Revenge of the Sith a "Blood Bath" 780
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."
Successful Blockbuster (Score:5, Insightful)
Now imagine if this superfan [blogspot.com] camping out for 139 days [slashdot.org] is under 13....
As he lit.... (Score:5, Funny)
I love it when a good plan comes together.
Re:As he lit.... (Score:5, Informative)
"I love it when a plan comes together"
Don't screw with Hannibal.
Re:As he lit.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Successful Blockbuster (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Successful Blockbuster (Score:4, Insightful)
-Jesse
Re:Successful Blockbuster (Score:5, Funny)
Is that what you yooots are calling us now?
/ Age 37 1/2
Re:Successful Blockbuster (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Successful Blockbuster (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Successful Blockbuster (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Successful Blockbuster (Score:3, Funny)
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 m
Re:Successful Blockbuster (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Nothing to enforce... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Nothing to enforce... (Score:3, Interesting)
_All_ MPAA ratings are only advisory (Score:3, Interesting)
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
There *IS* a legal basis for enforcing R/NC-17 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Successful Blockbuster (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Successful Blockbuster (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Bzzzt (Score:5, Insightful)
Good point (Score:5, 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 [filmratings.com]
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).
Re:Good point (Score:4, Informative)
| Actually "Under 17 Requires accompanying parent or guardian".
If the level of Sex (Score:5, Insightful)
So, instead, a token effort is made to protect children from severed limbs - while natural parts of a healthy life are [censored].
Re:Bzzzt (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Bzzzt (Score:3, Funny)
I guess statisics can be used to prove any point. :-)
Re:Bzzzt (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bzzzt (Score:3, Funny)
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
Re:Bzzzt (Score:5, 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 [answers.com]of the ratings system from Answers.com.
Re:Bzzzt (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bzzzt (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bzzzt (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bzzzt (Score:5, Informative)
Title, studio, adjusted amount, year of release
Source: Box Office Mojo [boxofficemojo.com]
Re:Bzzzt : ) (Score:4, Funny)
These are not the chickens you are looking for...
Re:Bzzzt (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bzzzt (Score:4, Insightful)
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?"
Re:Bzzzt (Score:4, Funny)
I'll admit that I've not seen the movie so forgive me, but wouldn't the above certainly warrant at least an R?
Re:Bzzzt (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bzzzt (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bzzzt (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah... The only redeeming quality in that God awful movie anyway.
Re:Why would PG-13 stop them? (Score:3, Funny)
Meesa no tink so! (Score:5, Funny)
Yuh-hunh. Sin City [imdb.com] and Kill Bill Volume 1 [imdb.com] 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.
Re:Meesa no tink so! (Score:5, Funny)
Amongst other things. Apparantly the Queen Amidala Hot Grits scene will be on the Star Wars III, Revenge of the Sith Unrated DVD.
Re:Meesa no tink so! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Meesa no tink so! (Score:5, Funny)
Not true. Swear words are also ruining American society.
Re:Meesa no tink so! (Score:5, Funny)
Fuck you.
Re:What about the contractors? (Score:3, Funny)
"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." (Score:5, Funny)
I don't see how anyone is suprised (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't see how anyone is suprised (Score:5, Funny)
So long as... (Score:5, Funny)
Itsa beesa trap! (Score:5, Funny)
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".
Re:Itsa beesa trap! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So long as... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So long as... (Score:5, Funny)
The story he intended... (Score:5, Funny)
From TFS:
Yeah...we know all about the story you intended [penny-arcade.com], George.
Er? Eh... Wha... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
PG-13? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I, for one... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I, for one... (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Isn't this good? (Score:5, Insightful)
PG-13 is not binding (TFA is wrong) (Score:5, Informative)
(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.
Re:PG-13 is not binding (TFA is wrong) (Score:4, Informative)
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.
No Suprise (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re:No Suprise (Score:3, Informative)
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.
But he can't tell a story ... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:But he can't tell a story ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
First PG-13 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:First PG-13 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:First PG-13 (Score:5, Funny)
Or, as we used to say when we were kids:
G = Good
PG = Pretty Good
R = Really Good
X = Xcellent
Parents (Score:5, Funny)
Violence? (Score:3, Interesting)
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!)
Yeah, Right... (Score:5, 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...
Gosh! How unlike the real world (Score:5, Insightful)
My outrage well is dry for the moment. Sorry.
Re:Gosh! How unlike the real world (Score:3, Funny)
I'd say the Iraq war should be rated at least an R.
Why does everyone HAVE to flame lucas? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Why does everyone HAVE to flame lucas? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Why does everyone HAVE to flame lucas? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The first 30 minutes of the fim. (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Re:The first 30 minutes of the fim. (Score:3, Funny)
Joseph Campbell and the power of UGHHHHHH... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
The real reason for the rating. (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.
Re:The real reason for the rating. (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:The real reason for the rating. (Score:4, Funny)
> in the privacy of my den.
^^^^^^
You spelled "hand" wrong....
Re:The real reason for the rating. (Score:4, Funny)
[plugs ears, clenches eyes tightly] LA LA LA LA LA LA LA
Blood Bath Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
-- Relax it's just a joke!
Mischaracterizing George Lucas (Score:5, Funny)
He uses the $20 bills as toilet paper (due to their cottony softness). He uses orignial Shakespearean manuscripts to light his cigars.
In the future, please be more sensitive.
What George Really Meant (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What George Really Meant (Score:3, Funny)
Parenting isn't a sometimes job! (Score:3, Insightful)
The kids can go see it. Their parents/guardian just need to be present.
-
This is good anyway. Last thing I want is another 7 year old girl screaming behind me like when Vader was pounding away on Luke in Cloud City during ESB (when it re-released back in theaters years ago). Of course it did add to the effect.
"Bloodbath" implies blood (Score:3, Interesting)
**** MAJOR SPOILER WARNING!!! **** (Score:4, Funny)
Oh boy here we go.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you know how many people I see bringing their 5 year old kids into violent R-rated movies? It's ridiculous.
Lucas said he was getting "a lot of flak" from parents concerned about the film's US rating.
"A lot of people saying how can you do this? My children love these movies. Why can you not let them go see it?" he said.
Oh for %^&#%^()%$# 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."
Blatantly obvious? (Score:4, Funny)
May the 4th ... (Score:5, Funny)
(Sorry, sorry. It only works once a year!)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Arrogant bastard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Arrogant bastard (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Please. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:The only way to save the franchise.... (Score:5, Funny)
"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."
Re:Ewoks were supposed to be wookies? (Score:3, Funny)