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'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.
well, in the US anyway, but how quickly their population forgets the rest of us....
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.
Remember, gratuitous violence is okay as long as there are no naughty words.
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?
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.
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.
You laugh but I'm sure I'm not the only person on /. old enough to remember the media "frenzy" around the decision to rename Revenge of the Jedi to Return of the Jedi, even though you young whippersnappers probably have read all about it.
The appropriateness of "Revenge" used in a PG movie was a big part of it.
I was in first grade at the time, and clearly remember talking about it on the playground. "F$#% that" I think is what I said...
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!
> 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.
There's also some psychology in this, too.
Familiarity makes you more inclined to like something.
For example, experiments were done where people were shown a stack of photographs and were asked to rate the photographs in terms of how flattering they were to the subject. The stack included a photo of themselves. In the control group, their photo was normal, but with the experimental group, their photo was a mirror image (flopped, in photography parlance).
The experimental group statistically rated their photos higher. The reasoning was that the flopped image is what you see when you look in a mirror -- that is, you see yourself in the mirror more often than as you actually are, so you are more familar with that image of yourself.
So, not surprisingly, the original trilogy is more familiar to people then the new trilogy. Moreover, I think than when some fans actually saw Episodes I and II, it did not live up to expectations, and people disliked them more than they would have otherwise. As for the rest of the crowd, not surprisingly, most people are fair weather fans: they saw Episode IV because of the hype and they saw Episode I because of the hype. Although I didn't run across this list adjusted for inflation, the box office sales indicate this as well, with the best sellers being Episode IV, Episode I, Episode II, Episode VI, and finally Episode V.
Going back to familiarity, think about when you're in a restaurant, and you order an iced tea, and the waiter accidentally brings you a Coke. That first taste is awful! Not because the Coke was bad, but because you were expecting iced tea. Once you know what to expect, even the second sip will taste better.
I think many fans had played up what they thought the prequels would be like, but when Lucas delivered, it wasn't what they were expecting, and they got angry. There are probably some other reasons why people didn't like the movies (one of which is probably the fact that Lucas's insights on proto-fascism might be turning some people off as well)
I enjoyed the movies, I'm a huge Star Wars fan, and Episode II is my favorite out of the five I've seen. The new movies are flawed, but so were the old ones. All five of them have wit, low-brow humor, great special effects, cheesy special effects, memorable dialog, and groan-worthy dialog. However, I think Lucas is tying together two themes. First, he describes an almost-utopia into a dystopia, and its effort to rise again. Second, the story is about a good character gone bad and how they can be redeemed. The fact that those two themes are in a story arc that are carried though a thirty year effort shows Lucas' movies haven't actually changed much at all.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Sounds like my favorite movie review site (seriously) Decent Films, which bills itself as "Film appreciation, information and criticism informed by Christian faith."
From the Star Wars, Ep IV review:
Stylized outer-space and hand-to-hand combat sequences involving laser fire and laser swords (in one case severing an arm); two burned bodies seen at a distance; various explosions.
I originally visited the site for a laugh, but other than those blurbs and the "spiritual value" meter, there's nothing hokey about it. Read any review by Stephen Greydanus. Besides being a good writer and generally knowing his stuff, he possesses the uncanny ability to dissect films at great length without spoilers! His (always polite) shredding of the Matrix 2 is what finally sold me.
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.
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