Revenge of the Sith Officially Rated PG-13 445
Bobert@flixnjoystix.com writes "On May 19th, fans of all ages will see the final installment of the Star Wars saga with Revenge of the Sith. However, for the first time ever a Star Wars film will be officially rated PG-13. Over the weekend the Daily Herald newspaper confirmed that George Lucas' conclusion to his nearly 30 year epic Space Opera received a PG-13 rating from the Motion Picture Association of America. The MPAA is expected to release an official statement or press release sometime this week." This confirms the rumor we reported on back in March.
I'm a dark little poet tonight... (Score:5, Funny)
I can imagine it now. Darth Vader ripping that demon Jamaican dinosaur Wino from limb to limb. With each limb being severed, hearing the beast shouting out, "Meesa in Pain! Meesa in Pain!" Vader points his finger, and throws the battered, lifeless carcass against the wall.
"Only two there are," says Yoda, "a master and an apprentice. Killed, Palpatine's apprentice, Vader did he!"
Along with Jar Jar, in the abyss, floats the souls of Saddam Hussein, Oprah, Geraldo Rivera, Dick Clark and New Kids on the Block. Jar Jar shall be reborn in another realm. In a galaxy far far away from the one he was in, way in the future.
That backwards asshat dinosaur is scheduled to come back, Jesus style. Only next time, it'll be rated R. Be afraid... be very afraid...
Now that is why this Star Wars is PG-13. Sleep tight kiddies...
Re:I'm a dark little poet tonight... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can imagine it now. Darth Vader ripping that demon Jamaican dinosaur Wino from limb to limb. With each limb being severed, hearing the beast shouting out, "Meesa in Pain! Meesa in Pain!" Vader points his finger, and throws the battered, lifeless carcass against the wall.
Half of the Star Wars demographic is probably composed of six-year-olds who are still amused by sadistically removing the legs from an insect. They'll appreciate that scene even more than you will.
Here's a darker little poet tonight... (Score:4, Funny)
I have I've been hunted and wanted in the exterminated sense.
Seismic mines for my jedi mind. Look at the times. Sick is the mind of the sentator that's behind
all this conflict destructive. enough is too much as planets explodin'. Tempers flaring with Windu.
Just blow him off and keep goin' not taking nothin from no-one.
Giving help long after not breathin'.
keep kickin ass in the morning, an' taking names in the evening
leavingm with a taste as sour as Dagobah in their mouth.
See they can trigger me but they can never figure me out look at me now, I betya probably sick of me now.
Aint you Yoda? Ima make you look so ridiculous now
I'm sorry Yoda.
I never meant to hurt you. I never meant to make you cry but tonight I'm training Skywalker.
I'm sorry Yoda.
I never meant to hurt you. I never meant to make you cry but tonight I'm training Skywalker.
Verse 2
you got a skeleton in a cave I don't know if anyone knows it.
But before they throw my robes out of an airlock and close it
I'ma expose it.
I'll take you back a hundred years or three before I ever had an Artoo-Dee
Too. met this slave boy, must have been a few cycles old.
Owned by Watto who didn't want him sold.
He's the shit. I mean that boy could really fly.
I guess that's because he's the livin' breathin force that's why.
I look at Anni and I couldn't picture leaving his side.
Even if he was full of fear, I'd grit my teeth and I'd try
to make it work with him at least for Qui-gon's sake.
Maybe I made some mistakes, but I'm only human. And I'm jedi enough to try to will them away.
What I did was reckless, no doubt that it was dumb.
But the smartest shit I ever did was learn to chop off arms. cuz he'd a killed us.
Shit, he would have shot Luke an me both. It's my life, far far away, a long long time ago.
I'm sorry Yoda.
I never meant to hurt you. I never meant to make you cry but tonight I'm training Skywalker.
I'm sorry Yoda.
I never meant to hurt you. I never meant to make you cry but tonight I'm training Skywalker.
Verse 3
now I would never diss my own master
just to get some recognition, maybe Qui-gon might,
because he wouldn't listen and he was always dissin'.
But put yourself in my position.
Just try to envision witnessin' yo master struggle
with simple levitation, bitchin' that "against us the force is"
and our archives have somethin' missin'.
Goin' through all the star systems, victim of force-unbalanced syndrome.
My whole life I was made to believe that I was strong when I wasn't. Until I grew up,
now I blew up.
