Blobbafett Posted June 8, 2002 Share Posted June 8, 2002 Hi there y'all! was just wondering why AOTC was rated a PG in comparison to the rest of the serials Universal (U) rating? (well as the ratings stand here in the UK) I mean - it cant get much bloodier than seeing Aunt Beru or uncle Owens sizzling corpses in ANH... or Lukes chamfered stump in Empire.... (and his dads in Jedi) or even, the most evil of them all...... Darth Mauls split deck ( if you will) act in Phantom... I dont honestly remember seeing anything that was any worse in AOTC....... well..except for the bit where Yoda flashed Dooku.. and dont tell me he was just going for his sabre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPY_jmr1 Posted June 8, 2002 Share Posted June 8, 2002 well I dont know about the UK but over here in the US, are ratings are a bit diffirent. *ahem* long bit follows: the first rating here is "G" for General, this is the most basic rating, anyone can atend the movie, often go's to a kids movie. no SW movie has been rated G. the next step is PG, parental guidance, and it is just what it says, there is no restrictions on who is allowed to be admited, but not recemended for small children. all of the star wars movies have been rated PG. every body I have talked to over here thought ep2 should have been rated PG-13... I have now found a website which says this better then I can http://www.filmratings.com/questions.htm#Q5 and http://www.filmratings.com/guide.htm for the symbles, if you are interested. sorry for the long bit, but we all want to know who lucas bribed to get the PG rating... the reason, being is ep2 had MUCH more violence the any of the others... maybe why it got PG in the uk... 56 ps: when it says "Voluntary Movie Rating System" it means : "if you dont have a rating, no civalized movie theather in the nation will show your movie..." so its kinda a mandatory volunteer program... go figure:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blobbafett Posted June 9, 2002 Author Share Posted June 9, 2002 cool ! cheers spy! I reckon that the certification process is quite different between our countries - as all I can say is that so far all star wars films up to Attack have been ( U) universally rated - meaning everyone - right down to toddlers can see these films without being escorted by adults.... it does seem strange to me that regardless of how much violence is in AOTC- it all seems to be exactly the same "quality" (ahem) of violence ...... perhaps they have a hit count limit on cgi characters...virtual deaths the worst I remember seeing is a pretty quick - but graphic dismemberment of anakins arm- ive seen it three times now and it still isnt anywhere near as powerful as seeing Obi wan chop off that geezers arm in the cantina. although I did actually hear that apparantly they had to remove a tiny bit of footage from the Obi wan / Jango fight on Kamino.....something about a rather naughty head butt ( but given by whom I wonder??), something I imagine the BBFC ( British Broadcasting Film Commies) wasnt too happy children utilising in the playground after watching the film.. bless them. Does anybody know about this?.... was it kept in for the american release?.. it did seem rather obvious a "cut" when I saw the film, quite nasty ,... still- I hope they put whatever is missing back in for the dvd. anyway - cheers for the links SPY - Ill check them out !!! sweeeet dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted June 9, 2002 Share Posted June 9, 2002 Remember that in all SW movies we never see the blood and gore associated with the injuries received. This is why the movie gets a PG rating in all countries. We see people in general die from laser blasts, which would leave no blood anyway - a laser would burn on it's way through, therefore cauterising (sealing) the wound. In most scenes where there is brutality about a death, there is some creative directing that usually involves a change of scene. There is violence as such in SW movies, but not that much at all, a lot of it is building up to one scene where there maybe a fatal wound. I think that with having droids, and killing them, it isn't taken the same as chopping someones head off. And when that does happen, the guy has a helmet on, so we don't see the whole gory details, or the agony on his face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda_alex Posted June 9, 2002 Share Posted June 9, 2002 I think the rating in the UK is to do with the bit when anakin slaughters the sand people. Although I agree that personally, I found the charred skeletons in ANH much more disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted June 9, 2002 Share Posted June 9, 2002 Do we really see him slaughter them? Don't we get a change to Yoda and Mace as he is about to lop one of the heads off?! See, they imply the violence, but never show it...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted June 9, 2002 Share Posted June 9, 2002 Incidentally, we have never witnessed a real lightsaber and what it can do to the human body when used in a violent fashion (geeks will be shocked, I know). ; ) Heck, we don't even know how lightsabers really WORK (*nevermind non-canonical "explanations" cooked up over the years by various EU authors of course*), so how can we say they're not "realistic?" As long as they're somewhat consistent, I don't care. In ANH we had a bloody injury from a lightsaber (cantina) but notice how subtly it was done. You see a flash of the lightsaber, everything's blurry and then you look down and "oh my!" it's this bloody forearm of some alien! If we had seen it in slow motion with the saber shearing through his arm and having it rip off in a fountain of blood as the guy writhed in pain, then that'd surely have pushed the rating closer to the adult categories. I do think it has a LOT to do with not only graphic-ness but number of instances. So like the movie could have a ton of "sterile" deaths, or one really gruesome death, I guess (and up to the board of course). Lightsabers are capable of dismembering people, and sometimes in rather bloody fashion, according to the five films out now (we just don't see every detail when there is blood-letting, note also Maul's wound in TPM). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JandoFett1842 Posted June 9, 2002 Share Posted June 9, 2002 Aotc recived a PG rating because it is Gorge Lucas's rule that all star wars movies should not be rated PG-13, so that they can go on a merchandizing blitz and make a billoion diffrent little memobrila for colectors and mostly for all the little 5-12 year olds who see the movie. I am 15, personaly i would like to se the next one rated PG-13, because if it goes the way the origian book went, i dont think massive jedi dieing by a saber would have no blood. Plus i dont think that most little kids want to see the good jedi die. Sucks for them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted June 9, 2002 Share Posted June 9, 2002 IF a lightsabre, is a form of laser as such, then we can apply real world rules to them.... In medicine, lasers are used because as they cut they seal the wound as well, so there is actually no bleeding. It is what they call cauterising the wound, as you cut, you seal it. The heat from the laser causes the wound to seal and not bleed. So apply that to a lightsabre, and it would be rare for a laser to cause bleeding of any sort. That also includes blaster shots too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blobbafett Posted June 9, 2002 Author Share Posted June 9, 2002 ahhh but you do see blood. check out the arm chop cantina scene in a new hope...very bloody....or rare to medium rare as you might order a steak. or even the brief red misty flash (fine blood spray?) as the blade dices Mauly babes... and anyway the topics not bloodywell about this- If I can get it back on track seen as it fell off the road like a wayward shopping trolley- the point Im trying to ask is.... why IN THE UNITED KINGDOM was this film rated PG???. I understand now that the USA obviously being different , has a differnet ratings structure - and I Hope I can explain for you how different our structure is , and why Im questioning it.. In England we have a base certification of 'U' , standing for Universal. a completely family directed rating, disney friendly. ALL OF THE STAR WARS MOVIES RELEASED UP TO AOTC HAVE THIS 'U' RATING. beyond that is 'PG' - Parental Guidance ( minors have to be accompanied by an adult.. and then the "man Im sooooo cool...Im like really old and stuff!" - '12' rating , which has the occasional naughty word ( ****ed if I know what though) or slightly hardcore violent act in it ... Now Im not disagreeing with anyone that AOTC should have been rated PG- its no bambi, but, in direct comparison with all the other movies ( dont forget this is based on the UK's ratings policy) , its no more violent or bloody. What is the singlemost act during the film that caused the BBFC to rule it slightly more disturbing than any of the previous four SW films? Quite a lot of you have pointed out rather helpfully that, potentially, AOTC was rated through amount of content rather than the graphic depiction of those deaths... my trouble is - what was so different about the vast amount of duelling gunships and troops to the AT-AT attacks on Hoths rebel base? I think Kurgan pretty much hit the nail on the head ( respect bwoy) about the fact that the light sabre duel in ANH was done quite 'guardedly' .....nothing too graphic...... a quick blurry flash of action....and then a severed bloody arm .... RESULT! The sabre action as I recall it (seen it 3 times so far) for AOTC between Anakin and Dooku is a bit more in your face....you actually see the arm choppage..... and that makes me hate the fact Im probably answering my own question here! lol!.. but still I saw it as being quite......brisk, in comparison with the other films, still not worthy of bumping up the rating okay Im shutting the f up now, cant believe ive typed so much! I would still love some conference over this stupid subject....its surprising how much its doing my head in! all opinions are welcome........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KordKelly Posted June 9, 2002 Share Posted June 9, 2002 ***SPOILER ALERT*** Could it be - perhaps - it was given that rating for the rather unceremonious (and suprisingly graphic) way that Mace Windu dispatches Jango Fett? ***END SPOILER ALERT*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted June 9, 2002 Share Posted June 9, 2002 This deffinately was the most violent Star Wars movie... in slow motion, you can see Zam Wessel's arm go flying; you do see two Tusken Raiders get decapitated; you do see Anakin dismembering and bisecting many Geonocians in half in full view; you do see blood on Padme when she's slashed by the cat/rat creature, you do see Jango's head get sliced off, you do see Obi-Wan's smoldering wounds and Anakin's arm go flying. It all adds up. This was the most violent PG movie I've ever seen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zindell Posted June 9, 2002 Share Posted June 9, 2002 it was probably pg just do to some of portmans outfits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedantic Posted June 10, 2002 Share Posted June 10, 2002 Originally posted by Jedi_Monk This deffinately was the most violent Star Wars movie... in slow motion, you can see Zam Wessel's arm go flying; you