Slashdot Mirror
Revenge of the Sith Officially Rated PG-13
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 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...
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
The movie will still suck no matter what the rating.
Lucas needs to hand over the reins to someone with a clue.
That's the only thing that could have saved those brutal love scenes on Naboo
I hope it's not a rating for only violence inte film, but because of nude scenes with Natalie Portman!
This is just guesswork since I haven't seen the movie (duh)... but...
What I can't help but imagine is if the whole swing towards the religious right and indecency plays a part within this. After the whole Janet Jackson thing, it's quiet possible that Ani's relationship with Padme that helps contribute towards this rating along with the violence.
After all, it seems somehow "okay" to expose kids to violence in the states. Sex is a whole other thing...
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
I'm not talking "Hot Grits on Natalie Portman" kinda "R", but something with a bit more of an edge too it will definately be welcome. Something dark and serious for a change. Maybe have Tim Burton direct it......
Mmmmmm Hot Griiiitssss.
I couldn't fail to disagree with you any less.
This time the rating's meaning is a bit different than usual. No one over the age of 13 should attend.
Or would that take an even higher rating.
The wookies are naked, does that make it PG-13?
just zip down to the Grauman's Chinese Theater and tell these folks?
Lucas needs to hand over the reins to someone with a clue.
What, for the next episode?
"ooooooh Anakin, what a bright gloiwing knob you've got"
"Oh it isn't your knob, you really should get your light sabre fixed, you nearly took my eye out with that thing."
liqbase
well, in the US anyway, but how quickly their population forgets the rest of us....
jeez, the 63's are out tonite....that was worse than my "a long time ago, in a universe nearly as wide as my knob" joke!
and decided collectively that only if you're old enough you are allowed to be stupid enough to pay.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
This announcement does corroborate with the rumours that Ep. III consists entirely of Lucas squatting out an angry, sweaty dump on in front of a blue screen while screaming insults at the fans.
I'm still going to pay to see it.
Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
What ticks me off is, even with this rating, there will still be lots of people 13 attending showings with their parents\family. Its nice to have family togetherness and all, but 3 yr. olds do not belong in theaters under any circumstances.
Star Wars Episode 3 PG-13?
Star Wars Prequels
Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday March 10, @07:21PM
from the a-long-time-ago-in-sunny-california dept.
geekboxjockey writes "This story hints at the next Star Wars being a bit more of a mature themed movie: "[The film] is much more dark...more emotional. It's much more of a tragedy," adds Lucas. "...it will be the first Star Wars that's a PG-13.""There's also a new trailer airing during tonight's The O.C., so you can use that as an excuse to watch FOX teen drama. Fortunately for me, Summer is the only excuse I need. And maybe Captain Oats.
"Do or do not, there is no fucking try."
"Shit, it's a trap!"
"The ability to speak does not make you intelligent. Now get the hell out of here!"
Remember, gratuitous violence is okay as long as there are no naughty words.
If you go to #TFS on irc.after-all.org
c id =53
you will find that somebody has got hold of a leaked DVDSCR. You better check out the "teh fux0red scene" episodes for more details! =)
The eps can be found by downloading the torrents here:
http://kedora.net/index.py?mod=channel&op=view&
Heck, these guys will be in a lot of trouble if they get caught!
You'd rate Bondage Amidala with "The Force is hard" voice chip as worse than Anakin's wet dream about his mother?
I dont think the FCC has jurisdiction over film ratings.. although im sure they'd love to!
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.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
it seems like the ideal place to be.
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
i dont really get it. is pg-13 supposed to be bad or something? maybe it's my contempt for the mpaa or possibly im just a terrible person, but i usually hope a movie will be rated R
if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
...te?
Gives a whole new meaning to ``don't think, feel''.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
Cowboyneal... I am your.. father.
The best way to predict the future is to invent it. -Alan Kay
No, it's just dismemberment, which won't even be cool, because lucas is a hack. It's sad, he'd going to fail pulling off what schlock horror does so effortlessly.
I'm surprised this film's PG-13,
Strangest thing I've ever seen,
Because other than the toddlers,
Or those with Alzheimers,
It's junk for everyone else in between.
Judging by the posts I've seen, everybody is either joking about or speculating why it got a PG-13 rating...the Episode III book IS out, and most of it has been posted to newsgroups online. It's received a PG-13 rating for all the violence (there are at least 5 bad ass lightsabers fights I can think of, 4 of which involve someone dying, off the top of my head) and the scenes involving Anakin's skin getting melted off.
--trb
C'mon! We've all seen the trailers. There are hoards and hoards of Wookies in battle.
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...
Everyone will be watching the leaked pirate a week before its in the cinema anyway...
"Sweet llamas of the Bahamas !"
Ok, first off, I'm an Aussie. To me "PG-13" sounds really really lame. When I read that I thought it had been brought -down- to PG-13. I'm a bit confused, here in Australia we have:
:(.
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)
printf("Goodbye cruel world!\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b");
I remember when I was growing up during the run of 'meatball' and the like movies, PG-13 meant that there was at least one boobie shot in the picture, guaranteed.
Princess Amidala... I'm looking at you.
Maybe Lucas set out to create a film that was PG13 to win back his adult audience - it sends a strong message that this is not a kids film as Episode I definitely was.
It certainly seems to have got the writer of the article to be more positive about it.
You know what'll be awesome? A few years down the road, when maybe The Cool Kids have moved on and bashing Star Wars isn't so in vogue.
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.
Well, that's good - now we know exactly what rating "scenes of dropping someone in a flaming pit of lava" gets you.
