Slashdot Mirror


Revenge of the Sith a "Blood Bath"

An anonymous reader writes "The BBC is reporting that the Revenge of the Sith is a blood bath and is to recieve a PG-13. One notable point from the article is Lucas is quoted as saying "But I have to tell a story. I'm not making these, oddly enough, to be giant, successful blockbusters. I'm making them because I'm telling a story, and I have to tell the story I intended." As he lit a cigar with a large stack of burning 20's."

780 comments

  1. Successful Blockbuster by fembots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With a PG-13 rating, parents will be forced to go with their children to watch the movie, so not only you get the expected children tickets, you now have as many adult tickets too, and the extra drink and popcorn sales. Truly a great success.

    Now imagine if this superfan camping out for 139 days is under 13....

    1. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5 months? Under 13? He'd better be at school :).

    2. Re:Successful Blockbuster by madprof · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They're not necessarily forced to go. Some really won't go and their children won't see it as a result.
      Wouldn't be a surprise if this hurt ticket sales.

    3. Re:Successful Blockbuster by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing is, the only people who are really interested in seeing the sixth movie (or third, depending on how you count) in the Star Wars saga are those that have seen the other five movies. Mostly, it's the people who were kids when "Star Wars" came out. We're all about 35 now. If we go with our kids, it'll be because we can't find a babysitter and so decide to drag our kids along with us rather than the other way around.

    4. Re:Successful Blockbuster by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the PG-13 rating is only a SUGGESTION to parents. There is no actual restrictions that under-13 year olds need a parent with them (unlike R rated movies)

    5. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great! just in time for mother's day; a slaughterfest of 'younglings'. Bah, it's crap.

    6. Re:Successful Blockbuster by soulsteal · · Score: 1

      Parents don't have to accompany children to anything under R-rated.

    7. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd go with him.

      Michael Ja^H^H^H^H^H^HJohn Doe

    8. Re:Successful Blockbuster by neoform · · Score: 4, Informative

      not to mention lucas get's 100% of ticket sales for the first two weeks, locks his movie in the largest screen in the house for 13 weeks and in some cases, get's a cut of the concession sales. (no, i'm not joking, those were the terms my theater agreed to in order to get the movie)

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    9. Re:Successful Blockbuster by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Now imagine if this superfan camping out for 139 days is under 13....

      Yea I remember when Star Wars I came out and people were camping for days....three hours before movie time I went online (movietickets.com) and purchased five tickets for me and my friends on opening night. Got to the theatre. Two lines - those who had tickets and those who were buying tickets. Those who were buying tickets would then have to go to the other line. Ahhh - the Internet----waiting in line for a ticket is lame and is only excuseable if you went to the theatre on pure impulse.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    10. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Enigma_Man · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only people at all I saw at episodes 1 and 2 were 20-somethings (including myself and friends). The olds all stayed home to watch it later.

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    11. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Theatetus · · Score: 2, Interesting
      With a PG-13 rating, parents will be forced to go with their children to watch the movie

      Not nationally, at least. A given theater manager may choose to require parental presence at a PG-13 movie but it's not part of the MPAA's system. Theaters have only agreed to enforce parental presence at R-rated movies and no children period at NC-17 movies. PG-13 is simply a stronger warning to parents than PG that they should consider whether or not their kids should see it.

      Incidentally, a popular movie having an R rating usually bumps the sales of whatever G or PG-rated movies are playing at the same time. That's why Disney summer animations made so much money: kids couldn't buy a ticket to Terminator 2, but they could buy a ticket to the Lion King and then sneak into the T2 auditorium.

      --
      All's true that is mistrusted
    12. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Gilmoure · · Score: 4, Funny

      Olds

      Is that what you yooots are calling us now?

      / Age 37 1/2

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    13. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      So...don't see it at the theater during the first two weeks and bring your own gunk?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    14. Re:Successful Blockbuster by ugauaauag · · Score: 1

      Too bad you had to actually sit with the smelly people who had been camping for days...

    15. Re:Successful Blockbuster by belroth · · Score: 2, Funny

      You young whippersnappers have no idea, you can't make a good film without someone paying the pianey in the pit at the front under the nickelodeon screen!

      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    16. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, he'd probably learn more doing this.

    17. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok grandpa.

    18. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess, you're American. No wonder your country is going to shit.

    19. Re:Successful Blockbuster by redfenix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Weren't all the adult viewers griping about how Ep1 & Ep2 were catering to kids? (e.g. Jar-Jar, Pod Race, etc, etc.)

      And I also suppose that the "Jar-Jar tongue lollipops" were marketed to 20s-40s people? And the Action Figures? And the card games? And the plastic electronic light sabers? (wait, I would like to play with those, I'll give you that one!)

      Anyway, I don't think anyone can deny that the Star Wars Marketing Machine(TM) Has been targeting those well under 13.

      --
      "It's a very tangled subsystem." --Windows kernel guru
    20. Re:Successful Blockbuster by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Add 6 years to "20-somethings".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    21. Re:Successful Blockbuster by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 1

      Of course, it's always a conspiracy. Cool geeks hate Lucas.

      Media reports that Lucas sneezed. OMG!! LUCAS GAVE THE SIGN TO THE TERRORISTS TO BLOW UP AMERICA!!!

      --

      Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
    22. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you the ones who bring your kids but won't keep them quiet? You should have a brand on your foreheads, kicked out, never to return.

    23. Re:Successful Blockbuster by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If we go with our kids, it'll be because we can't find a babysitter and so decide to drag our kids along with us rather than the other way around.

      When I went to see LOTR: Return Of The King during the day, a very young father brought his little girl with him so he could see the movie. Bad move. The kid was very interested in the cartoon advertisements just before the movie started, and when the first scene opened with Gollum biting into a fish, the poor kid went berserk and started balling at the top of her voice. I wondered if he ever tried to get a refund for his tickets since he didn't see the movie, and if anyone cited him for child abuse.

    24. Re:Successful Blockbuster by HaloZero · · Score: 1

      When did you go? Perhaps during a time when the little-types were supposed to be asleep?

      --
      Informatus Technologicus
    25. Re:Successful Blockbuster by edremy · · Score: 4, Funny
      And the Action Figures?

      Don't know about anyone else, but my brother-in-law just spent 7 hours standing in line at the Star Wars convention to get a special Darth Vader action figure. He's 30, a married college grad in the Army and thus not exactly a kid.

      Perhaps it has something to do with getting back from a tour of Afganistan. I think his wife hopes it was.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    26. Re:Successful Blockbuster by fallendragon · · Score: 1

      Whilst I agree with you about the 35ish crowd who'll be going because they were 8ish when the original came out, I'm not dragging my kids because I have to. The 7 and 5 year olds can practically quote the other 5 movies already, and can't even conciously tell that Episode I is crap - they latch onto the fun scenes like the pod race - in fact this is how they identify the movies when they decide which one they're going to watch on a rainy saturday afternoon.
      Also the peer pressure is intense to see the movie too - you obviously can't be the only one in class who doesn't get to see it because of a PG-13 rating.
      And finally even my 2 year old can identify a the star wars logo and shrieks 'star woz' whenever we put on the dvd, so thats pervasive branding for you. plus he can hum the darth vader da da da da-ta-dummmm theme too, so I'm determined to take him along too. at least his 1st ever movie will be a classic, whether its any good or not, unlike some crap like Treasure Planet or such - now those are the movies you get dragged to as a parent for real. *sigh

    27. Re:Successful Blockbuster by gstovall · · Score: 2, Funny

      My children (14/12/10/9) are taking me to the movie for my birthday. I've warned them it's dark, but they enjoy the Star Wars saga so much they don't care. They're just eager to see Annikin turn into Darth Vader.

    28. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      "Kid" is state of mind. Case in point, I may not look 12 but I damn sure act like it!

    29. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Surt · · Score: 1

      I bought the jar jar tongue pop for my 30 something wife's birthday, but then again, I did it to freak her out.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    30. Re:Successful Blockbuster by daeley · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of when we saw The Grudge in the theater and somebody had their child in there. Our jaws dropped when we first heard the kid.

      Some people just have no freakin' clue.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    31. Re:Successful Blockbuster by javaxman · · Score: 2, Funny
      In a single-datapoint study, I've determined that my 3-year-old thinks Jar-Jar Binks is really funny. He also really, really, wants to do a pod race.

      Oh, and Qui-Gon needs to see a doctor to have his tummy fixed. These *really* aren't movies for little kids, they're actually quite dark and violent.

      Upon reflection, I think Lucas knew what was coming and installed Jar-Jar in a feeble, stupid attempt to lighten things up a touch. Stupid, like I said... but I really think he's targeting the over-7 crowd. Toy manufacturers are aiming lower still, but Lucas is making some dark, messed up stuff not intended for the very young. Younger than 7 or so, seeing someone cut in half is really far from ideal. I somewhat regret agreeing to show the kid the movie, even though he seemed to deal with it quite well. I had naively thought I could show him *just* the pod race, but of course he was interested in the whole thing. I thought he'd get bored, but no such luck.

      Eventually he'll ask about the funeral pyre scene and I'll have to explain that Qui-Gon didn't make it. I'm not looking forward to that, I think kids deserve to be shielded from that kind of thing for a while... of course, even Walt Disney disagrees with me on that one. Bambi was frickin' dark that way, too. Given stuff going on in the world, I may just have to accept that he's going to have to learn about human mortality earlier than I'd like.

      I'm going to wait as long as possible before letting the kid watch Ep. 3, though, especially after hearing about the whole 'young jedi' thing from Kevin Smith. I'm not sure *I* want to see that myself ! Episodes 4-6 will come first, those are actually a little more kid-friendly. Just a little, though.

    32. Re:Successful Blockbuster by sdo1 · · Score: 1
      The thing is, the only people who are really interested in seeing the sixth movie (or third, depending on how you count) in the Star Wars saga are those that have seen the other five movies

      Yea, like my 5 year-old. He LOVES the other movies and he KNOWS this one is coming out. I'm going to go see it first and just hope that it's not too gruesome for him to handle.

      Otherwise, this may be my first (of many I'm sure) declarations of "No, you can't go see that movie."

      -S

      --
      --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    33. Re:Successful Blockbuster by biglig2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ever notice how in Ep. 1 the Jedi don't kill anything except Darth Maul? The rest of the time they're slicing up robots.

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    34. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      at some point young children will have to face up to the concept of death. whether that happens after having seen a movie or when granny/uncle/the hamster dies. and yes, bambi was awful indeed :/

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    35. Re:Successful Blockbuster by conteXXt · · Score: 1

      And there were a HELL OF LOT of us.

      this was when kids of age 10-14 could still go to the saturday matinee unescorted.

      I saw Empire 3 times on the day it came out.

      Wish I could remember what the ticket (1,une,uno) price was. bet it was under $2.00 ($CAD)

      --
      The truth about Led Zep should never be told on /. (Karma suicide ensues)
    36. Re:Successful Blockbuster by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Right. Because we all know theaters enforce age restrictions religiously.

    37. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      *All* I'm going to say on this matter is that you should buy a Pepsi product with some Star Wars advertising on it and look closely. Trust me, you'll understand what I mean.

    38. Re:Successful Blockbuster by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      My children (14/12/10/9) are taking me to the movie for my birthday.

      I'm not sure where you're from, but in the US most 14 year olds don't drive their parents anywhere but crazy.

      Oh nevermind, I see you have a nine year old. Enjoy the ride.

    39. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i like your sig

    40. Re:Successful Blockbuster by coronaride · · Score: 1

      you obviously can't be the only one in class who doesn't get to see it because of a PG-13 rating.

      Actually, you (or your kids) can..it's called "not being a sheep".

      I'm not saying that this argument is especially pertinent to Star Wars, but for most things, parents are too worried about trying to be "cool" for their kids. I'm not sure if this is reflective of the parents, themselves, being denied too much as children, or not being denied enough.

      As I stroll through stores and see the parents will bending to every whim and desire their kids have it is so apparent that there is no such thing as "backbones" anymore. It's all about being cool, being your kids' friend, not their parent. You don't want your kids mad at you, do you? Sorry for the rant..

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, go into business for themselves.
    41. Re:Successful Blockbuster by MutantHamster · · Score: 1
      > And I also suppose that the "Jar-Jar tongue lollipops" were marketed to 20s-40s people? And the Action Figures? And the card games? And the plastic electronic light sabers?

      You've never read X-E have you?

      --
      My Greatest Heist - Muisc partly inspired by the unbeatable Qwantz
    42. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Gag the kid.

    43. Re:Successful Blockbuster by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      at some point young children will have to face up to the concept of death.

      Thanks for telling us that, no one here really considered that, how stupid of us. I suggest plopping your tykes down in front of, say, "Tombstone" or something a little more bloody, just to get them used to real life.

      BTW, in real life, most young children in the West don't have to face up to the concept of death. It's in our entertainment that we need to deal with it all the time.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    44. Re:Successful Blockbuster by provolt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because if you didn't see the original Star Wars in the theater when it first came out, you really would have had no way to see it in the last 30 years.

      Seriouslly. I would guess a huge portion of the audience for Episodes 1-3 were not even born when the original came out.

    45. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Synbiosis · · Score: 1

      The thing is, the only people who are really interested in seeing the sixth movie (or third, depending on how you count) in the Star Wars saga are those that have seen the other five movies.

      Uh, no. Right now I'm 19. When Episode I came out when I was 14, the vast majority of students wanted to go see it, even though a third of them hadn't seen the originals. Immediately before and after the mvoie came out, you'd see elementary schoolkids playing with tosy from it. Same thing with episode II. And I think it's going to be exactly the same with episode III.

      Do you want to know why Ep I & II did so well despite the fact that all the original fans hated them? George Lucas managed to bring in another generation with the movies. Space combat and lightsabers will always be cool to kids, no matter the generation.

    46. Re:Successful Blockbuster by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Gag the kid.

      No. The kid will suffocate to death and then haunt the theater whenever a Disney movie is playing. Disney movies suck enough on their own without the ghost of some brawling brat.

    47. Re:Successful Blockbuster by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      What he means is that the four kids are pooling the allowance money he gives them to take him to the film.

    48. Re:Successful Blockbuster by jaywarrietto · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you're joking but in all actuality there is no law against selling PG-13 tickets to this "minor minor" (that I know of, and I'm a Box Office Cashier at the local Cinemark), so he could still get in.

    49. Re:Successful Blockbuster by msim · · Score: 1

      Although i hate to agree and do a "me too", but i have to agree 100% regarding the next generation of viewers for the movie.

      Although i'm a little older than you (i was 19 at the time, so missed the highschool fad of going to sww episode 1) I still had seen the original three and felt totally let down by what was released.

      All i have to do now is hunt for that version of episode 1 that was made minus jarjar and my life can be complete.

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
    50. Re:Successful Blockbuster by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      Kids still care about Star Wars?

    51. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since when did movie theatres ever make significant money off of ticket sales?

    52. Re:Successful Blockbuster by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      I don't want to buy a Pepsi product. Can you just tell me so I don't have to leave the house?

    53. Re:Successful Blockbuster by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      In my home theater, if you get caught with your own stuff, they will confiscate it and not give it back. I saw an usher take some licorice (which they don't sell at my theater) from a three-year old in some movie!

      Of course, everyone sneaks it in. I just think it's stupid PR to do that sort of confiscation.

    54. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

      In my home theater, if you bring your own soda in and spill it on my sofa I'm gonna kick your ass jedi style.

    55. Re:Successful Blockbuster by jroysdon · · Score: 1

      Uhm, I've got a 7 year old who has been recently getting way into Star Wars and loves watching 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6.

      In fact, he's a bigger Star Wars fan than I think I was (well, maybe not).

      We'll be awaiting this on on DVD so we can sit down and watch it together (well, I should say he'll be awaiting the DVD... I'll be seeing it in the theater).

    56. Re:Successful Blockbuster by thulsey · · Score: 1
      I was 8 when I saw the Empire Strikes Back for the first time in the theatre.

      I watched Bambi's mom bite it with no real problems. Ol' Yeller? Please, someone shut that dog up! You got a gun? GREAT!

      But my 8 year old mind could not grasp the fact that Han Solo, my idol, my hero, was simply frozen and was not dead, and I lost it! I missed the part about "Yes, he's alive. And in perfect hibernation." because my father had to drag me out of the theater as I screamed my lungs out.

      To this day, this is the only movie I've ever cried in, (you heartless bastard!).

      So I'd like to go on record and take this moment to apologize to everyone for that lapse in reason and self-control on my father's part when he chose to bring me along to the crowded movie theater those many years ago.

      I'm sorry.

    57. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Reziac · · Score: 1

      GIMME!!!!!

      And it'll look great next to my 15" vintage Vader doll...

      Oh yeah... I'm 50. I may grow old, but I refuse to grow up. ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    58. Re:Successful Blockbuster by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      To this day, this is the only movie I've ever cried in, (you heartless bastard!)

      Don't feel bad. I cried at the end of Star Trek 2: The Wrath Of Khan when Spock died, and when Kirk died twice in Star Trek 7: Generations. Of course, that was at home.

    59. Re:Successful Blockbuster by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      You young whippersnappers have no idea, you can't make a good film without someone paying the pianey in the pit at the front under the nickelodeon screen!

      Back in my day, we made Star Wars lightsaber effects by cutting holes in the film AND WE LIKED IT!

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
    60. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's actually now illegal on multiple levels, despite the common myth otherwise. First, in many places it's considered product tieing and hence forbidden. It could also be grounds for a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act or its international equivalents. Try telling that usher you're going to sue because you're diabetic and need specific sugar levels in your foods (like your sugar-free licorice, for instance) that he just confiscated. Fake a seisure, write some letters, and the upper management will literally beg for you to drop the pending suit (I've tried it and it works).

    61. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not to mention lucas get's 100% of ticket sales for the first two weeks, locks his movie in the largest screen in the house for 13 weeks and in some cases, get's a cut of the concession sales. (no, i'm not joking, those were the terms my theater agreed to in order to get the movie)

      I dont exactly what the standard movie cut is. However, having worked in a theatre its normally 5 weeks and for te first week or 2 the theatre gets about enough money from ticket sales to cover the rent. Concession gererally gets turned over to the the theatre and managers tend to get a commission. This is why concession costs are so high. One would thing if concession costs were reasonable people would buy more, but I'm not an economists.

      Anyway, this is an unusualy good deal, but the only really suprising part is the concession sales.

    62. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Nasher · · Score: 1

      This particular Old stayed at home because he could smell what a giant steaming pile of turd cake the first two movies were just by driving past the cinema. Rumours are that the latest one will be an improvement but it had better be... Lucas has a lot to make up for.

    63. Re:Successful Blockbuster by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Yea, like my 5 year-old. He LOVES the other movies and he KNOWS this one is coming out. I'm going to go see it first and just hope that it's not too gruesome for him to handle.

      Otherwise, this may be my first (of many I'm sure) declarations of "No, you can't go see that movie."

      Don't worry; just tell him that when he turns 18 there will be a fractally remastered version where non-digital actors have been replaced with computer-generated models.

      Not to mention the previously unseen scene of baby Han shooting first at baby Greedo with a rubber band ;).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    64. Re:Successful Blockbuster by qeveren · · Score: 1

      Um... I think that's called 'theft', isn't it?

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    65. Re:Successful Blockbuster by ultranova · · Score: 1

      In my home theater, if you get caught with your own stuff, they will confiscate it and not give it back. I saw an usher take some licorice (which they don't sell at my theater) from a three-year old in some movie!

      In my home country, if someone tries to confiscate property that doesn't belong to them, they go to jail.

      I was under the impression that Japan, too, had laws against robbery ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    66. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Kombat · · Score: 1

      you now have as many adult tickets too, and the extra drink and popcorn sales.

      FYI, studios don't see a single penny of concession sales. Concession sales are the exclusive profits for the cinemas themselves. In fact, that's where the theatres make the majority of their money.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    67. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      You faked a seizure?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    68. Re:Successful Blockbuster by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. My home theater is in Victoria, Texas ;)

      I imagine they have some rule against bringing your own food into a theater in that town (Cinemark-owned theaters all around), but still...taking candy from a baby? That's just bad PR.

    69. Re:Successful Blockbuster by indifferent+children · · Score: 1
      Bambi was frickin' dark that way, too.

      Is everyone too traumatized to remember Old Yeller? Bambi was a walk in the woods...

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    70. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      OK, go look at one then the next time you're out and about :)

    71. Re:Successful Blockbuster by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

      LOTR wasn't trying to be a kids' movie(s). Unlike Star Wars.

      --
      "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
    72. Re:Successful Blockbuster by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      LOTR wasn't trying to be a kids' movie(s). Unlike Star Wars.

      Funny... When did Star Wars become a kids' movie? If anything, George Lucas made a "popcorn" movie. It's probably the action figures that gives people the wrong impression that it's a kids' movie. Granted I did see the original Star Wars when I was eight years olds before it became popular. I had relatives who didn't know better.

    73. Re:Successful Blockbuster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're 7 1/2 years older than allowed. Past time the sand man paid you a visit.

    74. Re:Successful Blockbuster by ChadN · · Score: 1

      I've seen people in the theatre, with their infants, to watch Saving Private Ryan (I know because the baby cried right from the start). I've sat in front of parents who brought their daughter (I'd estimate not more than age 13, based on looks and voice) to see The Exorcist, with the kid asking the WHOLE TIME to leave because she was scared.

      The average parent is basically a fuckwit, IMO, with these being more extreme cases.

      --
      "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
  2. Meesa no tink so! by coupland · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yuh-hunh. Sin City and Kill Bill Volume 1 move over, this one's a blood bath. OOOOooooo....

    That's the problem with them damn Brits, they don't realize it's boobies in movies that's the real corrupting influence, not a little innocent killing and maiming.

    1. Re:Meesa no tink so! by madprof · · Score: 1

      The person who went to see it and reviewed it was an American...

    2. Re:Meesa no tink so! by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 4, Funny
      it's boobies in movies that's the real corrupting influence

      Amongst other things. Apparantly the Queen Amidala Hot Grits scene will be on the Star Wars III, Revenge of the Sith Unrated DVD.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    3. Re:Meesa no tink so! by millennial · · Score: 5, Funny

      I heard something about Yoda and a greased-up doll... and the possibility that Mace Windu is gay.

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    4. Re:Meesa no tink so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doh! Nothing like an opinionated American to help make your day. Another Big Mac anyone? Super-size me! ;-)

      Go Bush!

    5. Re:Meesa no tink so! by stlhawkeye · · Score: 4, Funny
      That's the problem with them damn Brits, they don't realize it's boobies in movies that's the real corrupting influence, not a little innocent killing and maiming.

      Not true. Swear words are also ruining American society.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    6. Re:Meesa no tink so! by ajs · · Score: 1

      In terms of on-and-off screen body count, this movie will dwarf Sin City and Kill Bill (both volumes combined, plus Pulp Fiction just for fun) by orders (plural) of magnitude.

      I won't spoil the movie for you, but suffice to say that if there are ANY space battles in the movie, more people die than both of those movies. Of course, you won't see most of the PEOPLE who die thusly....

      So, then we switch to on-screen death. Let's see, we know that all of the Jedi have to be gone by Ep 4, right? So, let's assume that we see some fraction of them killed. Of course, in the process we can assume that some stormtroopers get killed. That's probably Kill Bill levels right there.

      These are just the obvious deaths that have to happen.

      Add in the fact that we know one person gets horribly mutilated.... I think it's safe to say that this one will be bloody.

    7. Re:Meesa no tink so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. Swear words are also ruining American society.

      Too late. Americans have already ruined American society. And that obviously isn't enough, now they're spreading it throughout the world.

    8. Re:Meesa no tink so! by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

      Someone posted a comment the other day in regards to the vast untapped market of SW pr0n. The best part was when talked about "hot Ewok on Wookie action." I don't remember who it was, but I certainly remember almost spewing my coffee;-)

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    9. Re:Meesa no tink so! by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Come to think of it, he does wield a purple lightsaber. Hmmm..

      /this party's over
    10. Re:Meesa no tink so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the difference between an adult movie full of sex and violence and a movie for the whole family?

      -Remove the sex...

    11. Re:Meesa no tink so! by millennial · · Score: 1

      You must remember that purple is the official "pimp" color, though. And, of course, the pimp is strong in that one. Samuel L. Jackson, biatch.

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    12. Re:Meesa no tink so! by slavetrade55 · · Score: 1

      In terms of on-and-off screen body count, this movie will dwarf Sin City and Kill Bill (both volumes combined, plus Pulp Fiction just for fun) by orders (plural) of magnitude.

      Well, only like 8 people die in Pulp Fiction, so it doesn't really help the body count that much.

      Let's see...

      Flock of Seagulls
      Brett
      That guy hiding in the bathroom
      Marvin
      The Gimp
      Maynard
      Zedd (presumably dies off screen)
      Vincent

      Butch kills that guy in the boxing match (which we never see).

      Plus that woman at the car wreck gets shot in the hip. But she doesn't die.

    13. Re:Meesa no tink so! by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      In terms of on-and-off screen body count, this movie will dwarf Sin City and Kill Bill (both volumes combined, plus Pulp Fiction just for fun) by orders (plural) of magnitude.

      I won't spoil the movie for you, but suffice to say that if there are ANY space battles in the movie, more people die than both of those movies. Of course, you won't see most of the PEOPLE who die thusly....


      Well, let's see.... in Star Wars Ep. IV, A New Hope, there was a planet full of people killed, plus a Death Star full of people (a.k.a. Stormtroopers) killed. Plus a large number of incidental killing of Storm troopers. Plus the dude whose arm was severed in the cantina by Obi-Wan.

      That film was rated PG, and was not generally described as bloody.

      I infer that the ratings aren't based on body count, but on the manner in which violence is depicted.

      It is very unlikely that the new Star Wars movie will depict its violence in as brutal or literally bloody a manner as did Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction.

    14. Re:Meesa no tink so! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Someone posted a comment the other day in regards to the vast untapped market of SW pr0n. The best part was when talked about "hot Ewok on Wookie action." I don't remember who it was, but I certainly remember almost spewing my coffee;-)

      You know, I've seen an animated GIF of Leia/Chewbacca action... And a 3D render of Jabba's twilek dancer going at it with her clone... And a strange 3D-rendered film of Vaderisque "Dark Clown" being lured to a trap with the "sins of the flesh".

      But ewok porn ? Yak !

      Now that I think of it, there was that one story of what Leia did before Luke & company were brought to the ewok camp - out, mental pictures, out !

      Could have been worse, thought: could have been hot Jabba/Leia action ;).

      And I have to comment of the woefull underutilization of twilek head tails in porn of tentacle variation - they're alien, they have tentacles, so come on Japanese doujin artists ! We're all counting on you !

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    15. Re:Meesa no tink so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if they will ever release the uncensored Leia and Jabba scene from episode VI.....

    16. Re:Meesa no tink so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Add in the fact that we know one person gets horribly mutilated.... I think it's safe to say that this one will be bloody.

      What do you mean "we", who gets mutilated?

    17. Re:Meesa no tink so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're next.

      Sleep well.

    18. Re:Meesa no tink so! by kbielefe · · Score: 1
      I don't think you can use body count as a metric of how violent a movie is. It's more how they die that matters.

      Of course that doesn't keep me from trying to use kiss_count + characters_with_foreign_accents as a metric for a romantic movie when deciding whether it's my turn or my wife's to pick a movie.

      "But honey, if you want to watch a romantic movie, The Bourne Identity has more kisses in it than Sense and Sensibility, he fights all those people because he's protecting the woman he loves, and almost everyone has foreign accents."

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    19. Re:Meesa no tink so! by kwiqsilver · · Score: 1

      And it still won't come close to the "on-and-off screen body count" of Episode IV and the destruction of Alderaan (and the first Death Star).

    20. Re:Meesa no tink so! by WarpedMind · · Score: 1

      Not true. Swear words are also ruining American society. Yeah, God damn it all to hell!

    21. Re:Meesa no tink so! by dj245 · · Score: 1
      That's the problem with them damn Brits, they don't realize it's boobies in movies that's the real corrupting influence, not a little innocent killing and maiming.

      I like the aussie's approach, implied gore is often much worse than real gore. The ending of Mad Max 1 is a great example- a villian is given a choice of cutting off his leg or his legcuffs with threat of an impending explosion, and then we see Max driving away and a big explosion in the background. The choice the villian made was not shown as the imaginiation is worse than anything they could have shown on the screen.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    22. Re:Meesa no tink so! by OmgTEHMATRICKS · · Score: 1

      Well, you know what they say - Blame Lucasfilms! Blame Lucasfilms!

