the needs of his readers. The MAJORITY of parents have been very unhappy with his review, lack of warning, and weak response blog post. He has also missed content on other movies such as the boss baby. 
For example, jokes about babies getting pacifiers stuck up their rectums. Main characters sucking on pacifiers, "suck harder!" Five Nights at Freddy's deviant dog who likes children to sit on his lap just like good St. Nick. Formulas controlling the babies. Boys naked in many scenes and constant references to genitalia. 

I don't follow Common sense media but will be sure to share my opinion there as well. 
I can understand if Hoose had a different opinion than (oddly) the majority of parents. But when people with more experience than him in the area of sexual abuse have approached him gently on the subject he has ignored their pleas. He (and FOTF) should be taking these thoughts and opinions into consideration given they (an alternate view of the scenes in the movie) represent the majority of their users. 
It's surprising that FOTF allows comments like yours that contain personal attacks while removing mine that contain further facts on the story. 
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Posted by subtlevariationsofblue, replying to Rebekah Huber's second comment:

You're entitled to your own opinion. I freely admit that PluggedIn has missed a few things here and there in their reviews, but for the most part, they are doing excellent work. Besides, whoever thought it was a good idea to rely on one source for one's information? I often cross-check multiple sites, including PluggedIn, for movie-content info.

Also, my mistake. After mentioning the specific details of the scene, Common Sense Media does say something extra about the scene in their review: "One plot point centers on Max's physical exam by a dog show judge during which Max seems to feel violated and is coached on how to get through it, which could strike some viewers as being uncomfortably close to the experience of sexual abuse." I don't know if this was in the review to begin with or if they added it at some point.

I have not seen the movie, nor have I any desire to. The scene does sound like it could be quite dangerous for young children. I just feel like this entire thing has devolved into an attack on the character of Bob Hoose and PluggedIn itself. I really don't think Bob intended any harm whatsoever. You insinuated in your first comment that Bob Hoose might be some kind of deviant who maliciously withheld this information so innocent children could be preyed upon. :/

I am thinking at this point that he did make a mistake with his review, but sometimes it's embarrassingly easy to misinterpret a scene, especially if you weren't even remotely expecting something of that nature in a kid's movie. He didn't intentionally withhold information.

Anyway, I bet Bob's drafting a follow-up post as we speak. Hopefully everyone's concerns will be addressed soon. :) I /am/ a bit bothered by this error he made.
AnnFOTF More than 1 year ago
Hi there, friends. 

Once more, we'd like to remind you to keep your comments strictly to the subject matter at hand. It's fine to disagree, but *not* to call out other commenters personally.

All future comments that violate this guideline will be removed.  Thanks for your cooperation.
 
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Can this apply to those attacking PluggedIn please? 
-AR
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Bob Hoose, I think you are missing the point that the animals are personified in this movie and so it is logical that children will identify with the animals, how they are treated and how to cope with the manner in which they are treated.  While I appreciate the link to the Macaroni Kid blog, I think that is an inadequate way to inform your readers of the highly questionable content in this movie.  Most people will skim your review and not click on the link.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
National Center on Sexual Exploitation is calling for the removal of the movie or at least editing. Obviously all the concerns are legitimate. But Bob Hoose gives it a 4 star???
[removed] More than 1 year ago
This comment has been deleted
[removed] More than 1 year ago
This comment has been deleted
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Oh, "bobed" has made it very clear he is a regular and has 4 kids. Our opinions are no less valid because we aren't "regulars". 
Anonymous More than 1 year ago