It makes you sick to your stomach.
Doesn't it?
wasn't that the reason you made that knighthood for me, Da?
So you could try to justify the way you treated me, Da? Utinni!
You're gettin older and it's cold when you're squattin'.
An Luke's gettin up so quick, he's gonna go,
you can't hold him. And Anni's getting so big now,
you should see him, he's a sith lord.
But you never see him. He won't even be at your funeral.
See what hurts me the most is you won't admit you was wrong. Go disappear. Keep telling yourself that you was master here.
But how dare you try to blame me for what you helped to set up. E chu ta!
I hope you get eaten by the Sarlac for that. Remember when Darth Maul died and you sorta wished it was me?
Well, guess what, I AM dead - more powerful than you could forsee!
I'm sorry Yoda.
I never meant to hurt you. I never meant to make you cry but tonight I'm training Skywalker.
I'm sorry Yoda.
I never meant to hurt you. I never meant to make you cry but tonight I'm training Skywalker.
I said, I'm sorry Yoda.
I never meant to hurt you. I never meant to make you cry but tonight I'm training Skywalker.
I'm sorry Yoda.
I never meant to hurt you. I never meant to make you cry but tonight I'm training Skywalker.
from amiright com. [amiright.com]
Actually... (Score:5, Funny)
I hope it's not for violence (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:2, Funny)
On a more serious note, it think it's great that it will have more violence, as in the books it's really dark compared to the other two prequels.
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite frankly, I'm surprised at this. Over the past ten years or so, there's been a trend to label, say, a movie suitable for 13+ as suitable for all ages, and then stick a bunch of disclaimers on the trailer. Such as "PG-13 (may-contain-strong-language-nudity-and-the- occassional-beheading-but-it's-just-a-film-so-it'
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:5, Funny)
For example: 'Contains scenes of peril'
Oh my fucking God, please not PERIL. God forbid some kid sees a fictional character in danger, that's just mentally damaging material right there.
What next? 'Contains a scene where Jimbo trips and falls on his face, thus causing certain amounts of pain and distress'? Take your Newspeaking, politically correct, mollycoddling garbage and shove it.
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:5, Insightful)
And I turned out normal? See?
Oh, wait...
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:3, Informative)
That was my favorite scene from Transformers the Movie, too. But the movie was rated PG, not G. That's how they got away with the "Oh Shit!" as well as the "Kick him in the balls" dialogue from Grimlock.
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:5, Funny)
Oh my fucking God, please not PERIL. God forbid some kid sees a fictional character in danger, that's just mentally damaging material right there.
It could be worse:
'Contains scenes of perl'
Now that would be mentally damaging.
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:5, Funny)
They're just trying to spice up a crappy sql.
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:5, Interesting)
From the Star Wars, Ep IV review [decentfilms.com]:
Stylized outer-space and hand-to-hand combat sequences involving laser fire and laser swords (in one case severing an arm); two burned bodies seen at a distance; various explosions.
I originally visited the site for a laugh, but other than those blurbs and the "spiritual value" meter, there's nothing hokey about it. Read any review by Stephen Greydanus. Besides being a good writer and generally knowing his stuff, he possesses the uncanny ability to dissect films at great length without spoilers! His (always polite) shredding of the Matrix 2 [decentfilms.com] is what finally sold me.
Ob. Monty Python (Score:3, Funny)
Galahad: I don't think I was.
Lancelot: Yes you were, you were in terrible peril.
Galahad: Look, let me go back in there and face the peril.
Lancelot: No, it's too perilous.
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:3, Funny)
No, it's far too perilous.
Bet you're gay.
No, I'm not.
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:5, Funny)
GALAHAD: I don't think I was.
LAUNCELOT: Yes you were, you were in terrible peril.
GALAHAD: Look, let me go back in there and face the peril.
LAUNCELOT: No, it's too perilous.
GALAHAD: Look, [something] as much peril as I can.
LAUNCELOT: No, we've got to find the Holy Grail. Come on!
GALAHAD: Well, let me have just a little bit of peril?
LAUNCELOT: No, it's unhealthy.
GALAHAD: Bet you're gay!
LAUNCELOT: No, I'm not.