    23. Re:Meesa no tink so! by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "That film was rated PG, and was not generally described as bloody."

      I guess because the light saber cauterizes the wound when severing a limb? Same with the pulse rifles...

    24. Re:Meesa no tink so! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I don't remember who it was, but I certainly remember almost spewing my coffee;-)

      That's nothing. At one place I workd at, the lab guys were watching video clips of monkeys spanking monkeys. I almost did spew my coke since I thought it was porn at first. I didn't stick around long enough to see if a supervisor would walk in to spank someone's monkey.

    25. Re:Meesa no tink so! by cnelzie · · Score: 1

      Sqruh U.

      U Din't no' what the phwuQ U R talkin' 'bout.

      --
      If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    26. Re:Meesa no tink so! by sharkey · · Score: 1
      ...possibility that Mace Windu is gay.

      It's also rumored that Viggo Mortensen will be making a cameo appearance as Jedi Master Strider, complete with manly stubble.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    27. Re:Meesa no tink so! by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Hmm, maybe the guy in the black walking iron lung suit? Tall fella, sounds a lot like James Earl Jones, good with the force, evil as hell?

      Name escapes me right now...

    28. Re:Meesa no tink so! by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      Ahh, young padawan, Star Wars originally had a G rating. I should know, I saw it when I was 5. It was only later that it was decided that choping off a guy's arm was a bit graphic.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    29. Re:Meesa no tink so! by millennial · · Score: 1

      That strange 3D-rendered film became the show "Tripping the Rift" on the Sci-Fi Channel. It lasted a single season, then fizzled out.

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    30. Re:Meesa no tink so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's bullshit you little fucker.

      Damn un-American pricks.

    31. Re:Meesa no tink so! by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the cheerleaders in TX!

    32. Re:Meesa no tink so! by SB5 · · Score: 5, Funny
      That's the problem with them damn Brits, they don't realize it's boobies in movies that's the real corrupting influence, not a little innocent killing and maiming.

      Not true. Swear words are also ruining American society.


      Fuck you.
      --
      If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
      it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
    33. Re:Meesa no tink so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blame Canada.

    34. Re:Meesa no tink so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said.

    35. Re:Meesa no tink so! by iMaple · · Score: 1

      In terms of on-and-off screen body count, this movie will dwarf Sin City and Kill Bill (both volumes combined, plus Pulp Fiction just for fun) by orders (plural) of magnitude.

      Dude, H2G2 totally blows away all these in pure body count (off screen) , all the population on earth vs a measly 8 (or 9) in Pulp Fiction !!

    36. Re:Meesa no tink so! by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

      Given that violence in the media has somewhere near zero effect on behavior, and sex in the media has a corrupting effect on morals, yes the boobies are the real corrupting influence. In fact, we're probably worse at relationships for it. Now that's a tragedy.

    37. Re:Meesa no tink so! by nlinecomputers · · Score: 1

      God damn fucking sonofabitch! Where are my God Damn mother fucking mod points when I fucking need them?

      --
      Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
    38. Re:Meesa no tink so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the gimp dies, does it? I think it just got knocked out with a punch in the face.

    39. Re:Meesa no tink so! by XPulga · · Score: 1


      Frank Herbert's Dune saga is the one to be beaten on the body count department. By the end of the Muaddib's Jihad (transition from the first to the second book, if I recall correctly, and I'm not talking about the Butlerian Jihad that happened before, but the rise of the Muaddib), 12 billion people had died in the wars.

    40. Re:Meesa no tink so! by AussieVamp2 · · Score: 0

      of course, the original Mad Max here was rated R, so you had to be 18 to see it at the time, think there was an edited one for the USA?

    41. Re:Meesa no tink so! by coopex · · Score: 1

      That was a movie?!?

      All this time I stayed away from Australia because I thought it was a documentary!

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    42. Re:Meesa no tink so! by RoLi · · Score: 1

      Well I guess Wallace and friends won't set him/her/it free, also they won't keep him/her/it in the cage, so I guess it will share the same fate as Zed.

    43. Re:Meesa no tink so! by stephenbooth · · Score: 1
      So, then we switch to on-screen death.

      Interestingly, last weeks episode of Dr Who on the BBC (shown at 7pm on Saturday, a kids TV slot) had a higher on screen body count than "Terminator" (rated 15, no under 15 year olds allowed, in this country).

      Stephen

      --
      "Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
    44. Re:Meesa no tink so! by apt142 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it's got "Bad Motherfucker" written on it.

    45. Re:Meesa no tink so! by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      In the Culture-Idiran War from Iain L. Bank's book, "Consider Phlebas":

      Total casualties, including machines (reckoned on logarithmic sentience scale), medjel and non-combatants: 851.4 billion (+- .3%)

  3. "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." by GweeDo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Freaking Jedi mind tricks...

  4. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I already knew that.

    1. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Commercials in my area have been reporting this for several days now. Agree, this is old news.

  5. Too much in not enough by slashnutt · · Score: 1

    I know that it is hard to break tradition by going with a PG-13 movie; maybe the story line will be dark as promised. GL has been getting to squishy with Ewoks and Jar-Jar but if he does it right it will all be the calm before a storm.

    Then I hope that GL release an un-rated director cut that will scare the bejebus out of who ever watches it; thus, causing a call to arms for censorship from radicals. The first stage of the war would be an invasion of some third world country as a diversion. The second stage would be to build an army so that none can rival the censorship force. The third stage would be to squash any rebellions and form an empire of censorship reminiscence of the pre-era of Ozzy music made me a killer trial. Now that would be a good prequel recursive story.

    1. Re:Too much in not enough by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1
      I know that it is hard to break tradition by going with a PG-13 movie

      Bullshit Marketing ploy. The little kiddies he obviously wrote Phantom Menace for 6 years ago are all now hitting their pubety years. You think these kids are going sit through another bloodless cute-fest? I think not. The real downfall of Star Wars was Lucas having kids. Instead of making movies he started telling bedtime stories...

      I just waiting for him to go back in and have Han shoot first in his next SW re-release.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    2. Re:Too much in not enough by AviLazar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      So would the sequal to that reality be "Revenge of the RIAA" or "Return of the Napster"?

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    3. Re:Too much in not enough by bfline · · Score: 1

      So storm troopers are actually going to bleed now? Most people want a dark script of evil overtaking the good, not necessary violence, with the good prevailing. I'm not looking to see just basic violence, any action film offers that with a lame script. Hopefully they went back to what make Empire such a success. It was the darkest of all SW movies to date. If they are marketing "blood bath" it seems they are not getting it yet again.

      --
      sportsdot
      The slashcode sports site
    4. Re:Too much in not enough by bckrispi · · Score: 1
      Gah, you "George Lucas Raped my Childhood" trolls really are just a one-act show, aren't you. Everything he does is just to sell toys and cereal, isn't it?

      "Jar-Jar is just for kids" - Bitch, piss, moan.

      "TPM wasn't violent enough, he's catering to the kids" - Bitch, piss, moan.

      "ROTS is going to be too violent, he's catering to the kids" - Bitch, piss, moan.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
  6. I don't see how anyone is suprised by Scott+Lockwood · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you've read the dog of a script, then you know that it's stunningly bloody. Don't click on that link if you don't want to know everything - the whole script is there.

    --
    But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
    1. Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Don't click on that link if you don't want to know everything - the whole script is there.

      s/know everything/spend 30 years in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for DMCA violations/ :P

    2. Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We've known what's coming since 1983.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised by flatland_skier · · Score: 2, Funny

      Many Bothan's died to bring us this script! :)

    4. Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 5, Funny

      I did a quick search, and sadly can't find the part where Jar Jar get's decapitated. Can you help me find this? I know it's in there. It has to be in there.

    5. Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't joke about prison rape, it is a very cruel thing that happens every day.

    6. Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised by Deadstick · · Score: 1
      Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion.

      Going into the American Revolution without a million livres of French money, Lafayette, Rochambeau, the Comte de Grasse, 30-odd French ships of the line in Chesapeake Bay and several thousand French troops marching on Philadelphia might have been a good way to test that thesis...

      rj

    7. Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised by Scott+Lockwood · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I have to admit - I was secretly hoping that Episode II was going to be "The long slow painful torture of Jar Jar Binks" and that Episode III was going to be "The even longer slow painful death of Jar Jar Binks".

      --
      But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
    8. Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised by vranash · · Score: 1

      Lucas is saving it for a TV special :)

    9. Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised by Scott+Lockwood · · Score: 1

      A better one would be to see if they'd cough that up now.

      --
      But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
    10. Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised by mankey+wanker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why read the script when the commercials show plainly how bad the story and dialogue are going to be?

      It's a pity that people treat Star Wars as a cultural event - as if Lucas deserved to have money simply laid at his feet. It isn't, he doesn't.

      Just don't go. This guy is responsible for this piece of shit dialogue that should be written on his gravestone: "I don't like the sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating--not like you. You're soft and smooth."

      Yeah, smooth...

      I'd rather throw my money away on something a little less completely moronic.

    11. Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised by keendreams · · Score: 1

      Oh, no. The things I heard they did to this Jar Jar character were much too horrific to put in print. In fact I was told they had to film Jar Jar's death scene in parts as no one suffered bouts of nausea or became faint of heart during the shoot.

    12. Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucas is saving it for a TV special :)

      The 2005 Star Wars Christmas Special?

    13. Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Posting anonymously so the warden doesn't find out?

    14. Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what we thought... and then Jar-Jar was thrown upon us.

      I can't wait to see what horrors await us in this installment...

    15. Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why go on-line to read the script? The book and comic book are in the bookstores already and can be skimmed over a cup of coffee at the Starbucks counter. Spoiler: Anakin becomes Darth Vadar!

    16. Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised by phobos512 · · Score: 1

      "Going into the American Revolution without a million livres of French money... " You realize that a "livre" is a book, right?

    17. Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Why yes, I do. You realize that English isn't the only language that has homonyms, right?

      rj

  7. So long as... by DragonPup · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...Jar Jar meets a painful demise, I am happy.

    --
    "Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
    1. Re:So long as... by wernercd · · Score: 1

      Amen and whole heartedly second that notion. /. needs to do a vote on 'How would you like Jar Jar to Die?'. I'd love too see some good options.

      Chris

    2. Re:So long as... by essreenim · · Score: 0
      ...Jar Jar meets a painful demise, I am happy.

      Will there be torture and jarjar blood???

      Finally, an end to the incessant squawking

    3. Re:So long as... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Funny

      Me's so happy to be meeting with you Darth Vader.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:So long as... by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      He'll be defeated in hand to hand combat by C3P0.

    5. Re:So long as... by yroJJory · · Score: 1

      Well, he doesn't have a speaking line, thankfully!

      --
      Jory
    6. Re:So long as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      He died in Episode IV on Alderaan....

    7. Re:So long as... by nizo · · Score: 4, Funny

      I said it before, and I will say it again: explosive decompression; only that will make up for earlier obnoxious Jar Jar.

    8. Re:So long as... by millennial · · Score: 1

      Try again!
      101 INT. CORUSCANT-SENATE OFFICE BUILDING-MAIN HALLWAY-DAY

      They enter the main hallway of the Senate Office Building. They pass SEVERAL SENATORS, including REPRESENTATIVE JAR JAR BINKS from Naboo.

      JAR JAR: Helloo Annie. Good en to see yousa . . .

      The Gungan waves to Anakin.

      ANAKIN: Hi, Jar Jar.

      JAR JAR: Oopsin da Chancellor!! So sorry, Your Highness, sir.

      Anakin turns back to the Chancellor.

      etc.
      Note to all: HE DOES NOT DIE.

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    9. Re:So long as... by yroJJory · · Score: 1

      I saw it last night. There were no speaking lines that I could recall.

      --
      Jory
    10. Re:So long as... by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Now that would be amusing. But don't tell me I'm the only one who was disappointed when Padme helped Jar-Jar get his appendage out of the pod-racer's engine (back in Ep1)?

    11. Re:So long as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, wait a second, I -like- Jarjar. Aren't there enough meanies on screen? Anyway, he's cute. XO!

    12. Re:So long as... by FreeUser · · Score: 1

      He died in Episode IV on Alderaan....

      That's not fucking good enough, Locas! Jar Jar needs to die in agony, on screen, in as demeaning and humiliating way as is possible for one of his species, as a small downpayment for all the pain and suffering (not to mention irritation) his existence in the first two films has caused for those unfortunate enough to watch them.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    13. Re:So long as... by sharkey · · Score: 1

      That's WAY too fast. How about moderately fast decompression so he swells up like in Total Recall, and thus suffers longer?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    14. Re:So long as... by The+trees · · Score: 1

      Any painful death would be sufficient, but what I'm really hoping for is that Anakin beheads him.

      --
      $ make work
      make: *** No rule to make target `work'. Stop.
    15. Re:So long as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I ask why do you guys hate Jar Jar so much? He is kind of funny sometimes and I'm sure doesn't deserve that much of hatred. I meen he is not cool, he is not a jedi, he doesn't have breasts, he is stupid but still... why?

      BTW, would it help if he was called J4RJ4R or something?

    16. Re:So long as... by kalidasa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I said it before, and I will say it again: explosive decompression; only that will make up for earlier obnoxious Jar Jar.

      That's WAY too fast. How about moderately fast decompression so he swells up like in Total Recall, and thus suffers longer?

      There's a fine balance to be struck here. Surely Jar-Jar deserves to suffer horribly, for 20 minutes of screen time, for the sins he has committed against us. But remember: that would be another 20 minutes of Jar-Jar.

      Another approach: blow up a planet right at the beginning and then show Amidala crying because "poor Jar-Jar" was on it. And then don't show Jar-Jar. No, not at all.

      The problem here is that we'd go through the whole movie in terror at the idea that Amidala was wrong, and that Jar-Jar will show up to surprise us (and force us to lose our lunches).

      So perhaps a quick decapitation by Anakin's lightsaber, followed by a reassuring *thunk*, and a smile of satisfaction on the evil Skywalker's face, is the best we should hope for.

    17. Re:So long as... by Canberra+Bob · · Score: 1

      I was hoping for Jar Jar to get zapped by the emperor similar to Luke at the end of ROTJ. I cant think of a more fitting end.

    18. Re:So long as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > He died in Episode IV on Alderaan....

      "As if a few billion instances of collateral damage cried out in horror, but it serves them right for harboring the floppy-eared fuck. Way to go, Grand Moff Tarkin!"

    19. Re:So long as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Me's so happy to be meeting with you Darth Vader.

      You needa know what queeny and me do weetha hot grits! I BEESA YOU DADDY!

    20. Re:So long as... by nizo · · Score: 1

      I always figured Jar Jar would be the final straw that caused Anakin to go to the dark side. Somehow that would be fitting.

  8. Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since all the Jedi are going to be killed, shouldn't we expect a blood bath?

    1. Re:Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm more worried about the midichlorians IN the blood than the actual blood. Who would want a force-aware floor?

  9. The story he intended... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    From TFS:


    "But I have to tell a story. I'm not making these, oddly enough, to be giant, successful blockbusters. I'm making them because I'm telling a story, and I have to tell the story I intended."


    Yeah...we know all about the story you intended, George.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:The story he intended... by IorDMUX · · Score: 1

      I'm not making these, oddly enough, to be giant, successful blockbusters. I'm making them because I'm telling a story, and I have to tell the story I intended.

      Either that's a blatant lie, or Jar Jar is saying something quite telling about Mr. Lucas's sanity.

      --
      >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
    2. Re:The story he intended... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no, this is the story he intended. From an alternate history, long long ago...

  10. Irony by Skyshadow · · Score: 1, Funny
    Irony is: Complaining about the success of George Lucas by posting a story to a popular website about his new movie, thus providing free publicity. I wish the editors would start greenlighting stories about how badly Skyshadow sucks for having a website where he scores huge ad revenu....

    (pauses, thinks)

    Guys, give me twenty minutes.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Irony by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1

      Somewhat off topic... but what's with all the Irony posts? They are really beginning to irk me ;)

    2. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somewhat off topic... but what's with all the Irony posts? They are really beginning to irk me ;)

      Some time ago, there was a vocal segment of Slashdot who was upset about a precieved lack of proper understanding of the meaning of "irony" by most Mods. You see, "+1 Irony" was often used on posts that were just witty (intentional irony can be witty, but they aren't necessarily the same thing). So many people complained loudly that few, if any, on Slashdot were using "+1 Irony" correctly. This behavior was repeated until it became what they call a "meme".

      Of course calling things "memes" on Slashdot has become a meme itself, but that's another story, Sport.

      Clear now?

    3. Re:Irony by nizo · · Score: 1

      I think we weren't getting our FDA recommended daily allowance of irony before, but we should be just fine now.

    4. Re:Irony by 2short · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it does kind of bug me that slashdot is giving the hated Lucas free publicity. Just because he sucks, now he might get business from slashdot readers who were otherwise unaware of Revenge of the Sith.
      Good thing it wasn't a positive story, or he might have gotten business from both of them.

  11. Er? Eh... Wha... by Cylix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok...

    I guess we need to figure out how we kill Jedi in a soft well meaning conservitive and correct manner. (They can't all whisk away to ghosts can they? What's that about anyway?)

    Besides, I'd rather not watch an hour and a half of G.I. Joe style combat.

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
  12. Speilberg reckons it's great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he gave an impromptu review on XFM in the UK yesterday.

    I can't believe it but after all the disapointments I've got myself excited about it again..

  13. BBC dupe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BBC enjoys dupes too? We've known it's gonna be a PG-13 for quite a while.

  14. Bzzzt by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1

    Actually, this will probably only hurt the sales. Most of the top movies for the year are rated PG. And, on average, PG movies make more money than R rated movies. I haven't heard the statistics for PG-13, but I'm guessing it would have the same negative effect an R rating has.

    Also, I don't know of any theater that enforces the PG-13 rating. The AMC movie theaters do enforce the R rating though.

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
    1. Re:Bzzzt by Masami+Eiri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Enforcement? Its not Childer under 13 not allowed without a parent, its "Parental Guidence suggested for children under 13".

    2. Re:Bzzzt by slashnutt · · Score: 1

      From what I have read GL wanted to ensure that SW3 didn't get a NC-17 ratings as movies have not been major blockbusters.

    3. Re:Bzzzt by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      That reminds me back when I had my 13th birthday party my mom dropped me and some friends of at the theater to see a PG-13 movie, all my friends where 13 I was going to be 13 in one day. Ticket office would not sell me ticket.. True Story (luckly I ran after my moms car and caught her before she left)

      BTW the movie was Problem Child 2 if anyone out there wants to do the math feel free :)

    4. Re:Bzzzt by DarkFencer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, most (11 out of the top 20) of the top (domestic) grossing movies of all time have been PG-13 or higher.

    5. Re:Bzzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Problem Child 2"? I'd say the theater did you a favor no matter what you age was.

    6. Re:Bzzzt by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 2, Funny

      I guess statisics can be used to prove any point. :-)

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    7. Re:Bzzzt by MindStalker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Highly agreed, its amazing the crap 13 year olds will buy. And people try argue that they should have adult rights in some states. HAHAHA they shouldn't have the right to buy anything without parent permission for fear that they might encourage the next Britney Spears :)

    8. Re:Bzzzt by doofusclam · · Score: 1
      Actually, most (11 out of the top 20) of the top (domestic) grossing movies of all time have been PG-13 or higher.


      I'd imagine that would be the case if DVD sales were taken into account. The DVDs make more cash that the theatres, and although a low rating is preferable in a the latter this isn't the case for films people buy. Hence the annoying trend of 'directors cut' versions of films, which are just the original film before they butchered the theatrical release to lower the rating.
    9. Re:Bzzzt by cparisi · · Score: 1

      Um, wasn't spider-man I and II PG-13
      and All the LOTR trilogy?
      They did pretty good at the box office...

    10. Re:Bzzzt by rekenner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ... What proof of age did you have on you at 13 years old?

    11. Re:Bzzzt by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1

      Please reread my post and get back to me. Thanks.

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    12. Re:Bzzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amazing the crap stupid 13 year olds like you will buy. The ones not in "special" schools are much more reasonable.

    13. Re:Bzzzt by Ucklak · · Score: 2, Funny

      In my day,

      There was no PG-13 crap,
      Drinking age was 18,
      You could see Farrah Fawcett nekid in Saturn 3.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    14. Re:Bzzzt by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You could see Farrah Fawcett nekid in Saturn 3.

      Yeah... The only redeeming quality in that God awful movie anyway.

    15. Re:Bzzzt by kwiqsilver · · Score: 5, Informative
      Of the top 20 movies by worldwide box office gross, there are two G movies, 7 PG movies, 10 PG13 movies, and one R movie.
      1. PG13 Titanic (1997) $1,835,300,000
      2. PG13 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $1,129,219,252
      3. PG Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $968,600,000
      4. PG Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) $922,379,000
      5. PG13 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) $921,600,000
      6. PG13 Jurassic Park (1993) $919,700,000
      7. PG Shrek 2 (2004) $880,871,036
      8. PG Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) $866,300,000
      9. G Finding Nemo (2003) $865,000,000
      10. PG13 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) $860,700,000
      11. PG13 Independence Day (1996) $811,200,000
      12. PG13 Spider-Man (2002) $806,700,000
      13. PG Star Wars (1977) $797,900,000
      14. PG Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) $789,458,727
      15. PG13 Spider-Man 2 (2004) $783,577,893
      16. G The Lion King (1994) $783,400,000
      17. PG E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) $756,700,000
      18. R The Matrix Reloaded (2003) $735,600,000
      19. PG13 Forrest Gump (1994) $679,400,000
      20. PG13 The Sixth Sense (1999) $661,500,000
      So obviously PG-13 doesn't hurt ticket sales much (if at all).
    16. Re:Bzzzt by cparisi · · Score: 1

      "Actually, this will probably only hurt the sales. "

      Did I not understand this?

    17. Re:Bzzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention, I'm not sure how smart it is to send a child under 13 to a movie theatre without a parent, generally speaking.

    18. Re:Bzzzt by fizban · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FWIW, that list is completely useless. It doesn't take into account inflation, nor is it adjusted for the large increase in ticket prices over the years.

      --

      +1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.

    19. Re:Bzzzt by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Actually, this will probably only hurt the sales.

      An hour before this article was posted, my mother e-mailed me recommending that I not take my 10 and 7 year old to it, from her reading the referenced article.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    20. Re:Bzzzt by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      So 55% were PG-13 or higher. That means 45% were PG or lower.

      Unless we're voting for President, that's not a significant margin.

    21. Re:Bzzzt by evanfrey · · Score: 2, Informative

      On top of the fact that movie ratings are not a law, but an agreement between movie theaters and the MPAA (you either go by our ratings or you cant show our movie) http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/ it is a voluntary system (eveyone I asked has said they thought it was a law)

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    22. Re:Bzzzt by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2, Funny

      90% of all statisticians would disagree with that point.

    23. Re:Bzzzt by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1

      Did I not understand this?

      I guess not.

      Now think for a moment: Is possibly limiting your target audience going to do anything to help sales? Do you think the PG-13 rating is going to, overall, encourage MORE people to come or LESS people to come? Being that there are people out there who will not let their children see PG-13 movies, do you think that this somehow is going to increase the number of people who see the movie? Perhaps it will, who knows. But more than likely, this can only hurt sales, not increase them.

      Pointing out individual movies that have a PG-13 or more restrictive rating that have done well does nothing to help your argument. I didn't say that movies rated higher CAN'T do well, just that on average they don't do AS well. Now, it is quite possible that in the "cleaning" up of a movie, you might remove content that will depress sales, and in effect, end up hurting the overall sales. Especially on a movie like LOTR. But it's my opinion that if they had been able to get a PG rating on Spiderman (1 & 2), the movie would have made even more sales. I know plenty of people who didn't bring their children to them, even though their kids love Spiderman, because of the rating/content.

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    24. Re:Bzzzt by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be GPG-13?

    25. Re:Bzzzt by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 2, Funny


      Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!

    26. Re:Bzzzt by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Adn let's not forget that PG-13 came into being because of Lucas and Speilberg's Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Here's a history of the ratings system from Answers.com.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    27. Re:Bzzzt by kwiqsilver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not completely useless. It is true that the values are not adjusted for inflation, and that would be a useful update, but it doesn't need to be adjusted for ticket prices. If you're doing that, you should also adjust for G movies selling a larger percentage of matinee tickets (at a lower cost).
      It's not supposed to be a measure of how many tickets were sold, otherwise it would be measured in tickets sold. It is a measure of how much cash the movie took in. Which do you think a studio cares more about: ticket sales or dollars generated?
      For a very rigid economic analysis of movie profitability and its relationship to film ratings, that list would not be a good source. But for the purposes of this discussion of whether the PG-13 rating will hurt RotS, that list is a very good indicator that a PG-13 rating does not harm ticket sales.

    28. Re:Bzzzt by Surt · · Score: 1

      The obvious way that having a PG-13 rating can increase sales is by increasing the 'cool' factor for a movie. It's easy for kids to sneak into movies in spite of ratings, and so increasing their desire to do so (what does a kid want more than something he can't have?) is a clever way to increase sales.

      Think teens and cigarettes. What part of cigarette smoking is intriguing before addiction sets in?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    29. Re:Bzzzt by eestar · · Score: 0, Troll

      Not a single good movie on the list, except for the Lord of the Rings. For god sakes, people watched Independence Day and loved it, we are stupid.

    30. Re:Bzzzt by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1, Funny

      83% of statistics are made up on the spot.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    31. Re:Bzzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over 60 percent of the dollars in the top 15 movies belong to one of four series: LotR (21%), Potter (19%), Star Wars (12%), or SpiderMan (11%).

      Just under 50 percent of the dollars in the top 15 movies belong to pre/sequals. In fact only only 25 percent of dollars belong to stand-alone movies, no prequels and no sequels.

      Most interestingly only one of the top 15 movies used a Apple Powerbook to infect a vastly superior alien race through a simple TCP/IP connection, which apparently is standard architecture around the galaxy.

    32. Re:Bzzzt by kjh1 · · Score: 1

      This is probably stating the obvious, but I think this list also indicates that the under-17 population accounts for a significant proportion of ticket sales. With the exception of a few, most of these movies definitely have qualities (in part or fully) that appeal to a younger crowd.

    33. Re:Bzzzt by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I always find these movie ratings hilarious. Titanic featured a fully naked female(we are talking boobs, pubic hair etc) and still received a pg-13 rating, whereas movies that use the word "fuck" are given R ratings.....

    34. Re:Bzzzt by pizzaman100 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Here's the adjusted list (domestic):

      Title, studio, adjusted amount, year of release

      1. Gone with the Wind MGM $1,262,778,900 1939^
      2. Star Wars Fox $1,113,247,500 1977^
      3. The Sound of Music Fox $890,096,100 1965
      4. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $886,589,600 1982^
      5. The Ten Commandments Par. $818,750,000 1956
      6. Titanic Par. $802,161,800 1997
      7. Jaws Uni. $800,492,600 1975
      8. Doctor Zhivago MGM $775,846,600 1965
      9. The Exorcist WB $691,054,200 1973^
      10. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Dis. $681,250,000 1937^
      11. 101 Dalmatians Dis. $624,482,800 1961^
      12. The Empire Strikes Back Fox $613,629,000 1980^
      13. Ben-Hur MGM $612,500,000 1959
      14. Return of the Jedi Fox $587,871,300 1983^
      15. The Sting Uni. $557,142,900 1973
      16. Raiders of the Lost Ark Par. $550,886,600 1981^
      17. Jurassic Park Uni. $538,786,500 1993
      18. The Graduate AVCO $534,468,200 1967
      19. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace Fox $530,138,300 1999
      20. Fantasia Dis. $519,021,700 $76,408,097 1941^
      21. Source: Box Office Mojo

    35. Re:Bzzzt by Gondola · · Score: 1

      I've had the opposite experience. I was trying to see a movie and purchase a child's ticket (I was like 11 at the time) but the dude didn't believe I was 11. I was an early sprouter.

      He finally gave in at the child's price, but he gave me the evil eye.