This issue is not limited to the horror of child abuse and grooming by sexual predators.  This is a Christian site.  Readers are entitled to expect that the movie reviews on this site are given from a Christian perspective that espouses Christian virtue.  Christian chastity and purity are virtues that we must all strive for in ourselves, in our treatment of others and in the raising of our children, including what we expose them to.  The fact that this movie is about characters who are dogs is irrelevant.  The characters in this movie are personified and as such, are relatable to the viewer (ie children) in a person-like way.  The very issue of having one's private parts handled FOR ANY REASON is ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE in a kids' movie.  We need go no further than that.  Three of the Gospels recount how Our Lord said that for the one who scandalises a child, it would be better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.  These are harsh words about a serious matter.  The very notion of the handling of another's private parts in a kids' movie is scandalous, whether it be connected to sexual predation or whether someone just thinks it's funny.  It's not funny.  It goes well beyond fart jokes.  It is irresponsible at best and wicked at worst.  This is important to us as Christians.  We are ALL influenced by what we watch, adults and children alike, which is why we must all guard our senses.  A denial of that is simply pride, which we all know, comes before a fall. It seems now that many people, including Christians, have been desensitised to evil on varying levels and can no longer recognise it when it's in plain sight.  Parents have a duty to protect their children from evil influence wherever possible and we depend on sites such as this to help us to do that.  

I have long held Focus on the Family in high regard and hopefully will continue to do so.  A substantial blunder has been made in this instance and one would hope and expect that an admission of such and an apology will be forthcoming.  Thank you for your service and God bless.

Melissa

 

Habs Fan More than 1 year ago
I would think that Christians often have a higher level of "innocence" than non-Christians. In regard to this incident I think that the fact that it was 1) in a children's movie and 2) something that occurs in real life, as well as something people not really experienced in similar subject matter wouldn't notice (I wouldn't see anything abnormal or read anything between the lines in that scene) contributed to the fact that the incident was not portrayed very negatively. Another thing to remember is that the incident WAS portrayed negatively, if not to the same extreme many other reviewers portrayed it.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago

Bob - time to stop back and take a breather.  It's the tone of your responses that are getting people upset.  Respect other opinions and be a little more diplomatic. You are representing the brand and upsetting half (est?) of the users who have delved into this review is not good.  Offer responses in love, not anger, arrogance or sarcasm. 


I'm not taking my kids to this despite your 4/5 recommendation. And, I do thank you that PI offers a forum to discuss and bring issues to light.  And, sleep well tonight - we love you brother!  Disagreements are part of life, especially when you offer your opinion!  :)

[removed] More than 1 year ago
This comment has been deleted
Anonymous More than 1 year ago

My bad - I assumed Bobed was the same as Bob, whose blog this is. Since this isn't your blog, I apologize for telling you to chill out and take a step back.  You get user rights like me and can say whatever you want!  I wonder if the real Bob whose blog this is has seen all the comments.  Hopefully he's eating a bag of Cheetos and watching baseball, cuz I'm guessing he may have a busy day tomorrow. 


Anonymous More than 1 year ago
From the Beauty and the Beast review (2.5/5 plugs):
". . . actors and directors and studios feel it necessary to insert such things in an attempt to normalize and elevate certain sexual choices. And, unfortunately, they've chosen to do so this time in a movie aimed at children."

From this blog post:
"One thing we try not to do at Plugged In is infer motive, because that’s a game with no real end. Our objective at Plugged In is always to tell you what’s in a film as accurately as we can and let you, the reader, draw your own conclusions and make your own decisions."

