k wrote:
] ] Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith was
] ] interviewed by CBS' 60 Minutes and says the third and
] ] final prequel will not likely receive the PG rating the
] ] previous five films have received.
] ]
] ] "I don't think I would take a five- or a six-year-old to
] ] this," says Lucas, "It's way too strong."
]
] [ Note that just because a movie is PG doesn't mean it has to
] be childish and silly. Eps 1 and 2 were, in fact, both of
] those things, and I don't believe that's gonna be totally
] missing from this. But maybe the PG-13 rating means it'll
] have some deeper elements. I'm not gonna hold my breath, but
] maybe it'll suck less.
]
] For all my bitching, I'm obviously gonna go see it, if only
] for closure. -k]

Well, the good guys largly loose or die. The main bad guy gets established by falling into a pit lava. You get to see what he looks like after they pull him out. Definately the sort of material that would give a 6 year old nightmares.

Decius wrote:
] Well, the good guys largly loose or die. The main bad guy gets
] established by falling into a pit lava. You get to see what he
] looks like after they pull him out. Definately the sort of
] material that would give a 6 year old nightmares.

[ I'm constantly surprised by the things people take their kids to. We went to a matinee of Constantine the other day, and there were a bunch of young kids there. We're talking demons with exposed brains and insects crawling out of peoples eyes, visions of hell, angels getting their wings torn off...

That's a side note of course. I've always thought the main problem with Ep I and II was that they lacked depth... everything was just incredibly superficial. That's a writing problem, but certainaly a higher rating offers a little more flexibility in the kinds of things you can do. Again, I'm hoping, but I've little faith. -k]

k wrote:
] kids to. We went to a matinee of Constantine the other day,

So, I guess I should see this Constantine flick? Keep hearing about people going to see it. Not hearing much about why... Wasn't Constantine the asshole who turned Christianisty into a system of control?

Decius wrote:
] k wrote:
] ] kids to. We went to a matinee of Constantine the other day,
]
]
] So, I guess I should see this Constantine flick? Keep hearing
] about people going to see it. Not hearing much about why...
] Wasn't Constantine the asshole who turned Christianisty into a
] system of control?

[ Couldn't say... i don't recall learning about that. But the movie's about a guy named John Constantine whose job it is to deport errant demons back to hell. Basically. It's apparently based (loosely perhaps) on the comic Hellblazer, which i never read.

It's entertaining, and visually outstanding. Keanu doesn't really ruin it, though you do leave wishing that the character had a little more depth, or anima or something. The casting for Gabriel was fucking perfect. Also, Rachel Weicz is fricking superhot, so that's always a plus. -k]

k wrote:
] ] Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith was
] ] interviewed by CBS' 60 Minutes and says the third and
] ] final prequel will not likely receive the PG rating the
] ] previous five films have received.
] ]
] ] "I don't think I would take a five- or a six-year-old to
] ] this," says Lucas, "It's way too strong."
]
] [ Note that just because a movie is PG doesn't mean it has to
] be childish and silly.

Movie rating does factor in to what movies I want to see. For example, I refused to see AVP, because I felt with such an intense back history, the story could not be told properly and still have a PG-13 rating. Higher ratings typically translates into more mature or adult story line.

That said, there are times when I will see a movie and be shocked by just how good it was. National Treasure was a good example of this. Even though it was PG, tt had a nice dash of history, some fun break-in and chase scenes, and I really enjoyed it.

Acidus wrote:
] Movie rating does factor in to what movies I want to see. For
] example, I refused to see AVP, because I felt with such an
] intense back history, the story could not be told properly and
] still have a PG-13 rating. Higher ratings typically translates
] into more mature or adult story line.

[ Yeah, I agree, which is why I'm hoping that the PG-13 means we'll see some more mature themes and some real character development in this film, instead of giving us another candy coated shell with no chocolate center, like the last 2.

You're right about AVP by the way. It was entertaining, but I in no way consider it a part of the Alien canon. It's just another film that happens to borrow the same creatures. -k]

Acidus wrote:

]
] Movie rating does factor in to what movies I want to see. For
] example, I refused to see AVP, because I felt with such an
] intense back history, the story could not be told properly and
] still have a PG-13 rating. Higher ratings typically translates
] into more mature or adult story line.
]
] That said, there are times when I will see a movie and be
] shocked by just how good it was. National Treasure was a good
] example of this. Even though it was PG, tt had a nice dash of
] history, some fun break-in and chase scenes, and I really
] enjoyed it.

The MPAA rating system never reflects story. Only that some movies have some measure of taboo in them. The taboo's are often dated, arbitrary, inconsistent, and one may or may not be offended by them at all.

All and all, there should be three ratings. For kids, mature, and porn. Parents should be able to order "mature" id cards for their kids if they can understand fiction without becoming crazy or perverted. If you're mature, your mind won't be corrupted by petty sex and violence. The qualifier for porn should be a movie whose content is sex based rather than story based. Even a movie with a story, and a lot of sex shouldn't be considered porn. This letter bullshit with the retarded explanations has to go. It mostly only serves a destructive purpose.

] be considered porn. This letter bullshit with the retarded
] explanations has to go. It mostly only serves a destructive
] purpose.

... I agree that the letter is not the best gauge of stuff. I'm not sure how you make the jump to it being destructive. What is destructive about it?

Acidus wrote:
] ] be considered porn. This letter bullshit with the retarded
] ] explanations has to go. It mostly only serves a destructive
]
] ] purpose.
]
] ... I agree that the letter is not the best gauge of stuff.
] I'm not sure how you make the jump to it being destructive.
] What is destructive about it?

It becomes a limiting factor when creating films. The whims of the MPAA basically decide what films are allowed to be successful. Because artistic credibility is not something a film is rated on, a taboo might still get flagged, even though it may have been quite valid in context. Most hollywood films are a far cry from artistic anyway, but there are a ton of independent movies (often artistic ones) which people never hear of because the MPAA decided that people would be more interested in seeing legally blond 501. So in this way, it is destructive to a thinking culture. People are more afraid of ideas than they should be. This makes them dumb.

terratogen wrote:
] Parents should be able to order "mature" id cards
] for their kids if they can understand fiction without becoming
] crazy or perverted.

I like this idea. Annoying both the Parents and Teenagers who think the MPAA rating system is stupid is the fact that an adult has to haul 17 year olds down to the theater to get them into a movie like Terminator 2 (which is obviously intended for children). The burden associated with operating the censorship system should fall on those who want it to exist. I should be able to opt out.