    36. Re:Bzzzt by Verteiron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let it hurt sales. If it helps keep the screaming babies out of the theater, I'm all for it.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    37. Re:Bzzzt by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      Bzzt back at'cha: Prior to the PG13 rating, it was not entirely uncommon to see boobs in a PG film. And from what I remember, there was no bush in Titanic. Also, a single "Fuck" will certainly not warrant an R rating.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    38. Re:Bzzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not anymore, but it used to (I'm not sure when that changed, late 80s perhaps?). That's why it's labeled "the R-rated curse word".

    39. Re:Bzzzt by mrbooze · · Score: 1

      I don't know about *useless* unless one is going to argue that movie ticket prices have come down since 1996.

      Simply adjusting for inflation alone also doesn't necessarily give useful numbers. There are a *lot* more movie screens available now than there were in the 1950s, for example.

      Now let's see a list based on average number of tickets sold/screen!

    40. Re:Bzzzt by e_slarti · · Score: 1

      Okay... What I liked was his comment at the end..."But I have to tell a story. I'm not making these, oddly enough, to be giant, successful blockbusters. I'm making them because I'm telling a story, and I have to tell the story I intended." If that's true, then WHAT THE FARK WAS JAR-JAR BINKS????

    41. Re:Bzzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but Alan Partridge is a jerk.

    42. Re:Bzzzt by fizban · · Score: 1

      Wow, dude. You obviously have some self-esteem problems if you'd waste your time putting down others on a nerd internet site. Damn, that's the low of the low.

      --

      +1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.

    43. Re:Bzzzt by fbjon · · Score: 1
      But oh, how I wish he had been there. Or his grandparent.

      Wait, which kind of bush did you mean?

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    44. Re:Bzzzt by smokeslikeapoet · · Score: 1

      Unless of course you live in the State of Tennessee, U.S.A. where the MPAA is the law. Children under the age of 18 are not allowed, by law, to attend a movie with an "R" rating. Compliance is not voluntary and theaters have been fined. Here we allow a private organization to censor public theaters. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to subject children to Pr0n, but I also think that as a parent you should know where your children are, and stop expecting movie theaters and the police department to babysit for you.

    45. Re:Bzzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From boxofficemojo.com

      * Adjusted to the estimated 2005 average ticket price of $6.25. Inflation-adjustment is mostly done by multiplying estimated admissions by the latest average ticket price. Where admissions are unavailable, adjustment is based on the average ticket price for when each movie was released (taking in to account re-releases where applicable).

      Where do tickets currently cost $6.25? Maybe with a senior citizen discount. I haven't paid $6.25 in 15 years. Using this method Titanic is shifted down $1B dollars? Keep in mind it says 'Domestic' totals

    46. Re:Bzzzt by evanfrey · · Score: 1

      http://www.stardustdrivein.com/mpaa_rating_system. htm http://cyhigh.jacksonsun.com/news/movies.html These were from Tennessee and they state that the rating system is not a law (although it may have changed there). As far as I am aware, it would be a violation of rights to ban most (porn not withstanding, although even then I dont know where the line is drawn) movies from anyone. At least some group would get up and scream about thier rights.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    47. Re:Bzzzt by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Do you think the PG-13 rating is going to, overall, encourage MORE people to come or LESS people to come?

      I generally don't even consider seeing a movie if it's rated PG or G unless I've heard about it before (eg: Star Wars, Shrek, Nemo, etc.). So for an average movie, it's possible that a PG-13 rating will encourage *more* adults to see it than a PG movie would. But again, Star Wars falls into the category of "gonna see it no matter what the rating" so you're right in that PG would likely result in more sales than PG-13.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    48. Re:Bzzzt by Velk · · Score: 1

      To bring that a bit closer to the original discussion - that adjusted for inflation list contains 1 "R", 4 "PG-13", 8 "PG" and 7 "G", and can't really be compared with the first list given the first is international and the second is domestic.

      On the whole I feel that the the original list is actually a better indicator overall.
      Times change, culture changes - how well a PG-13 movie would perform in 1970 has very little bearing on how well the exact same movie would perform today.

    49. Re:Bzzzt by GoddessEvilena · · Score: 1

      Now parents that want to see the movie have an excuse they can tell their employers when asking for May 19th off.

    50. Re:Bzzzt by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

      Children under 13 are not allowed into the movie theater without the guidance of a parent. Nuff said.

      --
      "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
    51. Re:Bzzzt by jigyasubalak · · Score: 0

      I really wonder what "parental guidance" means.
      I mean what does the accompanying parent do
      during the display of sexual content or violence?
      Cover his child's eyes? Start giving counselling
      if the kid looks disturbed? Oh, What does it mean?

      --
      The best planning can be done after the project completes.
    52. Re:Bzzzt by senior.wrangler · · Score: 1

      There was no pubic hair in Titanic. Leo's head was blocking said bush. And you're incorrect about the word "fuck". As proven to humorous effect in "Be Cool", you can say "fuck" exactly once and the movie can still be PG-13.

    53. Re:Bzzzt by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Leo's head was blocking said bush."

      I'll admit that I've not seen the movie so forgive me, but wouldn't the above certainly warrant at least an R?

    54. Re:Bzzzt by niktemadur · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmmmm. Harkening back to the old days, I'm trying to remember PG movies that would be PG-13 or even R nowadays. Here's a few:

      Airplane! (brief frontal boob flash).
      Logan's Run (brief profile boob flash).
      Arthur (profane language).
      A Bridge Too Far (the Saving Private Ryan of its day).
      Excalibur (nudity, sexual situations).
      Patton (a persistent barrage of profane language).
      Ragtime (prolonged topless scene with Elizabeth McGovern).

      Then there's the strange case of Nicolas Roeg's Walkabout, which, despite having prolonged scenes of full frontal nudity (a skinny dipping Jenny Agutter), was embraced by an american christian coalition for family values, who recommended that the whole family should see it. The film's R rating was downgraded to a GP rating, which stands for General Public, the modern equivalent of G!

      Finally, if memory serves, the first PG-13 film was Red Dawn.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    55. Re:Bzzzt by coaxial · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I always find these movie ratings hilarious. Titanic featured a fully naked female(we are talking boobs, pubic hair etc) and still received a pg-13 rating, whereas movies that use the word "fuck" are given R ratings.....

      Albert Brooks had a great comment about the very use of the word "fuck" with regard to ratings. He was hawking "Lost in America" on Conan O'Brien. He mentioned the movie got an R raiting because "fuck" was "used in a sexual context". Brooks pointed out, "[Say,] 'I want to fuck you over this desk' you'll get an R, but if you say, 'I want to fuck you over with this desk,' you'll get a PG-13. Exactly what are minors being protected from?"

    56. Re:Bzzzt by coaxial · · Score: 1

      [Albert Brooks] was hawking "Lost in America" on Conan O'Brien.

      Actually he was hawking a different movie, but the quote is still from an appereance on that show.

    57. Re:Bzzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Return of the Jedi Fox? Cool.

    58. Re:Bzzzt by SamSim · · Score: 1

      Titanic did in fact contain one instance of the F-word...

    59. Re:Bzzzt by Sirch · · Score: 1
      Statistics are like a bikini - what they reveal is enticing, but what they cover up is vital.
      -- Unknown
    60. Re:Bzzzt by cparisi · · Score: 1

      Well, according to IMDB, Spider-Man is #6 all time gross (US) and Spider-Man 2 is #8 all time gross. I actually think they would have done *worse* if the PG-13 content was edited out. The stuff that made it PG-13 (stylized violence and action) made the movie better and probably sold more tickets.
      Not to mention Titanic, which is the top grossing ever and also PG-13. (
      The teenagers are the ones who will see the movies tons of times if they think it is cool (I was one of them once) and the PG-13 rating (and content that caused the rating) will help make it cool.

    61. Re:Bzzzt by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 1

      Titanic did in fact contain one instance of the F-word...

      No it didn't, that was me realizing I'd just paid seven bucks to see it.

      --

      I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
    62. Re:Bzzzt by clickster · · Score: 1

      Does anyone know where I can find:

      1. The top grossing movies of all time in adjusted dollars

      2. The top moveis of all time by the # of tickets sold

      Going by unadjusted gross is highly misleading, but that's how they always seem to do it. (not aimed at the poster, but at the movie industry, the media, etc)

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    63. Re:Bzzzt by clickster · · Score: 1

      *movies, not moveis

      Just committing spellicide before the Grammar Nazis march me off to Spelling and Grammar Camp

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    64. Re:Bzzzt by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Just my word, I should have just said I was 13, but I said I would be 13 in a day thinking it didn't matter.

    65. Re:Bzzzt by Starcub · · Score: 1

      Exactly what are minors being protected from?"

      Whatever the MPA deems is morally acceptable. More discriminating viewers might be interested in this site:

      http://www.usccb.org/movies/index.htm

    66. Re:Bzzzt by zrk · · Score: 1

      If it's the Star Wars we've been waiting for, many of us will return to the theater again and again, and thus make up for the loss of kiddie ticket sales.

      I lost count after seeing A New Hope more than 10 times back in the day (when HAN SHOT FIRST, dammit!).

    67. Re:Bzzzt by KnarfO · · Score: 1

      Heh, back then, she was actually *worth* seeing nekid! :-)

      --


      "Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
    68. Re:Bzzzt by th3space · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact that the rating PG-13 didn't even exist until the early/mid 1980s. Prior to that, a movie was G/PG/R, so there was a lot more gray-area as to what was acceptable/not acceptable. I think the most interesting list would be to see how movies have fared since the introduction of the PG-13 rating, like a top 20 domestic and international.

      Heck, something in my memory is trying to tell me that either Gremlins or Raiders of the Lost Ark was the first movie to ever be granted that rating...but I could very well be wrong.

      --
      "How like you to drag your keyboard to a gun fight." - Aaron Bedard (BANE)
    69. Re:Bzzzt by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was because of the PG rating on BOTH of those movies that people decided they needed a PG-13 rating. So...I guess you could say that they got the PG-13 rating afterwards.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    70. Re:Bzzzt by ChadN · · Score: 1

      "Lost in America" came out in 1985 (it was about yuppies), so how was he promoting it on Conan O'Brien (which started in '92 or '93). I assume you mean he was on Johhny Carson's show?

      Good point, though. Brooks is a hilarious guy (he was always good on Carson). Any fan of his should rent Critical Care, a somewhat mediocre movie with some hilarious Albert Brooks moments.

      --
      "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
    71. Re:Bzzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean "Fucking Shrek", the first all-CG guy-on-donkey porn movie?

    72. Re:Bzzzt by ChadN · · Score: 1

      Airplane! (brief frontal boob flash).
      Plus shit hitting the fan, which upset my mom much more than me seeing boobies.

      Walkabout had all manner of inappropriate (on paper) for kids grossness and stuff in it. Awesome that it was G. I've seen Jenny Agutter naked on TV twice! (Walkabout and Logan's Run, both on your list). The 70's weren't all bad...

      --
      "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
    73. Re:Bzzzt by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Titanic featured a fully naked female(we are talking boobs, pubic hair etc)

      WHAT? Crap, I must have zone out before the good part!
      Well, I woke up before the ship sank at least.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    74. Re:Bzzzt by coaxial · · Score: 1

      I even followed up to my own post pointing out my own mistake. I think he was hawking another movie, but he was most definatlely on Conan and he most definitely made that point. Brooks tells that story whenever ratings are discussed.

      http://slate.msn.com/id/2000110/entry/1001238/

    75. Re:Bzzzt by th3space · · Score: 1

      D'oh! You're right.

      I remember being a little tyke and walking right into both of those movies at the theater in Levelland, Texas...I miss that place...well, the theater, not the podunk town.

      --
      "How like you to drag your keyboard to a gun fight." - Aaron Bedard (BANE)
  15. Article has spoilers.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and a warning to the effect would have been nice.

  16. PG-13? by ilyaaohell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it was really a blood bath, it would be rated R. There's probably not gonna be anything more violent here than what we saw in Spider-Man 2.

    On the other hand, I think the previous two Star Wars movies have been some of the most violent PG-rated films since the introduction of the PG-13 rating in the 80s. So, if MPAA is continuing to rate Star Wars on a curve just because it's targetted at children, maybe my original analogy is wrong after all.

    --
    UNIX: A computer user is defined as a programmer. WINDOWS: A computer user is defined as a consumer.
    1. Re:PG-13? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if MPAA is continuing to rate Star Wars on a curve just because it's targetted at children

      It's not so much the film is targeted at children, it's the fact that the merchandise is targeted at children. Why make a few lousy bucks on tickets when you can make millions on happy meals, action figures, cartoon spin-offs, etc?

      If the Star Wars films were rated higher, ticket sales might drop 10%, but the merchandise profit would drop 90%.

    2. Re:PG-13? by pg110404 · · Score: 1

      If it was really a blood bath, it would be rated R.

      I really wonder sometimes what goes on in the minds of censors. I recall when star trek 6 the undiscovered country (ST6:UDC) came out, st:tng was already established and klingon blood was mentioned as being red.

      When ST6:UDC was being run by the censors, they kept their younger audience rating only by changing the colour of the blood to this fruity pinkish-purple colour. It's still the same blood but the colour was different and therefore not as bad as if it was normal blood red.

      Similarly when trey parker and matt stone made south park bigger, longer, uncut, they managed to mess with the censors enough to keep all them naughty words without getting the R rating.

      My view of certain ratings v.s. other ratings seem to differ greatly from what censors think and I think they live in some dream world. I pretty much agree with how south park put it when the characters of the movie got all up in an uproar because 'violence is ok' but 'naughty words are bad'. In my opinion, it's like trying to get people not to offend other people by making it some kind of hate crime by using certain bad words (the whole politically correct movement), but showing the animosity behind the words is ok? What it fails to address is the real issue that some people show some kind of hatred toward other people. You can call an african american that or a n****er, but in the end if you show that person disdain, you're still showing the same disdain and racial biggotry and suger coated words will in the end not make much of a difference in the hearts and minds of people.

      I'd have no problem with PG-13 or even PG-7, as long as it's PG when there is justifiable violence (there are good guys and there are bad guys and the good guys and bad guys fight it out). It's like trying to shelter kids during times of war and trying to explain why dad or uncle bob has to go and fight and kill other people. There is a real reason why. What I find strange is how some psychopathic bomber in a movie might go around destroying buildings and blowing people up and as long as you don't actually see body parts flying around on the screen, it's ok for kids, in fact it doesn't really need to be explained. I find it somewhat hypocritical of the censors to allow one and not the other because it's all relative and the perceived violence in one is overshadowed by the explicit violence in another, so this one is not as bad as that one.

      Exposing kids to the brutal reality of life that some people are out to get you and it's your duty to stop them to me is fine given the right context (that the parent takes the responsibility to explain it to their child for example that there is the emperor wanna-be with his darth vader sidekick running around trying to control and dominate every one and that people then have to rise up and defend themselves from any would be tyrrant) and I've seen R rated movies that to me don't justify that rating. I've also seen some PG rated movies that quite frankly portray the same thing but because it's not explicity graphic might not elicit the same discussion between parent and child and thus could warp the perceptions of such child.

      Besides, with the whole movie rental industry, there is absolutely nothing to stop some parent who doesn't really care about the rating system and the appropriateness of the movie to rent R rated movies and let their kids watch it when they get home, so in the end, if the theatre prevents minors from seeing it there, it becomes moot at home.

      Maybe movie ratings should focus on 'what and why the story is that's being told', not 'how it's being told'.

    3. Re:PG-13? by Stiletto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I really wonder sometimes what goes on in the minds of censors.

      then...

      You can call an african american that or a n****er,

      Self-censorship is the worst kind, my friend. If you're going to point out the goofiness of censorship, It doesn't help your argument when you censor yourself!

    4. Re:PG-13? by KillerDeathRobot · · Score: 1

      Similarly when trey parker and matt stone made south park bigger, longer, uncut, they managed to mess with the censors enough to keep all them naughty words without getting the R rating.

      No, they managed, barely, not to get an NC-17 warning.

      --
      Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
    5. Re:PG-13? by pg110404 · · Score: 1

      No, they managed, barely, not to get an NC-17 warning.

      I thought R was 'restricted' as in restricted to 18+ so 'managed not to get an NC-17 warning' and managing not to get an R to me would have essentially been the same.

      I've stopped having to worry about movie ratings for 18 years now and I'm single, no kids, so I never bothered to keep up with changes in the rating system. When I was growing up, I remember the 'R' rating as restricted as in adults only (or at least that's how my parents saw it, thus when terminator came out they wouldn't let me see it since it was rated 'R' in the 80s).

      To me, NC-17 and my previous post of R is only different by 1 year (NC-18), so when I said 'without getting the R rating', that's what I meant (managed, barely, not to get an NC-17).

    6. Re:PG-13? by ilyaaohell · · Score: 1

      You have no kids? Gee, why doesn't that surprise me after reading your anti-censorship rant?

      And, as is clearly labeled on MPAA's ratings logos:
      R -- Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.
      NC-17 -- No one 17 and under admitted.

      --
      UNIX: A computer user is defined as a programmer. WINDOWS: A computer user is defined as a consumer.
    7. Re:PG-13? by superyooser · · Score: 1
      If it was really a blood bath, it would be rated R.

      You're on to something. It's called R-13.

    8. Re:PG-13? by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      Ummm...the South Park film was rated R, and only just barely managed to miss getting NC-17. I remember this clearly, because I was called in to act the part of the 'guardian' to get my brother's best friend's girlfriend's kid brother (*whew!*) into the film (I was > 21 at the time, and so qualified for the role). There were cops (real cops!) there checking IDs.

      That said, I'm very much not proud of getting a 13 year old into that movie. Sometimes those ratings are what they are for a reason, as I learnt that day. Hell, I'm not proud of seeing it myself.

    9. Re:PG-13? by Not_Wiggins · · Score: 1

      If it was really a blood bath, it would be rated R. There's probably not gonna be anything more violent here than what we saw in Spider-Man 2.

      Agreed. Probably what the Brits are reacting to is implied violence... sorta like that bathroom scene with the chainsaw in Scarface; you won't see it explicitly, but you'll be able to construct in your mind's eye what is happening/has happened.

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
    10. Re:PG-13? by pg110404 · · Score: 1

      Gee, why doesn't that surprise me after reading your anti-censorship rant?

      Actually now that I've read up on their rating and became familiar with it, I'm more pro than anti.

      Put in context, I'd be less willing to let kids see a movie rated PG-13 without my accompanying them even though the MPAA says, 'your kids can see it without you, but we caution you there's blah blah blah in it', making it R-13 and their rating of R would in my mind be NC-18, but then I'd probably see it first on my own before deciding to go see it again with them after the fact, but in any case, R v.s. PG-13 or even PG-17 is all a matter of symantics to me.

    11. Re:PG-13? by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Similarly when trey parker and matt stone made south park bigger, longer, uncut, they managed to mess with the censors enough to keep all them naughty words without getting the R rating.

      Wrong. The movie was most definitely rated R. They avoided the "dreaded" NC-17.

      IMDB even says this on the trivia page:

      "Paramount originally asked Trey Parker and Matt Stone if they could make a PG-13 rated film. They said no and would not agree to make a movie until the studio agreed that the final product would be rated R."

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    12. Re:PG-13? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A very good point.

      It might also behoove the original poster to learn to spell. People might get upset if you go around calling them "nigggers."

    13. Re:PG-13? by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      There were cops (real cops!) there checking IDs.

      Interesting, especially since movie ratings aren't written into law, they're a voluntary self-governing scheme. The theater could have let in all the kids they wanted and there's not a thing the cops could have done about it.

      I wonder how they justified wasting taxpayer money on something this stupid?

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
    14. Re:PG-13? by TCQuad · · Score: 1

      If it was really a blood bath, it would be rated R.

      No, the MPAA's rule has always been that horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty woids.

    15. Re:PG-13? by BlueHands · · Score: 1

      don't forget - shows any of those Dirty Pillows and you get an R....

      --
      I mod everyone down who says "I'll get modded down for this." I hate to disappoint.
    16. Re:PG-13? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is why there are so many American school kids massacred in their classrooms by poor little misunderstood Jonnys. Hey kids it's ok to go and kill all your friends but don't swear at them...

  17. I, for one... by Stormwatch · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...would love to see Jar Jar Binks' death scene.

    1. Re:I, for one... by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      Can't we just assume he's dead. Even 10 seconds of death is too much jar jar for me :)

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    2. Re:I, for one... by theendlessnow · · Score: 4, Funny
      ...would love to see Jar Jar Binks' death scene.

      I don't want to see Jar Jar dead or otherwise. How about a cremation urn in the background with a tiny disco ball hovering over it? We'll know what it is.

    3. Re:I, for one... by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      He doesn't die, he ends up in a metal bikini dancing for Jabba.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    4. Re:I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd prefer to have a character mention his death in passing. That way we know he's dead, but we don't have to see him. "Oh no, Chancellor, someone assassinated Representative Binks!" -Random Loser "Excellent.." -Palpatine in a Burns Voice

    5. Re:I, for one... by CMRichar · · Score: 0

      oddly enough, here would be a good reason for ani to have gone to the dark side..he 'accidentally' offed jarjar, and is now haunted by him, a'la luke and obi-wan.. Just the thought of a ghost jar jar that never goes away should be enough to make someone exceptionally pissed off...

      --
      "Good night, good work, sleep well, I'll most likely kill you in the morning." - Dread Pirate Roberts
  18. Isn't this good? by Grakun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hate it when directors cut down a movie just for a rating. This is a good thing. "A lot of people saying how can you do this? My children love these movies. Why can you not let them go see it?" he said. He's not preventing them from seeing it. He's just warning the parents that it may not be suitable for them. The parents get to decide wether or not they want their children to see it.

    1. Re:Isn't this good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parents get to decide wether or not they want their children to see it.

      So the parents buy tickets, see it to determine whether their children can, and if so then go back (buying more tickets) with their children for a second time.

      Hmmm...

    2. Re:Isn't this good? by Ahnteis · · Score: 1

      You know what I hate? When they throw in the [sex scene|gory death|cussing monologue] just to get a "worse" rating.

  19. Uh, yeah... by Otter · · Score: 1
    Lucas said he was getting "a lot of flak" from parents concerned about the film's US rating.

    "A lot of people saying how can you do this? My children love these movies. Why can you not let them go see it?" he said.

    Uh, sure. There's lots and lots of parents monitoring fanboy sites and complaining to Lucasfilm about the rating of an unreleased film. I know every time I have a concern about an upcoming Star Wars movie, I just get George on the phone to complain...

    1. Re:Uh, yeah... by raehl · · Score: 1

      There's lots and lots of parents monitoring fanboy sites

      Amazingly enough, some Star Wars fanboys have managed to successfully reproduce since 1977.

  20. Obligatory.Troll by Dante+Shamest · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm not making these, oddly enough, to be giant, successful blockbusters.

    No way, dude!. I couldn't tell that from the previous 2 movies!!

    Perhaps the lack of computer effects was the reason why the original 3 movies were so successful.

  21. The only way to save the franchise.... by Jailbrekr · · Score: 1

    is to slaughter all the idiotic characters introduced in episodes I and II in as painful and drawn out way as possible.

    Oh wait, they really fuck up Anakin. Ok, 1 down, now throw in some serious Jar Jar retribution. Think "exploding frog".

    --
    Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
    1. Re:The only way to save the franchise.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "So why'd you leave Tatooine? Was it the desert?"

      "No."

      "The criminal element?"

      "No."

      "The poverty?"

      "No."

      "The slavery?"

      "No."

      "Well what was it?"

      "Some jackass threw Jar Jar Binks into a pit of man-eating Sarlacc. He's been screaming 'Meesa needs help! Meesa ouchies! Help meesa!' for the last 300 years. Only 700 more to go."

    2. Re:The only way to save the franchise.... by Tongo · · Score: 1

      The frog in a blender is a better idea...

    3. Re:The only way to save the franchise.... by cab15625 · · Score: 1

      Think Gremlins (one of the original PG-13 movies) when considering Jar-jar's death scene.

    4. Re:The only way to save the franchise.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is actually not correct. (Gremlins as a PG-13 movie). Gremlins was one of the straws that broke the camels back where PG ratings were concerned. Gremlins was probably the most surprisingly violent and gross movie I've ever seen. Watching a Nightmare or a Friday the 13th, you expect a certain level of gore and violence. Gremlins came with similar gore and violence to your average horror flick, but with a marketable couple of toys (Mogwai and Gremlin) that advertised easily without giving away just how gory the movie was. I was twelve at the time, and I thought Gremlins should have been rated R.

    5. Re:The only way to save the franchise.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > "Some jackass threw Jar Jar Binks into a pit of man-eating Sarlacc. He's been screaming 'Meesa needs help! Meesa ouchies! Help meesa!' for the last 300 years. Only 700 more to go."

      And I made 10,000,000,000 credits selling tickets to the Sarlacc Pit before even I got tired of it!

  22. PG-13 is not binding (TFA is wrong) by oldosadmin · · Score: 4, Informative

    In my state (NC), at least, PG-13 is not a binding rating.

    (Theoretically) A 7 year old could walk up and get into it without a parent. It's not like R, where it is enforced parental guidence, it's just a strong SUGGESTION.

    --
    Jay | http://oldos.org
    1. Re:PG-13 is not binding (TFA is wrong) by omahajim · · Score: 1

      You may live in NC, but I would prefer to live in NC-17.

    2. Re:PG-13 is not binding (TFA is wrong) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well in my state, at least, PG-13 or R doesn't mean shit as anyone can go watch whatever he feels like.

      Thank god I'm from Europe.

    3. Re:PG-13 is not binding (TFA is wrong) by hackstraw · · Score: 3, Informative

      In my state (NC), at least, PG-13 is not a binding rating.

      Binding under what pretense?

      The ratings are voluntary and self moderated by the MPAA. There is no legal obligations or enforcements whatsoever. The enforcement is done at the movie theater by the movie theater people. I'm sure it varies much more from theater to theater than from state to state.

    4. Re:PG-13 is not binding (TFA is wrong) by thebiggs · · Score: 1

      You're right, it is moderated by the MPAA, and it's up to the theater owners to do the enforcing. How much enforcing they do corresponds pretty directly with the politics of the moment.

      (I remember being CARDED at the door (not the ticket counter) of an R-rated movie the week after Columbine)

      Since the whole rating system is basically in place to keep the government off their backs, and this government is particularly...sensitive to its "family friendly" constituency, it seems pretty likely that the enforcement will be with them for this movie.

    5. Re:PG-13 is not binding (TFA is wrong) by DongleFondle · · Score: 1

      R and NC-17 ratings aren't technically enforceable either. A 7 year old could theoretically walk up and buy a ticket to go see "Swallow the Leader" or "Saving Ryan's Privates". The rating system is an agreed upon, industry standard.

      Now, if you as a theater owner actually let little Timmy or Suzy into see "THE ANAL GIRLS OF TOBACCO ROAD 2 : VAGINA SLIMES", then you could sure as hell get prosecuted for corrupting a minor, but only to the degree that the content of the movie violated the generally accepted standards of decency of your community. There is nothing inherently illegal about allowing people under 17 to see an NC-17 rated movie, per se. It's the 'content' of a movie like "MOULIN SPLOOGE" that is illegal.

      Alright, and since everyone's already dying to chip in, let's hear your own best, bad-pun porn titles. C'mon, you all know this game.

    6. Re:PG-13 is not binding (TFA is wrong) by Ahnteis · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure some states have laws enforcing "No one under 18 unless accompanied by adult" for R movies.

    7. Re:PG-13 is not binding (TFA is wrong) by oldosadmin · · Score: 1

      N.C. does :)

      --
      Jay | http://oldos.org
    8. Re:PG-13 is not binding (TFA is wrong) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Three Men and a Baby

      Who needs puns?

  23. No Suprise by kpwoodr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does this suprise anyone? We all know the story already. Darth Vader doesn't become Darth Vader with out some serious action. A clone army is not going to win a war with out a large loss of life. Yoda is not going to just leave the hot zone to live on some God forsaken swamp planet because a few people died. We've all know that it would take thousands and thousands of dead clones and mutilated Jedi.

    On top of that, it has to be so bloody that we all lose hope. Otherwise, why would there be a "New" hope?

    Rise Lord Vader!

    --
    This sig has been removed pending an investigation.
    1. Re:No Suprise by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1
      "On top of that, it has to be so bloody that we all lose hope. Otherwise, why would there be a "New" hope?"

      How about bloody f***ing terrible?