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:5, Informative)
From IMDB Triva [imdb.com]
Originally turned down the role of Ann August in the film Anywhere But Here (1999) because of the love scene between herself and Corbin Allred which required nudity. Susan Sarandon who had co-star approval, said she couldn't continue the movie without Portman, so the script was re-written without the scene and sent to Natalie, and she accepted.
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:5, Informative)
#1 rule of Hollywood: every actress will eventually be featured topless, give or take 10-20 years.
Basically she has to get her career into a rut where she won't be getting any new roles or she's considered washed up...then it will be a bargaining chip to getting her next big project.
Re:I hope it's not for violence (Score:2)
Maybe it's pg-13 for sexuality? Maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just guesswork since I haven't seen the movie (duh)... but...
What I can't help but imagine is if the whole swing towards the religious right and indecency plays a part within this. After the whole Janet Jackson thing, it's quiet possible that Ani's relationship with Padme that helps contribute towards this rating along with the violence.
After all, it seems somehow "okay" to expose kids to violence in the states. Sex is a whole other thing...
Re:Maybe it's pg-13 for sexuality? Maybe... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Maybe it's pg-13 for sexuality? Maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
1: They do not swear when your doing it
2: You dont see any skin associated with the lower back / chest/crotch
3: They do not say "Save me *deity or scientific theory*"
4: The person does not make any racial or gender related comments
so basicaly when you have the guys spine ripped out the script should be changed from
" aghhhh sh*t
to a much more demographicaly freindly
"Oh fiddle-dee-dee , I am upset with you species of unkown origion
Re:Maybe it's pg-13 for sexuality? Maybe... (Score:2)
Re:Maybe it's pg-13 for sexuality? Maybe... (Score:3, Funny)
You can't have prejudice against violence - that would mean being anti-gun and you can't have that! sex on the other hand serves no purpose other than brushing with someone elses toothbrush or something, condoms have holes in them and homosexuality is the devils work.
Re:Maybe it's pg-13 for sexuality? Maybe... (Score:2)
Unfortunatly, if you base a culture on trying to hide sex and replace it with violence, you end up in a state where sex isn't a whole other thing, but mixed up with violence in far too many heads.
Way back when there used to be an observation that the difference between US en European TV was that in the US you couldn't show a breast being kissed, but you could show it being stabbed, and in Europe the
Re:Maybe it's pg-13 for sexuality? Maybe... (Score:2)
Re:Maybe it's pg-13 for sexuality? Maybe... (Score:3, Funny)
Gives a whole new meaning to ``don't think, feel''.
Re:Maybe it's pg-13 for sexuality? Maybe... (Score:2)
Fortunatly, no matter how weird you are, the odds are your kids will grow up more or less sane. If kids weren't amazingly resilaint in the face of insane parents we'd have been extinct before we got out of the great rift valley.
Re:Maybe it's pg-13 for sexuality? Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh crap that sounds REALLY bad. Let me rephrase.
Kids in the playground will play cowboys and indians (or the politically correct modern equivalent of a battle scene) until the cows come home. Put them in front of a film with a sex scene, however, and they'll generally feel uncomfortable at best or start making retching noises at worst.
I'm sure as everyone reading this as a kid knows, the opposite sex was a difficult subject best ignored. Girls tend to think of boys as 'yucky' and boys generally only get on well with 'tomboys'. with exceptions of course.
hell, I've landed a hot potato here, haven't I?
Anyway, parent poster:
I'd rather my kids watch violence than sex..
They'd prefer it too. Guaranteed. They won't get intrigued by sex until until their hormones go insane, at which time you should be doing some parenting rather than just dragging them to movies and hoping they pick up the basics. But they love violence at any age, mostly.
When young, the distinction takes care of itself. when they hit puberty though, you've had 12-15 years of experince with them to get an idea how to deal with it. One thing though, once they hit the point of interest, that's no time to carry on relying on the kids' own 'yuck' reflex. At that point, they need proper, practical information which they can rely on and believe in, otherwise there's a whole new can of worms about to spill all over the family floor.
don't forget, as with all things, this post deals in generalities. specific instances require specific action - hence attentive parenting.
Re:Maybe it's pg-13 for sexuality? Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Violence is a part of basic survival instincts, and play involving the miming of violence and conflict is not only normal and prevelent in thousands of species, it's probably a healthy outlet. You have to remember that we're not really that far removed from young boys learning to hunt things down with spears basically as soon as they are old enough to know to keep quiet. We're not talking millions of years here, we're talking thousands of years ago. As little as a few hundred years ago, most boys learned how to shoot a rifle. Why? Same reason we all know how to operate a motor vehicle - you need to know how to do it to get by.