"Stupid! Stupid stupid stupid stupid! I touched the hot wire right there - I'm an idiot!"
I'd rather my kids watch violence than sex.
the Political Inquirer
..as I can imagine he says the work "fuck" quite often while getting boiled in the hot lava.
I've heard that its rated PG-13 because they will show the full birthing scene of luke and leia from the viewpoint of the ob-gyn.
Once the fanboys see a full-on birth, that will make them just that much more scared of girls and sex.
... they were going with their parents anyway!!!
You mean after you find a girl and figure out what to do to have babies?
I'm still going to pay to see it
Of course you will. He'll be wiping his ass with the money you paid for the ticket.
Or breasts.
Sonny boy,
All the star wars movies were for kids, all the way from the first one to the last one.
...who haven't a clue what "PG-13" means, here are some useful links:-
Overview of MPAA ratings
G and PG in detail
PG-13 upwards in detail
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.
"breasts" is a naughty word.
Well thanks a ton, now I've got a stupid mental image of Ani going, "I'm Bat...errr...Darth Vader."
Hmm, maybe "Darth and the Giant Peach-Shaped Death Star" will be next?
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
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.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
I'd like that with Natalie Portman.
Why on earth are you calling it a "Space Opera". Call the movie a motion picture if you must, but not a "Space Opera" . It's got nothing to do with the musical art of opera and making a false association won't help the chances of this movie being a success.
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?
May I touch your naughty words?
the original trilogy never had enough Jedi action to satisfy me. That alone makes the new trilogy worthwhile.
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.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I am afraid the article is wrong. Return of the Jedi was also rated PG-13. This was largely due to the swimsuitesque outfit that Carrie Fisher wore while in the clutches of the Vile Gangster Jabba the Hutt. Frankly there is a lot more violence in this movie then you might think. Light sabering through battle droids is one thing, light sabering through humanoid characters is another.
Why on earth are you calling it a "Space Opera". Call the movie a motion picture if you must, but not a "Space Opera". It's got nothing to do with the musical art of opera and making a false association won't help the chances of this movie being a success.
Well neither does "Soap Opera", and it's a reference to that.
I first PG-13 movie was Red Dawn in 1984. ROTJ came out in 1983.
Man this is a sci-fi movie and it's Star Wars. Since when George Lucas did a movie with extreme violence or nudity?
He has a hard time directing actors and creating good dialogue, imagine a sex scene or gratuous violence.
And if it bothers the religious groups in the u.s WHO CARES!!!!
Episode 3.5: When Sith play Scrabble.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
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
it's got a higher rating because of all the swearing a cursing the audience will be shouting out in disgust as they watch the movie.
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 oposite was true. Europe has got a bit less restrictive about violence, and the US has got rather more uptight about sex since then.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
What about Soap Operas? Not much singing in them either. I think it more refers to the drama aspect.
Today's troll education moment brought to you by the letter "L" for Loser. Remember kids, only losers troll.
May the farce be with you.
...that Han gets to shoot first this time?
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
Here, I will use YOUR source.
Space Opera
Any Questions?
-Jason
George promised 9 episodes. Unless the Star Wars Christmas Specials count, this is only the 6th.
But maybe we're better off if he stops here, so that someone else can do the third thrilogy.
Of the photos of her picking her butt and then smelling her finger.
After all, it seems somehow "okay" to expose kids to violence in the states. Sex is a whole other thing...
/., but this one continues to baffle me (Although my working theory is that folks want to think of Americans as war-mongering, self-righteous Puritans, and this idea plays nicely into that stereotype). Do I need to find a /. story or two about parent groups trying to ban or restrict violent video games to convince you that this is far from being universally accepted in real life, particularly among the same types of people who complained the most about the nipple?
I understand the origin of a few of the popular myths on
Hmm... Opera. Let's see
Horrible plot, check
Silly costumes, check
Villains with insane egoes, agendas and manners, check
Ok, so it doesn't have a fat lady who sings (I hope) but that's about the only difference.
Sigs for Nerds. Sigs that Matter.
actually, i think this is very interesting. while SW is traditionally PG, things like the ewoks of ROTJ & jar-jar binks have opened lucas to charges of pandering to kids. while i think that's unavoidable, given the marketing power of the star wars brand, i also think that this is an effort to help shield lucas from that particular charge.
that said, it's almost certainly going to be the darkest of the movies, what w/ the fall of anakin to the dark side & all.
ed
"Ok, so it doesn't have a fat lady who sings (I hope) but that's about the only difference."
Apart from the most obvious one that in this particular movie nobody sings whereas in an opera nobody talks.
There is a plethora of CS:S servers that enforce language banning. I asked why it was not OK to swear in a game that involves such gratuitous violence, to which I was replied, "The swearing is real, the violence is not." I don't think I need to comment further. Sigh!
Here's hoping your kids are resilient.
Pure and simple, the PG-13 rating is meant to garner more attention and speculation. Otherwise, Revenge of the Sith's opening would be the worst ever for a Star Wars movie.
Kinda clever if you ask me.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
In my experience, kids are generally just grossed out by sex.
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.
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
I wanna see some hot, throbbing lightsaber ACTION!
... and the hope that JarJar would be stepped upon by an ATAT.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
ANH: George Lucas allowed himself to be influenced by theories that actually had some depth to them -- ie: Joseph Campbell's ideas of the Hero's Journey, which contain motifs common to Hero-based mythology that speak to what we believe to be important developmental processes for people (accepting the journey, baptism and initiation into manhood, accepting responsibility, etc.). Some interesting themes involving the triumph of nature over the powers of technology. Pretty good performances all around. Plus, Han's a badass who shoots first.
