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."
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....
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
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.
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.
We've known what's coming since 1983.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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)
Enforcement? Its not Childer under 13 not allowed without a parent, its "Parental Guidence suggested for children under 13".
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
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.
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.
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.
Erm, linking to GPL "stolen" code would be great. The problem with such "stolen" code is you usually can't obtain it.
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.
...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.
"I should have done this with The Phantom Menace."
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
"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.
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..."
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.
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?
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.
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"
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.
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.....
Monstar L
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.
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.
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...
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?"
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