    2. Re:No Suprise by Gadgetfreak · · Score: 1

      There are other things to find out, though, like the fate of Padmé, and the hiding of the children. And perhaps the history of other characters and races, as well as planets. There are still some surprises to find out.

      (I haven't read the novelization, nor do I intend to)

      --
      "No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
    3. Re:No Suprise by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      On top of that, it has to be so bloody that we all lose hope. Otherwise, why would there be a "New" hope?

      Sorry, I've already lost hope in this franchise.

    4. Re:No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      Considering that Kenobi cuts off Anakins other good arm and both of his legs(the screenshots have to be seen to be believed), I'd say this movie easily qualifies for a pg-13 rating if not more.

      They even show in great detail Anakin's new robotic arms and legs being attached to his body while what's left of his body looks like it just came fresh out of the oven. Anakin gets messed up bad in this one. I don't know if I would let my 12 year old kid see that.

    5. Re:No Suprise by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      Let alone that you do not see a SINGLE Gungan or Naboo in 4,5 and 6. I am wondering if the clone army completely obliterates Naboo via a starship bombing? They say we see Death Star 1 being built in the end of RotS.

      --

      Gorkman

    6. Re:No Suprise by ozbird · · Score: 1

      The "New Hope" is that Episode 4 will be better than Episode 3.

    7. Re:No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You all are watching out for BLOOD BLOOD BLOOD when in reality the reason it got that rating in the first place:

      NATALIE PORTMAN IS A SLAVE GIRL

      THe same old outfit that Princess Leia will wear, but it's still clean, straight off the rack.

    8. Re:No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but I thought yoda got stuck on Dagobah because of a dodgy time share arrangement and wonky brochure..

    9. Re:No Suprise by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1

      No. The common belief is that Episode 4 will be better than Episode 3. The new hope is then that episode 3 will be better. I believe we all hope for Ep3 to be great (except for the SW haters ofcourse).

      --
      ^_^
    10. Re:No Suprise by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1
      Yoda is not going to just leave the hot zone to live on some God forsaken swamp planet because a few people died.

      Look - Yoda is a pretty sensitive guy. Some people are just like that. I don't think anyone should get down on him for wanting to duck out of the whole Jedi scene after all those harsh words.
    11. Re:No Suprise by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      The new ending of ROTJ on DVD has them.

    12. Re:No Suprise by kerrle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And that's not even mentioning what Anakin does to Dooku.

    13. Re:No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      butt sex?

      your journey to the darkside is complete.

    14. Re:No Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess...

      "Come back and fight!"

      "It's just a scratch!"

      "I've had worse!"

      And so forth.

    15. Re:No Suprise by BobNET · · Score: 1

      Yoda is not going to just leave the hot zone to live on some God forsaken swamp planet because a few people died.

      God forsaken swamp?!?! My home this is!

    16. Re:No Suprise by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      I will not count that blasphemous piece of....oh welll...who am I kidding....Lucas has already SPENT my money I used to buy the DVD's.

      --

      Gorkman

  24. As he lit.... by essreenim · · Score: 5, Funny
    a cigar with a large stack of burning 20's."

    I love it when a good plan comes together.

    1. Re:As he lit.... by mbrewthx · · Score: 2, Funny

      I pity the fool that doesn't go to see Star Wars!!!!

      --
      __________ Leave me alone I'm compiling a RPG II program on my S/36...Thanks to metamucil I'm a Regular Meta Moderator
    2. Re:As he lit.... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nitpick time:

      "I love it when a plan comes together"

      Don't screw with Hannibal.

    3. Re:As he lit.... by hal2814 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I ain't gettin in no spaceship, Hannibal! That crazy foo Murdoch'll get us all killed. I ain't going up there with that sucka!

    4. Re:As he lit.... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      So that means the (classic '70s style) Cylons will show up?

      (see the opening credits)

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    5. Re:As he lit.... by neckjonez · · Score: 1

      mmm a spaceburger

    6. Re:As he lit.... by isorox · · Score: 2, Funny

      Shut up and drink your milk

    7. Re:As he lit.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pity the fool who goes over to the dark side!

    8. Re:As he lit.... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      It would be SO COOL if they got Dirk Bennidict to play a human-form Cylon on the new season of BG.

      Do you think that would piss off the folks who got pissed off with a female Starbuck?

    9. Re:As he lit.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Fuck your sister lately?



      Sorry, I used up all of my logged in posts for today. God bless!

  25. But he can't tell a story ... by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "But I have to tell a story. I'm not making these, oddly enough, to be giant, successful blockbusters."

    Unfortunately, Luca is not a good story teller. He is great at effects and the details that bring a vision to life. He really needed Spielberg.

    1. Re:But he can't tell a story ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duhhh... no shit. How many times has this been repeated on slashdot?

      -1 Redundant!

    2. Re:But he can't tell a story ... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      I think Tim Burton would do a better job than Spielberg

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:But he can't tell a story ... by TheRealFixer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would say he's actually a very good storyteller. The movies he's done (with the terrible exception of Howard the Duck) have had very appealing storylines, the themes have spoken to a lot of people. He is, however, not a very good screenwriter. Horrid, stilted dialog, endless cliches, dysmal romance. His directing is suspect as well. Visually, he's an outstanding director, but he doesn't work well with actors, often getting very wooden performances out of them

      It's why the most hailed of the Star Wars films was ESB, where he left dialog up to others and let a decent director deal with the actors.

    4. Re:But he can't tell a story ... by cliffski · · Score: 1

      and also a superb editor. Unlike many directors these days who churn out 3 hour movies because they cant tell a story in less time.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    5. Re:But he can't tell a story ... by Apotsy · · Score: 1
      Yes and no. He's good, but not as good as some of the people he's worked with. If you watch the "Empire of Dreams" documentary on the DVD set, you can see that the editors who were brought in on the original Star Wars did a lot to get the very best out of the footage available. It won an Oscar for editing in 1977, and with good reason.

      None of the newer edits of Star Wars that have been released since then have been as good. And those cuts were all done by Lucas.

    6. Re:But he can't tell a story ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The movies he's done have had very appealing storylines, the themes have spoken to a lot of people

      Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys are liked by a lot of people, ergo, their music is good.

      Not!

      There is another thing about "a lot of people" - they have an IQ of 100. Even lower for teenagers.

      Star Wars and Lucas fans have to admit that they were *preteens* when they saw the first 3 episodes - it's not a surprise that they liked them. When they see Star Wars today, they just re-living the childhood experience. I have not met anyone who liked the Star Wars after seeing it for the first time as an adult.

    7. Re:But he can't tell a story ... by cens0r · · Score: 1

      Of course, imho, ROTJ is the worst of all the movies and he left the dialog to others and let a decent director deal with the actors.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    8. Re:But he can't tell a story ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have not met anyone who liked the Star Wars after seeing it for the first time as an adult.

      My wife saw it for the first time when she was 28.

      She loved it.

      Interesting to note that she originally didn't want to see it - she thought it was gonna be like Star Trek.. it was only after I convinced her that it was more like "Indiana Jones in space" that she agreed to watch it.

    9. Re:But he can't tell a story ... by Eskimore_ · · Score: 1

      I think a bazillion jedi-robe wearing, still a virgin SW fans would disagree with you.

      .

      .

      And... "I find your lack of faith, disturbing."

    10. Re:But he can't tell a story ... by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      ROTJ has good things in it. I like the way in which the Battle of Endor is edited - several parallel actions on different battlefields, all of them complementary and incrementally advancing the storyline. The rythm at which they're changed is very well paced.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    11. Re:But he can't tell a story ... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      Damn! I must have blinked. Where were the good effects in I and II? It was mostly garishly painted matte paintings one after another. I had to wear shades so the supersaturated colors didn't wear out my retina.

      But I agree on detail. He excels at creating a complete world that feels lived in. At least he did for IV, V and VI.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    12. Re:But he can't tell a story ... by cens0r · · Score: 1

      The editing is the part lucas always did though.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    13. Re:But he can't tell a story ... by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1

      The lightsabre scene in ROTJ is a great cinema moment.

    14. Re:But he can't tell a story ... by Neop2Lemus · · Score: 1
      I completely agree:).

      I don't care how 'dark' or how 'violent' it is.

      Unless the plot is decent and the characters good, it'll still be, at the very best, second rate geek pop.

      --
      Needle Nardle Noo
    15. Re:But he can't tell a story ... by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      No. His ex-wife is a good editor. He sucks. She edited the original three movies.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  26. PG-13? Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not the movie review you are looking for.....

  27. and by the_mpls_guy · · Score: 0

    Thankfull to Mr. Lucas we will get to hear this bloodbath in THX (tm) surround.

  28. Any more word by LouCifer · · Score: 1

    on the rumors that Spielberg might take over the helm and make the last three episodes?

    Anyone?

    --
    Religion is for people afraid of going to hell.
    1. Re:Any more word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only rumor would be what you just posted...

    2. Re:Any more word by LouCifer · · Score: 1

      Uhm, no. I was referring to this.

      And this.

      I could swear I read on AICN about Spielberg. Might be there as well. Dunno, and I don't really have the time to search (I'm at work).

      --
      Religion is for people afraid of going to hell.
  29. First PG-13 by CrazyTalk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course, there WAS no such rating when the original trilogy was released - just G, PG, and R. That said, I don't think any of the originals would have qualfied even if there was such a rating (which lies between PG and R, for folks outide of the US)

    1. Re:First PG-13 by davidmcw · · Score: 1

      I believe that the first PG-13 was Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom. The specifically created the PG-13 to appease Steven Speilberg...

      --
      Just because your paranoid doesn't really mean they aren't out to get you
    2. Re:First PG-13 by Tongo · · Score: 1

      Nope, it was because of IJ The Temple of Doom that the PG-13 was crated (that and Gremlins). The first movie released with a PG-13 rating was Red Dawn.

    3. Re:First PG-13 by Bloomy · · Score: 1

      No, PG-13 was created in part because of Temple of Doom. I think a Gremlin exploding in a microwave also played a part. According to the IMDb, Red Dawn was the first movie released with a PG-13 rating. The trivia page for Gremlins says it is probably Spielberg's involvment in both Gremlins and Temple of Doom that saved them from R ratings.

    4. Re:First PG-13 by JahToasted · · Score: 1

      Yup, They came up with PG-13 because a lot of parent's complained about Temple of Doom being too dark for just a PG rating.

    5. Re:First PG-13 by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1
      Of course, there WAS no such rating when the original trilogy was released - just G, PG, and R. That said, I don't think any of the originals would have qualfied even if there was such a rating (which lies between PG and R, for folks outide of the US)

      A severed bloody arm in Star Wars? The hero's hand being cut off in Empire? Slicing open the guts of an animal and stuffing your buddy into it? People in ships blowing up? A guy being tortured by electrocution? Another hero being prepped for consumption by a savage race? Furry ewoks blowing up and screaming as their fur smokes? A guy being cut in half by a sword? Somebody being frozen in a block of what may as well be concrete? Being fed to a gigantic mouth? A guard being eaten alive by a huge monster?

      None of that is violent enough for a PG-13 rating?

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    6. Re:First PG-13 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A guy being tortured by electrocution?
      Which scene is that?
    7. Re:First PG-13 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      [PG-13] lies between PG and R, for folks outide of the US

      What makes you think that this would help a foreigner who doesn't know what a PG-13 rating means? Most non-US countries don't have the PG or R rating either, so this is of very little use. Especially because the name PG-13 gives a clue what it means, whereas G or R could mean anything.

    8. Re:First PG-13 by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      It was mostly bloodless violence, though. Think cartoons. A mouse driving a nail through the head of a cat? (Tom and Jerry or Itchy and Scratchy, depending on your generation) Yet that is rated G - without the gore. Ships blew up etc., but we didnt see (much) in graphic detail related to the injuries. Also, in the USA sex is considered "worse" than violence with respect to ratings and what can and cannot be shown on TV and in movies. Star Wars comes across with flying colors in that regard, unless you feel an incestuous kiss on the cheek by Princess Leia to be objectionable.

    9. Re:First PG-13 by stlhawkeye · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It was mostly bloodless violence, though. Think cartoons. A mouse driving a nail through the head of a cat? (Tom and Jerry or Itchy and Scratchy, depending on your generation) Yet that is rated G - without the gore. Ships blew up etc., but we didnt see (much) in graphic detail related to the injuries. Also, in the USA sex is considered "worse" than violence with respect to ratings and what can and cannot be shown on TV and in movies. Star Wars comes across with flying colors in that regard, unless you feel an incestuous kiss on the cheek by Princess Leia to be objectionable.

      And it's getting harder and harder to find Tom and Jerry cartoons in children's programming, for both the violent content and the racism in it.

      Go back and watch another kid's movie from the early to mid 80's. The amount of violence, sexuality, and swearing that was permitted has changed a lot. It used to be ok to show a topless woman in a PG-13 movie (and before PG-13, it was permitted in PG movies).

      No doubt, the Puritanical Right in America has been working hard at regressing our social consciousness on human sexuality for the last 20 years, but there's still plenty of violence in those films that'd earn them a stiffer rating today.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    10. Re:First PG-13 by CrazyTalk · · Score: 4, Funny
      Just showing y'all where it fits in the heirarchy - not the strongest, not the weekest.

      Or, as we used to say when we were kids:

      G = Good
      PG = Pretty Good
      R = Really Good
      X = Xcellent

    11. Re:First PG-13 by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      It was FULL on the lips....every damn time I watch Empire Strikes Back and it gets to this scene I just start going ew ew ewww!

      --

      Gorkman

    12. Re:First PG-13 by dschuetz · · Score: 1

      A severed bloody arm in Star Wars?

      I seem to recall that the severed arm shot (it's a complete cutaway with nobody else in the shot) was actually added to ensure that Star Wars got a PG rating. Prior to that, it was being rated G, and Lucas thought that'd be a kiss of death.

      At least, that's the way I remember it. Then again, I've spent the last several years turning into an old fart, so maybe someone will correct me. :)

    13. Re:First PG-13 by radish · · Score: 1

      [PG-13] lies between PG and R, for folks outide of the US

      So what's R? This reminds me of a great quote from the old days of Snooker (like Pool) commentary on British TV:

      "And here we see him lining up on the green. For those of you watching on a black & white TV, the green is the one right between the blue and the yellow"

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    14. Re:First PG-13 by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      None of that is violent enough for a PG-13 rating?
      Correct. The original films have be re-rated a couple of times: for the 25 year Special Edition theatre releases, and for the DVD releases. They have always come back with a PG rating. Do a search.
    15. Re:First PG-13 by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      I don't think any of the originals would have qualfied even if there was such a rating (which lies between PG and R, for folks outide of the US)
      You'd be right. The films have been rated since PG-13 was introduced: for the Special Edition theatre releases and for the DVD releases last year. They remained PG.
    16. Re:First PG-13 by msim · · Score: 1

      i know!!! it'd be just like kissing my si....

      Never mind.

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
    17. Re:First PG-13 by gothfox · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but by this logic "Matrix Revolutions" is really good.

    18. Re:First PG-13 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot PG-13:

      PG-13 = Pretty Good for 13 year olds (and up)

      PG-13 usually means titties, and until you're ~13 yrs. old it does you no good. So the ratings still stand. ;-)

  30. Was Jar Jar part of that story? by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1
    I'm making them because I'm telling a story, and I have to tell the story I intended.

    Was Jar-Jar part of that story he intended?

    Honestly, I haven't seen any of the Star Wars movies. I started to watch Episode I, however five minutes after seeing Jar-Jar (before hearing all the controversy surrounding him) I couldn't stand the movie and walked away. Now I will certainly not see II and III, however I may go back and watch the original series.

    1. Re:Was Jar Jar part of that story? by Winterblink · · Score: 1

      Empire Strikes Back all the way, man. I had to endure the pain of watching Jar Jar in episode I, groaned along with everyone else when he appeared in episode II. I'm not sure which is worse, the schlocky love story Lucas has vomited up for this trilogy or Jar Jar. It's a damn tough call.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    2. Re:Was Jar Jar part of that story? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I haven't seen any of the Star Wars movies

      You may turn in your /. id at the door. Please, no please, just don't bother coming back here EVER!!!

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    3. Re:Was Jar Jar part of that story? by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      [i]Honestly, I haven't seen any of the Star Wars movies. I started to watch Episode I, however five minutes after seeing Jar-Jar (before hearing all the controversy surrounding him) I couldn't stand the movie and walked away. Now I will certainly not see II and III, however I may go back and watch the original series. [/i] Sooooo, what you're saying is you refuse to watch three films because in the first of the three, there is one annoying character in it? Jar-jar has a total of 3 lines in AOTC, and, rumor has it, NONE in ROTS. Whatever.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    4. Re:Was Jar Jar part of that story? by msim · · Score: 1

      Dude, this isn't a phpbb forum ;-), it's <i>blah</i> not [i]blah[/i].

      Lets see i'd put it as
      1) Annoying character i'd rather see in a blender than on screen
      2) wooden fucked up acting on the part of Padme (who gives a shit if i got the spelling wrong), Anakin, Anakin's mother, Obi-Wan and all of the other characters i wish i had forgotten.
      3) The Laughable portrayal of the Padme / Anakin emotions.
      4) The level that they go off-track when on Tatooine, i mean, pod racers ffs.
      5) Oh and did i mention the Annoying characters?

      And yes i understand about the idea of bringing the newer fans in by giving them something to look at and enjoy, but did they need the life sized frigging sock puppets to do it?

      I can barely remember how episode 1 went, i FORGOT that i went to see episode 2 as it was that memorable </sarcasm>, number 3 is looking pretty promising.

      You never know, i might actually hire #1 & #2 out again to refresh my mind before watching #3.

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
  31. Re:Arrogant bastard by MightyMartian · · Score: 1
    What the hell did you expect? We've known for over twenty years that Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker helps the Emperor kill all the Jedi (except for two). Considering the characters of Vader and the Emperor, what did you think, they smothered the Jedi in their sleep or gave them heart attacks after threatening them with the comfy chair?

    I for one am looking forward to a darker story with Jar Jar Binks or Ewoks, something more along the lines of the Empire Strikes Back.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  32. Nothing to enforce... by raehl · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why would parents be forced to go with their children? The -13 on the PG is simply an advisory notation; G, PG, and PG-13 all have the same admission criteria: Anyone can see it, no adult supervision required.

    1. Re:Nothing to enforce... by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lets face it, a determined kid is going to be able to see this movie no matter what. There are so many ways to see movies with DVDs, on-demand, friend's house, etc that except for XXX a kid is going to see it. And with the internet even the XXX obstacle is a maybe.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    2. Re:Nothing to enforce... by ignorant_newbie · · Score: 1

      ...that except for XXX a kid is going to see it

      you do realize that 'xxx' isn't a real rating, don't you? most port isn't submitted to the ratings monkeys. 'XXX' is a marketing tool to make them sound even more hardcore or something.

      unless you meant that after the first one, no one would be stupid enough to sneak into the Ice Cube edition of the crappy james bond rip off ?

    3. Re:Nothing to enforce... by trentblase · · Score: 1

      Nowadays, XXX is only rated PG-13

    4. Re:Nothing to enforce... by kosmicki · · Score: 1

      'X' however was a real rating, befor the current crop, it was what R is today. The porn industry picked up on XXX. Then they chaged it to R to get rid oy the 'dirty' X rating.

    5. Re:Nothing to enforce... by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      No, they changed X to NC-17. The original system had R in it, right below X.

    6. Re:Nothing to enforce... by MaTriXxx1 · · Score: 1

      PG13 rating to get the parents in with the kids as part of a masterplan.... i dont think so... Seriusly, there will be a large number of kids going, granted. But i think most parents will be going just because they remember that episodes 4,5,6 tottaly rocked, granted they wanted to cry when they saw how 1 and 2 were ruined.... but theres a hope for ep 3. and thats why all the adults will flock in herds to the movies with their money waving.

      --
      Do NOT goto this URL http://www.forthesims.com
  33. Three Words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Decapitation of Jar-Jar!!!

  34. Parents by Winterblink · · Score: 4, Funny

    Unfortunately it won't stop parents from bringing their five year screaming, whining kids to the theaters so they can throw popcorn around and kick our seat backs. Of course if the movie's as ultraviolent as everyone's making it out to be, they'll just add to the illusion of debris flying through the air and the solid punch of the subwoofer.

    --
    "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
    -Hoban Washburn
    1. Re:Parents by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      About a year ago, a pretzel bite hit the back of my head. I turned around (full theatre) and yelled back "if your bad ass enough to throw a pretzel bite at my head, maybe you wanna be bad ass enough to stand up and admit to it." Sadly, nobody stood up. Screaming kids should be removed as well as people who never grow up.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    2. Re:Parents by Zed2K · · Score: 1

      Just turn around and yell at the kid. Don't yell at the parent, snap at the kid. It scares the crap out of them and is actually a lot of fun. I've yelled at little kids before in the theater who either won't shut up or are kicking seats.

      I've yelled at grown adults too. My girlfriend and I were at some movie and this other 20 something couple came in and sat in the back. The girl kept talking the whole time saying how dumb the movie is and stuff. Finally I had enough so I turned around and yelled at her "if you don't like the movie then leave or shut the hell up!" Next thing you know they are walking out. Just going "shhhh" over and over does nothing. You need to tell these "people" where to go.

    3. Re:Parents by Winterblink · · Score: 1

      I hear ya. When Dawn of the Dead came out, some idiot brought his little girl in there. That's an extremely gory movie, with lots of obnoxiously loud blowing of brains out. To say this kid was disturbed by it all was an understatement.

      There were two parents in another film of equally high rating that brought not one, but two kids in, ages 3 and 4. To add to the mayhem, neither parent was doing anything to keep the kids under control. The kids were standing up, yanking on the back of my seat, looking over my shoulder, throwing their shoes at each other, etc. Their parents did NOTHING. At a certain point, after the first 20 minutes of the movie was completely ruined for me, I turned around and told the father that if they didn't remove their kids from the theater right now I would shove my bag of popcorn up his ass, in front of them. Oddly enough it worked, and I got more than a few thank-yous afterwards from fellow patrons.

      Anyway, those are just a couple of the annoyances I've had to go through. It's no wonder I just wait for things to come out on DVD and enjoy them in my own home.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    4. Re:Parents by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      Ultraviolent, eh? I suppose that in order for this movie to be redeeming, they would have to beat the shit out of a hobo, get in a few fights, steal a car, and rape a few people in the first few minutes.

    5. Re:Parents by glsunder · · Score: 1

      "five year screaming, whining kids to the theaters so they can throw popcorn around and kick our seat backs."

      From the way people post on movie threads lately, it's the 12 year olds kicking and screaming in the theaters.

    6. Re:Parents by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      Hell, I sat in between two families of toddlers and preteens when I saw "Starship Troopers".

      What the fvck is up with parents?

      And "bloodbath" == PG-13 but a little bit of booby on the TV == congressional action?

      What a fvcked up country you guys live in. Could never get used to it over there.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    7. Re:Parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, can tell you that *my* five-year-old, who will see this movie (pending a preview by both parents), will sit his ass down and watch the whole thing in silence. He is utterly entranced by the other five movies, and asks me almost every day, "Dad, can we watch the Revenge of the Sith trailer again?" I feel your pain, but not every fiver is an out-of-control asshat.

      And if he/she is, it's generally the jackass useless parents to blame, not the kid.

    8. Re:Parents by igb · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I always find it bizarre that in the US
      you go to see a film with an R rating and it's
      full of babies. I saw, for ironic purposes,
      `Body of Evidence' when it released, and someone
      had their six year old with them. I don't happen
      to think it's corrupting, dangerous, etc: just that
      the poor kid was bored rigid. Mind you, so was I...

      In the UK, the PG-* ratings are indeed advisory,
      but everything else (12, 15, 18) are mandatory.
      Indeed, my recollection is that they are enforced
      by legislation, although no-one has ever been
      prosecuted. Cinemas do however make a vague
      attempt to enforce them, about as seriously as
      pubs do drinking laws (hint for those that haven't
      left the borders of the USA: there may be some
      heavy sarcasm in this sentence).

      ian

    9. Re:Parents by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, somone brought a baby to a movie once and it cried so I shot it in head with a pistol. Everyone in the theater thanked me and I won the Congressional Medal of Honor for my heroic actions that day.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  35. Violence? by lheal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    * shrug *

    My kids (age 13 and 17) have said they want to go see it. Last time they wanted to see a movie it was, um, I don't remember them ever both saying they wanted to see the same movie.

    We'll go, probably the first weekend.

    Go Darth!

    (I just like to cheer for the winning side)

    (Sorry for the spoiler)

    (But anybody who's see Star Wars IV knew that already)

    (We already know the ending. The only thing left to see is the blood!)

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    1. Re:Violence? by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 1

      My kids (age 13 and 17)

      Kids? You have KIDS?

      Please turn in your /. membership card on the way out the door please. It's obvious that not only are you not a virgin, but that you've managed to do "it" twice.

      Unless, of course, you've managed to adopt two kids and made room for them in your mother's basement, in which case you can keep your /. membership!

      It's funny, laugh!

    2. Re:Violence? by Vicsun · · Score: 1

      (brackets)

    3. Re:Violence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You disgust me. Not because you will be taking your kids to see this violent movie, but because of your blatant overuse of parentheses.

      How do you live with yourself?

  36. ...liar! by chalkoutline · · Score: 0, Redundant

    If he had to tell a story, he'd write a new fucking movie instead of constantly pushing the same tired one he knows will be eaten up by mindless clones (no pun) worldwide.

    --
    There are 2 types of people in the world, those who find that stupid binary joke funny, and those who don't.
  37. Natalie Portman by essreenim · · Score: 2, Funny
    is in it you insensitive clod. Who needs a script?

  38. Here's the flaw in your logic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the fans are children, yet are their own parents as well.

    or to put it simply, "What children?"

    1. Re:Here's the flaw in your logic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the fans are children, yet are their own parents as well.

      I hate those temporal paradoxes.

  39. True, by Scott+Lockwood · · Score: 1

    but we didn't know the excruciatingly bad details. I was really hopeful that this movie would make the other two seem worthwhile. Or at least, worth sitting through. Judging from the script... Well, I don't think so.

    --
    But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
    1. Re:True, by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Well, I'll reserve judgement until I see it. Mind you, I'm not going to standing in long lineups on May 19th. I'll probably wait a week or two. No movie is worth standing among two hundred thirty five year old fanboys arguing about whether or not Luke Skywalker could have kicked Mace Windu's ass for two hours.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:True, by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      The 30 year olds wearing Darth Vader costumes and storm trooper gear and guys dressed as Leia?

  40. Re:Arrogant bastard by mcwop · · Score: 1

    We simply want a good prequal.

    --

    "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

  41. I could be worse...... by Braingoo · · Score: 0
    If it where rated R

    • You would get to see luke and leia's conception.
    • Wookies actualy ripping peoples arms out of their sockets.
    • A Storm Trooper who can actualy shoot straight
    • and last but not least the Palpatines naked butt as he gets out of the imperial showe
  42. Wel... knowing is... by FerretFrottage · · Score: 1

    half the battle.

    --
    "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
  43. Yeah, Right... by blcamp · · Score: 4, Insightful


    As if seeing Qui-Gon Jinn being run through and Darth Maul cut completely in half wouldn't be disturbing enough to some kids (or even a few adults)... or how about Anakin's hand arm being cut off? Or Luke's?

    And those were just PG?

    And some of the discussion between Anakin and Amidala about thier "first times"?

    And that movie was NOT PG-13?

    Lucas is using the whole ratings "controversy" as yet another way to get more free publicity!

    And the media, and us, are eating it up...

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
    1. Re:Yeah, Right... by Winterblink · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh wait for it. I'm sure this got the PG-13 rating because of this scene:

      *tight closeup of lightsaber hilt*

      *it tilts, revealing the engraved text: BAD MOTHER FUCKER*

      *slow, cinematic pull out, revealing the lightsaber is held by Jedi Master Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson)*

      *Windu fires a burning, seething gaze at a crowd of imperial troopers known as the Empire 88s*

      *cue 15 minute long spree of death, with limbs flying everywhere, disembowelings, and (literally) fountains of blood*

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    2. Re:Yeah, Right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a second, when the hell did these new Star Wars movies start getting released?!

    3. Re:Yeah, Right... by dBLiSS · · Score: 1

      "Lucas is using the whole ratings "controversy" as yet another way to get more free publicity!"