ESB: George Lucas allowed himself to be removed from the director's duty, and a dark film evolves that involves betrayal, torture, dismemberment, a capture of one of the main heroes, an unbelievable (familial) link between the evil and good side of the conflict, further Jungian themes expounded upon involving facing our demons and seeing that they are us, and some Freudian ideas involving the idea of the son vs. the father that date back to classical Greek mythology. Plus, Han's damn cool. I mean, come on. "I love you!" "I know." We should all give our left nut to be so suave.
ROTJ: Ok, not so much on the deep literary side, but all-in-all it's good, clean, furry fun. For all the haters, you have to admit that there was a lot of satisfaction watching those walkers on Endor getting trounced by midgets in bear suits, never mind one of the great space battles ever. Plus, Han ends up with the chick who you KNOW is going to pull that gold bikini out in the bedroom from time to time.
TPM: A horrible attempt to combine the Immaculate Conception with ridiculous faux-scientific explanations of the force. No sense of metaphor, horrible dialogue, awful performances by otherwise talented actors. Derivative, not creative, aliens whose characteristics border on racist allusions to our own reality. Plus, no Han Solo. Instead, we get "Meesa show you! Meesa show you!"
Basically, the first three movies appealed on multiple levels, all the way from the intellectuals (creaming their jeans over what is essentially a combination of classical studies with sci-fi) to the kids (lasers and explosions). Episode 1 had only visceral appeal, with the one potentially metaphorical bit handled so blatantly and awkwardly you had to practically dodge in your seat to keep from being hit over the head by it.
Didn't fork over money for Episode 2. Lucas's first strike was destroying the original trilogy in the remakes. Strike 2 was Episode 1. Strike 3 is for baseball and masochists. The Two Towers got my money that summer.
PG-13? Darn. No Princess Amidala shower scenes. The trailer for Episode III looks awesome, but so did the trailers for I & II. I'll go see it of course. Oh well. The final battle scene will probably be reminiscent of the final battle scene of all five previous Star Wars movies.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
You can rip out a persons spine so-long as
...You alien bast*rd ,Ill see you in Hell aghhhh" ..ugh i am dying .. possible universal question of what is next agh"
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
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Are all of the chatty teenagers in the theatre.
Oh well, guess that means a few more complimentary passes at the end of the night.
Roses are red
violets are blue
toddlers doesn't exactly rhyme with alzheimers
but who says good poetry has to rhyme?
PG-13 is the new R-rating. R has become the new NC-17. Hollywood knows no limits to its sleaze-factor. They couldn't even resist working insipid sex jokes, that had nothing to do with plot or character, into Miss Congeniality and its sequel.
For Star Wars to get a PG-13 it means there's either a sex scene or intense violence. I certainly hope it would be the latter, but I don't trust Lucas' judgement these days, if the previous two "episodes" are any indication.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
and didn't get head or fuck out of the deal, seek a new line of employment.
liar!
have you ever been hated or discriminated against?
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.
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.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Like in "Eraserhead".
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Fans
My web domain.
spoiler, fool.
Yup, you're remembering an urban myth.
Some theaters received early posters (aka "one sheet") with the "Revenge of the Jedi" title. One near me still has theirs on display.
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.
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.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
Its actually for the secret love scene between Padme and Mace Windu. How else do you explain Princess Leia's fine ass?
Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.
Finally we can a have Mace Windo that can say "Shut the fuck up muther fucker!" in a lightsaber battle! I for one think this this already elevates this movie over the first two.
m l
http://www.celebritysoundboards.com/sjackson.ht
Please someone sumbit some dialogue, my brain has turned to mush just now.
a lot of kids do play "sex" games with each other long before puberty
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?
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Like in "Eraserhead".
100 points to you sir
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Sphere of Fear!!
Giant Hurt Ball?
The Deathticle!
Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.
1) This is FUNNY, not Redundant.
2) No, you shouldn't tell him. That was you get the room all to yourself for another 5 weeks.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Actually, the "dictionary" definition of opera is a little too sterile to make the connection.
Lucas's movies are very much like operas--the music is used very much like the leitmotif in the Wagner operas (Das Reingold, Die Walkure, Tannhauser, etc.) where each character has their own musical motif. William's scores, in fact, take much of their musical style from Wagner, Mahler, Stravinsky, Prokovief, and Shostakovich. In fact, I've found sections that were almost verbatim to pieces from each of the above! But I digress.
The Opera connection, I think, are linked with 3 things:
1) Music--the music is very neo-Romantic in style and firmly achored as a strong story-telling device. It simply would not be what it is if it didn't have such a strong score. However, I'd say the original 3 scores were the better of the 6 and that the latter have lost their operatic flavor.
2) Characters--each character is very close to the opera architypes and they each have a role in unfolding a tragedy and a triumph.
3) The Story--much like Wagners's Ring Cycle and unlike most movies, is one that spans generations and a universal good-versus-evil theme.
And don't forget, before we had movies, we had Opera and theatre. Even theatre was accompanied by live musicians. The difference was that opera was sung and theatre was not. But given the strong role of the Star Wars musical score, I would definitely say it leans more toward opera that it would if the music was more incidental or "mood" setting.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
PG-13 didn't even exist in 1983--it was created in the summer of '84, due in large part to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
this was NEVER a rumor. George Lucas said it himself that it may be rated PG-13 in an interview in Vanity Fair Magazine that came out at the end of January- beginning of February.
/ http://suffocate.us
/ http://johngrayson.com
Well, do ya?
