 RED does not mean "stop." GREEN does not mean "go." Click on the CAPCon Alert image for explanation |
A ministry of the ChildCare Action Project: Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP Ministry) A 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Christian Ministry. www.capalert.com/ Entertainment Media Analysis Report A service to His little ones through you in His name by His Word MAR26020  With Comparative (2006), PG [PG*] (1hr 32min) The #1 Christian entertainment media analysis service on the Internet. We give you OBJECTIVE tools NO ONE ELSE CAN to help YOU make an informed decision for yourself whether a film is fit for your family. Over 1000 analyses for parents, grandparents, pastors, youth leaders and more. |
"http://www.capalert.com/ now_playing.htm" Target="_Blank"  Click it to try it! |
  (a PayPal account is NOT required) OR (preferred) by Check or Money Order. The CAP is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit Christian ministry (75-2607488). Donations to us are TAX-DEDUCTIBLE |
on what Hollywood feeds your kids. SUBSCRIBE (or unsubscribe) to our FREE text-only email version of these reports and our COMING SOON notices. |
  Christian Long Distance |
(While the Scriptural references are certainly not subjective, my commentary may be and sometimes is somewhat subjective.)
 Cast/Crew Details Courtesy Internet Movie Database Production (US): Shaggy Dog Productions Inc., Walt Disney Pictures, Mandeville Films, Boxing Cat, Boxing Cat Films Distribution (US): Buena Vista Pictures Director(s): Brian Robbins Producer(s): Tim Allen, Matthew Carroll, William Fay, David Hoberman, Todd Lieberman, Robert Simonds Screenplay: Cormac Wibberley, Marianne Wibberley, Geoff Rodkey, Jack Amiel, Michael Begler Cinematography/Camera: Gabriel Beristain Music: Alan Menken Film Editing: Ned Bastille Casting: Juel Bestrop, Jeanne McCarthy Production Design: Leslie McDonald Art Direction: Daniel T. Dorrance Viewed At: Driftwood Theater 6 The Grant & Strictland Corporation dog-napped the more than 88 year old Dog of Ageless Wonders from Tibetan Buddhist monks. That makes the dog, a sheepdog, more than 300 dog years old. Their goal: to cannibalize on the longevity of the dog and make a youth serum for man. The Grant & Strictland Corporation suspects it is a virus in the dog that keeps it young. Too bad some of their experiments result in a frog-dog, dog-bunnies, a cobra-dog and other Moreau-esque combinations. Even the lead scientist, Dr. Kozak (Robert Downey Jr.) is touched by the experimentation. Carly (Zena Grey), daughter of Deputy District Attorney Dave Douglas (Tim Allen) is involved in demonstrating against the Grant & Strictland Corporation for its cruelty to animals by their experimentation with them. Experimentation they deny, of course. As Dave vies for the District Attorney position when Ken Hollister (Danny Glover) steps down for retirement, Carly's demonstration antics threaten Dave's success. At first, anyway. As things happen, Dave gets bitten by the Dog of Ageless Wonders, now called Shaggy, and becomes infected with the virus thought to give longevity. Instead, the virus causes the human host to become a sheepdog. Now cursed with the "Douglas-Jekyll, Shaggy-Hyde" syndrome with a ten-inch tongue, an animosity toward cats and an irresistible urge to fetch, Dave's life is not the same as he laps up his breakfast cereal rather than use a spoon. Yes, there is "locker room" humor in this remake of the 1959 The Shaggy Dog and its 1976 sequel, The Shaggy D.A.. Quite probably a lot more than both of them put together. We could know for sure if I had the funds to analyze those two earlier films. [Eph. 5:4] What do male dogs do to urinate? So did Tim Allen. And as one might expect if it were possible for a man to change into a dog, Allen is without clothes after changing back from a dog. Repeatedly. While there is no full nudity in this film for your toddlers, there are several instances of nudity hidden from the viewer (mostly chest and up) plus a couple flash shots of pelvic skin as Allen scampers while nude. [**] In one case after changing back to a human, Douglas is standing nude on the steps of the courthouse with his whole family watching, including his teen daughter, discussing court issues as if there were no moral standards left at all. And elsewhere there was some talk of nakedness and nudity with as little regard for inhibition as well. Yes, these matters used to be unacceptable. Indeed, we have become so drugged by the narcotics of extremes that what once was morally unacceptable has become morally invisible. [Ps. 12:8] A couple flash shots of pelvic skin? Well, such is inevitable with this subject, right? Please understand that every filmmaker knows every frame of every film they make. If you saw or heard it, it is not a mistake. [Col. 2:8] We cannot allow ourselves to become so cavalier about nudity and other sexual matters. God is so serious about the display of nudity that He even advised the priests not to climb the steps to the altar lest the wind