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 hope it's not a rating for only violence inte film, but because of nude scenes with Natalie Portman!
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.
The wookies are naked, does that make it PG-13?
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?
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
"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!"
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.
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");
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.
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.
...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.
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
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
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
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