Better than the PG70 rating that the Uptown in DC has listed for Sin City...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
And the Roadrunner would get the dreaded NC17 because of the way he downright abuses the Coyote.
:D
And maybe this stuff does affect little kids. I certainly was. When I was 6 I took a toy ukelele and bashed my cousin over the head with it to a loud shout of "El Kabong!" It sounded exactly like what you hear on the Quickdraw McGraw cartoon: the smashing of the wood, the twanging of the strings.
My cousin got to go to the hospital for a whole bunch of stitches to his skull, and I got a great, true story for a lifetime!
'After all, it seems somehow "okay" to expose kids to violence in the states. Sex is a whole other thing...'
/., but this one continues to baffle me"
"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)
...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
There was no such thing as a PG-13 rating when the first three movies came out, and the first two of this trilogy were so watered down sappy crap that they probably barely made it out of "G" rating.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
> I dont think the FCC has jurisdiction over film ratings.
Our good buddies at the MPAA assign the ratings. Technically they're voluntary, and occasionally an unrated film does make it to the box office of major theatres. DVD releases of even previously rated films are even more commonly unrated -- still like 1% or so.
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
Some of the originals would have probably been rated PG-13 if it existed back then. PG-13 wasn't created until 1984. The chopping off of limbs and stuff with blood in the original movies would have probably made them pg-13.
> we wouldn't want to Bear False Witness would we?
Why not? His entire belief structure is predicated on pushing a big lie to as many people as possible. What's a little one?
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
she did film nude scenes for Closer, just upon the final cut was it edited out
Sigh. I only heard about this after the fact. I would have gladly founded an online bounty fund payable to any film editor's assistant or second-best boy willing to smuggle a copy out to the public. But it's all under strict lock and key in Mike Nichols' bedroom closet now.
We're talking full frontal Portman pole dancing. Beats the hell out of Paris Hilton or Pamela Lee any day.
When the Original Trilogy DVDs came out this past fall, I sat down with my four year old son and watched the movies. Some since might be mortified that I did so because of the "violence", but the movies are PG and I watched them around the same age, and I haven't killed anybody. It turns out the loves the movies. When I pulled down my action figures from the attic, he took them all and plays with them constantly. He can name ever character. I've taught him to hate Jar Jar. He has half a dozen plastic lightsabers. And best of all, he can't wait for Episode 3. Which I might not be able to take him to. Great. The same man who gave us Ewoks and Jar Jar because he claimed he was making a new fairytale for kids is now boasting about his PG-13 rating. And now I may have to tell my son he can't see it. Many people on here will encourage me to bring my son to the movie regardless of the rating; feel free to come over and get up with him at 3am when he has a nightmare because of it. I really hope this movie is better then the last two and that the PG-13 rating is worth it. I realize I'm being a bit of whiner here, but I'm highly disappointed I might not be able to bring him; of course, I will preview the movie beforehand and decide if he can see it. I figure I saw plenty of movies when I was his age that would be PG-13 now and haven't climbed up a tower with a rifle yet.
...That he expected Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith to be rated PG-13 in the first place?
This is a no surprise announcement, given the supposedly very intense action sequences in the movie.
Lancelot: We were in the nick of time, you were in great peril.
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.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
and starwars boy making a cameo.
double-replying may be bad form, but I just picked up on this:
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.
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
May be it's because kids are violent already, but not sexual? I know that I personally threw an empty champaigne bottle at my female friend when we were ~4 years old (it hit her in the head and she had to go to a hospital), although I didn't want to do her any harm. But I never had any sexual relations with anyone until I was around 10 (but then it was with a 6-year old girl :) ).
While the "why violence is better than sex?" question has some merit, there is at least some justification for it.
I knew a guy in high school who had more than the average number of fingers. He had 5 fingers and a thumb on each hand. He didn't even play piano or anything, what a waste.
shall I take the bait?
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.
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
so that's a pretty sick idea.
There was a singing fat lady (Well, Alien) in ROTJ: Special Edition!
There is a book coming out called, "The Dharma of Star Wars"
Robby Russell
PLANET ARGON
Robby on Rails
The core audience of Star Wars: A New Hope was teenagers. In the 25 intervening years, Those people grew up! The core audience for Episode I should have been 30- to 40-somethings! Oh sure, they would bring their kids too, but they should have made Episode 1 and 2 as at least PG-13 too!
Lucas made the prequels for the wrong audience! He should have made them more dark and disturbing, more "grown up" than episodes 4 to 6. Instead he threw in Jar Jar and wrote a plot for 6-year olds so they could sell more Star Wars lunchboxes.
Plus, as is abundantly clear by now, Lucas doesn't really know how to tell a story. Episode 2, with its ridiculous pitched battles with 100 lightsabers waving around, shows that Lucas doesn't understand at all what makes Jedi cool: the whole "lone gunman" thing.
Actually, you probably have more than the average number of fingers. He just had more than the median. Yeah yeah, statistics jokes are real kneeslappers, eh?
I wouldn't call extra digits common, but there are quite a few people walking around with them. I doubt he had a lot of strength or fine control of it, and it probably would have gotten in the way of playing the piano, actually.
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
going by the talmud.
I can see how the above statement would be "flamebait". Really. Sheesh. The mods are in rare form this morning.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
What about Soap Operas? Not much singing in them either. I think it more refers to the drama aspect.
But there is always music... esp during the plot twist. I.e.
You have 2 weeks to live
He is your brother
I'm in love with another man / woman / coma patient / small furry creature from alpha centuri
dah dah dummmmmm
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
I've read the book and it is my opinion that violence will be the primary reason for the PG-13 rating. The tone is very dark w/ a lot of violence due to the war and due to Anakin's turn to the darkside.