The instinct to mime violence can be witnesses on Animal Planet during any number of specials on nearly any mammal. Put two dogs together, what's the first thing they do? Run around and try to bite each other. They're playing, but they're also mimicking basic pack/hunting mentality. They're establishing the alpha dog through mimed violence.
Sex, however, doesn't become interesting until later in life.
I still blame American's ridiculous shame in its own sexuality on coaching from the religious right and the Puritan foundations of the country, but it's not like there's NO GOOD REASON why kids absorb violence more easily than sexuality. Seeing an exposed nipple during the Super Bowl isn't going to damage any of their precious little mental circuits. Nudity doesn't have to equate to sexuality. America hasn't figured that out yet.
Re:Maybe it's pg-13 for sexuality? Maybe... (Score:4, Funny)
Like in "Eraserhead".
Re:Maybe it's pg-13 for sexuality? Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are oversimplifying. Adult sexuality will confuse kids yes, but a lot of kids do play "sex" games with each other long before puberty. I know I did. Most kids are curious about things like that, or at least their own bodies. Tell me you haven't heard of the game "you show me yours, and I'll show you mine"?
Talking about kids and sex is a hot potato though, I agree... lest anyone think I am defending paedophilia, that is horribly and utterly wrong, and it is not what I'm talking about.
But they love violence at any age, mostly.
Kids love action and running around, they have a lot of energy. Saying that this means they like violence is wrong. Put them in front of a film showing real voilence I think you will find they won't like it.
With regards to the general discussion, my belief is that any culture that accepts violence and looks down on love and sex is utterly sick.
Re:Maybe it's pg-13 for sexuality? Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Doctors and Nurses, right?
yeah, sure. it's furtive but innocent. Kids at that age have no damn clue though, and luckily for parents there seems to be a window between the 'kid' games and the later genuine interest phase, which is what parents need to spot (and will spot), and take as a cue to actually start talking to their kids about responsible sex.
Now how to actually go about that, hell, in our current society it's difficult to see quite how to deal with it. I'm for openness with my kids, when they make it to that point. I can't expect my kids to make correct choices without information. But of course we're going hellishly off-topic. maybe this is one for Plastic? [plastic.com]
Re:Maybe it's pg-13 for sexuality? Maybe... (Score:3, Insightful)
yes..
no...
yes...
Doctors and Nurses and other inter-gener child games in my childhood had no subtext. the subtext in cowboys/indians or brits/germans or whatever had an implication that the other guys were first of all the 'evil, bad ones' and secondly they were dead when you shouted "bang!"
OK, maybe I'm reading into it too much, but dead. Dead.
Re:Maybe it's pg-13 for sexuality? Maybe... (Score:5, Interesting)
Put them in front of a film showing real voilence I think you will find they won't like it.
Real violence, sure. Chicks getting slammed on meathooks in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is worlds away from, say, John Wayne shooting a bad guy bloodlessly, but you'll agree they're both violent, right?
Which one is morally more correct? the one that shows violent death as a nasty, gory, bloody event that no-one would want to be anywhere near, or the one that depicts death as a clean, simple act with no consequences?
The depictions are poles apart, but I'm torn between real violence (Mr. Orange bleeding to death, Saving Private Ryan) which are realistic and difficult to watch even as an adult, and the relatively bloodless yet easily dismissed violence you see in many so-called non-violent movies which rate lower certs.
Does the kid see the real violence and therefore realise how fucking awful it is, or see the sanitised violence and think it's not so bad? or is it the other way round? Does all the blood and guts desensitize a perons, or does it make them sit there and think "holy shit'?
Ethical problems exist in such a study, of course, but I think maybe studying this from a nuanced point of view may be a good idea.
This is pretty important to me, as I'm not really sure whether my kids should see one or the other. Given that I'd be bringing them up in part, I'd hope they'd get my point of view on the issues, and if I showed them, say, Reservoir Dogs, they'd figure violence is just scary.