expose their nudity to the people below, [Exod. 20:26] How can we expect to counterfeit His Word with impunity and not expect consequences? Oh, yes! Mustn't forget the large dog shoving his snout up Allen's crotch. From the rear. Repeatedly. And sniffing of posteriors? They were not left out either. It is a dog show after all. [Eph. 5:4] With a final score of 81, *The Shaggy Dog* (2006) earned a place among the rest of the PG-rated films in the comparative baseline database and bears a yellow CAPCon Alert light. But one of the parts of the beauty of the CAP Analysis Model is that with the objective listing in the Findings/Scoring section (the heart of the CAP Analysis Model), it enables you to decide on your own whether you want you kids to see and hear what is in the film. The scores give you a great "ballpark" idea of the morality of a film, but only watching a film can give you more information about the level of morality in it than the CAP Analysis Model. Another part of the beauty of the CAP Analysis Model is that it doesn't change with the sliding standards of modern culture. The CAP Analysis Model is built on God's Word. And God's Word does not change. Neither does the CAP Analysis Model. It is as accurate and reliable for analysis of a 2006 film or an 1956 film as it will be for a 2026 film (if we have enough nonprofit funding to last that long). But yet another great feature of the CAP Analyis Model is the at-a-glance comparison by using the CAP Thermometers. In a glance you can compare the relative position of morality between two films. Clearly, in a couple seconds one can tell the 2006 version of The Shaggy Dog contains more assault on morality and decency than the 1959 version ... how much more ... and where. All revealed by the same standards, the same computer application, the same methodology, the same equations, even the same investigator. No skewing is assured. There are a number of additional ways from various perspectives in which the CAP Analysis Model can be used to help you make your own comparisons and moral assessments of a film. If interested, please visit our CAP Graphic Data Display Explanation. Following is an example of this feature by comparing the scroring distribution of this 1006 version of The Shaggy Dog with the 1959 version:  Please consider strongly reading the listing in the findings/Scoring section before you decide whether to take you kids to this thoroughly modern PG film. SCRIPTURAL APPLICATION(S) If needed to focus or fortify, applicable text is underlined or bracketed [ ] or bold. 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. CHAPTER/VERSE **"Nakedness" (display of nudity) is spoken of as dark, restricted, undesirable, shameful, etc. 47 times in the KJV from Genesis to Revelation. For example, Ezek. 16:36 "Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers,..." thus associating display of nakedness with ill repute. What makes display of nudity okay in entertainment/art if it is not okay in flesh? ***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. |
 |
(The objective heart of the CAP Analysis Model, independent of and insulated from the Summary/ Commentary section.)  Wanton Violence/Crime (W) Impudence/Hate (I) Sexual Immorality (S) Drugs/Alcohol (D): Offense to God (O) Murder/Suicide (M) |
 |
 Christian Educators Association International |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
| NOTE: The CAP Analysis Model makes no scoring allowances for trumped-up "messages" to excuse or for manufacturing of justification for aberrant behavior or imagery, or for camouflaging such ignominy 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 from the sinful display or the practitioners demonstrating the sinful behavior. This is NOT a movie review service. It is a movie analysis service to parents and grandparents to tell them the truth about movies using the Truth. |
| 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. |
The ChildCare Action Project (CAP) is a nonprofit Christian ministry. We rely on public support. If you wish to contribute to the CAP, please send your donations to
Post Office Box 177
Granbury, TX 76048-0177
Your gifts are tax deductible in accordance with Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Tax Codes. Please feel free to write to us.
CAP Reports page
or go to the
Top of the CAP Home Page
or the
CAP Site Map (Table of Contents)
or leave me an email message or comment at
cap@capalert.com
|
Thank you for visiting us and may God bless you. Prayerfully, we will provide you with some of the most revealing commentary and investigative reporting you have ever read. In the name of Jesus: Lord, Master, Teacher, Savior, God. Tom Carder President ChildCare Action Project (CAP): Christian Analysis of American Culture 100% dependent on your tax-deductible financial support |  |
Since December 5, 2000
|
|
|
||
Christian Long Distance |
We exist only by your tax-deductible donations. PLEASE Features PayPal! You do NOT need an account to donate. |
A Nonprofit Christian Ministry EIN: 75-2607488
CAP HOME PAGE