...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
Save me, Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope!
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Wrong. PG-13 did not exist until 1984, a year after Jedi came out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA_film_rating_syst em
How most of you complain about this movie, but in 10-15 years it will be a cult classic that you will defend. Wasn't this the same with the Star Wars movies in the 70s?
"This film is rated X: the unknown. Positively no one is admitted." --The Firesign Theatre
The article is correct, just not specific. The PG-13 rating was given to RotJ after the fact (for the re-releases and video market). In its original theatrical release in 1983, it was rated PG. The PG-13 rating was not originated until 1984. The first movie to be released with a PG-13 rating was Red Dawn (July 1984).
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
I just checked out Greydanus' reviews, and you're quite correct: his analysis is a pleasure to read, and he's able to call the matrix 2 and 3 as the junk they are while being polite and explaining his reasons quite well.
:)
Thanks for the tip
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
Didn't anyone see "The 5th Element"??
I grew up in a household where gore, blood, & guts were fine so long as there was no sex. Sorry folks, but copulation is far more natural than homocide.
Now, back to CounterStrike...
-- In Soviet Russia, radio listens to YOU!
Trust me, as an American, we're assholes, nothing else.
I don't get it.
You're not supporting the original argument.
"After all, it seems somehow "okay" to expose kids to violence in the states. Sex is a whole other thing..."
You have only shown that movies involving sex are rated differently in the US then in other countries.
The argument was that violence is ignored while sexuality is not.
However, as the poster above pointed out, violence is also targetted and movies do recieve PG-13/R ratings based solely on violence/gore.
I'd rather my kids watch violence than sex. Not here. Kids are exposed to enough violence the way it is. At some point they may think of it as second nature.
On the other hand, kids exposed to nudity and sex will almost surely make them uncomfortable. And if kids do start asking questions, that perfect. It gives parents the opportunity to actually talk about sex with their kids, which is something that is far too lacking these days. It's so much easier just to let the schools do it, right? I think that wanting kids to be exposed to violence over sex is nothing more than a parent being uncomfortable, rather than what's "better" for the child.
Sex over violence any day. We're a backwards society for thinking otherwise (America).
A community-oriented lyrics site
Actually, it's the "Hero's Fall" that we're missing; there haven't been many good tragedies in the theatre for a long while, which is one factor ascribed to the immense success of Titanic. The I-III trillogy had the chance to set up a truly epic tragedy, with the bonus that the IV-VI trillogy thus transforms from a nifty drama to a saga of the redemption of the Skywalker family. Lucas hasn't failed outright in this yet; however, the irritating distraction of JarJar-- a character whose flaws are more comic than tragic-- diverts from the lofty goal of an Aristotelian epic.
True Tragedy is when the disaster arises from a single flaw in an otherwise superior character, or even soley from the virtues of the heroes, rather than their vices. JarJar's unmitigated idiocy makes for a grating note in what was potentially a smooth tragic symphony. We expect him to come to a bad end, and are merely disappointed at who he brings down with him. Alas, it appears that the real tragedy we will be seeing is not the Corruption and Fall of Anakin Skywalker, but the Corruption and Fall of George Lucas.
At least he'll have enough money to help drown his sorrows, no matter what happens....
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Lucasfilm employees are reportedly under a NDA 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.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Read any review by Stephen Greydanus.
Yeah. He comes from a long line of Greydanuses.
Um, did you happen to get a look at when the article you directed me to was published? The note at the top even says:
"[Editor's note: This article no longer represents Flew's current position. For the most recent information, see Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of.]"
See also this interview.
So, I will not amend my signature. I admit it is a little misleading, because what Flew appears to believe in is not "God" with all the normal connotations that word carries, but it is certainly more accurate than, "Anthony Flew is still an atheist."
Posting this from the line in Hollywood - please bring bootleg as soon as available. We will watch it at Grauman's Chinese any way possible.
Please see my response to the other reply. And thank you for confirming what I suspected would be the response to my sig - prejudice and bias so inflated that even when the documentation provided to refute it grudgingly admits that it's true, it's still attacked.
Yes, I read the article, and the one it linked to.
As the interview explains quite clearly, what Flew believes in is a deity, as Deists believe in--i.e. some kind of higher power which has no interaction whatsoever with mankind.
That's so far from the conventional meaning of "god", let alone the capitalized "God" used by Christians, that to describe it as "God" is to engage in wilful deception.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I want my digitally remastered Star Wars Christmas Special!!!
NOW!
I would direct you once again to the article you linked to. "God" is capitalized over and over again, and not just in reference to the God conceived of by Christianity.
I strongly suspect this is because it's the grammatically sensible thing to do, because in a sentence like this:
"I believe in God."
The word functions as a proper noun. This is clearer when you look at this sentence:
"I believe in a god."
But I'm really just guessing about all of that. I really have no idea why a source as antagonistic toward theism as infidels.org would capitalize the word God.
Anyway, with respect to my sig, it's the title of the article. The normal convention is to capitalize "uncommon" words in titles, that is, words besides the, an, a, of, and so on. I admitted that it's a hair misleading, but it is not a "wilful deception." Particularly if one bothers to read the article, which makes Flew's views about the Gods of Christianity and Islam pretty clear. I really don't feel responsible for people going off half-cocked when presented with this information.
Nudity doesn't have to equate to sexuality.
It does to a 14-year-old boy.
If you believe otherwise, I've got this nice bridge in London I'd like to sell you.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
If not for that, it would have had a PG rating.
