StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Link

Hmm. Sounds interesting.

I heard that to, i think its great i mean most people grew up with Star Wars, its only fitting that the final installment be meant just for us

lets just hope that no parents who only know that Star Wars is diffrent than Star Trek bring thier kids and then say that it was not a family oriented movie and George Lucas is a very bad man

This is kind of funny since Lucas was in part responsible for the creation of PG-13 to begin with.

Elfdart wrote:This is kind of funny since Lucas was in part responsible for the creation of PG-13 to begin with.

Spielburg could have gone about the heart scene differently than he did, though.

Also, it wasn't just Temple of Doom. It was also Gremlins. Spielburg's the man to point to.

Tychu wrote:I heard that to, i think its great i mean most people grew up with Star Wars, its only fitting that the final installment be meant just for us

In my opinion, that strikes me as sort of the wrong type of thinking. Star Wars is in no way "ours"...

Concerning the possibility of getting a PG-13, I think that could be more due to intensity and overall amount of violence rather than actual content.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

Tychu wrote:I heard that to, i think its great i mean most people grew up with Star Wars, its only fitting that the final installment be meant just for us

In my opinion, that strikes me as sort of the wrong type of thinking.

Concerning the possibility of getting a PG-13, I think that could be more due to intensity and overall amount of violence rather than actual content.

Yes, and the thematic elements of the story.

it would certainly make sense for that rating by looking at the trailer. and al least people couldn't complain if it had that rating. then they already know before they take their 5 year old kid to see it.

But... but I was thinking of bringing my 3 year old son to a weekday morning show (when most people are at work or at school) in June....

It will be rated "R" due to the live birth of the Skywalker twins's frank nature.

Time for the Vader generation to have that talk about the birds 'n' the bees with your kids...

Old Plympto wrote:But... but I was thinking of bringing my 3 year old son to a weekday morning show (when most people are at work or at school) in June....

I'm not sure how classifaction works in the US, but in OZ parents can take their children into an MA 15+ film, where you have to be 15 and over to see it.

You can take a three-year-old into a PG-13 film, and actually kids can go into a PG-13 film when they're younger than 13. The PG-13 rating operates like an advisory.

It's R that kids under 17 have to have an adult with them for entry.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:You can take a three-year-old into a PG-13 film, and actually kids can go into a PG-13 film when they're younger than 13. The PG-13 rating operates like an advisory.

It's R that kids under 17 have to have an adult with them for entry.

Yippee! Only this last couple of weeks my son has learnt to say "Artoo", "Threepio", "Yoda" and "Vader", and mean it. Plus he hums the Star Wars theme whenever he hears it, and thanks to me he hears it quite a bit.

Can't wait for him to see the STAR WARS logo screaming at him on the big screen.

Keep in mind though that taking a three-year-old to a PG-13 movie still might not be a good idea.

Heh, although it's my opinion that three years old is way too young of an age to take a child to a cinema. If they're too young to understand to be quiet for the duration of the film, and to be able to follow the actual plot, then they shouldn't go. I don't think I was younger than five before I saw my first film in theatres.

But if he's a good boy who can, then go ahead.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:But if he's a good boy who can, then go ahead.

Thus my reason for taking him in during off peak periods, waay into June. I'm a freelance illustrator, so all I have to do is ask my boss if I can take the day off... and good golly, THAT'S ME!!!

Old Plympto wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:But if he's a good boy who can, then go ahead.

Thus my reason for taking him in during off peak periods, waay into June. I'm a freelance illustrator, so all I have to do is ask my boss if I can take the day off... and good golly, THAT'S ME!!!

Freelance? That means expendable!

I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I've been talking to my (5 year old) son about the new Star Wars and how we were going to go see it together in the theater. I am rather disappointed that I may not be able to take him with me. On the other hand, I personally dislike the "kiddie elements" of ROTJ and TPM, so I will probably enjoy the film more myself.

Well i wont commment in the age and movie thing because im sure id get flamed.

But PG-13 makes sense to me. ROTS is a darker part of the movies when things become evil and start turning dark in the star wars universe.

Old Plympto wrote:But... but I was thinking of bringing my 3 year old son to a weekday morning show (when most people are at work or at school) in June....

I'd go ahead and do it. My parents took me to Jurassic Park when I was little.

The entire idea of movie 'ratings' is offensive to me ... there's some group of failed artists somewhere that sits in judgment of successful artists' work and decides who it's appropriate for ...... what an insulting idea.

Personally my view is (might as well say it) screw ratings.