do see two Tusken Raiders get decapitated; you do see Anakin dismembering and bisecting many Geonocians in half in full view; you do see blood on Padme when she's slashed by the cat/rat creature, you do see Jango's head get sliced off, you do see Obi-Wan's smoldering wounds and Anakin's arm go flying. It all adds up. This was the most violent PG movie I've ever seen I agree. And so does everyone I've talked to about it. Not that I mind. I like that they didn't shy away from showing some *real* lightsaber action this time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JandoFett1842 Posted June 10, 2002 Share Posted June 10, 2002 This move was prity vilont, but if you read the book it is worse, in gore and blood. Anakin uses saber trow on a poor little tusken baby( ). And he uses various bloody attacks on the other wemon and children. He just cuts the guys heads off. Who cares about it in the movie, make it more like LOTR head slicing, that would get it a "13" Rating. Plus when jango fett got his head slised off that could have had a log streem of blood squerting out. But it didng, because that is nastye. Zam Westl's arm in the book was everywhere, on the floor, and on the wall, and on Obi Wan. Why didnt the Acklay bleed when it died? That was gay! Why didnt the Geonosian Warriors bleed when they got there ass's cut in half? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPY_jmr1 Posted June 10, 2002 Share Posted June 10, 2002 Originally posted by JandoFett1842 This move was prity vilont, but if you read the book it is worse, in gore and blood. Anakin uses saber trow on a poor little tusken baby( ). And he uses various bloody attacks on the other wemon and children. He just cuts the guys heads off. Who cares about it in the movie, make it more like LOTR head slicing, that would get it a "13" Rating. Plus when jango fett got his head slised off that could have had a log streem of blood squerting out. But it didng, because that is nastye. Zam Westl's arm in the book was everywhere, on the floor, and on the wall, and on Obi Wan. Why didnt the Acklay bleed when it died? That was gay! Why didnt the Geonosian Warriors bleed when they got there ass's cut in half? wtf? ENGRISH!!!! AGHHHHHH!!!!!! DL a SPELL CHECKER please.... 40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JandoFett1842 Posted June 10, 2002 Share Posted June 10, 2002 I type fast and i failed spelling in early grades, **** it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPY_jmr1 Posted June 10, 2002 Share Posted June 10, 2002 Originally posted by JandoFett1842 I type fast and i failed spelling in early grades, **** it. I type fast too, and cant spell for **** either, and I also use a laptop to boot, so whats your excuse? 31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JandoFett1842 Posted June 10, 2002 Share Posted June 10, 2002 Well i have a desktop and i dont really care about spelling, i only care on reports and assigamnents, so i dont give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vestril Posted June 10, 2002 Share Posted June 10, 2002 Originally posted by JandoFett1842 Well i have a desktop and i dont really care about spelling, i only care on reports and assigamnents, so i dont give. Why do you think you're supposed to spell correctly in those assignments? To teach you how to spell so you don't look like a retarded idiot in front of others. I got an email from a client the other day, and his spelling was utterly attrocious, and it left me thinking the guy was an idiot. In the real world you are judged by how you appear, and if you spell poorly, you appear stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JandoFett1842 Posted June 10, 2002 Share Posted June 10, 2002 Who CARES. I DONT GIVE A **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vestril Posted June 10, 2002 Share Posted June 10, 2002 Originally posted by JandoFett1842 Who CARES. I DONT GIVE A **** That POV is why I assume people who can't spell aren't very smart... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Monk Posted June 10, 2002 Share Posted June 10, 2002 JandoFett1842, lightsabers cauterize wounds; lightsaber wounds do not normally bleed... unless you're a Walrusman like Ponda Baba... then you bleed a lot... the reason they say the lightsaber is the weapon of a more civilized time is because it doesn't usually draw blood... it's cleaner, and therefore less barbaric... it's the best weapon to use when trying to evade the MPAA, too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted June 10, 2002 Share Posted June 10, 2002 There's a very simple reason for the PG rating of the first three SW episodes---there was no PG-13 rating, and it didn't merit an R! And now, Lucas' power has evolved along with the ratings system...that's why AotC, which definitely deserved a PG-13 rating, got a PG. But heck, I'm not complaining. I wouldn't have removed any of the violent moments! @BlobbaFett: C'mon. Many deaths. At least two children being beheaded by a lightsaber. A very bad hero role model. Hands being removed. Aliens (living ones) being sliced up with their pieces flying. Scary, deadly centipede things. Blood. Jedi dying. Animals getting carved up. I could go on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zindell Posted June 10, 2002 Share Posted June 10, 2002 Originally posted by Vestril That POV is why I assume people who can't spell aren't very smart... I don't think your gonna win this one, I think your assumptions were correct. If somebody responds to some constructive critism with profanity where in the topic at hand is intelligence. I think your right to assume there is not much floating around in his mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.