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.
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
Of course the film is going to be PG-13... because only people above the age of 13 will be able to truly appreciate Jar Jar's evisceration.
;-)
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.
Do you like German cars?
Everyone will be watching the leaked pirate a week before its in the cinema anyway...
"Sweet llamas of the Bahamas !"
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.
Don't be silly, nipples aren't suitable for children. It's probably PG-13 because somebody gets torn limb from limb. Think of the children!
s -okay-for-kids)". It makes it easier to sell merchandise to kids through happy meals etc that way.
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'
Oh, one more thing. If you take the score away from the original movies and they may have been considered really bad films. Williams' score really set the mood well.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Just wait for the Battlestar Galatica movie.
Currently bidding on sig
That's why the Transformers movie was so awesome. My favorite scene is where Spike yells, "Oh, Shit!" as a planet full of people gets destroyed. This in a G-rated kids movie.
And I turned out normal? See?
Oh, wait...
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
Banned? Illegal? Christ! Once again, thank you James Madison for the Bill of Rights...
"Excuse me, did you say 'Trekker'? The word is 'Trekkie.' I should know; I created them." -- Gene Roddenberry
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
Score +1 for funny, sure. But more specific descriptions for ratings are actually helpful to at least some parents, myself included. I care far less about the occasional "bad" word or nudity than I do about violence. Knowing which feature is responsible for a particular rating makes the ratings actually useful.
For example, "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" was rated R because of a (quite funny) rant by Steve Martin's character containing a stream of f___'s. I'd let a younger kid see that than a slasher film that's given the exact same R rating.
As for "peril", my young daughter is quite empathetic and regardless of whether I think it would damage her psyche, I'd at least know that she wouldn't enjoy the film.
If we're going to have ratings, I'd much rather they be useful.
OK I could have phrased that better. The original Star Wars films were kids films an adult could enjoy, the new ones are kids films ONLY a child can enjoy.
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
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
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
Sadly, I doubt it would work. The Timothy Zahn books (at least, the Heir to the Empire trilogy) are pretty good, particularly compared to the dismal standard of most of the other Star Wars books, but they wouldn't make good movies.
Zahn's world is very different from the one envisioned by the original movies. He deals much more in politics and intruige than in lightsabre-battles and spaceships blowing up. Of course, Lucas tried to go into this territory with the prequels (and I suspect ep 3 will be no different) and what resulted was an exposition-heavy mess.
Fundamentally, some concepts which work in a book won't work on the big screen. Just fitting one the Heir to the Empire books into a reasonable movie length (anything under three hours, for example) would mean gutting them of much of their content and either slimming the plot down beyond recognition, or leaving plot holes large enough to fly a Star Destroyer through. I can see the Hollywood blockbuster-machine going either way on that, but either option would suck.
Of course, there's also the fact that Lucas's refusal to regard anything except the other movies (and sometimes not even these) as canon. Much of the content of episodes 1 and 2 flatly contradicts some of the events in the Heir to the Empire books, particularly the bits relating to clones and cloning (the Heir to the Empire books assumes that the clones were unleashed *against* the Republic).
With the vast amount of "official" Star Wars material out there and the staggeringly low quality of most of it (particularly anything that was in any way influenced by Kevin J. Anderson), it's understandable that Lucas wouldn't have wanted to be completely hedged in. However, it is a pity that he didn't feel like being more co-operative with some of the better authors.
Sorry, this has turned into an entirely different rant to the one I started out with. Please feel free to mod me off-topic.
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
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.
I remember when Spike yelled, "oh, shit," there was a mass exodus of parents from the theater with children in tow.
The really pathetic thing was that they probably did that in response to a single word of dialogue, and not the concept of an entire world being blown up.
After all, those four little letters are way more harmful to a child's psyche than a planet full of people dying, right?
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