With regards to the general discussion, my belief is that any culture that accepts violence and looks down on love and sex is utterly sick.
agreed, but I don't think you can ignore violence. It happens, and so has to be put in context, just as everything else in life does. Ignoring an issue is arguably worse than denying it. Arguably. You need to know about concepts to put them into context, or even to reject them. As an illustration, take creationism. Most creationists don't actually know anything relevant about biology, and those who do generally pick and choose the bits they like and throw away the rest. draw an analogy.
Re:Maybe it's pg-13 for sexuality? Maybe... (Score:3, Insightful)
When I was younger - like about Grade 6 or 7 younger - I had a life-sized plastic replica M16 rifle (you don't see stuff like _that_ anymore) that I picked up at a yard sale. At one time it had some internals that presumably made noise when you pulled the trigger, but those were long gone by the time I got it. It was just a hollow shell.
It was, however, *awesome* for playing "guns" with my friends - a game that was essentially line-of-sight "tag". If you got "shot", a "medic" would
Re:You mean... (Score:2)
Seriously, what's wrong with sex? It's something I'm told people do
Tom
Re:Maybe it's pg-13 for sexuality? Maybe... (Score:5, Informative)
"I understand the origin of a few of the popular myths on
I would have to say you are easily baffled.
Take a look at international movie ratings on IMDB. Pick some movies with a some sexual content. You will find that in the US, these movies are consistently rated more restrictively than in European countries.
A good example would be Malena, an Italian coming-of-age movie set in WW-II Italy. From IMDB: Finland:15, Germany:12, Netherlands:16 / Norway:15, Portugal:16, Spain:13, Sweden:11, Switzerland:14, UK:15 / USA:R (Under 17 not admitted without parent). Also note that the R-rated version seen in the US was specifically cut/censored for America.
Puritanical doesn't begin to describe it.
A.
(who didn't even mention the wardrobe malfunction)
For movies, and TV, and video games, we do that (Score:4, Insightful)
I like how you try to answer your own question, there, with a straw man. Quaint. Except I live in the US, and I'm trying to be a conscientious parent, and unfortunately this criticism basically holds true when I'm trying to figure out what to take my kids to.
With respect to the movies, the MPAA and Hollywood censors in general have had lots to do with the Catholic church, at least since 1930 or so. If you've never taken a walk through the history of "the Hays code" -- actually eventually enforced, when it was, by ultra-Catholic politico Joseph Breen -- you might want to do so [artsandthelaw.com] before you express any more mystification.
That's a strange history, but it obviously does show the bias you're claiming is so hard to understand. For example, Breen was only able to really enforce "the code" after a long nude swimming scene in "Tarzan and His Mate" caused a congressional outcry. Think the movie Tarzan ever killed anyone before the truly upsetting scene in which his wife was sorta, kinda naked?
If you honestly think the violence in "The 6th Day" (PG-13) would be less disturbing to a 13-year-old than the profanity in "Billy Elliott" (R for language and almost certainly for an implied gay friend), you've truly got that MPAA sensibility going on. Kill half the known world: PG-13. Say a few F-words: R. Or let's compare two movies that both got a PG-13, both of which I took my kids to:
Yeah, I think those were equivalent movies. Whale Rider was a wonderful family story. Daredevil should have been an R for any one of about eight different scenes.
Do we even want to start talking about video games? Give me one video game that's as sexual as Mortal Combat or Doom is violent. If there was such an animal, it'd have to be sold in a brown wrapper at the magazine stand that has the special "adult" room.
Or TV: Was Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" as drastic as any episode of CSI you'd like to watch? Not in a million years.
Make it "R" and maybe it can redeem the genre (Score:5, Interesting)
Mmmmmm Hot Griiiitssss.
AIEEEE!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Hmm, maybe "Darth and the Giant Peach-Shaped Death Star" will be next?
Re:Make it "R" and maybe it can redeem the genre (Score:2, Insightful)
HOWEVER (Score:5, Funny)
Re:HOWEVER (Score:3, Funny)
In that case, Michael Jackson will probably still be able to get in; primarily because he won't be watching the film, he'll be watching the audience...
Re:HOWEVER (Score:2)
Nudity (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nudity (Score:5, Funny)
Can anyone... (Score:4, Funny)
Rated PG-13 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Rated PG-13 (Score:5, Funny)
I'm hoping the BBFC bans it totally as a known cause of brain rot.
well. the censors watched ep 1 and 2 (Score:5, Funny)
Makes Sense... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm still going to pay to see it.
