By today's standards.. 5 years later would ROTS be rated PG instead of PG-13

My wife and I have talked about this before and now just again today.

Would ROTS be rated PG if it came out today? We believe so.

We think the standards for movie ratings have changed over the last five years. When you have innuendo in movies like Shrek and it can be rated PG and while Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix were rated PG-13 and then Half Blood Prince comes back down and is a PG rating when it is arguably more dark than any of the previous five Harry Potter movies.

We think there is some message being set there.

What do you think? ROTS released in 2010... PG or PG-13 rating?

 

I'm pretty sure the reason ROTS was PG-13 was because Anakin got immolated. Generally, graphic depictions of burns - let alone full-body, scorch-off-the-flesh burns - will be a factor in earning a PG-13, because its not your everyday gun violence that's become so ubiquitous. I dunno, given how arbitrary ratings can be, it's a toss up. We might have hyper-violent action movies now, but CG makes the violence look clean, sanitized, and tamer than, say, a gritty crime drama.

 

Anakin's immolation would still qualify for the PG-13 rating in my opinion.

 

Ditto.

I don't think its very PG like when there is a scene where the "bad guy" is about to massacre a bunch of younglings.

 

It should have been an R, Lucas always insists that the Star Wars movies are made for young children yet he puts in very violent and disturbing scenes in these movies.

But it seems in todays society that people find a girl in a bikini more offensive than a man getting burned alive.

 

Yeah, that's pretty much true.

I didn't realize that Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince was a PG movie. That Burrow burning scene looked like something out of a horror film. (Although of course that scene was never in the book. )

 

Anakin burning and Dooku getting his head sliced off (with rolling motion across the floor) would still be enough to see ROTS at PG-13 (or 12A here in the UK)

I don't have a problem with violence in family movies if the violence is seen and shown to have consequences. Anakin's immolation, for instance, is a consequence of the evil deeds he does after he turns to the dark side and betrays his friends. Its very dark stuff, but children can take it, so long as theres a moral message at its core.

Think of all the Brothers Grimm fables and they are all pretty disturbing for young kids, but they stand the test of time because at their core are very basic, moral messages that its important for kids to understand, like being kind, doing the right thing, listening to your guardians, and so on.

 

Folk tales intended for children are often very violent and dark, historically. They use such disturbing matter to impart a moral message. But an oral story and a motion picture are two very different things. That said, I think ROTS is appropriate for the 8-15 year-old "target" audience of Star Wars--it's scary and unsettling, and it's supposed to be. That's the point. The second half of the movie is basically a horror film for kids, and if they aren't scared and a bit unsettled then the film hasn't worked. I don't think there was any line cross of inappropriateness, it was in pretty good taste without dramatically copping out. Kids are usually fine for such material, it might give the more sensitive ones nightmares, but it's a scary movie so why is that so bad; the real bottom line is will it emotionally scar them? Which IMO is pretty preposterous. If you showed an 8-year old the movie Seven or Schindlers List, then yeah, that's not for kids, those films are for adults and it unsettles them, as they should; ROTS is kids material to an analogous extreme. I think it's important to challenge kids and maybe get them to think about moral and philosophical lessons that such dark material presents; it can't all be mindless Nickelodeon pap and Looney Toons cartoons.

As for would ROTS get a PG: absolutely not.

I don't see any big change since ROTS. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince is about on par with AOTC. Both are the most extreme of PG in modern times. Don't forget, in AOTC, you have a human decapitation, Anakin getting his arm chopped off, Anakin massacring a whole village and then describing how he murdered women and children, finding his mom tortured to death, chopping of Zem Wessels arm, plus plot points about war, assassination, forbidden romance, etc. It's very adult subject matter. But it's presented just lightly enough to sneak a PG.

Don't forget: you can technically say the F word in a PG movie. Example: Beetlejuice.

 

Is the F-word back on the Blu Ray? I know for years its been missing.
And talk about human decapitation.That was my favorite movie when I was four. Go figure.

 

It's on the DVD, too.

 

Revenge of the Sith was more violent than the previous five starwars films.

1. The beheading of Count Dooku

2. the killing of younglings

3. The Jedi being killed off

4. Obi-Wan shooting General Grevious four times before he died

5. Anakin Force choking his wife

6. The total annilation of the Separatist leaders by Darth Vader

7. The Clone troopers shooting down a youngling

8. Palpatine killing three Jedi Masters instantly before dueling with Mace Windu

9. Anakin admitting to Palpatine that he'd like to kill him.

10. And the violence in the duels with Obi-Wan vs. Anakin and Yoda vs. Sidious.

And there's more violence in this movie that can be mentioned.


I say it would still receive a PG-13 rating five years later.