It seems that overseas in Sweden, the country's Board of Film Censors doled out two different ratings for Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore. The 2D version was rated G, meaning everyone could see it without adult supervision, while the 3D version was rated PG, requiring adults to accompany tykes under the age of 7.
From a practical theater standpoint, I'm sure everyone would love the PG rating. Who wants young kids under the age of 7 running around a theater unsupervised? That sounds worse than a theater full of cell phones. From a filmmaking standpoint, it certainly raises questions about whether the push for 3D will lead films to get more fiercely controlled/edited by studios not wanting to lose 3D audiences. Considered such an immersive experience, it's no jump to imagine that ratings boards might want to lay higher ratings for sexual or violent content.
Variety reports that the CEO of Sweden's board, Anki Dahlin, says: "We had two different teams watching the 2D and 3D versions. Those who saw the 2D version did not experience the effects as strongly as those of us who saw the 3D version did. The 3D effects were difficult for a 4 year old to handle. But those under seven can see it anyway, but with an adult."
So it's not only a matter of content, but how the audience "experiences" effects. What those effects are, specifically, remains to be seen. Erik Broberg of Walt Disney refutes the opinion, stating: "There are no scientific facts that state that 3D should be more dangerous. We haven't had any 3D theaters filled with crying kids. To me this is to move the positions forward without any grounds."
Right now, this is an issue of note in Sweden, but considering the history of the MPAA and ratings boards, I'd be shocked if similar issues don't start popping up here. What do you think? Should 2D and 3D be rated differently? Do 3D effects make some cinema more difficult to handle?