      Just like you making such a cliqued remark merely to be a karma whore.

      --

      The Good Life
    4. Re:Yeah, Right... by xv4n · · Score: 0
      As if seeing Qui-Gon Jinn being run through and Darth Maul cut completely in half wouldn't be disturbing enough

      Seems like the criteria is to add guts and blood spillage to get a higher rating.

    5. Re:Yeah, Right... by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 1

      What the heck are you talking about? They were talking about the first time they kissed which is a perfectly normal thing to do in public. Even mommy and daddy kiss! Kids see that all the time. And evidently you've forgotten how it is to be 8 years old; you don't really care if someone gets chopped in half if they're a bad guy, or if someone loses an arm if they don't whine about it. Little kids are violent as heck. Stormtroopers being shot by the dozens? They eat that stuff up.

      I'm not even going to talk about Lucas creating a controversy which the media is eating up. If you think a post on a site only nerds read is "eating it up" or that the fact it's rated PG-13 is some sort of controversy, you need to reexamine your analysis.

      Okay, maybe I did talk about it. But only a little :D

      --
      Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
    6. Re:Yeah, Right... by krogoth · · Score: 1

      At this point, I don't think this story will create any useful publicity. Apart from the fact that most people, by now, are either going to see it anyways, turned off by episodes 1 & 2, or just don't care about the series, there's enough stories about people living outside a theater to remind everyone that it's coming.

      --

      They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
    7. Re:Yeah, Right... by MsGeek · · Score: 1

      According to reports, the initials BMF really *are* engraved on the Mace Windu lightsabre. Whether in Latin letters or in that alphabet they use in Star Wars I'm not totally clear on. But it's there.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  44. Spoiler Alert by Mindee · · Score: 1

    It's generally good form to warn of spoilers, especially ina major release like this - verybad form guys, come on. Not cool!

    1. Re:Spoiler Alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, then. SPOILER ALERT:

      Anakin is Luke's father.

      END SPOILER

    2. Re:Spoiler Alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you -live- in a cave or have you just missed the past 20+ years? This story isn't exactly new. ;-)

  45. It's a trap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's no blood bath. It's a bad movie!

  46. When even blood is not enough... by chinard · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but lucas made such an unbearable mess of episodes 1 and 2 that not even a Peter Jackson inspired bloodbath could get me to pay good money to see another one of his cinematic abominations.

    1. Re:When even blood is not enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit! You'll be there just like all the other complainers in this discussion.

  47. Itsa beesa trap! by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    > So long as... ...Jar Jar meets a painful demise, I am happy.

    Spoiler Alert: Jar Jar drowns during the MonCal Water Spectacular gurgling "OH NOES! ITSA BEESA TRAP!", while a young Ensign Ackbar holds up a sign reading "9.8".

    1. Re:Itsa beesa trap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then Spock and Kirk beam in, cut down Anakin Skywalker with phasers set to maximum kill, and get into an S&M scene with Kenobi and then cut up Wesley Crusher and a dozen Ewoks for a dee-liteful cannibalistic lunch. Then they shave down a Wookie to make a hairpiece for Picard before his big date with the Emperor.

    2. Re:Itsa beesa trap! by infonography · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not quite, the sign reads 'It's a Trap!'

      --
      Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    3. Re:Itsa beesa trap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, that was the joke. thanks for playing, though.

    4. Re:Itsa beesa trap! by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
      Spoiler Alert: Jar Jar drowns during the MonCal Water Spectacular gurgling "OH NOES! ITSA BEESA TRAP!", while a young Ensign Ackbar holds up a sign reading "9.8".

      I'm assuming the only reason it wasn't a '10' is because all of JarJar's limbs remained intact.

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    5. Re:Itsa beesa trap! by MarkTina · · Score: 1

      But Jar-Jar is amphibious isn't he ? Maybe he was gargling bleach ? (wishful thinking)

    6. Re:Itsa beesa trap! by sharkey · · Score: 1
      a young Ensign Ackbar holds up a sign reading "9.8".

      Which is Calamarian for "John 3:16".

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  48. Gosh! How unlike the real world by sagneta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To think that this movie is somehow more violent than *this* planet is amusing. It is a restless day in which somebody is not blown to smithereens in Iraq yet I am supposed to feel outraged that the new Star Wars movie earned a pg-13 rating?

    My outrage well is dry for the moment. Sorry.

    1. Re:Gosh! How unlike the real world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You miss the point. Iraqis are poor, brown, and not "Hollywood" attractive in general whereas the deaths in Star Wars are happening to many attractive, reasonably well-off, white people. Can't you see who the average couch warming American would care more about?

    2. Re:Gosh! How unlike the real world by Infonaut · · Score: 1
      It is a restless day in which somebody is not blown to smithereens in Iraq yet I am supposed to feel outraged that the new Star Wars movie earned a pg-13 rating?

      Don't worry, the only people are dying are those soldiers and marines who volunteered to serve their country, plus of course the Iraqi civilians and resistance fighters. It's not like anyone really has to care, since there's no draft. If your ass isn't in danger, why concern yourself with the plight of people in Iraq?

      It works out pretty well. We can all loudly proclaim that America is sacrificing for the greater good, while safely spending our summer watching Darth Vader carve people up into little chunks.

      --
      Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    3. Re:Gosh! How unlike the real world by SengirV · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not /. without an out of place political post.

      --

      Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"

    4. Re:Gosh! How unlike the real world by dR.fuZZo · · Score: 3, Funny

      To think that this movie is somehow more violent than *this* planet is amusing. It is a restless day in which somebody is not blown to smithereens in Iraq yet I am supposed to feel outraged that the new Star Wars movie earned a pg-13 rating?

      I'd say the Iraq war should be rated at least an R.

      --
      -- dR.fuZZo
    5. Re:Gosh! How unlike the real world by jafac · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah - especially since the only legitimate justification left for the war has to do with a former president getting a blowjob.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    6. Re:Gosh! How unlike the real world by eh2o · · Score: 1, Informative

      definately X if you include those abu ghraib scenes...

    7. Re:Gosh! How unlike the real world by wgaryhas · · Score: 1

      And what justification is that?

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
    8. Re:Gosh! How unlike the real world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      To think that this movie is somehow more violent than *this* planet is amusing. It is a restless day in which somebody is not blown to smithereens in Iraq yet I am supposed to feel outraged that the new Star Wars movie earned a pg-13 rating?

      Violence in Iraq is ok because we don't see it.

    9. Re:Gosh! How unlike the real world by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure you were supposed to feel outraged. I think this was more like a "heads up" news post than "RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE FOR IT HATH RATED THE NEW STAR WARS MOVIE PG-13" news post. I may have misread it though.

      --
      Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
    10. Re:Gosh! How unlike the real world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Rich White people are just better than everybody else. Why the hell should be care about anybody not as rich and attractive as us? Those poor savages aren't very useful to the world anyways.

      The average American has good reason not to care.

    11. Re:Gosh! How unlike the real world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'd say the Iraq war should be rated at least an R.

      Why would you want to shield younger ones to the reality of today's world? Fighting for freedom and democracy is something I would want young children to learn about. They are tomorrow's leaders, soldiers, and warriors. War is tough, but everybody, children including, should know what this War against Terror and the fight for liberty is about.

    12. Re:Gosh! How unlike the real world by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't have much of a military if it was rated NC-17.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    13. Re:Gosh! How unlike the real world by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      To think that this movie is somehow more violent than *this* planet is amusing. It is a restless day in which somebody is not blown to smithereens in Iraq yet I am supposed to feel outraged that the new Star Wars movie earned a pg-13 rating?

      I'd say the Iraq war should be rated at least an R.


      Wait till the sequel, the Fall of the Empire ... that's rated NC-17 ...

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    14. Re:Gosh! How unlike the real world by hacker · · Score: 1
      "War is tough, but everybody, children including, should know what this War against Terror and the fight for liberty is about."
      Oil ?
    15. Re:Gosh! How unlike the real world by MmmmAqua · · Score: 1

      NC-17. You can't join the military before then.

      --
      Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!
    16. Re:Gosh! How unlike the real world by meadowsp · · Score: 1

      That's funny. I thought it was about getting Osama Bin Laden because of 9/11. What has that got to do with Iraq (or freedom for that matter)?

    17. Re:Gosh! How unlike the real world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "R" for "Retarded"?

  49. entirely correct by Paralizer · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I'm not making these, oddly enough, to be giant, successful blockbusters. I'm making them because I'm telling a story
    I don't know about you, but the Star Wars saga just wouldn't have been so good had I not had available to me hundreds upon thousands of various Star Wars toys, action figures, t-shirts, and the double platinum super ultra DVD collectors edition DVD's with commentary. Theatrical releases are only half the story.
  50. Obligatory.... by Sewer+Panda · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome the slaughter of our new Jedi Masters.

    --
    I have neither class nor rank. I am unique.
  51. Re:Arrogant bastard by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Informative
    Actually the problem with everything from RotJ onwards is he has been focussing on making movies for others - generally those under the age of nine. Sure, he hasn't made films for "us" (by which I assume you mean people who waved plastic lightsabers at their schoolfriends in the 1970s and '80s, and have grown up except for the mod they did to their monitor to make it look like Darth Vader's helmet), but they'd be just as awful if he did. Remember how awful the first Star Trek film was? That's the kind of nerdy ghastliness we'd be suffering if he made Star Wars for "us".

    The best films, books, music, etc, have always been made for their creators, not aimed at some identifiable market. If Lucas is serious, and I doubt very much he is but live in hope, then this is good news. Very good news. It marks a possible return from the Dark Side.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  52. UK Rating by markxz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the UK the film got a 12A rating from the BBFC (persons under 12 admited with an adult) as are increacingly more films

    Local councils still have the right to change the rating policy for any film, but only rarely do so.

    The consumer advice from the bbfc is "Contains moderate fantasy violence and scary scenes" although virtually every film has some advice (Finding Nemo "Contains mild peril")

    1. Re:UK Rating by eyegone · · Score: 1


      (Finding Nemo "Contains mild peril")

      WTF is mild peril?

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    2. Re:UK Rating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      WTF is mild peril?

      That's the level of peril that causes your Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses to turn a dusky light gray.

    3. Re:UK Rating by curlyjunglejake · · Score: 2, Funny

      When the wife comes home early, and you've got a fifty-fifty shot at violence or threesome.

    4. Re:UK Rating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's when there's this castle, full of virgins ... and you're struck with the urge to face the peril ...

    5. Re:UK Rating by keytoe · · Score: 1
      (Finding Nemo "Contains mild peril")
      GALAHAD: Oh, let me have just a little bit of peril?
      LAUNCELOT: No. It's unhealthy.
  53. Why does everyone HAVE to flame lucas? by deathcloset · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know, I know - it's just the old, "if you don't like it, SHUT UP!" || "if you like it then post on a fanboi forum! and SHUT UP" arguments.

    But seriously, you cannot fault the technical achievements of these movies.

    And I know that many (if not most) are of the opinion that movies are primarily about the characters and the story, but I am of very different taste.

    you see, I am the kind of guy who sits down with EPII attack of the clones and pauses the corusant scenes and goes frame by frame through them to just admire all the amazing design and creation.

    I love to stare in awe at the new particle systems, the accuracy of the human computer models and the beautiful, alien landscapes painted before my eyes.

    But that's me, and I am of a small minority I know. I am that small minority that actually doesn't really care for chatty movies. Didn't really think the godfather was really all that. Never sees a movie unless there are spaceships and explosions - and then only if the movie is about that universe and not just the people in it.

    Nevertheless I feel that those like me should have something of a voice.

    There are three movie types in my world:
    1) Movies about people
    2) Movies about events
    3) Movies about ideas

    I prefer the order of importance to be 3,2,1 and Star Wars seems to fit that type for me quite well.

    1. Re:Why does everyone HAVE to flame lucas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never sees a movie unless there are spaceships and explosions

      Time to move out of your parents' basement, it is.

    2. Re:Why does everyone HAVE to flame lucas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There are three movie types in my world:
      1) Movies about people
      2) Movies about events
      3) Movies about ideas

      You forgot:

      0) Movies about nothing

    3. Re:Why does everyone HAVE to flame lucas? by GlassHeart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't think people would whine as loudly if Lucas just admitted that he was creating a series of neat explosions and effects loosely tied together by a story, the way a pornographic film might be a series of sex scenes tied together.

      But Lucas fancies himself to be a storyteller, and therefore that's how he will be judged. Why would you lower the bar against his stated wishes?

    4. Re:Why does everyone HAVE to flame lucas? by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I love to stare in awe at the new particle systems, the accuracy of the human computer models and the beautiful, alien landscapes painted before my eyes. But that's me, and I am of a small minority I know.

      Give me the apocalyptic opening scene of Blade Runner as tongues of flame rise over a dim cityscape, reflected in Deckard's eyes. Or give me the Millennium Falcon pulling that immelman turn through the clouds of Bespin as they turn back to rescue Luke. Or that nearly endless vertical scrolling shot of the Fortress of Ultimate Darkness in Terry Gilliam's Time Bandits. THAT is special effects.

      Now the Star Wars prequels... sure, they may have been technically demanding to execute, and sure they may be intricate. But they lack soul. They are all surface and no substance, just video games on steroids.

    5. Re:Why does everyone HAVE to flame lucas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot:

      0) Movies about nothing


      --Seinfeld the movie?

    6. Re:Why does everyone HAVE to flame lucas? by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Why? This is why.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    7. Re:Why does everyone HAVE to flame lucas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can certainly fault the technical achievements of Ep.1, which is the point where I gave up.

      The effects were terrible. It was like watching a computer game.

      As another poster has mentioned, Blade Runner looked better. See the DC of Blade Runner in a cinema and compare. It will still look good in five or ten years while Ep.1 looks horribly dated.

      CG effects that you can tell are CG when the movie is released date extremely rapidly, much as obvious model FX did in the past.

      Your problem is visible in your post:

      "I love to stare in awe at the new particle systems, the accuracy of the human computer models and the beautiful, alien landscapes painted before my eyes." .. but you're still thinking, "Nice particle system... nice human computer model". If the FX were any good you wouldn't notice. Once you notice, they're doomed to look dated almost immediately.

      For a point of comparison, go check out Spawn. Lots of people raved about the FX when it came out despite the fact that they were obviously, obviously, obviously CG. Now they look worse than Doom 3. See also: The Lawnmower Man.

      Both, you'll note, shit movies. FX reels using cheap "be wowed by the latest tech" tricks usually are. And I fully expect anything new from George Lucas to be similarly bad.

    8. Re:Why does everyone HAVE to flame lucas? by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


      I prefer the order of importance to be 3,2,1 and Star Wars seems to fit that type for me quite well.

      I hope you hate Serenity. It'll have spaceships, sure, but only because people are more likely to watch a future-period piece than a historical-period piece.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    9. Re:Why does everyone HAVE to flame lucas? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Thing is, even the visuals on the prequels suck.

      There are films that just look different. The Matrix, Blade, Alien. All visually stunning, and worth watching just for the design work (Blade isn't that great a movie IMO). The prequels may be technically interesting but visually, they are dull.

      How are the prequels "movies about ideas". There's not a single interesting idea in all the movies.

      If you just like watching what is, little more than a bunch of flashy images, then fine. Enjoy.

    10. Re:Why does everyone HAVE to flame lucas? by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 1

      Hah, please don't tell me that star wars is a movie about ideas. See you were doing well in the begining admitting that you only like pretty pictures, but then you had to get all pretentious in the end and say star wars is "about ideas".

      Sorry but if you think there are any interesting ideas in the new star wars movies you are either very young or very stupid.

    11. Re:Why does everyone HAVE to flame lucas? by Legion303 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "But seriously, you cannot fault the technical achievements of these movies."

      Sure I can. Shiny spaceship models are a dime a dozen among graphic artists who just picked up their first copy of Maya, but good CGI artists know how to make their models look dirty and real. The first trilogy looked better to me because they were using real, dirty models.

    12. Re:Why does everyone HAVE to flame lucas? by alexjohns · · Score: 1
      ...the apocalyptic opening scene of Blade Runner as tongues of flame rise over a dim cityscape, reflected in Deckard's eyes.

      I had this long diatribe written out where I basically said, "Ditto"; I decided I didn't really need to say all that. God, I love that movie.

  54. Re: SIG by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    I agree. I wonder what Sarlac would think of Gungan.

    BTW, HK-47 kicks major ass. "Irritated explaination: ..."

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  55. I Side With Lucas. by http101 · · Score: 1

    The comments of "bloodbath", "horrific", and "gruesome" only come from parents and the like that haven't taken a moment to actually read the books! This stuff is already written and when I hear of parents griping and whining that little 14-year old Timmy is having nightmares is bullshit. I think those parents should catch up on some reading/research before they let their kids go see movies in the first place. Furthermore, they should take responsibility for what their kids watch, do, and say. If the rating system advises against it, then so be it. Its not like the rating system completely denies them seeing it.

    --
    -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
  56. Two Thumbs Up by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a "two thumbs up" review to me. The only thing keeping my interest in the movies has been knowing that in the end, almost everyone dies.

  57. Re:Arrogant bastard by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If people insist on going to see them regardless, then what incentive does he have to change his methodology? Many people on slashdot would go and see episode 3 if it was made from bad sock puppets and shoeboxes. Personally, I went and saw episode 1, came away disappointed and havent seen episode 2 yet, and I have no intentions of seeing episode 3 at all. I also havent bought any of the butchered 'remastered' versions of the origional trilogy for similiar reasons.

  58. Ewoks were supposed to be wookies? by serano · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine in the entertainment industry told me that in Episode 6, the ewoks were originally supposed to be wookies. The marketing and merchandising departments convinced Lucas to create ewoks instead, and to make them cute and cuddly and merchandisable. I could believe this because the tree house homes of the ewoks look identical to the tree house homes of the wookies in the SW games. Does anyone know if this was true or not?

    1. Re:Ewoks were supposed to be wookies? by http101 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I dunno, but I could have sworn I saw my ex in the scene. The staff with feathers on it and the bear-claw-laden necklace was throwing me off a little though.

      --
      -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
    2. Re:Ewoks were supposed to be wookies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, the intent was to have the forces of the Empire overthrown by primitives - but by the time Episode 6 rolled around, it was hard to picture wookies as primitives, given Chewbacca's role in flying and maintaining the Millenium Falcon. So Lucas had to create another race to be the primitives. The story about the marketing and merchandising departments is a much later invention.

    3. Re:Ewoks were supposed to be wookies? by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      Not quite. Lucas wanted to show how a force of "indiginous primitives" could handily defeat the best-equipped army in the galaxy. He had originally wanted Wookiees to do this. However, in the first 2 films, Chewbacca showed that Wookies had a great grasp on engineering and technology, thus, he couldn't use them as the "primitive" army that defeats the Empire. As as result, we got Ewoks. However, ROTS *does* feature the battle of Kashyyyk. One of the final battles of the Clone Wars where we do see *lots* of Wookiees doing what angry Wookies do best!

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
  59. The first 30 minutes of the fim. by multiplexo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Should be a Gungan kill-fest. Anakin and the clone warriors and the Sith go to Jar Jar's home planet and decimate the place. I'm talking light saber decapitations and gruesome disembowelments. I'm taking Gungans being gut shot and left to die in the hot sun by storm troopers, napalm being fired into Gungan villages from AT-AT walkers, Gungans being impaled on stakes, an imperial encampment surrounded by poles bearing Gungan heads. They finish things off by nuking the planet down to the bedrock, which explains why there are no Gungans in episodes 4, 5 and 6, the Sith the proto-Empire wiped them all out.

    Lucas is quoted as saying "But I have to tell a story. I'm not making these, oddly enough, to be giant, successful blockbusters. I'm making them because I'm telling a story, and I have to tell the story I intended." As he lit a cigar with a large stack of burning 20's."

    I won't begrudge him the darkness or the money so long as he kills all the fucking Gungans!

    --
    cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    1. Re:The first 30 minutes of the fim. by NeuroManson · · Score: 2, Funny

      But don't hold back, let us know how you REALLY feel.

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    2. Re:The first 30 minutes of the fim. by multiplexo · · Score: 1
      Actually I noticed that I misused the word "decimate" which would mean to only kill one in ten of the Gungans. I should have used the word "eliminate" as I want every fucking one of them to die in as horrible a fashion as possible.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    3. Re:The first 30 minutes of the fim. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny


      I won't begrudge him the darkness or the money so long as he kills all the fucking Gungans!


      You may have misspelled Ewoks there, but in both cases I agree.

      Anything even remotly cutsie in any of the movies should be boiled to death in a pool of their own excrement. Slowly.

    4. Re:The first 30 minutes of the fim. by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Funny

      Should be a Gungan kill-fest. Anakin and the clone warriors and the Sith go to Jar Jar's home planet and decimate the place. I'm talking light saber decapitations and gruesome disembowelments. I'm taking Gungans being gut shot and left to die in the hot sun by storm troopers, napalm being fired into Gungan villages from AT-AT walkers, Gungans being impaled on stakes, an imperial encampment surrounded by poles bearing Gungan heads. They finish things off by nuking the planet down to the bedrock, which explains why there are no Gungans in episodes 4, 5 and 6, the Sith the proto-Empire wiped them all out.

      They're saving that for the animated series on Cartoon Network ...

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    5. Re:The first 30 minutes of the fim. by rilian4 · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't seen the DVD release of Episode 6. The gungans are in the revised fall of the empire celebration scene w/ one suspiciously familiar gungan yelling at the top of his lungs "Weesa free..."

      --

      ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
    6. Re:The first 30 minutes of the fim. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Much anger I sense in you.

    7. Re:The first 30 minutes of the fim. by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Absolutely true: Yesterday, after months of feeling pissed off, I decided to go and buy the SW Trilogy on DVD, and put up with all the rubbish that Lucas has added.

      Then I read your post...

      I'd rather put a steaming dog turd on my DVD shelf than a DVD with a gungan in.

    8. Re:The first 30 minutes of the fim. by msim · · Score: 1

      is it even possible to buy a copy of the ORIGINAL trilogy un-Lucas-refudged on dvd? i havent had a look, but i sure as shit hope so.

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
    9. Re:The first 30 minutes of the fim. by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      There are the split screen (interesting for comparisons)Wookie Groomer DVDs on Myspleen.com, or the TR47 LD to DVD remasterings, both on bittorrent.

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    10. Re:The first 30 minutes of the fim. by msim · · Score: 1

      thanks for that, i'll have to have a peek when i get home. :-)

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
  60. Re:MOD DOWN! COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Erm, linking to GPL "stolen" code would be great. The problem with such "stolen" code is you usually can't obtain it.

  61. I call bullshit by ReadbackMonkey · · Score: 1

    He said the exact opposite about two months ago, saying the movie would be not be a bloodbath, but would be dark. He said he knew some fans wouldn't like it, but tough. I wish I still had the link....

    I for one, won't be seeing it in the theatre, he's already fooled me twice.

  62. Surprising by Danborg · · Score: 1

    I would have thought that the lightsabers would cauterize the wounds and produce no blood.

  63. Star Wars Episode III by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm HIGHLY anticipating this movie. Pick up the latest issue of TIME and thyey gave it a good review which makes me really wonder if this is the real deal. It seems Lucas put a lot of work into it and seems worth my $9.25 + popcorn!

  64. Oh My Goodness by geekoid · · Score: 1

    the will be midchlorideans everywhere, fortunatly you can use the force to hold yourself together until you heal.
    What do I know? I'm just making this crap up on the fly...just like GL

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  65. Yes. by game+kid · · Score: 1

    I think Jar Jar represents that hope Anakin feels. Jar's death, if it is shown, will probably be among many casualties that push Ani to teh Dark Side, and the Jedi to desperation.

    Oh yeah, and it'll make us cheer QUITE loudly afterwards too...but you knew that.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    1. Re:Yes. by laresek · · Score: 1

      Instead, I think it will be revealed that Jar Jar is in fact a Sith Lord, who has been hiding his true personality. "Meesa thinks yousa feel the power of the dark side! Meesa been foolin allll along!"...As he slices up Mace Windu with his light saber... I think it would explain a lot to me.

  66. Oh well by mdijrekk · · Score: 1

    George Lucas has said that he wants to make the movie however he wants and isn't interested in whether or not fans are dissapointed. I have to say, I have alot more respect for him for actually going out and doing what he wants instead of giving in to the pleas of fanatical Star Wars fans.

    --
    "The only safe computer is one that is unplugged".
    1. Re:Oh well by realmolo · · Score: 1

      But making Star Wars darker and more violent *is* what the fans want. It's what they've always wanted. If Lucas had listened to fans a bit more, all 3 of the prequels would've been better.

      Really, all the fans wanted was something as dark as Empire Strikes Back. Instead we got movies even more "kiddie-fied" than Return of the Jedi.

  67. As he lit a cigar with a large stack of burning 20 by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    Even more hilarious is the intro to the cover article of Wired

    Life After Darth
    George Lucas was born to make underground films. Then a little movie called Star Wars lured him to the dark side. Can the father of the blockbuster really rediscover his avant-garde soul?

    Comedy Gold!

  68. Good point by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's a good point. The ratings specify for R that children under 17 are not permitted, while parents are simply cautioned about inappropriate material for PG-13.

    Source

    Of course, this is all still voluntary. There's no legal enforcement. However, I do know some movie theaters enforce the R rating (as I mentioned originally).

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
    1. Re:Good point by robertjw · · Score: 3, Informative

      The ratings specify for R that children under 17 are not permitted

      | Actually "Under 17 Requires accompanying parent or guardian".

    2. Re:Good point by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1

      Gah, that's what I meant.

      Someday I'll get this right.

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
    3. Re:Good point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the PG, PG-13, and R movie ratings are held to any degree of enforcement. They'll refuse a family and said family will go to a competitor's screens.

      It's no different than kids screaming at a restaurant. You can call a member of the waitstaff over and explain the problem, "I'm sorry sir, but we are under orders not to do anything about that." Call for the manager, the same response. Why? A family is thought to be turning in a higher bill. The waitstaff should be a bit more demanding of management when they are living on tips and the people who are rebuffed about their complaints don't tip their usual 30%-35%.

      Parents bring their kids to the theatre, the kids get bored, the kids chatter throughout the movie. The same thing happens with "cartoons" such as The Incredibles. "Mommie, take me to the movie!" "(Sorry, 4-year-old) Timmy, it's an adult cartoon." "Mom, Susie's parents took her!" Mom realizes Susie isn't in the clock tower with a scope on a rifle so what will it harm. Wait! if we take him, we won't have to hire a babysitter. If he gets bored, oh well, it'll be loud enough no one will get p%ssed off because they can hear him.

    4. Re:Good point by fakedupe · · Score: 1

      No worries. When I was younger it seemed like theaters didnt really care. Perhaps it was the teenager in the box office.

      These days I regularly see young kids with their parents watching R rated movies. I hope that they talk and discuss the film afterwards. But who knows.

    5. Re:Good point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, this is all still voluntary. There's no legal enforcement.
      Unless you live in a state with a retarded law like North Carolina where you legally can't get into an R-rated movie without a parent/guardian if you're under 18. (Sometimes I hate my state...)

    6. Re:Good point by robertjw · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't think the PG, PG-13, and R movie ratings are held to any degree of enforcement. They'll refuse a family and said family will go to a competitor's screens.

      The point is that a 'family', or any group with an adult, can take any kids into any PG, PG-13 or R movie they want. You do bring up a good poing about people (children, whatever) yapping during a movie. It's ridiculous, every time I go to the movies lately (which isn't often) someone is talking through the whole movie. Most of the time I just don't go. Can watch the DVD at home cheaper, and it's quiet (if I can get the dogs to shut up).

      One question though, what alternate universe do you live in where people tip 30-35%?????????

    7. Re:Good point by toddbu · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, my son was "carded" the other day while purchasing (not renting) "Saving Private Ryan" down at the local supermarket. (We recorded it off the TV but it ran too long, and the tape stopped just as they were getting ready for the big battle at the end of the movie.) I was somewhat surprised that the store did this, but as a parent I'm glad to know that someone is paying attention to the ratings system. I would have been happy to make the extra trip had my son not been 17.

      --
      If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
    8. Re:Good point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, it's voluntary in the sense that as a theater operator, you can disregard the ratings if you can pay like $10,000 per showing. Not exactly voluntary.