Of course you will. (Score:5, Funny)
Of course you will. He'll be wiping his ass with the money you paid for the ticket.
Re:Makes Sense... (Score:2)
Lucas has been doing the same thing but with complete seriousness for 3/5 of the Star Wars movies he has made so far.
Expanded vocabulary (Score:5, Funny)
"Shit, it's a trap!"
"The ability to speak does not make you intelligent. Now get the hell out of here!"
We can only hope... (Score:5, Funny)
1. The Sith. We don't mind when they cut Jedi in half, but in "Revenge" they sure do curse a lot.
2. Midichlorians. These imply evolution, which is only a hypothesis and not suitable for young minds.
3. Rampant drug use in Mos Eisley scenes. What exactly are they smoking?
4. Adult theme. Taxes, embargoes, and senate politics are totally inappropriate for children. And for space movies.
5. Jar-Jar dies a horrible death, yeaaasay-ee-sir. Finally listened to your fans, yes?
6. Amidala wears even less than Leia's metal bikini. May the Force be with you!
Yours Truly, The Ratings Board
Re:We can only hope... (Score:5, Interesting)
The appropriateness of "Revenge" used in a PG movie was a big part of it.
I was in first grade at the time, and clearly remember talking about it on the playground. "F$#% that" I think is what I said...
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
poetry time (Score:5, Funny)
Strangest thing I've ever seen,
Because other than the toddlers,
Or those with Alzheimers,
It's junk for everyone else in between.
Re:poetry time (Score:2)
oh who am I kiddin, I'm only going for the explosions and the boobifications....
Tom
The book IS out, you know (Score:5, Informative)
--trb
Re:The book IS out, you know (Score:2, Funny)
I for one will pay to see these battles on the top of your head
Damnit! No Disembowing by Wookies (Score:4, Funny)
Considering that Ripping Arms out of sockets wouldn't be PG-13, that must mean the Wookies win, 'cos everyone knows Droids don't Rip peoples arms out of their sockets when they loose. Wookies are known to do that...
Re:Damnit! No Disembowing by Wookies (Score:2)
hoard 1 A collection, esp. of valuable items,
horde 2 A numerous company; a gang, a troop
whored 1 engaged in promiscuous sexual relations with prostitutes
Does it really matter ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Aren't there any other ratings? (Score:5, Interesting)
G - Suitable for all
PG - Parental guidance recommended for kids under 15
M - Mature, recommended for people over 15. (not a legal restriction)
MA - Mature Accompanied, illegal for people under 15 aren't to see it unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.
R - Legally restricted to adults
X - Generally sexually explicit, technically illegal in all AU states except capital territory, but authorities turn a blind eye.
E - No rating, like, educational shows.
RC - Refused Classification, banned.
And each of those ratings is normally accompanied by a few words saying what sort of stuff gives it that rating. Eg, 'contains strong violence and coarse language' 'contains nudity' 'contains sex scenes' 'contains goatse' etc. Although for TV shows they often say 'contains material that may be offensive to some viewers', without saying what it is, and suddenly naked men are on the screen
Anyway, could someone who knows explain quickly what this 'PG-13' is equivalent of. It sounds like our PG, but other star wars seemed more M to me. (I found jar-jar really offensive)
Re:Aren't there any other ratings? (Score:2)
Re:Aren't there any other ratings? (Score:5, Informative)
For the impatient:
What do the rating symbols mean?
G General Audiences -- All ages admitted. Signifies that the film rated contains nothing most parents will consider offensive for even their youngest children to see or hear. Nudity, sex scenes, and scenes of drug use are absent; violence is minimal; snippets of conversation may go beyond polite conversation but do not go beyond every-day expressions.
PG Parental Guidance Suggested -- Some material may not be suitable for children. Signifies that the film rated may contain some material parents might not like to expose to their young children -- material that will clearly need to be examined or inquired about before children are allowed to attend the film. Explicit sex scenes and scenes of drug use are absent; nudity, if present, is seen only briefly; horror and violence do not exceed moderate levels.
PG-13 Parents Strongly Cautioned -- Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. Signifies that the film rated may be inappropriate for pre-teens. Parents should be especially careful about letting their younger children attend. Rough or persistent violence is absent; sexually-oriented nudity is generally absent; some scenes of drug use may be seen; some use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words may be heard.
