The PG rating has become the king of the box office. The entertainment business now relies on kids dragging their parents to theatres.
4 min
There’s one reliable group of moviegoers left in America—and they can’t go to the movies by themselves.
This week, the kids who make up the industry’s target audience will be heading to theaters for “Zootopia 2” and “Wicked: For Good,” sequels to box-office sensations that could be the highest-grossing movies of the year.
They also have something else in common that has become essential to Hollywood’s biggest hits.
They’re rated PG.
For decades, the movies that printed money were all rated PG-13. It was the rating of the most successful films ever made: superhero franchises, “Avatar” and “Avengers” releases, “Star Wars” episodes, “Titanic,” “Top Gun: Maverick,” the world of “Jurassic Park” and everyone from James Bond to Barbie.
But the entertainment business has never been so dependent on kids dragging their whole families to theatres for the latest PG movie.
Among the bright spots in a bleak year for Hollywood were “A Minecraft Movie” and “Lilo & Stitch,” which are currently sitting atop the domestic box office.
They may soon be jumped by “Zootopia” and “Wicked.” The list of PG hits this year also included the live-action remake of “How to Train Your Dragon,” which improbably beat the latest “Mission: Impossible.”
Meanwhile, last year was the most lucrative year of all time for PG movies, and there are more PG sure-things on the slate for coming years as studios pump out the movies that continue to defy the industry’s gravity.
To put it another way, the people with the most juice in Hollywood right now are 10 years old.
“Kids and preteens,” a recent National Research Group report concluded, “have been the driving force behind many of the biggest theatrical success stories of the past three years.”
The kids and preteens in the youngest generation have grown up with the ability to watch any movie on any device anytime and anywhere they desire.
As it turns out, the place they really want to watch movies is the theater. And theaters are perfectly willing to cater to their most loyal customers.
“If we have an R-rated or horror film on the same day as a PG animated film, I can promise you: We’re always going to try to play that PG animated film,” said Phil Zacheretti, chief executive of Phoenix Theatres Entertainment, which operates multiplexes across the country.
His strategy for those PG films is both simple and profitable.
“We basically try to play every studio’s PG films in as many theaters as we can,” he said.
By now, theatre owners understand those movies are their safest bets. Last year, “Inside Out 2” finished No. 1 at the box office.
The first “Wicked” was very, very popular, too. Anyone with young children was probably in theaters for “Moana 2,” “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” or “Despicable Me 4,” if not all of them.
The result was the first year that PG won the box office after decades of getting trounced by PG-13. And it might just happen again this year.
PG movies have always performed well. But once upon a time, they came with a stigma. “Older audiences thought PG was not going to be cool enough, and families with kids thought PG was going to be too edgy,” said Paul Dergarabedian , Comscore’s head of marketplace trends.
“It was the opposite of the Goldilocks rating.” Only recently has the rating of animated classics, Broadway musicals and video games become just right.
But their rising value isn’t just about PG movies doing better. It’s also about PG-13 and almost every other kind of movie doing worse.
At this point, not even superheroes are guaranteed attractions in Hollywood. Neither is Sydney Sweeney. There are still PG-13 juggernauts, like “Superman,” “Jurassic World: Rebirth” and the upcoming behemoth “Avatar: Fire and Ash.”
But every original PG-13 or R-rated movie like “Sinners” that gets adults to theaters without their children feels like a miracle.
Once they get to the theatre, children want different things than their parents. For them, moviegoing is deeply social, according to NRG’s study, and the single most powerful driver of their behavior is spending time with friends and family.
For as long as theatres have existed, kids have gone there to hang out. Until they couldn’t. In 2020 and 2021, a century of established habits was suddenly disrupted.
When family movies went directly to streaming, the industry feared that PG audiences wouldn’t come back when they could just stay home.
But in a dramatic twist, Gen Alpha now prefers theatres more than Gen Z, millennials or Gen X. If anything, they’re hungry for experiences that are more theatrical. They want immersive screenings—think IMAX , 3-D, Sphere. What they don’t want is to immerse themselves in phone screens.
“They’re not looking to replicate what they can get in their living rooms and bedrooms,” said Fergus Navaratnam-Blair, NRG’s vice president of trends and futures. “They’re looking for something that gives them a reason to disconnect.”
They’re also looking to engage in “participatory fandom.” PG releases meet that demand. Even theater-averse Netflix supplied Gen Alpha with limited theatrical runs of “ KPop Demon Hunters.”
In recent years, audiences sang along to “ Wicked ,” dressed up as Gentleminions and went nuts for Minecraft references their parents just wouldn’t understand.
Those full-blown viral frenzies help movies explode into movements. You might wait to see a movie if you can avoid shelling out for tickets, popcorn and a babysitter.
But your kids won’t. The whole point of seeing a movie is participating in the online memes around that movie, which means they must see it immediately.
This week, despite mixed reviews, “Wicked: For Good” was tracking for the highest ticket presales of any PG movie ever, according to Fandango.
As predictive indicators, those presale numbers are useful. Penn Ketchum, the managing partner of Penn Cinema, wasn’t sure what to expect from the upcoming “David,” an animated biblical children’s movie from a studio that specialises in faith-based content.
But when every showtime at his Pennsylvania and Delaware theatres had strong pre sales, he added screens. Then he added more. When it’s released in December, he predicts “David” will beat the box-office goliath of “Avatar” in some of his markets. “Which will be a massive upset,” he says.
Other PG titles have something else going for them. Navaratnam-Blair calls it “intergenerational nostalgia.”
When “Toy Story 5” comes out next year, for example, millennials who saw the original in theatres as kids 30 years ago will be accompanying their own kids.
Of course, not every PG movie goes to infinity and beyond. This was also a year when Pixar’s “Elio” flopped and Disney’s live-action “Snow White” was left for dead .
But those bombs were the exceptions that proved the industry’s rules of success. After all, today’s audiences don’t have a connection to Snow White. They care more about the star character of another PG movie coming out this year: SpongeBob.
Which means their parents will be taking Hollywood’s most reliable moviegoers back to theatres next month—just as soon as they leave Zootopia and Oz.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
The Australian leather house has opened an immersive four-day pop-up in Manhattan, unveiling its Bloom Collection and redefining what a product launch can look like.
Following the successful launch of its Palais Collection, MAISON de SABRÉ has unveiled a new modular handbag system offering more than 720 styling combinations.
AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.
4 min
A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.
For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.
There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.
When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.
That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.
Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.
By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.
In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.
Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.
Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”
Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”
Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.
AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.
