logo Sign In

Ratings creep and the rhodian who flunked out of the stormtrooper academy.

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
The ratings given to films has been steadily climbing up over time. A film made in 1977 that might have garnered a PG, if released unadulterated today could get a PG-13 rating.

Has anybody considered that the Han/greedo change in the 97 SE was a rating stunt to keep it at a PG rating, because it would have to be re-rated for most theaters to run it, the SE's were have been considered different movies than the ones that the MPAA of 1977/80/81/83 had rated.

The existing scene would not have gone over with the 1997 ratings board as it did with the 1977 board, and Lucas begrudgingly changed it to keep it PG, the same way he showed the burning bodies of Owen and Beru Lars in 77 to get a PG rating.

Just a thought.

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

Author
Time
Post link
Are you implying that Han shooting first would have gotten the film a PG-13 rating? That's ridiculous. There are movies that might fit that descryption and if re-rated today would get higher, Like Back to the Future, but I don't think so with starwars.

Also, are you implying that Starwars would have been rated G if it had not shown Owen and Beru burning? All I can say to that is O_o

4

Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, hate to say it, but it doesn't stick. Lucas and Spielberg both wanted to make their films more kiddie-proof, which is ironic, since ROTS may be heading into PG-13 territory. FBI agents holding guns in ET wasn't going to affect the rating, and shorter burns in the detention center wasn't going to do it either.

Lucas simply wanted these changes. No one was going to change the rating.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Actually, I don't think that skyman's argument is entirely without merit. Planet of the Apes (1968) is rated G and features nudity and swearing; Jaws almost certainly would get a PG-13 today; GL had THX-1138 re-rated and got an R for his director's cut. The 1997 board was definitely more conservative than the 1977 board, and GL may have done it as a pre-emptive strike.
As for Spielberg and the guns vs. walkie talkies, terrorist vs. hippie, etc., none of those changes would have changed the rating.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
"GL had THX-1138 re-rated and got an R for his director's cut."

But this is a completely different film, and you presume he wanted the R rating.. It was never intended for children to begin with. Many adults don't even get it. It's a niche film, so why should Lucas care about the rating?

"The 1997 board was definitely more conservative than the 1977 board, and GL may have done it as a pre-emptive strike."

Films aren't going to be re-rated unless they are re-submitted to the review board. Films with the term "Unrated version" simply weren't reviewed - that's it. This is why most DVDs have thei extra content labelled "unrated". Besides, Lucas doesn't say anything about changing Greedo in order to keep its rating, and McCallum just recently stated that they won't change ROTS if it receives a PG-13 rating, so there's really no basis to this argument.

"As for Spielberg and the guns vs. walkie talkies, terrorist vs. hippie, etc., none of those changes would have changed the rating."

Neither would Greedo shooting first, or burning bodies. I'm still wondering where this belief that "he showed the burning bodies of Owen and Beru Lars in 77 to get a PG rating" reasoning is coming from. Seems someone is ignoring the fact that there are many other troubling scenes in ANH, such as Vader choking Antilles, Luke fighting the Tusken (a rather intense scene, even for '77), Alderaan being destroyed, Vader striking down Obi-wan, various pilots being killed face-to-face with the audience or crashing spectacularly, etc. All of which would have blown any chances of a G rating out of the water. Don't tell me that all of these were added simply to avoid a G rating as well...

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Here in England, the OT and all it's special edition incarnations, burning bodies and all, have always had a U rating, which means Universal, suitable for all. I remeber being pretty scared of the Rancor as a kid, especially when he eats the pig gaurd alive, but it got a U, so I was allowed to watch it. And in this country, the classification board is getting MORE lenient if anything - films that would be rated 18 10 years ago now get a 15. In fact, there are very very few films made today that get an 18 rating, and they're a lot gorrier than some older films that are 18. So either America is mega stict on rating their films, or this greedo/rating suggestion is bullshit. Or both.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
G, PG, and deep R have been pretty clear in the US for the past 20 or so years.

Most of our ratings problems come from the PG-13 rating; that is, nobody seems to agree how far is too far for PG-13 and where R begins. Basically any substantial amount of spurting red blood will about get and R rating, and things like decapitations of non-humans is an instant PG-13. I think decapiting humans get instant R. (PG-13 movies can show removed heads, just not the removal.)

The biggest issue of PG-13 vs R is sexuality, though. For some reason, it seems any amount of frontal nudity will get an R rating, but PG-13 films can have all kinds of raunchy dialogue and show sex scenes if they're "Covered up" ... It makes little sense to me.

