Click on CAPCon Alert image for explanation
Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP Ministry)
Entertainment Media Analysis Report
A service to His little ones (which includes at-home teens) through you, their parents and grandparents, in His name by His Word
Give your visitors access to more than 700 CAP movie analyses while your page stays open. Put the link above on your web page. FREE! Test it! Click it!
|E M E R G E N C Y
H E L P
N E E D E D!!!
UPDATED September 4, 2003
Make your tax-deductible donations to the CAP Ministry through the
CAP Ministry, PO Box 177, Granbury, TX 76048-0177
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.
|ALERT: To fully understand this report you should first visit the topics suggested by the CAP Site Map (Table of Contents). Further, if you do not want the plot, ending, or "secrets" of a movie spoiled for you, skip the Summary/Commentary. In any case, be sure to visit the Findings/Scoring section -- it is completely objective to His Word and is the heart of the CAP Entertainment Media Analysis Model applied to this movie.|
(2003), G -- For those of you who think it impossible ...
Cast/Crew Details Courtesy Internet Movie Database
Cast/Crew Details Courtesy imdb.com
Production (US): Walt Disney Television Animation
Distribution (US): Buena Vista Home Video
Director(s): Tony Craig, Bobs Gannaway
Producer(s): Bobs Gannaway, Tony Craig, Jess Winfield
Written by/Screenplay: Jess Winfield, Bobs Gannaway
Cinematography/Camera: Hyunjun Kwon
Music: MIchael Tavera
Film Editing: Tony Mizgalski
Casting/Dialogue: Julie Morgavi
Animation Production: Gregg Vanzo, Mike Kaweski, Hyejoon Yun, Chul Ho Kim
Art Direction: Mike Moon
Viewed At: DVD
Maybe the red CAP Alert light seems a little extreme, but I would want to know that a cartoon presents a little girl getting shot at, abducted and permitted to run around after dark. And I suspect most if not all moms/dads would like to know likewise.
For those of you who have been with us for a while, recall that the CAP Analysis model was built by observation of behaviors of live actors and actresses and was not originally intended to incorporate animated feature behaviors. However, as long as two assumptions were permitted it was determined the CAP analysis model would work as well on animated behaviors as on live action behaviors which can be reasonably duplicated by children or subjected TO children.
Nani (voice of Tia Carrere), Lilo (voice of David Chase), Dr. Jumba (voice of David Ogden Stiers), Pleakley (voice of Kevin McDonald) and Dr. Jumba's genetic Experiment 626, a.k.a. Stitch (voice of Chris Sanders) are all one big happy ohana living happily ever after in Hawaii until Dr. Jacque Von Hamsterviel (voice of Jeff Bennett) decides to revive the other 625 genetic experiments he and Jumba had conducted. With the 625 experiments and all the evil and destructive power they possess, Hamsterviel figures he can rule the universe. But Dr. Jumba had brought his first 625 genetic experiments to Hawaii with him, each in tiny pod form needing only to get wet to become active again.
While no one else in the Gamma quadrant knew, Captain Gantu (voice of Kevin Michael Richardson) knew Jumba had taken the 625 experiments with him to Earth. Dr. Hamsterviel, Dr. Jumbo's partner in the evil and illegal genetic 626 experiments, of which Stitch was number 626, wants the remaining 625 experiments and will do anything to get them. So, Hamsterviel, assisted by Gantu, launches a campaign to obtain the experiments. Together, Hamsterviel and Gantu abduct Jumba to torture him into revealing the exact location of the vessel containing all the experiments Lilo and Stitch figure that if they can revive all the 625 experiments s they can build an "army" of Lilos to find and rescue Jumba. So, Lilo and Stitch revive Experiment number 221 just to test their theory. Experiment 221 was sparky little "cousin" of Stitch's who possessed the ability to electrically charge and destroy anything.
Hamsterviel and Gantu arrive to barter for the life of Jumba for the 625 , err, 624 experiments remaining to be revived. Negotiations break down and Hamsterviel departs with the 624 experiments. As Hamsterviel takes off in his spaceship, Lilo and Stitch sneak aboard to rescue Jumba and the 624 "cousins" of Stitch. During the escape of Hamsterviel's ship, the 624 experiments are unintentionally freed from containment and fall the Earth's Pacific Ocean and Hawaii.
There is more to the story but I do not want to spoil it all for those who decide this Disney feature is acceptable after reading the findings presented in the Findings/Scoring section of this report. Suffice it to say in summary that some of the programming is of noteworthiness. Several behaviors, if emulated by your children (or by other children on yours), could create trouble. Some rather severe trouble. There is the use of firearms to control, defiance of adult safety rules, a child venturing out in the dark alone, car theft and orders to kill among other issues of violence and impudence.
For those of you who think it impossible or even unlikely that an animated feature could even come close to causing children to emulate on screen behaviors, a pair of Denmark parents would disagree with you. Their two-year old daughter was killed with kicks by older kids pretending to be Power Rangers(tm). Emulation of observed behaviors by children may be as "harmless" as Stitch sticking his tongue up his left nostril. But what if your child pretends to be Pleakley while an older and higher on the social ladder child pretends to be the also higher on the social ladder Dr. Jumba and locks up your child in a footlocker? What if? However far-fetched and bizarre it may seem, such behavior implantation happens. God has already warned us of such in 1 Cor. 15:33.
While there are no issues of foul language, drugs/alcohol, murder/suicide, there are issues faint but unmistakable to the adult implying sexual focus such as Nani and her boyfriend's view of her while in a bikini and hints of transvestism [Deut. 22:5]. The largest matters of likely concern are in violence, examples of which are given above, and in impudence such as defiance of adult authority, sneaking to avoid discovery and a child left to herself [Prov. 29:15; 1 Peter 5:5].
As a bit if trivia, following is a comparative display of the CAP Thermometers for the two Stitch movies. It appears the Lilo & Stitch (PG) movie is mathematically more of a G than a PG and Stitch: the Movie (G) is mathematically more of a PG than a G. The CAP scoring range in the comparative baseline database earned by G-rated movies is 100 to 87 out of 100. The scoring range earned by PG movies is 68 to 86 out of 100. Stitch: The Movie (2003) is more violent than Lilo & Stitch (2002).
Please consider reading the listing if findings in the Findings/Scoring section before renting or buying this direct-to-video release to determine whether you feel this film is acceptable for your family
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)
Sexual Immorality (S)
Offense to God (O)
Single Christian Network
|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.|