R Restricted -- Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian (age varies in some jurisdictions). Signifies that the rating board has concluded that the film rated may contain some adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the film before taking their children to see it. An R may be\ assigned due to, among other things, a film's use of language, theme, violence, sensuality, or its portrayal of drug use. Theater owners and film critics are advised as to why the R rating was assigned; parents are therefore urged to contact their local theatres to learn why the rating board chose the R rating.
NC-17 No children under 17 Admitted (age varies in some jurisdictions). Signifies that the rating board would feel that the film rated is patently adult and that children under the age of 17 should not be admitted to it. The film may contain explicit sex scenes, an accumulation of sexually-oriented language, and/or scenes of excessive violence. The NC-17 designation does not, however, signify that the rated film is obscene or pornographic in terms of sex, language, or violence.
Re:Aren't there any other ratings? (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PG-13#History [wikipedia.org]
I would venture to guess that it was also introduced to allow 80s teen movies to slip in a little titty here and there.
IronChefMorimoto
Re:Aren't there any other ratings? (Score:2)
Illegal?! Damn.
I guess I have to cross Australia off my list of places I might like to live when Hillary is elected president.
one can hope (Score:4, Interesting)
Princess Amidala... I'm looking at you.
Does Lucas want an PG13 (Score:4, Interesting)
It certainly seems to have got the writer of the article to be more positive about it.
Re:Does Lucas want an PG13 (Score:3, Informative)
Shit, over here in Australia M15 is usually considered normal for kids!
Re:[rolling eyes] (Score:3, Insightful)
Bashing (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing all the amazing twists people will contort into... and quite amusing. "Well, episodes 1 and 2 sucked. ALL BECAUSE OF JAR JAR. I am so terribly aghast at his screentime that it ruins everything for me! Look at me! mememe!"
or, perhaps "these two suck because Lucas wrote them himself, unlike ESB. I'm going to ignore ANH. Because it doesn't fit my point."
or even "the romantic scenes suck! Because, ya know, the ones in the first trilogy were so wonderfully done!" They were pretty bad. Funny how immediacy seems to be much more relevant. Or perhaps its the construction of the first trilogy that people have created for themselves that put everything about it above reproach.
In education, there is an "ideal draft" theory, that states, essentially, that when an instructor has an ideal essay on a particular subject in mind when reading/grading an assignment, both the instructor and student lose. We see the same sort of thing going on with star wars, by a lot of people that really should know better... when an "idea copy" of star wars has been created in one's mind, even if it is murky and nonspecific, nothing will ever hope to live up to it, and the experience is ruined, ie, fans whining and Lucas getting a lot of criticism.
The real problem with actions along this theory, however, is that the more "disappointing" the movie is, the more disproportionally "bad" it ends up being in the reviewer's mind. Ergo, we have an annoying character becoming the most hated fictional character of all time, and a bunch of people talking about their childhood being ruined.
Sure, I was disappointed, too. But this is a bit silly.
Re:Bashing (Score:2, Insightful)
When we can apreciate it for what it is as we do with Plan 9 From Outer Space.
On an 8 year old level... (Score:5, Interesting)
Your point is valid. Episode I wasn't great but not as horrible as people make it out to be. II was good, but not incredible. Very fun.
I think part of the problem is that this trilogy doesn't have the "hero's journey" story line which people just naturally love. It must be in our DNA or something.
And there is no way getting around dealing with Palpatine's rise as well.
I can't think of a better Episode I or II plot outline, so I'll just enjoy them. Episode III looks great, but even if it isn't...there will be plenty of Jedi action.
Re:On an 8 year old level... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bashing (Score:5, Interesting)
> essentially, that when an instructor has an ideal essay on a
> particular subject in mind when reading/grading an
> assignment, both the instructor and student lose.
There's also some psychology in this, too.
Familiarity makes you more inclined to like something.
For example, experiments were done where people were shown a stack of photographs and were asked to rate the photographs in terms of how flattering they were to the subject. The stack included a photo of themselves. In the control group, their photo was normal, but with the experimental group, their photo was a mirror image (flopped, in photography parlance).
The experimental group statistically rated their photos higher. The reasoning was that the flopped image is what you see when you look in a mirror -- that is, you see yourself in the mirror more often than as you actually are, so you are more familar with that image of yourself.