    9. Re:Good point by ZiakII · · Score: 1

      This is true that some movie theaters enforce the R rating however like the movie theater back in home Never enforced the rule, and now they have a more legit way of doing it that you can now have your parent sign a consent form which entitles you for a "R" movie card which just allows any one with the card presented to admit them into the movie, and since most people under 16 and under don't have idea you can just pass the card along and just say your name is the name on the card and they really have no way to vertify that is actually them..... Most parents really don't care about movie rating past the age of 8.....

    10. Re:Good point by th3space · · Score: 1

      Whereas the often unseen NC-17 is supposed to mean that no one, regardless of the presence of their parents, under the age of 17 is able to see this movie. *shrug*

      --
      "How like you to drag your keyboard to a gun fight." - Aaron Bedard (BANE)
    11. Re:Good point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People love to draw some kind of perverse paradox from the fact that Americans tolerate violence in entertainment (to a certain extent), yet have a big problem with sex in entertainment, figuring that it's strange that people would have a bigger problem with sex than killing.

      But you folks have it exactly backwards:

      Movies are passive entertainment. You sit and watch other people doing stuff.

      Only a sick fuck would rather watch other people pretending to have sex than actually have real sex themselves.

      Likewise, only a sick fuck would rather really kill people than watch other people pretend to kill people.

      Therefore:

      Violence: Terrific in fictional entertainment; sick and wrong in reality.

      Sex: Terrific in reality; sick and wrong in fictional entertainment.

      It's actually really obvious when you look at it that way.

    12. Re:Good point by ALpaca2500 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Likewise, only a sick fuck would rather really kill people than watch other people pretend to kill people.

      Violence: Terrific in fictional entertainment; sick and wrong in reality.


      yes. i agree with that.

      Only a sick fuck would rather watch other people pretending to have sex than actually have real sex themselves.

      Sex: Terrific in reality; sick and wrong in fictional entertainment.


      i don't understand this part though. why is fictional sex bad? of course, it is discussed and alluded to in just about every sitcom, and plenty of movies. so there's nothing wrong with the idea of it. why is the act of sex so taboo? and why is it sick and wrong in entertainment? i don't understand where your arguement for this is coming from...

    13. Re:Good point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One question though, what alternate universe do you live in where people tip 30-35%?????????

      Drunk yuppies.

    14. Re:Good point by stfvon007 · · Score: 1

      His argument is that it has a greater affect on a movie's rating than violence does. Even using the f-word in a movie more than once (or just once if it is used in the literal sense) is enough to give a movie an R rating regardless of anything else.

      --
      All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
    15. Re:Good point by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Therefore:
      Violence: Terrific in fictional entertainment; sick and wrong in reality.
      Sex: Terrific in reality; sick and wrong in fictional entertainment.


      I think you meant
      Sex: sick and wrong in reality; sick and wrong in fictional entertainment
      I'm pretty sure that parents wha don't want their kids watching sex on television would be terribly overjoyed if they are having sex in real life.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    16. Re:Good point by tigersha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually they would not be terribly overjoyed if their kids who had been watching people blowing apart on television would do this in real life either.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  69. Creepy by mushupork · · Score: 1

    Here's the thing...as an adult, yes, I prefer the gritty/dark sci-fi (read: BSG.) But Star Wars? Get kind of a creepy feeling, watching a film that appeals to my more mature dark side that is part of a series from my childhood. I have to emotionally transition from 7 to mid-30's somehow while watching a movie? Just doesn't jive.

    Previous 5 fliks were PG, 6th should be the same; Lucas et. al. shouldn't cave and prevent me from watching the end of a series with my kids that I enjoyed as a kid myself.

    --
    Currently bidding on sig
    1. Re:Creepy by Hawke666 · · Score: 1

      How convenient that he doesn't. Even movies with up to an R rating can be seen in theaters when accompanied by an adult.

    2. Re:Creepy by mushupork · · Score: 1

      That's great...kids can get in. But I have to sit there watching arms getting ripped off w/ my 7 y.o. I'm not for censoring, my favorite game is UT 2004 (which I let the kids play w/ me sometimes), but does the envelope always have to be pushed? I don't mean to sound like Tipper or anything, but can't a story be told without going full gore? At least let people use imagination a little more versus CGI-ing every friggin thing.

      This movie is marketed towards kids...a little responsiblity someone...anyone...Buehller...?

      --
      Currently bidding on sig
    3. Re:Creepy by Hawke666 · · Score: 1
      Well, an arm was ripped off and someone was shot in cold blood in the first part of Episode IV, so the violence is nothing new really.

      I do agree that filmmakers could do a better job with leaving things up to the imagination, both graphically and in terms of plot. There are so many movies I've seen where I feel like I'me being beat upside the head with a 2"x4": "This crack is why crack that character crack is doing what they're crack doing"

    4. Re:Creepy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they could make things more challenging, Hawke666, but then the stupider viewers would be complaining, furrowing their brows in a vain attempt to understand the plot.

  70. Where there's tons and tons of film violence... by Cursive23 · · Score: 0

    ...there's often bewbz! Here's hopin!

  71. So? by brontus3927 · · Score: 1
    I was 8 when the Abyss came out. That's PG-13. I was it in the theater with my uncle. I also watch Clockwork Orange on Cinemax when I was 11.

    Of course, on that discussion, it's obligatory to quote George Carlin,

    And uh, people much wiser than I have said, I'd rather have my son watch a film with two people making love than two people trying to kill one other. And I of course agree. I wish I know who said it first, and I agree with that. But I would like to take it a step further. I would like to substitute the word fuck, for the word kill in all those movie cliches we grew up with. 'Okay Sheriff, we're gonna fuck ya now. But we're gonna fuck ya slow.' -- George Carlin

  72. Nonsense. by Rufus88 · · Score: 1

    With a PG-13 rating, parents will be forced to go with their children to watch the movie

    Any father with children under 13 is young enough to want to see this movie himself anyway.

  73. Re:Arrogant bastard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

  74. Revenge of The Dupe by JerkBoB · · Score: 1

    ... sorry. :)

    --
    A host is a host from coast to coast...
    Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
  75. Huh? But I thought... by cvd6262 · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else remember when Lucas tried to excuse EP1 by saying, "Some people don't understand that I make movies for children"?

    Here's the full quote:
    "The movies are for children but they don't want to admit that. In the first film they absolutely hated R2 and C3-PO. In the second film they didn't like Yoda and in the third one they hated the Ewoks... and now Jar Jar is getting accused of the same thing."

    So, a blood bath for kids?

    --

    I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.

    1. Re:Huh? But I thought... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Ever read "Hansel and Gretel"? "Jack and the Beanstalk"? "Harry Potter"?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Huh? But I thought... by SysGoddess · · Score: 1

      "Does anyone else remember when Lucas tried to excuse EP1 by saying, "Some people don't understand that I make movies for children"?" " Ever read "Hansel and Gretel"? "Jack and the Beanstalk"? "Harry Potter"?" Or ANY of the other (Harry Potter notwithstanding) original, unsanitized Brothers Grimm Fairy Tales? Little Red Riding Hood, The Tale of the Three Little Pigs or Snow White and the Seven Dwarves if made into movies in their original unsanitized versions would likely earn R ratings and the outcry of most parents.

      --

      Thus spake the SysGoddess
  76. Lasers by kacymartin · · Score: 1

    It's a bloodbath yet he kept out the frames of the bolts of Lasers hitting the Imperial guards and Storm Troopers from the OT. Whats the deal?

    --
    -Kacy
  77. More Like A Barbecue by Ranger · · Score: 1

    I never saw much blood or bleeding caused by lightsabres in the previous five movies. If a light sabre is pure light encased in a force field, wouldn't it, like a laser, cauterize any wounds? And with the Sith shooting lightning bolts out of their fingertips wouldn't it be more of a cookout?

    Q: What's for dinner?

    A: Roast Jedi in a light Sith sauce.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  78. If you have to tell a story... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...write a book. Oh! Wait! Those don't make as much money.

    Is is just me, or is everyone really sick of Lucas' blatant bald-faced lying? We'll go see your damn movies George - but you don't have to bullshit us every time you open your mouth near a reporter.

    And for the record GL, nobody, but nobody believes you intended them to be a trilogy. Or a trilogy of trilogies. No matter how many times you say it. If they were - the stories would be more coherent. Unless of course you intended the main love scene of the first (fourth?) movie to be a passionate kiss between a brother and sister. You freak.

    Well...there goes my karma for the day. But it felt good.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:If you have to tell a story... by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 1

      Lucas is out for money? First one was a blockbuster so he milked it 'till the cows came home? Never had a coherent story at all?

      Sorry, but to borrow your abrasive tone, shut the hell up. If you truly don't think he intended to have a trilogy, even having left Darth Vader alive after A New Hope, having tried to title it Episode 4, having desperately secured the rights to merchandise so he could market the movie in order to make the others, having EXPRESSELY WRITTEN THE DAMN CONTRACT WITH FOX TO ALLOW HIM TO MAKE THE NEXT MOVIES, then you're crazy. Loony. Seriously, do you think he wrote the next two movies into his contract because he had some sort of vision of $$$ from Star Wars? He thoguht it would be a failure, as did most of his friends and much of 20th Century Fox.

      I won't talk about the early versions of the script, that began with a Jedi named Mace Windu, because you would just say he made those up after the prequels began filming (although I believe Mace Windu was mentioned before that in a biography). But it still seems odd to ignore all of that just because you desperately need to cast George Lucas as a money hungry tyrant exploiting the beauty that is Star Wars (which he, incidentally, made) to take all your precious money.

      --
      Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
  79. I for one... by coolGuyZak · · Score: 2, Funny

    Still can't believe that there was a movie with Samuel L Jackson where he didn't say the words "fuck" or "shit".

  80. Yup, rated R would be impossible and unnesscessary by eamonman · · Score: 1

    The only way you'd get anything worse than PG-13 would be if you had scenes of direct violence and a gruesome reaction. Say a lightsaber swing is filmed that cuts through someone. For an 'R' rating, we'd need to be shown blood being boiled (cauterization), sinews being severed and burned, AND the person would have to be looking and screaming or something while the lightsaber was in them. Just seeing people getting cut and falling down motionless won't cut it. I wouldn't find that too appealing (hey I can just watch Sin City again) but it would be funny if someone did do that.
    Of course one nud scene of a cetain actress would put it over R instantly. I don't think anyone (cept parents) would object to that.

    --
    0- Eamonman Proud member of DNRC
  81. uhm, gpl is open source by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    linking to gpl open source code is fine and is most definitely not copyright infringement. that is the whole point of open source - to make the code freely and readily available...

    please try harder with your misdirections in the furure.

    i don't know how you got modded 'insightful'.

    sum.zero

    1. Re:uhm, gpl is open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Did you read the comment you're responding to?

      You should try reading some time. It's a great skill. There's a great site here that will teach you lots of words and their meanings so you don't humiliate yourself in public again.

    2. Re:uhm, gpl is open source by kwiqsilver · · Score: 1

      Given the context (read the parent) and the quotes around "stolen", it's quite obvious that he's trying to say "stolen" GPL code is very rare, because one cannot steal what is freely shared.
      The mod should have been "+1 Sarcastic", but they haven't added that yet.

  82. But, is it a blood orgy? by ave19 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I mean, like, satanic woodland creatures style?

    --
    ...or maybe not.
  83. Joseph Campbell and the power of UGHHHHHH... by GPLDAN · · Score: 4, Informative

    Screenwriter magazine this month has an article on Star Wars. I spend my lunch hours in bookstores wayyyy too often.

    Anyhow, the article is about how Lucas wanted to perpetuate the ties to mythic storytelling in his saga. Even though in '77, his initial interviews talked about little more than a Western in space, once the connections to Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth started happening, Lucas didn't exactly go out of his way to deny it.

    I wonder if that, more than anything, overly influenced the latter trilogy. The epic fall from grace. Suddenly, I have visions of Lucas sitting around reading Milton and having inner dialogs about why Satan gets all the zingy one liners.

    There's a ton of ways to read into Star Wars. The ancient Sith / Jedi split invokes the Jesuits, right down to the robes and the dress. If you've read the final script, you know that (spoiler ahead)








    Anakin forsees the death of his beloved again and again (in very vividly written scenes) and it torments him, as he wants his children, but it starts to drive him mad, and he agrees to become Sith only to gain the power to change the future and save the woman he loves. But, in the end, when he thinks Obi-Wan has betrayed him, he force chokes her and nearly kills her. in fact, Sidious tells him later that his force choke DID kill her, which drives him right over the edge.

    There's a strong influence of Greek tragedy in this script. Cheating death, changing fate. Being at the height of your intellectual and phsyical powers in your late 20's, thinking that the world owes you, that you are the sole master of your destiny and finding your mortality is still all too real.

    The script is brutal. If it's shot that way, it would be a stark departure from the first two. The final scene between Anakin and Obi-Wan was suprising in it's adultness. He falls into the lava, his legs are burning, he can't get up. He's clawing the sand... all of his conceits wash away. No more rationalizations of how totalitarianism is somehow more benign, he just cringes and screams at Obi-Wan, hs face twisted and red "I hate you!!!". Obi-Wan leans down, a tear streaming in his eyes and responds "I always loved you. Like a brother." and walks away leaving him to burn.

    That's serious Campbell territory. The mentor relationship, the hero who fails the test because jealousy consumes him.

    So, when Lucas says 'I needed to tell this story', what I really think is happening is that he needs to fufill the power of myth aspects. This film is a violent fable. The father falls, the son redeems him. His fall needs to be brutal and ultimately apolitical. Anakin doesn't want power for power's sake. He wants respect, he wants everyone to love him and adore him. He has a God complex. There are many levels there.

    I have a feeling that this movie will leave everybody wondering all the ways the first two could be redone. Anakin should have picked up in his early 20's someplace NOT tattooine. His struggle as a slave, beaten and oppressed, would have forced him into spirituality (not chemistry) and a brutal desire for acceptance and hatred for oppression that ultimately twisted around until the only way he could fufill that was to become the oppressor.

    Oh, and the scene where he kills all the padawans, that could have been brutal if it had a flashback to his slave days. As it is, it's just disturbing and the script invokes Columbine somewhat, with the imagery focusing on his black cloak.

    1. Re:Joseph Campbell and the power of UGHHHHHH... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must also have enjoyed the classical allusions in Tomcats.

    2. Re:Joseph Campbell and the power of UGHHHHHH... by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      I thought Jake Busey was Oedipal. Fuckin Oedipal man.

    3. Re:Joseph Campbell and the power of UGHHHHHH... by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 1

      Uh oh! You didn't bash Star Wars! Quick, mod him a troll :D

      If you want to know more about the influences of classical myths on Star Wars, I suggest the DVD features or this site: http://www.jitterbug.com/origins/myth.html

      --
      Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
    4. Re:Joseph Campbell and the power of UGHHHHHH... by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      Wow... wish I had read that site before going off on that post. Thanks.

    5. Re:Joseph Campbell and the power of UGHHHHHH... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a grip.

      You realize you could pick random scenes from, say, The Girl Next Door and have them fit the archetype in the page you linked at least as well as the Star Wars scenes do (or rather don't). I guess Luke Greenfield did an intense study of Campbell before starting on that project too.

      Cowboys in space. Sorry.

    6. Re:Joseph Campbell and the power of UGHHHHHH... by igb · · Score: 1

      Cheating death and changing fate is the exact
      antithesis of Greek tragedy. Once the fates
      have decreed, no man can avoid their wrath.
      Oedipus tries mightily, but he is destroyed,
      as is Creon. By the time of Shakespeare the
      tragedy flows from the `fatal flaw' within the
      individual (although they still usually wind up
      dead), but at the time of the Greeks men were
      just the playthings of the Gods. Contrast Lear
      with Oedipus.

      ian

  84. The real reason for the rating. by LabRat007 · · Score: 5, Funny



    Queen Amidala: Oh no! some invisible force has removed my clothing!! I must put on some clothing.

    Degenerate Jedi: You don't need to put any clothes on (waves hand in front of face).

    Queen Amidala: I don't need to put on any clothes...

    Degenerate Jedi: Yeah know, they say once you go darkside you never go back.
    (que cheesy sci-fi music with inappropriate back beat)


    You get the idea.

    --
    "Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
    1. Re:The real reason for the rating. by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      Degenerate Jedi = Mace Windu?

    2. Re:The real reason for the rating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Followed by a "1-900-HOT-SEXX, call now" subtitle.

    3. Re:The real reason for the rating. by hine_uk · · Score: 1

      I can see the title now "Revenge of the seventh inch"

    4. Re:The real reason for the rating. by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh for Christ's sake -- go see Natalie Portman nearly friggin' nekkid and stripping for Clive Owen in a 2-day rental of Closer http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376541/ at Blockbuster Video.

      Trust me -- no need to wait for Lucas to make Star Wars nerds wet dreams come true with revisions to Amidala's cloak or Leia's Hutt bikini in the "Star Wars 8th Edition Special THX Widescreen DVD Collection" to get you in trouble with the wife.

      My gawking during "Closer" was plenty enough to land me on the couch last Saturday night...where I watched it again, after the wife went to sleep, in the privacy of my den. ;)

      IronChefMorimoto

    5. Re:The real reason for the rating. by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      No no....that would be:

      Star Wars 8th Edition Special THX Widescreen 3D DRM'd Hard Disk Collection

      --

      Gorkman

    6. Re:The real reason for the rating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now all we need are some hot grits and I'm there.

    7. Re:The real reason for the rating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU FAIL IT!

    8. Re:The real reason for the rating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Only on Slashdot does the above get rated "Informative" as opposed to "Funny." :)

    9. Re:The real reason for the rating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...
      > in the privacy of my den. ;)
      ^^^^^^

      You spelled "hand" wrong....

    10. Re:The real reason for the rating. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Funny
      I watched it again, after the wife went to sleep, in the privacy of my den.

      [plugs ears, clenches eyes tightly] LA LA LA LA LA LA LA

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    11. Re:The real reason for the rating. by seanvaandering · · Score: 1

      Mmm, Natalie Portman goodness

      A pink wig even looks good on her. Impressive!

    12. Re:The real reason for the rating. by UTPinky · · Score: 1

      So you really want to see a PREGNANT Natalie Portman? That is degenerate...

      --
      I'm only paranoid because everyone is against me...
    13. Re:The real reason for the rating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may need a new wife.

    14. Re:The real reason for the rating. by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 1

      Closer was one of better made, deeper movies of the decade, describing a trip to hell in much the same disturbing way as Requiem for a Dream and the only thing that impressed you was Portman's thong? I think you deserved the trip to the couch mate.

      --
      Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
    15. Re:The real reason for the rating. by jcr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, that would be fun, but I'll buy a ticket if Jar-jar gets sliced up with a lightsaber...

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    16. Re:The real reason for the rating. by Lifthrasir · · Score: 1
      why?

      (probably should post AC, but no one is going to read this anyway . . .)

      --
      No beer, no TV make Lifthrasir something something
  85. Blood Bath Huh? by simm_s · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes could see that! Your eyes may bleed after watching George Lucas' latest atrocity against the StarWars franchise leaving you soaked in your own blood.

    -- Relax it's just a joke!

  86. How.. by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 0, Redundant

    How can you have a blood bath when light sabers seal any cuts they make?

    --
    I like muppets.
  87. Mischaracterizing George Lucas by kwiqsilver · · Score: 4, Funny

    George Lucas does not use cash to light his cigars. And I really wish people would stop characterizing him as such.
    He uses the $20 bills as toilet paper (due to their cottony softness). He uses orignial Shakespearean manuscripts to light his cigars.
    In the future, please be more sensitive.

    1. Re:Mischaracterizing George Lucas by gh5046 · · Score: 0

      No, he uses normal paper for wiping. Where do you think he got the scripts for episodes 1-3?

  88. What George Really Meant by Render76 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "I should have done this with The Phantom Menace."

    1. Re:What George Really Meant by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 2, Funny

      Rolled up the script, and lit his cigar with it? I agree.

    2. Re:What George Really Meant by BigGez · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, he will.

  89. A PR story, repeated ad nauseum by SpryGuy · · Score: 1

    It's not just the BBC, it's http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7734108/, and http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/04/film. starwars.rating.ap/index.html too...

    Interesting how the text is nearly identical...

    --

    - Spryguy
    There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
    1. Re:A PR story, repeated ad nauseum by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      AP articles usually are the same no matter where you end up reading them...

  90. Why would PG-13 stop them? by CptSkippy · · Score: 1

    Are most Star Wars fans under the age of 13? The first movie is 28 years old, so even if you were born 10 years after it all started you could still get in to see this movie. In fact if you were 13 when A New Hope came out, you'd be old enough to have kids who are old enough to get in without your permission. Though I doubt many 40 year old hardcore Star Wars fans have kids, seeing as they're still living in their parent's basements.

    1. Re:Why would PG-13 stop them? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Heh. I married my DM. She's cool! She lets me play with her boobies. Who knew that could lead to a kid showing up one day?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    2. Re:Why would PG-13 stop them? by redfenix · · Score: 1

      I'm a Star Wars fan. I'm 26. So, I was -1 when Star Wars Ep. 4 came out.

      I'm also a Led Zeppelin fan and for that matter a Benny Goodman fan as well. I also appreciate romatic-era literature.

      My 3 & 6 year old daughters are Star Wars fans. They also enjoy Green Day and the Eagles. They love the stories "The Velveteen Rabbit" and "Stone Soup."

      My point is that living during the creation period of a work of art is not required to appreciate the work.

      --
      "It's a very tangled subsystem." --Windows kernel guru
    3. Re:Why would PG-13 stop them? by swv3752 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I call BS. There are so many logical contradictions in your statements. DM and cool, DM and she, DM and boobies, She and and lets play, married and DM, married and lets play, it just does not compute. though only thing that makes sense is that you don't know how pregancy works. :-P

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    4. Re:Why would PG-13 stop them? by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      I was aprox. your age when Lucas renamed Star Wars 'episode 4.' It was a pretty good movie in 1977, but I haven't spoiled it by watching any of the sequels.

  91. From what I have read it is dark by homerules · · Score: 0
  92. Re:Arrogant bastard by Le+Marteau · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Exactly. I'm sick of being taken for a sucker by Lucas. That, and seeing Yoda hawking Pepsi and learning that Darth Vader like Kellog's Corn Flakes just about did it for me.

    Oh, that and Jar Jar. My god that was horrible. How any self-respecting fan of science fiction can still watch anything made by the man responsible for Jar Jar is beyond me. I like my SF with an edge, not pussified like Lucas does it.

    --
    Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
  93. BURNING 20s????????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lame. blatant disregard for the value of money demands that your cigar be lit with 1 or more benjamins.

    20s are only acceptable for asswiping.

  94. How about the one where Jar Jar eats blaster fire. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just telling a story?

    Then, tell us the story about how Jar-Jar bites it, quickly. How an Ewok doesn't dare show its fuzzball face again. And a story sans the trite trade disputing snorkle headed aliens.

    I'm leaving out a dozen or so other Happy Meal Fodder ideas that crept into episode I and II.

    Use The Force Lucas!

  95. Not the first time to happen... by hoka · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember Titanic? Frontal nudity and PG-13, they had like 200 million, I figure 150 of that million was to bribe the movie raters.

  96. Great. My kids aren't going be really bummed... by XenoChron · · Score: 0

    My kids are going to be bummed. Lucas screwed up and just excluded a big group. My 4 kids won't be seeing it with a PG-13 rating. Thanks Lucas, they WERE looking forward to this.

  97. I hate be the one who says it... by part_of_you · · Score: 1

    ...But what about the news? I have seen on the news a guy have his head cut off, and it was real. The whole PG-13 rating is a sham anyway. Why should a 12-year-old not get to see the same blood that runs through his body as a 13-year-old? I guess it's like the documents that they put in airplanes, that instruct how to die with an oxygen mask on your face.

  98. Jar Jar Binks in the script! by abenassi · · Score: 1

    69 EXT. CORUSCANT-SENATE OFFICE BUILDING-LANDING PLATFORM-LATE AFTERNOON The small Jedi Shuttle carrying PALPATINE and the JEDI arrives at the landing platform. There are a DOZEN SENATORS, including BAIL ORGANA, JAR JAR BINKS, and C-3PO, waiting for them. PALPATINE, R2-D2, and ANAKIN get out. OBI-WAN and MACE stay in the doorway of the Jedi Shuttle.

  99. Re:Great. My kids aren't going be really bummed... by Zed2K · · Score: 1

    I'm gonna come right out and say it. BS.

    Your kids are gonna see it because they want to, not because you won't let them. I mean its only PG-13. Hell the nightly news would be rated PG-13 is they applied ratings to them with the same "standards".

  100. Titus Andronicus with Lightsabres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And sassy robots. Mustn't forget the sassy robots.

  101. I Want More Violence by micromuncher · · Score: 1

    As I remember my stacks of Fangoria and all those movies that made me ROFL with an R rating.

    I'd like to say Way to go George? When I can get the director's R cut? I want to see Anakin lay down some serious smack producing a bounty of twitching gibs - Sidius burn goodie-goodie two-shoes to smoking yet recognizable lumps.

    I was soooo bent out of shape when Paul Verhoven cut out the excessive gore from Total Recall to get a PG-13 and he still got an R rating.

    Remember, gibs are good. And my kids love gibs too.

    --
    /\/\icro/\/\uncher
  102. Still confused after Episode Two by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 1

    Why did they call it "Attack of the Clowns"?

    --
    --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
  103. Parenting isn't a sometimes job! by portwojc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "A lot of people saying how can you do this? My children love these movies. Why can you not let them go see it?"

    The kids can go see it. Their parents/guardian just need to be present.

    -

    This is good anyway. Last thing I want is another 7 year old girl screaming behind me like when Vader was pounding away on Luke in Cloud City during ESB (when it re-released back in theaters years ago). Of course it did add to the effect.

    1. Re:Parenting isn't a sometimes job! by Kyrene · · Score: 1
      This is good anyway. Last thing I want is another 7 year old girl screaming behind me like when Vader was pounding away on Luke in Cloud City during ESB (when it re-released back in theaters years ago). Of course it did add to the effect.

      Am I wrong for literally laughing out loud as I'm reading that? :D

      --
      Do not disturb. Already disturbed. http://www.teaaddictedgeek.com
    2. Re:Parenting isn't a sometimes job! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you are wrong. Now off to the corner you go! No Twinkies for you, I'm afraid.

    3. Re:Parenting isn't a sometimes job! by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      I say go the whole hog and make it 18. The kids can see it - they just have to wait a couple months for the DVD.

      Now for the Natalie Portman nude scenes..

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    4. Re:Parenting isn't a sometimes job! by Kyrene · · Score: 1

      Dammit! I've been denied my Twinkie privilege due to my twisted sense of humor. :( Next I'll be forced to read /. with a dialup connection....

      --
      Do not disturb. Already disturbed. http://www.teaaddictedgeek.com
    5. Re:Parenting isn't a sometimes job! by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1


      "A lot of people saying how can you do this? My children love these movies. Why can you not let them go see it?"

      The kids can go see it. Their parents/guardian just need to be present.


      Makes you wonder how many parents want to be present with their kids, eh?

  104. Re:Arrogant bastard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I for one am looking forward to a darker story with Jar Jar Binks or Ewoks, something more along the lines of the Empire Strikes Back."

    How about Jar Jar Binka AND Ewoks? Now there's a dark movie.

  105. Please. by SkOink · · Score: 1

    You act like merchandising and product promotion are something new. Need I remind you that Star Wars even had its own Breakfast Cereal? And let's not even talk about the toys, the TV specials, the books, the games, the crisps, and so-on.

    --
    ---- I'll take you in a Hunt deathmatch any day.
    1. Re:Please. by Le+Marteau · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's very funny, that C3PO cerial. It's so bad it almost looks like a parody. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

      You are, of course right. Maybe I'm just becoming a bitter old man and are noticing these things more and finding them offensive, whereas before I could more easily ignore them. For whatever reason, even if it was as bad as when I was a kid and the original Star Wars came out, I find the whole thing disgusting and offensive to my elevated tastes.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
  106. Cussin' by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    Not true. Swear words are also ruining American society.

    You'll know swearing has gone a long way towards acceptance when "F*** this s***" is an example in elementary school grammar.

    "That is correct, 'F***' is the verb and 's***' is the noun"

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Cussin' by Stiletto · · Score: 1


      I've never heard of these swear words "F***" and "S***". I've heard of "FUCK" and "SHIT" though. Is this what you meant?

