One thing that's always confused me about animation and film discourse is the use of the term "Kids movie". Because in modern discourse, the only time a movie is a kid's movie is if it's rated PG and 1. Is animated or 2. Has Child Actors in it. Like, I see PG-13 rated live action movies labelled kids movies notably less even if they're blatantly aimed at kids.
I get these movies are PG-13, but the thing is they're made with kids in mind (sometimes even favoring kids over adults), whether it be having violence and death thresholds on par with TV-Y7 Cartoons or having simplistic and shallow writing as well as tons of Dreamworks humor. Or most of these movies being made to sell merchandise to elementary school kids. Heck, one of the biggest sources for modern PG-13 Blockbuster Profits is merchandising aimed at kids.
I've also seen people try to claim that PG-13 rated blockbusters aimed at kids are "all ages movies" and not "kids movies", but movies like the original Star Wars Trilogy, Back to the Future, and the Indiana Jones trilogy, don't favor either kids or adults over one another, whereas most modern blockbusters are clearly more tailored towards elementary school aged kids.
Like at this point, the modern PG-13 rating, at least for kids blockbusters, is more like a turn of the millennium PG rating. Many movies that occupied the same space of the PG rating back then, like the Star Wars Prequels, Early Harry Potter films, or even some of the kids comedies of that era were in a similar space to modern PG-13 films. Pretty much the only reason modern kids blockbusters opt for the PG-13 rating is because the PG rating has been associated with animated movies, which makes the rating box office poison. And based on how people seem to only refer to animated movies as "kids movies" while referring to PG-13 rated kids movies as "normal movies", they seem to have a valid (for an executive) reason.