Human beings as a species have failed anyways so get rid of ratings. Let paretns decide what they think is best. Let them scew up their kids (or not) the way they want too. Some kids are mature enough to R rated movies some arent. Heck i know some people that are so strick that their 16 year old still has to watch PG movies. Its a sad world.

Chmee wrote:The entire idea of movie 'ratings' is offensive to me ... there's some group of failed artists somewhere that sits in judgment of successful artists' work and decides who it's appropriate for ...... what an insulting idea.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the US, I got the impression that the movie ratings system is self imposed, to avoid cries for censorship.

Before the ratings system movies were all general audiences. So you had stuff to appeal to everyone in them. This meant you had to put in the adult stuff with innuendos and subtlety, or you got people complaining/boycotting/whatever.

The only folks who get SOL in this are kids who want to see NC-17 or R without an adult with them. Now if some parents want to rent such movies for their kids, nobody can stop them. And porn is almost never rated.

I don't see the big deal. The real problem is that the ratings system isn't always fairly applied. In this country you can get away with a ton of violence, but not sex. And people associate NC-17 (formerly X) with porn, when it's not meant to be that way.

Without ratings, a parent would have to pre-screen EVERY movie before letting their kids go see it, or taking their kid with them. Sure, you might say, a responsible parent SHOULD be doing this anyway. But then such a thing isn't always possible. So this is a guide which can be useful. Also if a person is easily offended, this can help them decide if a movie is worth paying $8 to go see. Sure, you might be one of those people who looks down on others, but what if say you were on a first date with someone whom you wanted to make a good impression with? There's all sorts of reasons. The better informed a customer can be about a product they are considering, the better. And if they choose not to avail themselves of that information beforehand, that's fine too.

Without ratings you'll have extra confusion. How is the average person going to tell the difference between a romantic movie and porn? Or a kid's cartoon and hentai? By title alone? Something tells me that isn't going to work very well, unless the companies are forced into more guidelines and rules. In the end you have some regulation or none, and you have consequences for each. I think at least some rules are necessary or you have chaos. The ratings system can work in favor of movies too, as they market towards different demographics.

In this very thread (and others like it) we have people who seem happier with the idea that the last Star Wars movie could be PG-13, rather than PG like all the others, some perhaps even without stopping to think what this could mean. Similar threads were had about the AvP movie being PG-13 instead of R.

The problem is that directors are actually pressured by studios to get a specific rating, for revenue purposes, all of the time. The studios only 'self-imposed' this system because of government threats to impose one on them if they didn't.

The people who are 'hurt' by it mostly is the audience that doesn't get the art that the director would have made if they had free choice, they get the work the director deems 'acceptable' to get a particular rating. Some directors can ignore these restrictions, but oh so few actually do.

God forbid parents are actually informed about what their kids see and make their own decision, let's be sure there's an agency that can tell them what's Acceptable.

Chmee wrote:The problem is that directors are actually pressured by studios to get a specific rating, for revenue purposes, all of the time. The studios only 'self-imposed' this system because of government threats to impose one on them if they didn't.

The people who are 'hurt' by it mostly is the audience that doesn't get the art that the director would have made if they had free choice, they get the work the director deems 'acceptable' to get a particular rating. Some directors can ignore these restrictions, but oh so few actually do.

God forbid parents are actually informed about what their kids see and make their own decision, let's be sure there's an agency that can tell them what's Acceptable.

This post seems rather self-contradictory. You seem to be opposed to ratings systems but simultaneously convinced that parents should exercise judgement about what their kids can watch; how are the parents supposed to be informed about what their kids see or enforce limits on what they watch if there's no ratings system in place? Quit their jobs and follow their kids around 24/7?

Studio politics aside, there's a sizable market for "unrated director's cuts" on DVD.

The independent filmmakers eat this kind of thing up too. There's tons of unrated DVD's out there.

You see it as infringing rights and censorship, I see it as informing customers. Can it be handled better? Yes. I think there should be an adults only rating for movies that aren't pure porn, and somehow theaters and movie rental places should be made to accept said rating. But I'm not in favor of nixing all ratings just because it's not perfect.

Caius wrote:it would certainly make sense for that rating by looking at the trailer. and al least people couldn't complain if it had that rating. then they already know before they take their 5 year old kid to see it.

theres always going to be that parent who brings their 5 year old to any movie that they shouldnt be seeing

at after 2 long years i am no longer a Padawan Learner!!!!!! woooooooo!!!!!
Post 500 wooooooo!