....
But, no, they listened to the dark side of the Force
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Er, oops. I see now that the only capitalized words in the title are the first one and the word God. Well, anyway, I still won't change it because, as I pointed out, infidels.org doesn't seem to feel a great deal of compunction about it.
Yet another Star Wars discussion. Haven't we covered that topic yet? What I would like to know is:
What happened to K.C. Armstrong?
As little as a few hundred years ago, most boys learned how to shoot a rifle.
A few hundred years ago? Rifled firearms only emerged at the end of the eighteenth century.
Anyway, most boys were taught to shoot a rifle until just a few decades ago; in America, it's probably still a substantial proportion.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
after all, it seems somehow "okay" to expose kids to violence in the states.
Violence is only ok if you promote violence against judges.
Ah... That was a movie I never managed to finish. Now I wonder how it ends.
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'?
Why do lots of city kids find the slaughtering of an animal (such as a pig) horrible, while kids from the country would generally have no problem with it? It's because the latter have seen it thousands of times, while the former group haven't.
That's why violence is better than sex in films. If you're desensitized to violence, you can probably handle yourself better in an emergency situation (you've seen it all before, etc.). On the other hand, if you're desensitized to sex, it hurts your married life.
I was very suprised when I heard BBC comedy Coupling was being re-done in USA and I thought it would be a nightmare and it was, the US editions are not bearable. Although Coupling doesn't have sex in it, it is completely about sex and quite funny as well. I'm always suprised how American movies can be so violent but you can't air an ugly tit on TV.
Maybe the BSG movie can be the first NC-17 movie that breaks the barrier. :)
I think it's PG-13 bcause of a possible flashback scene as the Emperor as Anakins father. Being that red is associated with the deep dark side of the force. More midichlorians would have been deposited if pushed firmly enough. The Emperor also seems very experienced with a lightsaber from the trailers. It is this experience that made the film PG-13 but not rated R since he doesn't go all the way.
In determining whether the US is more or less restricitve than other nations/cultures, you compare it only with Western Europe. Just because the cultures of other countries don't align with your own personal views doesn't mean you should dismiss them from your comparison.
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 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.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
What you are all ignoring however is that violence in the form of meathooks and John Wayne are fundimentaly different. In the first case it is criminal, ie The Bad Guy. Antisocial, reprehinsable (did I spell that right?), and disgusting. John Wayne however was a Cop. Defender of the Innocent, Protecter of the Weak. This is a MAJOR difference in the portayls of violence. In a show like Texas Chain Saw Massacre it is violence for a deranged madman commiting evil acts. For John Wayne he was DEFENDING against previously mentioned bad guys.
The first type of violence has no place anywhere except for sickos. The second is a REQUIERMENT in civallized society. As such it should not be placed on the same level. If nobody held the tendencies for the first type, we wouldnt need the second. But NO MATTER what you do or say there will alwasy be the first type and we will always need the second to defend against them. (Iraq anyone?) You cant just say lets live in peace and destroy all weapons of war, your only asking for your crazy neighbors to come kill you. I think it was Minnisota that recently legalized concealed weapons permits and in the first few months violent crime droped a significant percent. I dont have #s of the top of my head. Then look at Wash. DC all guns are banned there. Does it help reduce crime? No, those that are inclined to violence type A still get guns, while everyone else is deprived of a means to defend themselves with type B.
Same concept goes for movies and games. Take a look at America's Army and UT2004. In AA you are depicting the good guys saving lives in the long run. In UT you are killing for the sake of killing. Swearing is discouraged in AA, but very common in UT.
As for sexuality, it has no place out of wedlock to begin with.
Star Wars: Rated PG-13 for Sci-Fi Violence and Immense, Childlike Stupidity.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Poor, puritan, suppressed mericans.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
It's not a 30-year epic. I'm 28 and I was born just before the original Star Wars came out. Please stop making me feel old.
Actually, the earliest examples of rifled firearms date back to the 14th century. Early rifles were hard to make, insanely expensive, and difficult to reload. The manufacturing techniques to ECONOMICALLY produce a rifled barrel didn't emerge until the 18th century (EG the Kentucky long rifle of the American Revoloution).
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Usually Christian movie reviews are good for a laugh (see CAPAlert.com) and not much else, but this guy really knows his stuff. He's a movie reviewer who happens to be a Christian, not just a Christian who thinks he automatically knows about movies. I'll be reading his stuff from here on out...
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
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.
A sex scene?
I used to work at a middle school that had occasional movie nights. The kids would start yelling "yuck!" and "ew!" if there was so much as an on-screen kiss..
Twenties Retirement
Although my working theory is that folks want to think of Americans as war-mongering, self-righteous Puritans, and this idea plays nicely into that stereotype
Well, I'm an American, and yeah, I'd agree that Americans are war-mongering, self-righteous Puritans. After all, Dumbya won, didn't he?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Hello topless Mon Calamaris dancers! :)
A couple of data points.
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 have to drag you to a "medic station" (usually a tree) and you would have to count to some pre-established number (out loud) before you were considered "revived" and able to fight again.
This, along with "kick the can" was one of our favourite games. There was a lot of honour involved. If you knew that you had been shot dead to rights, you were expected to die with no arguing. There were the occasional "mutuals" with the inevitable "I shot you first!" arguments, but these were usually solved by both parties agreeing to die.
For all the simulated violence, this was actually a very structured and honourable game. It was on your honour to play along and die gloriously when called upon to do so.
