Hacker Cinema
The Nightmare Before Christmas
1993 · Film · 76 min
Directed by Henry Selick
Tired of scaring humans every October 31 with the same old bag of tricks, Jack Skellington, the spindly king of Halloween Town, kidnaps Santa Claus and plans to deliver shrunken heads and other ghoulish gifts to children on Christmas morning. But as Christmas approaches, Jack's rag-doll girlfriend, Sally, tries to foil his misguided plans.
4 positive1 negative4 neutralfrom 9 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
10 comments on Hacker News
I remember my son really wanting a copy of The Nightmare before Christmas which Disney wasn't selling at the time because, at least then, they regularly let movies go out of print.
I found a "used" copy on AMZN which was obviously a fake with inkjet printing on the box and the disc, metadata on the disc indicating it was a DVD+R, etc.
Served Disney right.
Some that haven’t been mentioned yet: Matinee, The First Great Train Robbery, Dave, Ghibli movies (Laputa, Mononoke, Totoro, Kiki, …), Mad Max 2, Nightmare Before Christmas, Edge of Tomorrow, Tremors, Godzilla Minus One, Watchmen, The Fly, Dark City, Passengers, Predestination, Strange Days, WarGames, Tron, Timecrimes, Sneakers, The Frighteners.
Is there really a relevant causation discussion on "oct 31 = dec 25" influence on Tim Burton writing "Nightmare before Christmas" without Tim Burton commentary?
Does seem to incorporate both the P and NP parts in P=NP; but having a directors cut doesn't prove it.[1]
[1] : https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107688/alternateversions/
I have seen maybe half of these films. I was able to correctly name some of them immediately upon looking at them: Wizard of Oz, The Matrix, The Big Lebowski.
Some were obvious after reading the title: Star Wars, Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (never saw it), Being John Malkovich, Space Jam (never saw it), Miami Vice (never saw it), Office Space.
Some that I half guessed or felt like I knew the name of the film but could not immediately recall the name: Castaway, Mad Max: Fury Road, Edward Scissorhands (Thought it was The Nightmare Before Christmas but Tim Burton so close enough)
Obvious ones: Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory
There's suggestions of casual sex and outright sexual behavior in Nightmare Before Christmas, and misogyny/rape in Watership Down. Nightmare Before Christmas includes some suggestions of using alcohol or other drugs on some of the villains.
What evidence is there that normalizing violence is less problematic to a child?
>heavy drinking,
Sure, that's not a great thing to normalize.
>tattooing,
What's wrong with tattoos?
>casual sex,
Again, something suggested in other PG movies from farther back. If your kids can handle it, they can watch it. If not, don't let them. That's what PG has always meant. It's not graphic, it doesn't show any of the foreplay, therefor it fits with the standard of PG that has existed forever.
>deviant sex,
Wait, what? Two men having sex is now deviant sex? Uh, yeah, not gonna agree there.
>dangerous sex,
Again, because it's two men? Where are you going with this?
>and related forms of degenerate behavior.
The only degenerate behavior on this list is the heavy drinking, and even that is being fairly generous to you - plenty of people have nights where they drink heavily and aren't degenerate and don't let it impact their life.
>It's totally different and much more insidious than cartoon or animal predator/prey violence.
You're making pretty huge statements here without any evidence to back it up. I don't know how much of an impact that the sort of scene in Alvin and the Chipmunk's would have on a child - I would guess probably not much, as much of the implications discussed are likely to fly right over their head - but we do know that violence, even cartoon violence, has an affect on children. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/child-adolescent-psychiatry/violence-media-what-effects-behavior
PG movies have had this sort of content for decades. PG has never meant 'You can just show any of your young kids this.' - that is what the G rating is for. PG has always meant that there are things that you might find questionable for your child and that your parental discretion should be exercised. It's not insidious.
>There was a scene where the male Air Marshall (who was following them), woke up in a drunken haze (yes, there was a scene where shots and drinks were involved) with 2 new tattoosand in the bedroom or hotel room with another man (and all that that implied)."
This appears to be a PG rated movie. This is nothing new. Let's take a step back nearly 25 years and check out things that happen in 'The Nightmare Before Christmas', a movie with the same rating:
Finkelstein makes himself a female doll. A detached leg is used to seduce a villain, whom promptly begins to engage in foot play. There is a torture chamber crossed with a casino, where the casino games determine the level of torture inflicted. There's a skinned head, various detached body parts, brains, etc.
Let's go back farther! Watership Down - 40 years ago.
Doe rabbits fancied by one of the villains are offered up in compensation for his efforts. References to the needs of doe rabbits to sustain the warren Various bits of violence/gore with the rabbits, including a rabbit choking on a snare and coughing up blood Mild profanity - use of 'Damn' and 'Piss', with Fuck replaced with 'Frisk' in several instances.
>There is just no way this stuff is age appropriate. I don't care how far the Overton window has shifted.
PG as a rating is specifically not any sort of indication to age appropriateness. Emotional development of children in the ages in question is going to vary drastically, and the whole point is that it is then suggested that the parents, knowing best what content their children will be able to handle, make the decision. The maturity level of content in PG movies has, if anything, dropped over the years.
Note that I am not questioning your choices on what you find appropriate for your children, just your interpretation of what PG means and whether or not the Overton window has shifted.
>Instead of an abstract complaint, it would be more instructive if you could provide concrete examples of children's films that are: not contrived, not cliched, not sappy with no lame humor.
Where to start? The works of Miyazaki, as somebody already mentioned. Anything by Tex Avery. The Nightmare Before Christmas. The Triplets of Belleville. James and the Giant Peach. The Illusionist. And tons of others (haven't even delved into anime). And if we get to overall children's films, e.g. not just animation, there's a whole range too. Heck, old (2D) Disney films were much less contrived as well.
Similar experience with the latest Star Wars. I saw Nightmare Before Christmas years ago and it was all in focus (memory hazy here) and the 3D distance made it look like it was a play, on a stage. I absolutely loved it. I've never seen another 3D movie since that I thought was good for the same depth of field issues discussed.
Even then, it's good to remember that people who believe that World of Warcraft is an existential threat to our country are still real people and that they can change their perspectives.
When I was in high school, one of my close friends refused to see The Nightmare Before Christmas with me because she thought it was Satanic and dangerous. Now she loves the movie. Sometimes it just takes... 19 years.
This is one of my favorite topics. I like the movie "The Nightmare Before Christmas" because it's all about being trapped in a paradigm.
I think photo sharing is trapped in the paradigm of the early adopters (photography enthusiasts), and I write about that here:
http://ourdoings.com/2007-12-19
In general, the only way to break a paradigm is to throw it very hard against the wall of reality.
For product design that means immersing yourself in what people want. Evolve as you come into contact with different needs, wants and behaviors.