I smell blatant hypocrisy. An apology is better than a lame excuse.
Julienne Dy More than 1 year ago
Yeah, Beauty and the Beast might not be the best example to compare this movie to.  In that case, the director blatantly made his intentions clear regarding what that split-second scene was supposed to mean.  Whoever made this movie made no such statements regarding the gag.  Then again, what kind of a nutjob is going to explicitly come out and tell the world that he/she is trying to normalize pedophilia?
Julienne Dy More than 1 year ago
Not that I think Show Dogs was trying to normalize anything.
Lynette H More than 1 year ago
Have you studied sex trafficking? This movie shows a similar pattern to what traffickers do with their victims. Make the victim (who is usually a child) think they'll be a model or something along those lines, start with nude photoshoots, which then leads to raping them to "break" them of their will to prepare them for being forced into rape after rape after rape. Not cool that their trying to condition kids to think this is okay.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Have you seen the movie? Do that, and then we'll talk. 
-AR
[removed] More than 1 year ago
This comment has been deleted
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Finally, someone who has seen the movie. 
-AR
HollyFOTF More than 1 year ago
It'd be much appreciated if personal attacks were left off of this message board completely.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Does that include personal attacks on PluggedIn? If not it should. This is getting ridiculous. 
-AR
Elanor Gardner More than 1 year ago
Bob, I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate how you wrote this post. I agree that it is important for parents to discuss issues like this with their kids. To all of you other commenters, I will say, if you are uncomfortable with what this movie contains, don't watch it and/or don't let your children watch it. Simple as that. There are plenty of other animal movies that you and/or your kids could watch that do not have such controversial scenes in them. If you do choose to watch this movie with your kids, perhaps have a time after (or before) the movie in which you and your kids can discuss what happened, and what their thoughts are. 
 It is true that this scene can be interpreted in different ways. Everyone should be respectful of other people's choices, opinions, and reactions to the scene, and not get into a huge discussion, that in the end will likely not change the other person's opinion. (I have not seen this movie. Just the thoughts of a 16-year-old girl.) 
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
I agree! Thanks for sharing your thoughts. 
-AR
Robin Lee More than 1 year ago
Here's the sadness for me...this world is full of poison for our kids.

Chalk full.

Plugged In was a resource to help avoid as much poison as possible. 

In the number of plugs, the assessment of the scene, and the zen-like explanation that indicates neither regret nor commitment to higher standards in the future, my trust in Plugged In is fairly significantly altered.

That makes me sad.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
If you are losing your trust for PluggedIn after one "mistake", if it can even be termed that, I don't think you had much trust in them in the first place. I recommend you try to understand how things are being taken out of context here, instead of mournfully regretting how you have lost a trust in PluggedIn that was obviously not very strong. 
-AR
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
If this was a simple oversight of an insignificant topic, it would be easy to look past it, for it not to taint the reputation of Plugged In. However, this is not a simple oversight, and certainly not an insignificant issue. When a majority of people who either see the movie or read the transcript of the scene see/hear pedophile grooming, it shouldn't be so callously or flippantly brushed off as "up for interpretation", and when a flippant view is taken of the accusation of pedophile grooming (true or untrue), other judgments are automatically called into question.
Robin Lee More than 1 year ago
Have I missed where they acknowledge giving it such a friendly plug rating was a mistake? Or where there is a passionate response to calling out anything that encourages, normalizes or dehumanizes sexually predatory implications in a kids movie? If so, please show me...
Anonymous More than 1 year ago

(Disclaimer: I have not seen the movie and I am just a teensharing her opinions and nor have I been in a sexual abusement. I am sorry formy horrible spelling and grammar beforehand. And I had thought this out better earlier,but I forgot! XD PLEASE DONT SHOOT ME IN YOUR CROSSFIRE FIGURTIVELY SPEAKING!)

 

I am on both sides of the argument. I believe that it waswrong for them to put that scene in the movie and frankly, it's rather disturbingthat they would have that...Even though that IS what happens in dog shows. It*COULD* be seen for sexual abusement...BUT, on the other hand, it's just a kid’smovie...! (And it really isn’t that. I don't think that adults should bebringing most of their 2-9 year old children to PG movies! At least these daysanyway! PG movies are now basically PG-13 movies with a lot less adult content!Still, none the less, THERE IS ADULT CONTENT!) A kid's movie that has talking*DOGS*. A kid's movie that has an adult part like many other PG movies outthese days. Some are worse than this! But, I do get both of your points. SexualAbusement is NOT to be taken lightly! I feel like there is a simple solution tothis...Ether *DON'T* let your child see the movie, orrr...Just tell your childbefore and/or after the movie to make sure they don't pick it up! Simple asthat (sorta)! Still, the content is still in the movie and there is nothing wecan do about it. That just means we need to explain to children the gravity ofthe situation of the scene! Sorry if I'm barkin up the wrong tree on this, but that’sjust my opinion!

