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.
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.
"I should have done this with The Phantom Menace."
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..."
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.
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
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?"