A few years later, I went to high school, and joined my school shooting team. Now I had my hands on a real firearm, and the rules changed. It became TOTALLY unaceptable to ever point a rifle at another human being; unacceptable to even let the line of the muzzle cross another human. This was enforced by actual physical violence - point a gun at somebody, even by accident, and an adult would clock you HARD in the head.
The message sank home VERY quickly. This was no game; this was for keeps, and the seriousness of the situation was such that the normal rules of who could hit you and how hard were superceded. You learned respect for the rifle and its potential very, very quickly.
A few years later on, I joined the Army, and it took me a VERY long time to overcome my aversion to pointing a rifle at another human (even in training, where we had blanks, and plugs in the muzzles to prevent any actual discharge of projectiles) And firing? Forget about it!
I remember very distinctly, during basic training, I was guarding a "prisoner encampment" (full of instructors playing at enemy) when one of them lept the wire and took off. I yelled at him to stop, raised my FN, sighted in perfectly centre of mass on his retreating back... and held that sight picture as he ran off into the distance. Just couldn't do it - even though I KNEW that I had blanks loaded, that nobody was in any danger, and I was going to be in a world of hurt for letting a "prisoner" escape. (Which I was, lemme tell you)
It took a couple of *years* of near constant practice to overcome that.
So I'm of the opinion that "pretend violence" is not a particularly big deal, so long as the distinction is made between pretend and real. Kids can and do learn the difference.
I'm also of the opinion that kids need to be exposed to firearms safety courses VERY early in life (even though I'm not particularly pro-gun) I think being exposed to firearms early removes some of the mystery and curiosity that encourages kids to go hunting for any guns that might be in the house, I think it teaches familiarity such that accidents are reduced if a gun DOES (heaven forbid) land in a child's unsupervised hands, and I KNOW it teaches enormous respect for what a gun is capable of doing to another human being.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
It doesn't. In a country where it is considered normal, it does not evoke any emotions. I have been to nudist, and normally topless beaches all my life - you do not even notice nudity when it is normal, even when you are a very healthy 14 year old.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
The invention of rifling predates the 18th century by at least 200 years. As for rifled firearms, your date sounds about right to me. In any case:
Now = 2005
"the end of the eighteenth century" = 1795
Now - Then = 210 years, which could be interpretted by most reasonable people to be "a few hundred years".
Boys are still learning to shoot rifles, I just don't think most boys still are. No, not even in America, where the insane massive gun violence rates driven and encouraged by soulless Republicans and NRA nutcases are causing 0.4% of deaths.
I'm not sure how "substantial" of a proportion it is anymore. I think boys who learned to shoot a rifle 30 years ago are learning to shoot pistols now. Most of the people I know who own or know how to fire a gun are pistol owners, and I'm from a pretty rural part of the country (Iowa).
Finally, your response is typical Slashdot attacks on ancillary data which, if adjusted from an extemporaneous guess to a researched fact, doesn't change the validity of my point. So change "As little as a few hundred years ago..." to "As little as 20 years ago..." or "Even today..." and my point is emphasized.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
If you believe otherwise, I've got this nice bridge in London I'd like to sell you.
This statement is ignorant and naive. Abundant examples exist and can be readily researched to prov you wrong here. There have been and still are cultures in which the human body is not highly sexualized. 14 year olds in nudist colonies do not exist in a state of unending arousal, nor do children who grow up in societies where topless women are the norm. Anybody who has watched 15 minutes of National Geographic should be able to figure this out.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
You're still lying. Knowingly.
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
The PG-13 pieces will be interspursed with a lot of snoring... I've never seen a Star Wars plot plod along so badly.
-jls
Techno-pagan
"People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time."
Sorry. It didn't work.
http://www.supershadow.com
Decide for yourself.
http://scripts.cgispy.com/newsboard.cgi?action=vie w&num=2&user=script
Sorry, but its 2 clicks away from the previous link. This one's direct.
And if it bothers the religious groups in the u.s WHO CARES!!!!
The religious groups in the US.
And, unfortunately, the right-wing government.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
All the kids that watched the original have grown up now ;)
Yeah, nipples are for men's plaything, not for feeding babies.
I never understand why nipples are a big no-no while the breasts themselves are fine. What attracts men more? A pair of nipple-less breasts a la brushed porn mag cover or truly flat-chested woman with nipple showing? Besides, any normal person sees nipples everyday. What's the big deal?
Then, there is that usual little flesh vs violence argument in a PG movie.
All I can say is, read the articles.
Actually, I'll do you one better. I'll quote from the most recent one on infidels.org.
"Despite all this, Flew has not retracted his belief in God, as far as I can tell."
If I were lying, it would of course be knowingly, because there is no other way to lie. But to the best of my understanding, I'm neither lying nor wrong. Would you care to further explain?
> Would you care to further explain?
... forget it, we're already gravely off-topic.
All right, "lie" is a strong word. But I noticed you haven't linked to the page where he specifically denies a belief in an anthropomorphic god -- let alone the Christian one. You only link to the article that serves your position. And not his own words. This is fundamentally misleading and intellectually dishonest.
But it takes a certain kind of intellectual dishonesty
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
I really have no idea what you are talking about, and I'm not just saying that to be disagreeable. I assume the article you're talking about is the one on Christianity Today's website, the one linked to in my sig. The article makes it very plain that Flew's belief in God is most accurately described as deism, and a good portion of it is about why he is not a Christian and doesn't plan to become one.
If I am guilty of any intellectual dishonesty, it's in negligently assuming that people (typically, adult nerds) are able to read and understand a non-technical article with minimal philosophical jargon.