So, not surprisingly, the original trilogy is more familiar to people then the new trilogy. Moreover, I think than when some fans actually saw Episodes I and II, it did not live up to expectations, and people disliked them more than they would have otherwise. As for the rest of the crowd, not surprisingly, most people are fair weather fans: they saw Episode IV because of the hype and they saw Episode I because of the hype. Although I didn't run across this list [movieweb.com] adjusted for inflation, the box office sales indicate this as well, with the best sellers being Episode IV, Episode I, Episode II, Episode VI, and finally Episode V.
Going back to familiarity, think about when you're in a restaurant, and you order an iced tea, and the waiter accidentally brings you a Coke. That first taste is awful! Not because the Coke was bad, but because you were expecting iced tea. Once you know what to expect, even the second sip will taste better.
I think many fans had played up what they thought the prequels would be like, but when Lucas delivered, it wasn't what they were expecting, and they got angry. There are probably some other reasons why people didn't like the movies (one of which is probably the fact that Lucas's insights on proto-fascism might be turning some people off as well)
I enjoyed the movies, I'm a huge Star Wars fan, and Episode II is my favorite out of the five I've seen. The new movies are flawed, but so were the old ones. All five of them have wit, low-brow humor, great special effects, cheesy special effects, memorable dialog, and groan-worthy dialog. However, I think Lucas is tying together two themes. First, he describes an almost-utopia into a dystopia, and its effort to rise again. Second, the story is about a good character gone bad and how they can be redeemed. The fact that those two themes are in a story arc that are carried though a thirty year effort shows Lucas' movies haven't actually changed much at all.
Re:Bashing (Score:5, Insightful)
ESB was good because Lucas had so little to do with it, and hired a real director.
Jedi was crap because Lucas tried to make a movie, something he has no talent at.
The prequels are just Lucas masturbating in public. Aparently he has no talent at thet either.
Content to rating (Score:2, Funny)
I've heard... (Score:5, Funny)
Once the fanboys see a full-on birth, that will make them just that much more scared of girls and sex.
Re:I've heard... (Score:3, Funny)
For those outside the US... (Score:5, Informative)
Overview of MPAA ratings [mpaa.org]
G and PG in detail [mpaa.org]
PG-13 upwards in detail [mpaa.org]
Basically, PG-13 means you *can* get in if you are under 13; as far as I can tell, no accompaniment is required. It differs from the US PG rating in that it is a stronger warning that the material *may* be unsuitable for under 13s.
This makes it somewhere between the UK (and US's) PG rating and the UK's 12A (which requires accompaniment by an adult if you are under 12).
It shouldn't be assumed that the film will be a 12A in the UK though; if the rating was as a result of sex or language, then the BBFC might judge it differently.
A Marketing Ploy (Score:3, Insightful)
Kinda clever if you ask me.
better than PG70 (Score:3, Funny)
There was no PG-13 for the originals (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:first post! (Score:4, Funny)
What, for the next episode?
You don't follow the rumor mill, do you? (Score:5, Informative)
Lucasfilm employees are reportedly under a NDA [imdb.com] not to discuss any possible filming of episodes VII-IX; also, Peter Mayhew's contract in episode III has been reliably stated to include an option clause for him reprising his role in 7 and 8.
Lucas may be growing senile, but he still knows to cover his bases.
Re:Oh boo hoo (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why not call a movie a movie? (Score:3, Funny)
Well, if you want to be a pedant like that, it doesn't feature George Lucas taking a dump either, so they can't call it a "motion" picture, can they?
Re:Why not call a movie a movie? (Score:5, Funny)
Today's troll education moment brought to you by the letter "L" for Loser. Remember kids, only losers troll.
Re:Why not call a movie a movie? (Score:4, Informative)
Space Opera [wikipedia.org]
Any Questions?
-Jason
Re: Revenge of Sith not first - actually, it is (Score:5, Informative)
Return of the Jedi (1983)
Action/Adventure and Science Fiction/Fantasy 2 hrs. 13 min. In the epic conclusion of the Star Wars saga, the Empire prepares to crush the Rebellion with a more powerful Death Star while the Rebel fleet mounts a massive attack on the space station. Luke Skywalker confronts his father Darth Vader in a final climactic duel before the evil Emperor. Release Date: May 25, 1983 Nationwide; March 14, 1997 Re-release. MPAA Rating: PG for sci-fi action violence. Distributor: Twentieth Century Fox
http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=18001 11258 [yahoo.com]