Anonymous More than 1 year ago
You make complete sense. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I agree with what you are saying. My main issue here is I feel people are blowing things out of proportion, and then attacking PluggedIn as a result. 
-AR
Kimberly Devine-Brink More than 1 year ago
Personally, I do not dismiss the author's view here. I think he may be underestimating the insidious nature of child sexualization in our culture, but I think he's honest and fair in his treatment of both the film and the original dissenting review. When we get protective, we have to be careful to keep our focus on the situation we are trying to discuss, rather than blaming people who disagree with us. In a more innocent world, I could completely see this as potty humor, and kids love potty humor. Of course, that is exactly what makes the potential threat so dangerous... Kids learn best when they are amused and relaxed, so what better way to teach them grooming behaviors without bring their guard up.
With Bobed the commenter, again I feel he is being respectful, more respectful than many of his detractors here in the comments. His main hang up is that he feels the only children who could be suckered by this would be toddlers. For him, I would like to tell a personal story... My two daughters, 9 and 11, were adopted from foster care after years of abuse. We have worked hard with them, and they both see themselves as so much more than that, and they treat themselves as being worthy of respect and choice. When we moved to a new state and all their family was far away, we all celebrated in the welcoming nature of our neighbors. One neighbor made me uncomfortable, because she would spend time with my children and have them play in her yard, and question when we would have them do chores or they got in trouble. The girls explained to me that her daughter had died, and she appreciated and valued them. Eventually, I explained to the girls that I didn't want them to be more than polite with her: no time in her yard, just polite hellos and responses from our yard. The girls didn't like this, because they craved the attention she showered on them as they felt separated from everything they had known. Still, they listened. After a couple of weeks, my older daughter mentioned to me that this neighbor had followed them as the walked the dogs around the block. She cornered them outside of our view, explaining that "Now, nobody can see us, and I need your hugs. I don't know why your Mom won't let you play with me." She forced my children to hug her, because they didn't know a polite way of avoiding her touch... My older child was angry, but my younger child was confused and ashamed.
Kids are so very vulnerable up into their teens, and it's not just toddlers who are influenced by grooming behaviors.
HollyFOTF More than 1 year ago
Friends: We truly appreciate the majority of the comments being made here, but we reserve the right to remove posts that are off-topic or disrespectful. Thanks for understanding.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
"When I saw this sequence, it translated as simply as an over-long potty joke that wasn’t particularly funny in a silly movie that wasn’t particularly good." If this is the case, then why the 4/5 rating? That's usually a hearty endorsement of a film by Plugged In standards. Seems contradictory to rate it highly but comment in this manner.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
"One thing we try not to do at Plugged In is infer motive"
It doesn't matter what the motive was. It's still teaching children a dangerous message regardless.
"we all see things through our own filters"
That's the thing about kids. They don't have any filters. They do not understand context. Seriously, you should know that.
[removed] More than 1 year ago
This comment has been deleted
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Actually, I have two kids also. The age range that this silly talking dog movie is targeting is not sophisticated enough to be trusted not to internalize this stuff. But I am going to stop commenting now because I have better things to do, so you just go on believing what you believe, and I will sleep at night knowing that people like you are in the minority. 
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous, I pray you and your kind are in the minority, otherwise things are seriously wrong with this PluggedIn community. Kids do have filters, they do have perspectives, they all have a context that they have been raised in. Even 4-5 year olds. How do I know this? I have worked with many, many children, and helped to raise many more over the course of my life. However, with that being said, I would like to point out that you are taking Mr. Bob out of context. He is referring to the filters of adults, who are interpreting this scene in this way. Not the children. Just thought I would point that out as you seem a little confused and cherry picking. 
-AR