http://aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=19860



Yeah baby.

Its not really official until the OS updates with the news.

<--Stunned.

Maybe not absolutely official, but I think its safe to say at this point based off what the reports are, and what GL himself has said, and what we've seen in the trailers, it's pretty damn sure that it'll be a PG-13 rating.

Yay!

Is pg-13, just the same as pg over here?

I think it's closer to our old 12 rating.

WOO PG-13! SLIGHTLY MORE GRAPHIC VIOLENCE, SCORE!

I guess Jar-Jar's head being lobbed off was too much for little kids [/wishful-thinking]

No, Jar Jar doesn't die

* Hoping it gets a 15 certificate in this country *

Morons are one of the main reasons I rarely go to the cinema these days, at least with a 15 certificate we're only dealing with morons over fifteen. Although, I suppose 16 - 18 year olds are human beings at their most moronic.

Actually it's the same as our 12A rating, only the age is thirteen.

Heard this news on the George Lucas 60 minutes interview.

On the 60 Minutes interview he said he thought it was going to get a PG-13, and that he could pull it back to a PG rating but really didn't feel like doing that.

Am I the only one who doesn't see this as the spirit of starwars? Starwars was awesome cause I saw it when I was 5 or 6, not because I had to wait a couple years to see it. And hey, how many kids that saw 1 and 2 are going to want to see this, but won't be allowed to?

On the other hand: Violence > *

JediKirby

PG-13 doesnt mean necessarily "somwhat" more violence. A lot of actually violent movies were only PG-13.

PG-13 doesnt mean that young kids cant see the movie, PG-13 means that any kid younger than 13 has to have an adult accompany them to be able to see it.

This is certainly good news. Lots of bad, dark, violent things are supposed to happen in this movie, and it's better it's not unnecessarily watered down.

All I have to say is "its about time". I dont know anyone who takes PG-13 that seriously. If its rated R, then yea I've heard plenty, but I've never heard "Oh no its PG-13, you cant see it, you're only 10.

I mean come on, Indiana Jones was PG-13. Have you all forgotten?

PG-13 then, and PG-13 now are 2 different... completelly different things. I'm a pretty laid back guy, but even I wouldn't take my cousins to a PG-13 movie unless I'd already seen it without them.

JediKirby

Temple of Doom should have been R; but that film was the reason PG-13 was made.

Raiders of the Lost Ark was PG-13 right? The scene with the exploding heads at the end from uncovering the ark; it seems more like a R scene.

The Star Wars movies had the Swedish equivialent of NC-17 (15) when they came out here. A few years ago, they changed the rating to PG (7).

No, it was PG. PG-13 didn't exist until Spielberg petitioned for it after movies like Gremlins and Temple of Doom.

Well the movie can be considered PG-13 not cause of violence, but like the story itself. If a story is too complex/deep, etc, it can get the PG-13 rating, not because of violence or nudity.

Please hand me a large blunt object, so that I may hit you over the head with it for saying that.

Ummm no... no it cant. Show me one movie that says it was rated PG-13 for "complex story". Or just name the movie.

They might go from G to PG for this reason, because G just suggests its a kiddy movie.

I think what THRAWN meant to say is that the story is much more of a psychological knock than anything we've seen previously. I mean for instance, a character that we've followed as a "hero" since childhood in the last two films gets his one remaining arm and both his legs cut off, and then is burnt to a crisp . If I saw this film as a child, I think I would be more bothered about what the characters are actually going through (three movies are more than enough to build an emotional attachment), as opposed to the graphic violence.

OK, you can hit me now. I don't think I'm making sense.

AKPiggot has it somewhat. Do you think a 9 year old can understand why the hero of the last 2 movies is suddenly turning evil in this one? My niece, who is 10, can barely follow the Spider-Man 2 story line. She sure as hell couldn't understand EP3.

As far as a story that would get PG-13 just cause the story itself? Hmmm...I cant think of anythign right now, but I'm sure there are movies out there with low violence (The Hulk for example wasn't any more violent than the other Star Wars, and it didn't have people getting there hands and arms sliced off) but it got PG-13.

I remember seeing Aliens for the first time as a child, and I found it very disturbing. As I remember, it wasn't so much the gore and the violence but what the little girl (who must've been about the same age as me at the time) was going through. It was much easier for me to relate to this character than the adult ones, I don't think I would've found the film anywhere near as disturbing with an all-adult cast.

Instead of saying "could a 9 year old understand" and using your neice as an example, ask yourself "could I understand what was going on?"

When I was 9, I wouldnt have been interested in the story so much as seeing Spiderman kick some ***, or seeing cool lightsaber fights. The reason I wouldnt have cared about the "story" is because, to me, at the time it would have just been an interruption between the action. It wasnt that I wasnt capable, it was that I didnt care.

And as for the Hulk, here's what I found: "MPAA Rating
PG-13 - for sci-fi action violence, some disturbing images and brief partial nudity." Not all about violence.

And just so you know, 2001: A Space Odyssey was rated G. How many kids do you think would follow that movie?

How many ADULTS follow that movie!? :p

Ugh. 2001... That just shows you that almost no G-rated movie is good.