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.
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.
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.
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..."
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.