Lucas: ROTS may be PG-13

[Chmee]

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?

Is it that hard to see a trailer or read 5 different reviews these days to get an idea of the film's theme and content? Yes, I know, this may take a whole ten minutes of the parent's time .... per movie! Oh the drudgery of parenting. The ratings are worse than pre-censorship, they're arbitrary, inconsistent and meaningless. Shit gets a PG-13 rating that I'd never let a child see, and stuff gets an R for showing a pair of tits ....

[Assassin X]

Actually ive seen PG movies that have shown breasts in them. Its really weird how the rating system works sometimes.

Most directors add stuff to try and push it JUST to the edge of R or PG13 to draw a an adult audience. Its really ashame too. I mean i dont care if theres swearing or nudity or blood and gore in a movie but sometimes you just need it because it kills the movie.

For isntance i seen Resident Evil 2 recently and theres a scene where this black guys driving down the street and crashes. He gets out of the car , next to a strip club, and two topless zombies girls come towards him and the camera just site there for like 15 seconds. I was like "OK? I dont get it." It wasnt funny, it wasnt anything but stupid. They added it to boost the movie to an R.

Then later the movie showed Milla Jovovich in a tank of water and for about 30 seconds you see her chest (what little chest she has)! Once again pushed for an R. It didnt add to the movie and i wasnt thrilled to see some naked actor. It was a lame attempt at a R rating.

Ill do one more for the heck of it. Final Destination 2. Love the series. But in this opne right at the begging you see a girl flash the main charecters in the car. For what??? It doesnt add to the movie. Sometimes it just kills a perfectly good movie. Although in that one i still love the movie.

[Darth Wong]

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?

Is it that hard to see a trailer or read 5 different reviews these days to get an idea of the film's theme and content?

What the fuck good does that do if the kid can wander into any theatre and watch any movie he pleases, thanks to the total absence of a ratings system? Are you supposed to follow your kid around 24/7? Or are you only opposed to the unimportant R/PG-13 distinction as opposed to NC-17?

Yes, I know, this may take a whole ten minutes of the parent's time .... per movie! Oh the drudgery of parenting. The ratings are worse than pre-censorship, they're arbitrary, inconsistent and meaningless. Shit gets a PG-13 rating that I'd never let a child see, and stuff gets an R for showing a pair of tits ....

So? You still haven't demonstrated any actual harm caused by this system. At worst, it's useless. The fact that studios fuck up movies in order to get a certain rating doesn't mean there's a problem with the idea of a voluntary ratings system; it means there's a problem with the studio execs. If there was no industry ratings system, websites and community groups would spring up to offer their own version, which would probably be even more fucked up.

[Vympel]

We have proof they'd be even more fucked up- what's that dumbass Christian movie review website where every movie except the Biblical ones gets eviscerated?

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

We have proof they'd be even more fucked up- what's that dumbass Christian movie review website where every movie except the Biblical ones gets eviscerated?

CAPalert, IIRC. Mel Gibson should make a porno based on a Biblical event just to see their reaction.

[Assassin X]

Did you know the Bible if made into a movie would be NC17?

As a christian myself i get so pissed when those damn christian sites rip apart movies...EVEN PG movies like Finding Nemo was on a christian review site as "Slight Violence" and some other stupid sh*t. Then along with that they tore into it because it had a lesbian actress (Ellen DeGeneres) as a voice in it! Get a life people.

Christians disgust me sometimes and i say this as one.

But yeah the movie rating system as i already said is messed up.

[Stravo]

I think the ratings system is an absolute MUST.

Simultaneously part of the responsiblility lies with the parent when you take a tyke to anything other than a G movie. (How many G movies are out there these days?) If you decide not to know anything about a movie before taking a child to a PG movie and you see a flash of tit or prominent use of foul language then you have no right to complain. As a parent, if you are going to take a child to a movie not rated G the onus is on you to find out just what the movie is about and what you can expect from the movie. Something easily accomplished by reading reviews or internet searches.

For instance LOTR was rated PG-13 but I knew that I was comfortable exposing my 5-7 yo daughter (Her age range throughout the LOTR films) to the violence levels shown in the movies. I cared enough to screen them first before taking her to them.

I have no sympathy for jack ass parents that complain about their kid being exposed to violence or sex because they were caught unawares. Thats a load of shit in this day and age. You know what to expect from a film going in these days, there's no such things as unpleasant surprises if you want to make the effort to find out.

I am opposed to the current trend among parents to place so much emphaises on others helping to raise their kids instead of just themselves - by that I mean others acting as surrogate parents while the true parents are out earning enough for 2 cars and a white picket fence. For instance this notion that schools are sort of surrogate families is absurd. Schools are there to teach children not help raise them.

I want to raise my child MY way and if that means she watches movies like LOTR and Troy* because her daddy likes them then thats my business. I don't expect a school teacher - nor for that matter WANT a school teacher to help place morals and values in my child.


*please keep in mind that for every LOTR and Troy she watches, I endure 10 episodes of Spongebob and Princess Diaries ad nauseum.