    2. Re:Cussin' by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      He's just showing off his /. subscription.

  107. Maybe it's just me... by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...but perhaps Lucas is losing his focus..

    He wants it to be all colorful and vibrant so he gives us episode 1 with lush green hills, bright yellow naboo fighters and purple lightsabers...

    Episode 2, Lucas thinks people want to see Yoda kicking ass... so what do we get? A green jumping bean with a switchblade sized lightsabre.. jedi's with fleshy dreadlocks, and the cheesiest most shallow acting known to man..

    He hears his fans screaming for a darker Star Wars and so he delivers a "blood bath".. which I believe will be just as big a flop as the others.. because George just keeps focusing on the visuals and not on the storyline.. and isn't this what movies are .. visual STORIES.

    If the story portion fails, the whole thing fails... just ask anyone who plays video games with great graphics and bad gameplay.

    Lucas needs to stop trying to deliver what he thinks the audience is asking for and FOCUS on getting a good story together...

  108. Your sig? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    78% gave up on 1st day in iCLOD city. Can you survive there? [iclod.com]

    Perhaps, because it's uh... not that great?

  109. Re:Arrogant bastard by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1
    Many people on slashdot would go and see episode 3 if it was made from bad sock puppets and shoeboxes


    I thought it WAS made from bad sock puppets and shoeboxes. It worked for Eps 1 & 2.
    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  110. Blood, blood, more blood. by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    Natalie Portman is in it you insensitive clod. Who needs a script?

    Yeah, but you can pretty much see that she's going to add her litres of blood to the bath. On a positive note, Jar Jar probably will too, only it'll be green or something.

    everything must go, gotta clear the decks for setting episode iv

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Blood, blood, more blood. by khelms · · Score: 1

      Please, please, George, let us have a long and graphic death scene for Jar jar! (Annie! meesa dead!) That's all I ask for episode III. You can skim over that Darth Vader stuff. We already know how that comes out anyway.

  111. sort of.... by Run4yourlives · · Score: 2, Informative

    In the orignal VHS trilogy release, Lucas states that the wookies were a race of primitives that help the rebels defeat the empire on endor.

    When he chopped up the original story into three, he wasn't sure that he would make the second two, and really wanted to include a wookie, so he made chewbakka a co-pilot, and upped his intellegence to boot.

    When it was time for ROTJ, he needed "wookies". Hence the birth of the ewoks. No doubt with some marketing help.

  112. Nothing new here by Have+Blue · · Score: 1

    The movies are already a bloodbath. What was the population of Alderaan again?

  113. Re:Great. My kids aren't going be really bummed... by pclminion · · Score: 1
    My 4 kids won't be seeing it with a PG-13 rating. Thanks Lucas, they WERE looking forward to this.

    You mean, you won't allow them to see it. You're the one depriving them, not George Lucas.

    If the movie had been given a PG rating with the exact same content, would it have suddenly been "okay" for them to watch it?

    Or are you bitching that Lucas didn't make the movie you wanted him to make? Cry me a fucking river.

    You might try being a parent. Has it occurred to you that you might go see the movie first on your own, and determine for yourself if it's appropriate for them?

  114. "Movie ratings are misleading on violence" by ozonator · · Score: 1

    A propos this story, the CBC posted a story yesterday with the title, Movie ratings are misleading on violence: study.

    The gist of the report is that some films rated PG have as much or more violence as some films rated R. This is no surprise, of course (we all know about lies and statistics), but it's a bit of grist for the mills of those who suggest that ratings, reflecting local social and political mores, often are influenced too much by things that may not be that bad for well-parented children, and not enough by those things that may be much worse.

  115. Re:Arrogant bastard by poppen_fresh · · Score: 1

    Well, that would work for most things.... but there's only going to be 1 Episode 1, 1 Episode 2, and 1 Episode 3. It's not like I can say, "Well, I heard Episdoe 2 was bad, I'll not buy this one and wait for the next Episode 2 to come out."

  116. Tycoon Convention? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So did he light this cigar with the stack of burning 20's at the Tycoon Convention?

  117. He won't die by trurl7 · · Score: 1

    I think Jar-Jar will survive, unfortunately. Lucas can't kill him - he's cute, see, and funny, and goofy. (Please note sarcarsm there). Jar-Jar will survive by bearing Luke and Leia away to safety, or something like that. He's not going to be in the big bloodbath. In fact, some jedis will stay behind and get killed just to save his butt. It will make the fans howl in rage, but hey, do you honestly think Lucas will miss an opportunity to shove a turd like that down everyone's collective throat? Of course he won't.

  118. NC-17 and PG-13 by jfengel · · Score: 1

    When they cut a movie to avoid an NC-17 rating, it's because most theaters won't show NC-17 movies. So his option is to either cut it or send it direct to video.

    When they cut a film to get PG-13 rating rather than R, usually those are summer-action-blockbuster types that are counting on teenagers to see. Their goal is to pack in violence/boobies to get the 13-18 year olds out in droves, but not enough to lose them to the R rating (which some theaters actually enforce). Usually those movies aren't all that good to start with, so you're not losing all that much by having some bit of gore/nudity removed. Yeah, it's the artist's "vision", but for summer action blockbusters the "artist" is usually visualizing money.

    With the NC-17 films cut down to R, yeah, sometimes you're losing an auteur's actual work. Team America had some gags cut that were beyond the pale for the MPAA. They're restored on the DVD.

    That's the solution to the free speech dilemma: you're free to film whatever you like; the theaters are free not to show it; you're free to buy the unrated DVD. The only lack of freedom is that the artist can't force the theater to show their movie any way they want.

    1. Re:NC-17 and PG-13 by msim · · Score: 1

      "the "artist" is usually visualizing money"

      how is this any different to the way Lucas has been behaving over the last 6 years?

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
  119. Cool....but possible dupe?? by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

    PG-13 rating was reported a while ago:

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/11/091623 1&tid=101&tid=214&tid=97&tid=1

    Anyway...I am getting severely GEEKED to go see this movie.

    Of course it's going to be a bloodbath....what part of Anakin/Darth Vader falling into lava do you NOT understand?? :D

    --

    Gorkman

  120. "Bloodbath" implies blood by fuxoft · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's a little bit misleading to call Episode 3 "bloodbath" when there is not a single drop of blood anywhere in it. :) True, there are some severed limbs and heads and (very stylized) burnt flesh but all "cuts" are very clean and quick (the reasoning probably being that lightsabers automatically cauterize the wound). The terrors are mostly psychological, due to surprisingly good directing and few neat plot ideas. (E.g. we don't ever SEE Anakin killing the Jedi kids but we know very clearly he did it)

    --

    --- Frantisek Fuka (Yes, that's my real name and you have no idea how it's pronounced)

  121. Article Describes an Article? by Syris · · Score: 1
    Is it me, or does the linked article just describe another AP article without adding anything of substance? Seems useless.


    The original AP article can be found here.

  122. If the level of Sex by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Were commeasurate with the level of violence, Lucas would have an NC-17 on his hands, in the Puritanical States of Mullah Omar DeLay's America.

    So, instead, a token effort is made to protect children from severed limbs - while natural parts of a healthy life are [censored].

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:If the level of Sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's always struck me as funny that the "culture of life" throws a fit everytime someone wants to actually SHOW how life starts. Weird. Definitely a deep neurosis in the American psyche that will lead to psychosis. Pretty much a Puritannical legacy as you noted.

    2. Re:If the level of Sex by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      And what's with all the pregnant actresses showing off their six-month plus stomachs on the covers of magazines? Like that's all the bellies are for.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:If the level of Sex by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      Goofball mods who "trolled" my post: turn down the Limbaugh.

      From BoingBoing:

      Right wing blogs go ape over George Lucas article in Wired
      Steve Silberman's excellent story about George Lucas in the current issue of Wired is inciting a good deal of mouth foaming and carpet chewing on conservative blogs. Says Steve: "My Lucas story has blown up on right-wing blogs like Instapundit and the National Review Online, after being referenced on a conservative forum about film called Libertas. What's strange is that -- with the exception of Libertas -- Lucas' 'statements,' particularly re: Fahrenheit 9/11, are being condemned with no link to the story or the online QA, as if Lucas' supposed opinions are just in the air somewhere. And while Lucas critiqued F911 in the interview, the wingers are characterizing him as a 'Moore-loving liberal.'" Link

      posted by Mark Frauenfelder at 08:51:45 AM permalink | Other blogs commenting on this post

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    4. Re:If the level of Sex by Meagermanx · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hi, I'm from a little place called America.
      I think that's an unfair comparison. People have been fighting bloody, dangerous, daring wars since the dawn of man. It's a natural part of our culture, our species, and our instinct. Sex, on the other hand, is dangerous, dirty, disgusting, and objectifies people. Sexual education should not be tought to our impressionable children before they turn 21, and Sexual intercourse should only be practiced to create a child, and even then nothing fancy. And if you recieve pleasure from such an act, you must immediately repent, or you, most likely, will go to Hell.
      Remember, fear the lord, kill Arabs, and God bless America!

    5. Re:If the level of Sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NC-17 on his hands, in the Puritanical States of Mullah Omar DeLay's America.

      Ah yes, because the value systems of America and the film rating system are a direct result of incumbent politicians.

      Assholes... you never miss a chance to take a pot shot, do you?

    6. Re:If the level of Sex by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Yes, children should be exposed to as much and as deviate sex as possible from as early an age as possible. No child should make it to the age of 7 without having seen at least a dozen gang-rapes on screen.

    7. Re:If the level of Sex by ultranova · · Score: 1

      So, instead, a token effort is made to protect children from severed limbs - while natural parts of a healthy life are [censored].

      Yes, children should be exposed to as much and as deviate sex as possible from as early an age as possible. No child should make it to the age of 7 without having seen at least a dozen gang-rapes on screen.

      Do you think that gang rapes are a natural part of a healthy life (and completely nonviolent too) ? Because your reply to grandparent doesn't make much sense otherwise.

      Do yourself and everyone else a favor and seek medical aid. Please.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:If the level of Sex by ari_j · · Score: 1

      That's just it. Gang rapes are categorized right along with other, more natural sexual acts that children aren't normally allowed to see in the movie theater. And, while you may not realize this, I assure you that allowing them to see one in American theaters will almost instantaneously lead to allowing them to see the other, because there are enough people who do think that gang rapes are a natural part of a healthy life. It doesn't matter my opinion on them.

    9. Re:If the level of Sex by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      Loony bastard.

      You are exactly who I am talking about.

      My post contrasts the reletive acceptable amounts of sexual versus violent content in films, and you immediately equate sex with violent acts, like rape!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    10. Re:If the level of Sex by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Informative
      You are an angry little fellow! Rape is not a sexual act - per se.

      Educate yourself. Rape is an act of violence, using sexual vulnerability as an opportunity to exert dominance, inflict injury and negate the existence of the victim.

      I just talked about sex, you know - like you hope to have someday.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    11. Re:If the level of Sex by ari_j · · Score: 1

      It's good that you can keep this purely ad hominem rather than discussing anything of substance. Logical discource belongs anywhere but on Slashdot.

    12. Re:If the level of Sex by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, because it was completely logical to state that if children are allowed to see simulations of normal, healthy sexual activity, they will "assuredly" also be allowed to see simulations of gang rape.

      And now is the part where, because you can neither back up your original statement nor refute mine, you either go ballistic, ignore me, or continue to claim your argument to this point has been something other than the ridiculously spurious train wreck it has been.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  123. Not to be blockbusters???? by Khyber · · Score: 0

    "I'm not making these, oddly enough, to be giant, successful blockbusters. I'm making them because I'm telling a story, and I have to tell the story I intended." As he lit a cigar with a large stack of burning 20's.

    If he's not in it for making blockbuster movies/money, then why didn't he light his cigar with a huge stack of $100 dollar bills instead? He's got nearly as much money off of the Star Wars movies alone as much as Sony has made cash off the PS and PS2 combined (not including the PSP, which, IMHO, is nice, but for a portable platform, could be cartridge based instead of slow CD/DVD based.)

    He owns the company, he SHOULD be worried about the money it makes. He has people to pay, you know.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  124. What about the contractors? by redfenix · · Score: 1

    a Death Star full of people (a.k.a. Stormtroopers) killed.

    What about the countless number of contractors working on board the Death Star? They were innocent!

    --
    "It's a very tangled subsystem." --Windows kernel guru
    1. Re:What about the contractors? by khallow · · Score: 2, Funny

      No offense, but those were evil contractors. The Empire doesn't hire any other kind.

    2. Re:What about the contractors? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Taking a contract job supporting evil isn't innocent. It would be hard to argue that "I didn't know they intended to blow up planets with the giant planet blowing up weapon I was building for them."

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:What about the contractors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be episode VI. In episode IV, the Death Star was complete.

    4. Re:What about the contractors? by torpor · · Score: 1

      ermm.. you mean robots, not contractors.

      and anyway both the robots and the 'other' beings on death star 1 belonged to the empire, right down to the trash compactor digestion units ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    5. Re:What about the contractors? by Knara · · Score: 2, Informative
      Randal: So they build another Death Star, right?
      Dante: Yeah.
      Randal: Now the first one they built was completed and fully operational before the Rebels destroyed it.
      Dante: Luke blew it up. Give credit where it's due.
      Randal:And the second one was still being built when they blew it up.
      Dante: Compliments of Lando Calrissian.
      Randal: Something just never sat right with me the second time they destroyed it. I could never put my finger on it-something just wasn't right.
      Dante: And you figured it out?
      Randal: Well, the thing is, the first Death Star was manned by the Imperial army-storm troopers, dignitaries- the only people onboard were Imperials.
      Dante: Basically.
      Randal: So when they blew it up, no prob. Evil is punished.
      Dante: And the second time around...?
      Randal: The second time around, it wasn't even finished yet. They were still under construction.
      Dante: So?
      Randal: A construction job of that magnitude would require a helluva lot more manpower than the Imperial army had to offer. I'll bet there were independent contractors working on that thing: plumbers, aluminum siders, roofers.
      Dante: Not just Imperials, is what you're getting at.
      Randal: Exactly. In order to get it built quickly and quietly they'd hire anybody who could do the job. Do you think the average storm trooper knows how to install a toilet main? All they know is killing and white uniforms.
      Dante: All right, so even if independent contractors are working on the Death Star, why are you uneasy with its destruction?
      Randal: All those innocent contractors hired to do a job were killed- casualties of a war they had nothing to do with. (notices Dante's confusion) All right, look-you're a roofer, and some juicy government contract comes your way; you got the wife and kids and the two-story in suburbia-this is a government contract, which means all sorts of benefits. All of a sudden these left-wing militants blast you with lasers and wipe out everyone within a three-mile radius. You didn't ask for that. You have no personal politics. You're just trying to scrape out a living.
      (The Blue-Collar Man (Thomas Burke) joins them.)
      Blue-Collar Man: Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt, but what were you talking about?
      Randal: The ending of Return of the Jedi.
      Dante: My friend is trying to convince me that any contractors working on the uncompleted Death Star were innocent victims when the space station was destroyed by the rebels.
      Blue-Collar Man: Well, I'm a contractor myself. I'm a roofer... (digs into pocket and produces business card) Dunn and Reddy Home Improvements. And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.
      Randal: Like when?
      Blue-Collar Man: Three months ago I was offered a job up in the hills. A beautiful house with tons of property. It was a simple reshingling job, but I was told that if it was finished within a day, my price would be doubled. Then I realized whose house it was.
      Dante: Whose house was it?
      Blue-Collar Man: Dominick Bambino's.
      Randal: "Babyface" Bambino? The gangster?
      Blue-Collar Man: The same. The money was right, but the risk was too big. I knew who he was, and based on that, I passed the job on to a friend of mine.
      Dante: Based on personal politics.
      Blue-Collar Man: Right. And that week, the Foresci family put a hit on Babyface's house. My friend was shot and killed. He wasn't even finished shingling.
      Randal: No way!
      Blue-Collar Man: (paying for coffee) I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. (pauses to reflect) You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens to this... (taps his heart) not his wallet
      -- Clerks

      (really sad no one already pasted this)

    6. Re:What about the contractors? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      An add in the local (galactic ?) newspaper:

      Plumbers needed for the construction of top-secret planet-destroying weapon to help the Empire oppress the Galaxy further. Signed, Darth Vader.

      Or did it go like this:

      Plumbers needed in a space station. Signed, Joe Manager.

      The point is, that if you're hired to work on support infrastructure for a top-secret megaweapon, it's unlikely that you're told that your job has anything to do with the megaweapon.

      And besides, at least the first Death Star contained cell blocks, which held political prisoners; those, at the very least, were innocent of working for the Empire - otherwise, they wouldn't have been imprisoned.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  125. _All_ MPAA ratings are only advisory by JimTheta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why single out PG-13... _all_ MPAA ratings are jsut advisory notations with no legal basis.

    It is not illegal for a youngster to go to an R movie. It is not illegal for theatres (or anyone else) to show R movies to youngsters.

    I think only in the last 10 years have theatres started to really enforce the age restrictions. But these are internal policies, not law.

    Additionally, I believe there's no law prohibiting youngsters from seeing NC-17 movies based on rating alone. If the NC-17 movie contains pornography, of course, then that would be punishable under other laws.

    (IANAL, of course)

    1. Re:_All_ MPAA ratings are only advisory by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

      Why single out PG-13... _all_ MPAA ratings are jsut advisory notations with no legal basis.

      True, but like many industries, the theater industry tries to be self regulating in hopes that the government won't step in.

    2. Re:_All_ MPAA ratings are only advisory by kwerle · · Score: 1

      Additionally, I believe there's no law prohibiting youngsters from seeing NC-17 movies based on rating alone. If the NC-17 movie contains pornography, of course, then that would be punishable under other laws.

      Of course there are plenty of R rated movies that have what could be construed as pornography in them. It is all up to the locale and the judge.

      I couldn't find any law requiring enforcement of the rating system (though it looks like the idea has been tossed about), but other laws could easily come into play.

    3. Re:_All_ MPAA ratings are only advisory by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      Why single out PG-13... _all_ MPAA ratings are jsut advisory notations with no legal basis.
      We're not talking about legal basis. PG-13 is advisory within the confines of the ratings system. A theatre who follows the ratings system is obliged to turn too-young customers away from an R rated movie, but not from a PG-13 movie.
  126. By bloodbath... by Urusai · · Score: 0

    ...they mean a bunch of clone troopers falling over with sparks flying off their useless armor.

  127. Whoa! by hellfire · · Score: 1

    A nude Natalie Portman would easily triple viewership of the movie.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  128. Watch Your Language!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch your damn language, some of us are fucking christians!!

    1. Re:Watch Your Language!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn.. getting laid at 20 past 5.. niiiiice!

  129. **** MAJOR SPOILER WARNING!!! **** by ylikone · · Score: 4, Funny

    Young anakin is actually DARTH VADER!!!

    --
    Meh.
    1. Re:**** MAJOR SPOILER WARNING!!! **** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who keeps modding these posts funny? They are not funny! There's at least 10 idiots posting this in every thread on about StarWars. You are not original! You are not funny!

    2. Re:**** MAJOR SPOILER WARNING!!! **** by SysGoddess · · Score: 1

      " Young anakin is actually DARTH VADER!!!" Yeah, but that was only after knocking up former Queen Amidala. So was it bad sex that drove him to the dark side?

      --

      Thus spake the SysGoddess
  130. Yes, yes, a blood bath, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what about SEX?!

  131. indeed... by Mike+Markley · · Score: 1
    I'm not making these, oddly enough, to be giant, successful blockbusters.


    Well-put! In fact, that's one of the things my talking Jar-Jar Binks doll says. He also says "Ewoks are cute and cuddly; collect all 50!" and "Meesa stereotype, yousa hate n*ggers".

    I guess Jar-Jar was rated PG-13 for the sake of art, too...
  132. Oh boy by part_of_you · · Score: 1

    And I thought there couldn't be more hype to follow a Star Wars movie

  133. Re:Arrogant bastard by Conception · · Score: 1

    You should at least rent the remasters. The picture quality is absurdly nice. They did a real good job cleaning it up.

  134. Re:Arrogant bastard by obidonn · · Score: 1

    Did you catch the sock puppet version of the incredibles on DVD? That was entertaining.

    :: On the second disc's "Setup" menu, wait until the little OmniDroid icon appears in the upper right of the screen. Press right to highlight the icon and hit ENTER on your remote. You will now be treated to a weird sock puppet version of the whole movie put together by Effects Artist Mach Kobayashi and crew. ::

    Actually, episode 3 might be more enjoyable with sock puppets - then they could do away with the handful of bad casting decisions from the first two movies and put in people who can act.

  135. Anyone notice today's date? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    May the 4th be with you! :)

  136. Oh boy here we go.... by hellfire · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Children under 13 can still attend the movie in the US if they are accompanied by an adult, however.

    Do you know how many people I see bringing their 5 year old kids into violent R-rated movies? It's ridiculous.

    Lucas said he was getting "a lot of flak" from parents concerned about the film's US rating.

    "A lot of people saying how can you do this? My children love these movies. Why can you not let them go see it?" he said.


    Oh for %^&#%^()%$# sake! Yanno, I'm a fan of Star Wars, even of the new movies, but if I were to miss the 12:01 showing of episode 3 (yes I'm going to that!) I won't be terribly disappointed. My son wants to go to the 12:01, but I won't let him because it's a school night. We'll see it on the weekend together when we have time.

    My son was something like 5 I think when they re-released the original trilogy on the big screen. He was immediately hooked. If he was 5 when this movie came out, I'd go see it first then decide if I could take him. If I said no, then my son is going to have to live with that. It's not going to kill anyone not to see these movies, even a fan. I admit I'm lucky here because he's 13. Frankly, I think he can deal with it now, and not just because he's 13.

    If we had to miss this movie because of some life altering event which required my attention, I'd grow up and deal with it and you better believe I'd make him grow up real quick.

    Lucas on an artistic level owes me a decent movie, but on a parenting level he owes me jack shit.

    Frankly this is just another symptom of Hollywood. They hype the hell out of something, then a restriction gets placed on it, and people get upset because they think they are entitled to this. It's a vicious circle?

    Where the hell am I going with this? I don't know. Parents want entertainment catered to their exact whims, and think that some how people owe them exactly what they want. Hollywood wants everyone to go to every movie, but yet absolve themselves of responsibility in case someone decides to take their 3 year old to "Alien vs. Predator" because "Well we did tell you the rating on that movie was inappropriate for children."

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:Oh boy here we go.... by Jboy_24 · · Score: 1

      Do you know how many people I see bringing their 5 year old kids into violent R-rated movies? It's ridiculous.

      Two children, one 5 - 6ish, the other 3-4ish sat infront of me during Sin City. I loved the movie btw, just thought it was a little odd.

    2. Re:Oh boy here we go.... by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      And people wonder what's wrong with kids.

      I'm violently opposed to laws making it a crime to, say, rent an "M"-rated game to minors, but for fuck's sake, good parents should know better than to sit their young kids down in front of something like Sin City. Those kids probably got somewhat queasy at the sight of Frodo having his guts eaten by his own dog.

    3. Re:Oh boy here we go.... by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      When I was a little kid (6-10 years old) I saw plenty of R-rated movies in theaters without adult supervision. Real life is much more traumatic than any movie.

  137. Blatantly obvious? by TheLittleJetson · · Score: 3, Funny

    So at the start of Episode 4, Yoda and Obi-wan are like the only Jedi still alive. This movie starts out with a bunch of Jedi living. BUT I NEVER EXPECTED A BLOOD BATH!!!!!!!!

    1. Re:Blatantly obvious? by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      NOBODY expects the Jedi bloodbath!

      Wait, wrong parody.

  138. Hey kids! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Be the first on you block to own the new Star Wars (TM) Action Figures with realistic blood squirting action!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  139. Lucas at it again by exoir · · Score: 0
    Looks like Lucas is at it again...
    Trying to steal our fond memories and make money. I saw Ep 1 didnt like it. I won't watch anymore. Won't buy the DVDs either.

    Lucas is BAD.

  140. oops by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    victimized by the slashdot ratio and threading =)

    my apologies.

    sum.zero

  141. "Asses are made to bear, and so are you." [n/t] by sum.zero · · Score: 1

    this text is not here ;P

    sum.zero

  142. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome our Gungan blood-letting overlords...

  143. To pick a nit... by JayDoggy · · Score: 1

    Actually, the BBC reports that it will likely receive a PG-13 rating, since they (unlike the editors of /.) know how to spell their native language.

  144. History of MPAA Rating System by deinol · · Score: 1

    Why link to answers.com when the only information they have comes directly from the ad free Wikipedia?

    --
    Got Apathy?
    1. Re:History of MPAA Rating System by afabbro · · Score: 1

      Probably because wikipedia is often extremely slow if not down. It's a lot better over the last month, but I (not the original poster) still go to answers.com first by habit because it's a lot snappier.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    2. Re:History of MPAA Rating System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > snappier.

      Let me guess, an Apple user?

  145. Re:MOD DOWN! COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!! by ajs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Jebus... 5 mod points, and I've already replied to this story. Doh!

    For the moderators who thought the parent was "redundant": The parent is quite correct. Arguably a troll, and not very well informed, but not at all redundant.

    The grandparent *is* linking to a copyrighted work... perhaps. Actually, I'm pretty seriously doubtful that it's real. If it *is* real, I'm very disapointed as it lacks several things:

    1. No balance restored to the force (Lucas said point-blank that this was something resolved in ep 3, back when ep 1 came out).

    2. Band-aid resolution to the ghost-jedi issue from ep 4-6, and nothing that would justify Obi Wan's comment from 4 ("If you cut me down...")

    3. From what I've heard many of the events in the script are in the wrong time sequence.

    4. It directly conflicts with other plot summaries on the same site!

  146. Re:Arrogant bastard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I thought it WAS made from bad sock puppets and shoeboxes. It worked for Eps 1 & 2.
    Yeah, but those were computer simulations of sock puppets and shoeboxes.
  147. Re:Arrogant bastard by thomthom · · Score: 1

    I am not really keen on the StarWars hype, I found the first three ones entertaining, but mesa lost interest with the first new one. However, if they made it from bad sock puppets and shoeboxes I think I'll actually see it. I think it'd be funny.

  148. So long as it's Jar-Jar by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    they can have as much as they want.

    But, I suppose as a parent, I'll have to force myself to watch the movie before I take my son to see it ... [grin]

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  149. **** ANOTHER MAJOR SPOILER WARNING!!! **** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Most of you Star Wars Nerds WILL DIE ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!

  150. Problem by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 2, Funny

    But how are you going to get B.A. to ride on a spaceship, Hannibal?

  151. Its Star Wars Day! by Robotron23 · · Score: 0

    Whatever the film's nature....

    MAY THE 4TH BE WITH YOU! :)

  152. Hooray for bloodbaths! by sudog · · Score: 1

    The cutesy Ep1, the disappointing, grating whining in Ep2, will all be worth it if we get to see *EVERYBODY WE HAVE GROWN TO DISLIKE DIE OR BE MAIMED IN ONE GLORIOUS EVIL-TAKES-ALL BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER!*

    Who do we dislike? It's obvious isn't it?

    The Jedi Council of course : Elitist to the last and annoyingly aloof, they flaunt the laws they supposedly protect. Down with the Jedi Council!

    Who do we like who's going to survive?

    Yoda. He's more of an observer advisor on the council than anything else, shaking his head and acting sad, because you know he knows what's coming. Plus he's a little dynamo with a lightsabre.

    Obi-Wan lacks the cynicism of the older council, and is directly responsible for teaching Annakin er.. sorry, Vader, the ways of the force, Obi is thus partly responsible for the death of all those annoying, obnoxious Jedi. Even that one with the ugly blue tentacles coming out of his head.

    If you step back a moment, you could even forgive Lucas for butchering the first two movies if you believe he was simply propping up all those characters just to LET THEM ALL SUFFER in Ep3!

    Ha ha ha.. What more poetic justice than that? Oh the irony..

    WE ASKED FOR IT, maybe we'll get it after all? Woo!!

    1. Re:Hooray for bloodbaths! by onkelonkel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Aaargh!

      Flaunt |= Flout

      also

      Infer|= Imply
      Affect |= Effect
      Principle |= Principal

      and B.C.ers take note MERIDIAN |= MEDIAN

      um sorry.. ok I feel better now..