If I'm guilty of something else, like enjoying watching a few people squirm.. then.. well, it's not a very Christian thing to say, but after routinely reading utterly off-topic things like, "Why not? His entire belief structure is predicated on pushing a big lie to as many people as possible. What's a little one?" on a website that's ostensibly news for nerds, I have a hard time feeling any shame.
And what a sad, sad life that must be. As someone above said, the one good thing about the backwards puritan roots in America is that we can get excited about seeing a little T&A. All it takes are some girls (gone wild) to flash their titties and we American men get a hard on. You, on the other hand, can see hundreds of hot naked women and remain totally limp, totally uninterested.
I wonder if that's why the population is on the decline over in Europe? Nobody's attracted to anybody anymore because seeing a naked woman is like seeing a brick wall? You see them all the time and so there's no special arousal?
I think you are dead wrong. Not beeing excited about the nudity by itself will not damage you arousal. You still can a very healthy and timely erection.
If you may remember, our ancestors did not wear anything. And here we are.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
"You have only shown that movies involving sex are rated differently in the US then in other countries."
You are correct. I was focused on the post I replied to, which was attempting to claim that Americans are not "self-righteous Puritans".
A.
...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
Save me, evolution?
Oh wait..
O great Natural Selection!! Select SOMEONE ELSE!!
:P
There is a shit load of countries that do have strict restriction on firearms, and where criminal gun related deaths are just as high.
Restrictions on personal freedom are NEVER good. In the end - you lose, criminals and politicians win.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
AN X Rating meant that it was not Rated. The MPAA Tried to trademark X but it was already in use. The Porn industry came up with XX and XXX to indicate that the movie depicted sex as at the time movies like Clockwork Orange and Midnight Cowboy (The only X rated movie to ever win an Oscar) had the X rating also.
Now Blockbuster has YR-17 (Mostly for foriegn films and Anime) and US TV has a totally different rating system for the V-Chip. Also Right Stuff International and ADV Films (Both distribute Japanese Movies and Anime) have their own rating system also which ranges from All Audiences - 18+ and it is better than either the MPAA's or TV rating systems.
In heaven. Everything is fine.
I'm inclined to the "realistic consequences of violence are generally better" school lately.
What I think is worse though, is a mixture, where "Fate" or "God" or whatever seems to control how bad the violence is. I'm referring to all the movies where the minor villains get shot quickly and cleanly, and the really nasty villain whom the audience has special reasons to hate gets a specially nasty demise, like falling from an airplane onto high tension wires.
Most really nasty people are still heroes in their own minds, who can internally justify the pain and suffering they inflict on others as a consequence of those other people's actions and not their own. Films and TV that encourage people to think fate will make the bad guys miss, and the good guys can automatically inflict justice just by using force, are much worse than some more violent films that show that even the nastyest bad guy may have a family that will miss him, or that innocent bystanders sometimes get hit.
With that said, remember how lousy stormtroopers' aim is? How the trees on the forest moon of Endor like to jump out in front of speederbikes? There's a definite touch of this "Fate keeps the good guys from inflicting collateral damage" mentality in the SW films.
Star Wars is far from the worst on this, hence Luke loses a hand in what's probably the best episode, and other bad things have permanent consequences even to good people. Just imagine what Star Wars would look like as six episodes of Die Hard in space.
Who is John Cabal?
PG-13 You Say???? Natalie Portman's Nipples, Here I Come!
"Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
It's all about marketing and appealing to the largest audience possible. Now that PG-13 is the preferred rating studios shoot for, the MPAA ratings system is becoming less and less meaningful. Seems like almost every film that comes out these days is rated PG-13. They're either PG movies with some racy dialogue or maybe a short "intense" scene tossed in, or R movies with some gore/nudity stripped out. Aliens vs. Predator has the same rating as The Terminal? Give me a freakin' break.
Ah I see so it did EVENTUALLY get a PG-13 Rating but it didn't have it at first. That explains the storm I remember about it a while back. Granted I was like five when RotJ was released to theaters.
Restrictions on personal freedom are NEVER good. In the end - you lose, criminals and politicians win.
I know. Hence I cited the 0.4% death rate figure. Twice as many people die of alcohol poisoning in this country than die from gun-related accidents or homicides. Other than a few fundamentalist Christians, nobody is pushing hard to get "just the hard stuff" banned that "nobody has a legitimate need for." You have no need of 100 proof liquor! We're going to ban it to save lives.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
From IMDB:t ugal:16
Finland:15
Netherlands:16
Norway:15
Por
Switzerland:14
UK:15
USA:17
But in the US, we don't have any ratings between 13 and 17. It seems plenty of other countries felt that this movie was inappropriate for 13-year-olds. Why is it so wrong that the US MPAA agrees with them?
This is not an example of the US being puritanical. This is the US agreeing with many other cultures that the movie was inappropriate for 13-year-olds.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
I've just received my invitation [ scanned image - 98 KB] to the New Zealand Charity Premiere of Revenge of the Sith for 8:00 PM Monday 16 May 2005 (NZ Time, 0800 GMT or Monday 4 AM Eastern Standard Time). The movie was classified as GA (General Admission - Recommend as suitable for Adults) however there is no minimum age limit.
If you are in a major/capital city paying a premium price (with all proceeds going to charity) is more fun than waiting a month (in hopefully the right) line at a cinema. I don't go to a premiere (due to the cost) unless it's Star Wars
Oh! printing out the invitation won't get you into the Premiere without the obverse side and the ticket for the allocated cinema seat :-(
Regards Sinesurfer A Nerd is someone who lives for technology, A Geek is someone who lives for technology and loves it