      The Grammar Hun

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    2. Re:Hooray for bloodbaths! by sudog · · Score: 1

      To display ostentatiously is to flaunt.

      Viewed in a certain light, "flaunt" might be used in that context since they were taking the republic's laws and waving them in the faces of all those doing the republic harm.

      After all, they were being quite flashy with their light sabres, and their breaking into ships which are themselves breaking the law, and their melting blast doors and so on as though they were frontier-justice-dealing Sheriffs blazing a path of "law" with the broken necks of the criminals they "brought to justice."

      While I suppose "flout" would probably be a better choice here given modern laws and standards of behaviour, there's no direct evidence that the Jedi were actually breaking any laws in the films, since there were never any punishments for their actions meted out.

  153. Hey, wait a minute. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 0

    Did you adjust for inflation?

  154. AUSTIN 3:16 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AUSTIN 3:16 Another soon to be forgotten farce.

  155. Howard the Duck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only person who liked this movie?

    1. Re:Howard the Duck by attemptedgoalie · · Score: 1

      Nope, loved it.

      --
      My mom says I'm cool.
  156. Just another excuse to have Unrated Directors Cut by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0, Redundant

    as a major selling point for the DVD release ...

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  157. Killing with Care by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    Ok...
    I guess we need to figure out how we kill Jedi in a soft well meaning conservitive and correct manner. (They can't all whisk away to ghosts can they? What's that about anyway?)
    Besides, I'd rather not watch an hour and a half of G.I. Joe style combat.

    Exactly it. It's perfectly acceptable in today's new whiled order for them to die heroically in battle, fighting the forces of evil, etc. If they were to simply be led into a room and gassed it wouldn't be right.

    Watch for yellow ribbons 'I support the remaining Jedi in their heroic struggle against the Evil Empire'

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  158. I know what you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just last weekend I saw a PG movie that used the word "Belgium" in it multiple times. What is the world coming to? Is nothing decent anymore?

    I'm totally in favor of artistic expression and all that, but this could not in any way be considered a "serious screenplay." I don't like censorship, but there are certain things they shouldn't be allowed to put in movies.

  159. Re:top 20 pieces of crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What really would we lose if the terrorist win?

    Pre-emptive war against a country that couldn't possibly attack us unless they mailed grenades to everyone in the United States with a big, "Pull ring to open package," sign. Locking up 16 year old girls on trumped up charges with no recourse. Disappearing thousands of people with no recourse. Torturing prisoners with nobody in charge held accountable. Killing over a hundred thousand innocents. Slowly installing a theocracy through the back door. What do you mean, if the terrorists win?

  160. There *IS* a legal basis for enforcing R/NC-17 by raehl · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why single out PG-13... _all_ MPAA ratings are jsut advisory notations with no legal basis.

    You mean no CRIMINAL legal basis. Theaters must enforce R and NC-17 ratings for movies distributed by members of the MPAA as a contractual condition of being able to show movies distributed by MPAA members.

    Theaters are under no obligation to the distributors to regulate who may see G, PG, or PG-13 movies.

    That's not to say a movie theater couldn't decide on it's own to not allow 12 year olds to see PG-13 movies, but if any do enforce such a policy, it's extremely rare, and entirely voluntary on a theater-by-theater basis.

    1. Re:There *IS* a legal basis for enforcing R/NC-17 by JimTheta · · Score: 1

      Theaters must enforce R and NC-17 ratings for movies distributed by members of the MPAA as a contractual condition of being able to show movies distributed by MPAA members.

      I didn't know that, though now that I've read it, I can't believe I hadn't thought of that possibility. Thanks for mentioning that.

    2. Re:There *IS* a legal basis for enforcing R/NC-17 by Mojojojo+Monkey+Inc. · · Score: 1

      Plus, how are you supposed to judge whether a child is 12 or 13 for admittance to a PG-13 movie? It's not like anyone under the age of 16 has any kind of state-issued picture ID, and requiring a kid to bring in something like a birth certificate would be a bit extreme.

  161. Uh uh by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
    Not true. Swear words are also ruining American society.

    Bullshit. Video games are.

    1. Re:Uh uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought is was those damn open source commies...

  162. Well. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    So what if this is the first Star Wars movie to get a PG-13 rating? The first three were relased before the PG-13 rating existed.

    Episode(s) IV-VI didn't deserve R ratings and PG-13 wasn't an option.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  163. Don't Worry... by shoma-san · · Score: 0

    By the time the triliogy reaches DVD, there will a PG version, a PG13 version, and a R version (scenes of sith/padame love included) for all to enjoy.

    There's nothing like changing a movie before it comes out on DVD when it's not good enough in our own twisted mind.

    "As he lit a cigar with a large stack of burning 20's."

    " I love it when a good plan comes together."

    "But most of all, I resent the smell of those burning 20's, however subtle they may be, competing with the aroma of my fine cuban cigars..."

  164. Re:Arrogant bastard by GenSolo · · Score: 1

    That's funny because there have been 3 each of Episodes 4-6 so far, and for some reason, I wouldn't be too surprised if there's at least one more of all six before it's all over with.

  165. What do the parents care? by kuriharu · · Score: 1

    I mean, they're gonna take their kids to see it anyway, right? I've seen parents take kids that are 3-4 years old to violent Rated R movies. I'm surprised anybody complained.

  166. Great Movie, saw a screening last night by MrChubble · · Score: 1

    Too bad he made the emperor like Giminy Glick(martin short's tv show). The voice changes pitches like a cartoon character or something, and he laughs like a moron. Quite distracting. Also, i'd suggest waiting a week or three before seeing it once its release. Otherwise you have to deal with all of the morons who cheer and clap at the best parts just because Yoda did a backflip or a wookie made a noise. Overall it was a great movie, better then the first two, with little dissapointment. Somethings could have been better, sure, but overall it was great.

  167. Too put this gently... by quandrum · · Score: 1
    Your "world" seems to be an autistic one, in particular your privileging of objects over people. Obviously I don't know you and this is just from reading your post on movies, so a grain of salt is served on the side of course.

    1. Re:Too put this gently... by deathcloset · · Score: 1

      good point: on re-reading my post your observation does seem accurate.

      I should have specified this is my preference for Science Fiction movies.

      You made me think and I realized that I love Indiana Jones, which seems much more like a 1,2,3 type.

      Also I like Porn, which is decidedly a 1,2 type.

  168. Re:top 20 pieces of crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mission Accomplished!

    "I'm George W. Bush, and I've approved this mockery of justice."

  169. Yes, it's good. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    Can you imagine the uproar if Lucas did cave, in any way, to outside influences? It's a slippery slope to where Yoda wears Nike shoes and Vader sports patented Death Grip Gloves, available in stores now!

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  170. May the 4th ... by Draoi · · Score: 5, Funny
    ... be with you!!

    (Sorry, sorry. It only works once a year!)

    --
    Alison

    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein

  171. Try in our 60's by Cadmandu · · Score: 1

    I don't think it is a age thing. If we enjoy a movie it doesn't matter how old we are

    --
    Now where is my Cloak of Invisibility
  172. Thank God! by BollocksToThis · · Score: 1

    I thought Anakin was going to bring Amidala before the council and re-enact the love dialogue from episode 2.

    I'm quite glad they decided to take the "slaying" route.

    --
    This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
  173. Eclipse? by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    THE CLIPS, B.A.! THROW ME THE CLIPS!

    Damn, now I really am dating myself.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Eclipse? by djrogers · · Score: 1

      More nitpick time - THROW ME CLIPS! Not "the" - that wouldnt have produced the requisite qord to make BA go night night.... My gosh - now I'm pedantic and lame!

      --
      Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
    2. Re:Eclipse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is "the" clips. The, pronounced "thee", not Americanized, "tha", gives you the desired phonetical blend.

  174. Alright then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's hope that Jar Jar gets it first.

  175. It's a matter of enforcing it. by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

    How many cinema staff do you think will deny kids an opportunity to see Star Wars? Not many methinks.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  176. 35 now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's counting in hex, right? Lots of computer geeks were in the audience because it was one of the first films using Computer Generated Animation and a big deal was made about it at the time.

  177. Hello, Jedi Massacre? by Kelson · · Score: 1

    We've known since 1977 that Darth Vader hunts down and kills nearly all the Jedi. (And we've known since 1977 that he missed a few.)

    OF COURSE IT'S GONNA BE VIOLENT.

    What, did you think he spiked the punch at the Jedi pot luck with cyanide?

    People.

  178. PG-13 by dgagley · · Score: 1

    Yes I will be taking my kids but I've seen all of them, the good and bad, in the theater.

    I am actually more excited about Serenity (out in September.) I wonder what the rating will be on that?

    --
    I can't use my sig - my computer can't read my handwriting.
  179. This isn't "Curious George Uses The Potty" by weston · · Score: 1

    There's bad stuff coming up. Torture you've been prepared for, but there's worse. There's death coming up and you must be ready for this:
    Some of the wrong people die. This isn't
    'Curious George Uses the Potty.' The wrong people die, some of them, and the reason is this: Life isn't fair.

    ---William Goldman The Princess Bride

  180. Why the outcry? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

    I mean, it's been 28 years since the first one came out. Truly the youngest fans must have grown-up since!!!

    1. Re:Why the outcry? by MsGeek · · Score: 1

      I was at the Chinese in 1977 to see Star Wars the first day. I was hooked.

      I cried my heart out when I first saw The Empire Strikes Back. Then I saw it again. And again. And again.

      I forgave Lucas the fucking Ewoks in Return of the Jedi because seeing Luke Skywalker redeem Darth Vader was just so great.

      The Phantom Menace broke my heart.

      I didn't bother to see Clones.

      The Clone War shorts gave me some hope...but Genndy Tartakovsky could have been the reason why that worked so well.

      But I think I just might go to see Revenge. All these reports of "dark and disturbing" are music to my ears. I've read the notorious "spoiler script" and if it's correct, this is going to kick ass. The only thing that left me wanting was that Mace Windu should go out in more of a blaze of glory. His death should have been epic, with much motherfucker ass kicked by Windu on his way out.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  181. For a moment there... by joppabukowski · · Score: 1

    I thought this article was refering to the queues for tickets.

  182. Sorry, Jar-jar has another fate coming to him. by btempleton · · Score: 1

    But beware, clicking on this link may make you scream.

    Quake in fear at Darth-Darth Binks

    --
    Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
  183. Revenge by conjurer · · Score: 1

    Yep, it's about time George gets serious. I hope the wookies open a can of serious whoop-ass on everyone.

  184. rate is bull by Sithgunner · · Score: 1

    I hate to get flamed, but I still say.

    Not just Star Wars, but many movies have blowing up big facilities which result in killing hundreds and thousands (say, the big Federation ship blown up by young anakin in episode 1), now they still rate this, so kids can view without any older people with them.

    Simply put, why is that not violent? Some blood makes it violent? I wonder.

    Now, these way just make people blind that blowing things up is cool and not knowing it's violent, because every adult goes 'wow, haha, yeah!, cool, yes!' when things blow up, around the kids.

    Makes hard to grow kids in the right damn mind.

    1. Re:rate is bull by Sithgunner · · Score: 1

      Just to add my own experience.

      Sorry to anyone related to the event, but I saw the chopper shot down with a missile and a survivor got killed by getting shot from people who came to check the place later on a video, but somehow I didn't feel too shocked when a guy got hit by ak47 or something and killed because I did not see any blood.

      What is this? My damn mind got broken or say been grown up that way, that blood is only way to think it violent, and everything else is just like any other FPS game I've been playing...

      How sad that people in current world are grown up this way...

  185. and this is bad how? by steak · · Score: 1

    nothing short of intergalatic genocide will make up for the steaming pile of sesame street meets angst ridden crybaby the last two movies have blessed us with. I have every confidence that this will be at least the second best star wars movie ever.

  186. Re:How about the one where Jar Jar eats blaster fi by MsGeek · · Score: 1

    101 INT. CORUSCANT-SENATE OFFICE BUILDING-MAIN HALLWAY-DAY

    They enter the main hallway of the Senate Office Building. They pass
    SEVERAL SENATORS, including REPRESENTATIVE JAR JAR BINKS from Naboo.

    JAR JAR: Helloo Annie. Good en to see yousa . . .

    The Gungan waves to Anakin.

    ANAKIN: Hi, Jar Jar.

    JAR JAR: Oopsin da Chancellor!! So sorry, Your Highness, sir.

    Umm...that's the Jar Jar scene. Anakin/Vader apparently lets him live. And that shows you that Anakin has been allied with the Dark Side for longer than has been let on.

    Oh yeah...and what's with calling Anakin "Annie?" Ye ghods and ghoddesses...that is a crime against nature. Shudder...
    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  187. Tarrantino-itis? by shoptroll · · Score: 1

    Sounds like someone's been watching too much Kill Bill...

    And jeez... This article makes it sound like he's going to an R rating with this one...

    --
    Insert Sig Here
  188. die already please by humankind · · Score: 1

    They're still making those Star Wars movies? Haven't they learned anything from the plethora of other once-noble franchises that were summarily beat into a bloody pulp of mediocrity? I guess not. But the funniest thing are the throngs of "fans" who buy anything and everything Star Wars.

    I have a friend who came over the other day with a zip lock bag of M&Ms. Apparently they produced a bag with some Star Wars crap on it and he had to buy it; the week before it was pop tarts and frosted mini wheats. Please people, get a grip. It's just a movie, and with the exception of the first one, a series of ever-increasing crappy ones.

    Like most people, I loved the original Star Wars. I collected all the comic books and enjoyed it, but the series has been milked and destroyed. It's a shame.

  189. Terrorists murder a child - how's that for NC-17 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How's this for something that deserves an NC-17 rating?

    Say what you want, you fucking leftist, anti-American, stupid shitheads. The US of A does not deliberately target children.

    Look at that picture long and hard. Assholes.

  190. Re:Arrogant bastard by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
    Exactly. And people are swallowing this whole PG-13=more serious movie stuff. Some people would pay to see Hayden Christian reading the telephone directory if it was called "Episode III".

    I'm not going to do what I did with EP2 (which sucked even more than Police Academy IV). Lucas has to earn my ticket this time.. If it doesn't get outstanding reviews from proper film journalists (so no paid shills or fanboys), I'll wait for it on DVD to rent.

  191. Obligitory by l0rdpestilence · · Score: 0

    I for one await our new sith overlords.

    and I cant wait for lucus to be king.

  192. Episode 3: A Lost Hope by AngryWookiee · · Score: 1

    I can only hope that episode theree is as good as this

  193. Help me, Obi Wa--aaahh, to hell with it by dexter+riley · · Score: 1

    Sorry, pal. I lost my hope after watching "Episode II".

  194. It's quite simple, really. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    It's quite simple: Phantom Menace came out in 1999. That's a full 6 years ago! The kids that saw that when they were 10 and loved it are now 16. Do you really think that a 16-year-old is going to find appeal in the same kind of movie he did when he was 10?

    Not bloody likely. No, I suspect that Lucas is a marketing genius and he's trying to pull in the entire younger generation of film goers in much the same way he did 20 years ago. The first two originals were PG, and the 3rd was PG-13 - allowing for more age-appropriate sex (metal bikini!) and violence. The action and whiz-bang, in some respects, made up for lackluster storytelling (much as will be the case this time around), but the PG-13 rating undoubtedly convinced many 12-18 year-olds to go to Jedi because it wasn't necessarily a "children's film" anymore due to the rating.

    Sure, they remember the first two being fantastic (or did, with the originals), but they're not going to go to the third one now because they're "too old" for a "kid's film" with their peers. They're "too old" for that stuff - and too socially impressionable.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:It's quite simple, really. by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "The first two originals were PG, and the 3rd was PG-13 - allowing for more age-appropriate sex (metal bikini!) and violence. [...] the PG-13 rating undoubtedly convinced many 12-18 year-olds to go to Jedi because it wasn't necessarily a 'children's film' anymore due to the rating."

      Yeah, you're probably right...hey, didn't RotJ come out in 1983? And wasn't the PG-13 rating introduced near the end of 1984? Whoops.

  195. 20's don't burn like that. by bs_02_06_02 · · Score: 1

    20's don't burn like that. They smolder. Geez. Where have you been?

    --
    -- No sig for you!
    1. Re:20's don't burn like that. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Just give me enough $20s for a bonfire, and we'll see if they don't. ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  196. AIIIIIEEEEE!!!! by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    Do NOT say "Lucas" and "TV Special" in the same sentence- the reality warping effects are almost too much to bear...

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  197. That's how he justifies the extra $50.00 cost of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the director's cut DVD!
    "Now including the alternate Jar-Jar death scenes."

  198. So I guess we can assume.... by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    there will be no Natalie Portman covered with hot grits scene then, given it's only a PG-13?

    1. Re:So I guess we can assume.... by Delphinios · · Score: 1

      You just made me shed a tear, remembering the old school days of SegFault.

      *whatever happened to "Naked and Petrified"?*

    2. Re:So I guess we can assume.... by ronaldb64 · · Score: 1

      Nope, gotta wait for the director's cut on that one...

      --
      There's no place like 127.0.0.1
  199. sounds like Passion of Christ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't need to be "brutal" you fucking moron. It doesn't have to be anything. I think if you had half a brain, you'd know that your original audience like these movies for their artistic merit, We don't want to see "brutal" save that for gimps and S&M artists. We are just geeks, fun-loving jovial, we don't want to be punished like Passion of Crhist. Get over yourself Lucas, I hope you havent turned into some kind of wierd S&M queen.

  200. not fun enough by AussieVamp2 · · Score: 0

    If it was rated for kids, then as I kid, I certainly didn't want to see it, in general (and wouldn't pay to do so)

  201. uses for lightsabers by AussieVamp2 · · Score: 0

    In a blackout, it can be far easier to find your lightsaber, than the torch (and yes, I have done this). So get one for your next power failure!

  202. Whining parents by sg310l · · Score: 1

    "Lucas said he was getting "a lot of flak" from parents concerned about the film's US rating. "A lot of people saying how can you do this? My children love these movies. Why can you not let them go see it?" he said." Dear Concerned Parent, Before you think only of your spoilt child, I would like you to remember that I turned episodes I and II into travesties just so that your children could enjoy the films more. Not only did I make constant "poo poo" references, I included the most hated character in film history (I am now a recluse at Skywalker ranch for fear of attacks from nerdpoodoo) To adults, half the characters now sound like mental patients, and did you notice the jokes I added so i thought kids would have more fun!! I mean C3PO says "this is such a drag" and "im beside myself" dont you see what a dick this makes me look like to adults? I sell my soul to satan and all you can think about is me me me me meme! Yours gnashingly George Lucas

  203. Word mismatch? by Petersson · · Score: 1
    The must be some sort of word mismatch. I can hardly imagine blood bath in Star Wars..

    Maybe the true description of the movie is bloody bad . But I'm goin' to see it anyway, for sci-fi fan it is a must...

    --
    I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
  204. Re:Arrogant bastard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry you missed out, but Part 2 was much more fun than Part 1. YMMV.

  205. Re:Good point?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously you've never been to Japan. Any late night program on Japanese TV would have the Moral Minority picketing the studio, assaulting the program's directors and writing letters to the newspapers about how evil and depraved the program is. The very next day the program's ratings would go skyhigh and the staff and actors would get a bonus. Sex, blood and rockn'roll sell!

  206. Full frontal nudity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats becuase full frontal nudity is beautiful and the word fuck isnt. Even religous nut jobs easily realise that nekkid ladies makes teenage boys realise there has to be a god. Fuck is just a word, one of the most versatile ones.

  207. Re:Bzzzt : ) by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Funny

    # Return of the Jedi Fox $587,871,300 1983^

    These are not the chickens you are looking for...

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  208. Swear words are the inevitable linguistic crutch by wiredog · · Score: 1

    of the inarticulate motherfucker.

  209. We are talking about a science FICTION movie. by tenaciousdRules · · Score: 1

    Fiction. Everyone just settle down. When I was eight, I wanted to be a Jedi. I am 32 now and want to be what I am. A good dad and an average coder. I can guarantee that I will have the "sex talk" with my child far before I have that all too awkward "kill em' all, let God sort em' out" talk with her. Or maybe she will get in to early Metallica at a young enough age and save me the trouble.

    --
    --Always, I mean never..., No I mean always check your references.--
  210. Ticket #s are all that matters by Sleepy · · Score: 1

    >It's not supposed to be a measure of how many tickets were sold, otherwise it would be measured in tickets sold.

    The context here is measuring popularity of a movie. Popularity = people, no??

    If I go to a luxury movie complex with tables and food, and paid 2x normal for my ticket, that SHOULD'T inflate ticket sales. Neither should inflation. Think of ticket sales as votes, and you can vote more than once (like Ohio and New Hampshire!)

    One could argue that matinee sales contribute less $$ to a movie and so $$ *does* measure popularity. I can concede that point but it's not a huge impact.

    I think you see SALES numbers for Star Wars simply because NO ONE KNOWS how many actual tickets were sold. Period.

  211. Real thoughts for ratings by dwhite20899 · · Score: 2, Funny
    1. PG13 Titanic = adultery, death
    2. PG13 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King = violent, magic
    3. PG Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone = magic, scary
    4. PG Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace = violent
    5. PG13 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers = violent, magic
    6. PG13 Jurassic Park = violent
    7. PG Shrek 2 = innuendo
    8. PG Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets = magic, scary
    9. G Finding Nemo = almost scary
    10. PG13 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring = magic, violent
    11. PG13 Independence Day = violent, aliens
    12. PG13 Spider-Man = violent
    13. PG Star Wars = violent, threatened moviemaking ideas
    14. PG Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban = magic, scary
    15. PG13 Spider-Man 2 = violent
    16. G The Lion King = the "cirle of life" song made up for the violence
    17. PG E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial = aliens (offend southern Baptists)
    18. R The Matrix Reloaded = violence, violence, too much tech, violence
    19. PG13 Forrest Gump = violence, sex, Viet Nam, innuendo
    20. PG13 The Sixth Sense = ghosts, head game plot ending
  212. Pedantry! Yay! by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Really? I'd thought that they pronounced 'eclipse' as "uh-CLIPS", meaning that 'the clips', pronounced "thuh-CLIPS", would be similar enough.

    But then again, it's been a while.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  213. Many 1st Hand Reviews From [lucky] Screeners Here by Cy+Guy · · Score: 1

    Most include some spoilers.

    I'm glad Lucas isn't letting the ratings system control the content of his films, but I hope that I will eventually have a technological way of watching the films in a G-rated version so I can enjoy it with my kids.

  214. Re:Many 1st Hand Reviews From [lucky] Screeners He by whitroth · · Score: 1

    I sincerely hope that you CAN'T watch it with your kids, not until they're old enough.

    It's people like you who want only pablum, and want to drag *everyone* down to be only able to see things that you deem suitable for 8 yr olds.

    You probably want the FCC to push it's fundamentalist Christian standards on the other 75% of the US.

    mark "yes, I *am* hostile to your kind"

  215. Re:Bzzzt : ) by St4rNin3 · · Score: 1

    that is one of the funniest things I have heard in a long, long time.... I laughed til I cried...

  216. Re:Many 1st Hand Reviews From [lucky] Screeners He by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
    but I hope that I will eventually have a technological way of watching the films in a G-rated version so I can enjoy it with my kids.
    Why a G-rated version?

    Eventually you will have a technological way of watching the film in such a way that you can enjoy it with your kids. The technology will be the same one that you use now, and the key word is "eventually". They'll not be kids forever.

    I see little point in you bastardizing the film further (or rather, worse, getting someone to do so on your behalf), even if, on past form, Lucas does a pretty good job of bastardizing it anyway, nor on you presenting to your kids something as being SWIII that clearly isn't.

    Don't lie to them. If it's a choice between lying and not giving them access, do the honest thing, and set a good example by not giving them access. You're instilling the wrong ethics in them from day one if you're encouraging them to believe things that are not true.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  217. Re:Many 1st Hand Reviews From [lucky] Screeners He by Cy+Guy · · Score: 1

    I think you failed to fully read my very short post. I said I'd like a technological way to watch it in a G-rated format. I clearly indicated I had no problem with Lucas making it anyway he wanted.

    I feel the same way about fairy tales I read to my kids. I have a copy of the Brothers Grimm stories in their original [well, translated into English] 'grim' language, but since I'm reading it and my kids can't read yet, I can edit the stories while I'm reading by making the bad people/wolves/bears fall asleep or just go away instead of dying.

    I don't really have a similar option for the Star Wars films (though when the orginal movies came out we bought the story os of Star Wars album which was highly edited to get it under 45 minutes - and I think relatively fit for most children). What I'd like is a program (which I think already exists) which would automatically edit out the violence when I play the DVD on my computer in a seemless way so that my kids can be exposed to the mythology I grew up with (but that I wasn't exposed to until the movies came out when I was already a teenager).

  218. Re:Many 1st Hand Reviews From [lucky] Screeners He by Cy+Guy · · Score: 1

    They'll not be kids forever.

    True, but I think the Star Wars mythos has come very valuable moral lessons that I think would be valuable to my kids while they are still kids. Should the stories of the Bible/Koran/Bhagavad Gita/etc. be withheld from children until they are old enough to handle all the violence and sex in those mythoi?

    You're instilling the wrong ethics in them from day one if you're encouraging them to believe things that are not true.

    Umm, isn't the whole point of fiction, including science fiction, at least temporarily believing something that isn't true?

  219. Re:Many 1st Hand Reviews From [lucky] Screeners He by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
    Umm, isn't the whole point of fiction, including science fiction, at least temporarily believing something that isn't true?
    Oh come on. There's a world of difference between telling someone a bedtime story and saying something is, essentially, something it isn't, such as passing off a film with a different message and with different values to the original as a version of the original. I don't think the two situations are comparable.
    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  220. Takes No Limbaugh to Mod You 'Troll' by KnarfO · · Score: 1

    Your post is a troll, and here's why:

    Your average 13 year old understands that the violence they see on screen is a fantasy, and do not view it as a scenario they would attempt to re-create in their own life.

    However, the same 13 year old sees sex on screen, and feels a rush of hormones dump into their system, thus fueling a powerful urge to explore this with someone else.

    Since most movies don't do a very accurate portrayal of the consequences of sexual activity, there's little or no reason for the youth to feel inhibited or take precautions.

    Sex is a much more complex issue for adolescents than violence, due to the differences in their predilection to engage, and their misunderstanding of the consequences involved.

    --


    "Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
  221. MOD PARENT UP - FUNNY by KnarfO · · Score: 1

    LOL!

    --


    "Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
  222. Re:Arrogant bastard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh and that makes you so very, very cool. Wow, you are just the greatest.

  223. Yoda is sneaky by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    1. No balance restored to the force (Lucas said point-blank that this was something resolved in ep 3, back when ep 1 came out).

    Er, I've been telling people since ep1: Yoda is lying.
    He looks in Anakin future, and says he can't see anything. LIES!

    He SAW the future! He knows! Anakin WILL bring balance to the force: There are thousands of Jedis (light) and only 2 Siths (dark). The imbalance favours the Jedis, by the time ep4 starts, there is balance: 2 Siths, 2 Jedis.

    Yoda saw the awnser to the riddle of the balance of the Force, and he's not telling anyone because he's scheming to be one of the 2 surviving Jedis, the sneaky lil' bugger!

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  224. No Hope by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    On top of that, it has to be so bloody that we all lose hope. Otherwise, why would there be a "New" hope?

    Oh, I lost all hope when I saw on the ep1 DVD a cut scene of Qui Gon sensing a camera drone, chopping it with a swift lightsaber swipe, and turning to Anakin to say "To the ship! We must hurry!"

    In the movie theatre, without that scene, I was wondering "why are they running to the ship? How did Darth Maul know where the ship was?" because this scene, important to the story and chuck full of cool Jedi action, was cut "for time", whilst numerous scenes of Jar Jar stepping in shit, getting farted on, and so forth, weren't...

    Clearly, Lucas choked on money and has suffered brain damage which impaired his ability to edit a movie. I had from then on no more hope.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  225. no VHS/DVD/PPV/cable/TV in 1939 by chuck.kahn · · Score: 1

    What's the adjusted amount for "Gone With the Wind" if people had the option to wait and see it on VHS/DVD/PPV/cable/TV in 1939?

  226. I just wanna see the blood bath in IMAX by chuck.kahn · · Score: 1