As for G vs PG, the ratings have changed a lot since 1977. A movie that gets PG today, say National Treasure, probably would have gotten a G rating in the 70's: There's no significant swearing, nobody is murdered, ect. As for Starwars, I think even without the burnng owen and beru corpses, it would have gotten PG because of all the Rebel pilots killed at Yavin, the force choking, and the destruction of Alderaan. Lucas, I think, changed the Greedo scene because of our societies changing attitudes towards violence--that is to say that good guys should never be the agressors--which of course completely ignores the fact that Han wasn't exactly a good guy, and that even if Han shot first Greedo was still the agressor. Basically it was changed to make it clear it was self-defense and not murder.

4

Author
Time
Post link
"Lucas, I think, changed the Greedo scene because of our societies changing attitudes towards violence"

Except that Lucas claimed Greedo always shot first, and that it was never very clear in the original. And again, this reasoning ignores what is known about the content of ROTS.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
But the content in RotS is supposed to be tragic and Dark and we'd all storm Skywalker Ranch and burn it to the ground if it isn't.

And how the heck did Lucas say that Greedo has allways shot first?

4

Author
Time
Post link
"[Lucas] On altering the cantina confrontation between Han Solo and Greedo

It was always meant that Greedo fired first. In the original film you don't get that too well. But in terms of Han's character, I didn't like the fact that when he was introduced the first thing he did is just gun somebody down in cold blood. That wasn't what was meant to be there. The other issue is a perception issue. We had three different versions of that shot: one he fires very close to when Han fires, one was three frames later, one was three frames later. And we sort of looked at it and tried to figure out which one would be perceivable, but wouldn't look corny. It's very hard to do that, because, I mean, obviously if you know the film real well and you're looking for that you see it. If you don't know the film very well and you're just watching the movie, it almost goes right by you. People don't perceive what's happened there, even now. So, it's trying to find that medium ground, and it's always this way in film, of what can the majority of the audience perceive and what can't they perceive. I like fast-paced movies--accusations have been made about this--and I like things to go by in an almost surreal way. So I'm caught between doing things that work for me--really understanding the scenes and understanding what's going on--and the audience, which I know is looking at something for the first time, and things go by in a very different way. So, there's always the conflict about where you draw the line. Perhaps I should have done it two frames sooner."

LINK

"IGNFF: You're the person to ask about this – when you're talking about these kind of special editions and changes and are they due to an original vision or changing sensibilities – I have to ask you about your thoughts regarding the infamous redo of the scene with Greedo in the cantina.... the whole shooting first thing.

KURTZ: Yeah, I really was livid about that one. I think it was a total – it ruins the scene, basically. The scene was never intended that way. Han Solo realized that Greedo was out to get him and he had to blast him first or he would lose his life. It shows you how much of a mercenary he is. That's what the point of the scene was. And so the way they've changed it around, it loses the whole impact of that whole aspect of it.

IGNFF: Do you think that's due to George's changing sensibilities as opposed to his argument that, "No, that was my original intention"?

KURTZ: Well, he can say that was his original intention, but we could have shot it that way very easily. There was no reason that it couldn't have been shot that way. It was shot and edited the way it was because that's the way the script was. That's what he wanted at the time.

IGNFF: What is your opinion of why he would try and rationalize it, when he could very well just say, "You know, I just thought nowadays, it's better if he shoots first."

KURTZ: Maybe he just didn't want to say that. Maybe he felt it was a stronger argument to say, "That's what I really wanted to do and I just didn't have time or inclination at the time." You listen to all these directors, they all say that. That's the stock argument ... somehow if they say that, you can't argue with them."

LINK

See!? I'm not making this up.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
So GL is pretty much lying right? They should ask someone who edited the film with him, so we can know what really happened.

GL using the "Greedo shooting first" thing to tame down the movie and get a PG? Well I think he would get a PG for it today. Remove the blood in the arm cutting scene and you got yourself a G movie.

Maybe he could have done like Scorcese did for Casino. He shot a head vise scene in which Joe Pesci crushes this guy's head in a vise, he made it as violent and gory as he could so the rest of the movie would be tamer in comparision and used it as a sacrificial lamb. They would rate the movie NC-17, he would remove that scene (which he didnt mean to include anyway) and they would re-rate as an R. For some reason, they rated the movie R WITH that scene. Scorcese even had to remove some of the more graphical parts of that scene before release (and it's still quite a violent, disturbing scene)...

Maybe GL should have done the vise scene with Owen Lars and some stormtroopers:

"Owen Lars, listen to me. I got your head in a f(BEEP)ing vise. Now tell me where are those droids you bought."
"Arrh... Arhh... F(BEEP)k you! F(BEEP)k you you motherf(BEEP)er!"
"F(BEEP) me? F(BEEP)k me? Take that you motherf(BEEP)er!" *squeezes his head, one of his eyes pop out*
"AARRGGH... f(beep) you! Kill me... Kill me... KILL ME!"
"Kill you? F(BEEP)ing s(BEEP)thead... TK-421, do this guy a favor will you?"
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
"GL using the "Greedo shooting first" thing to tame down the movie and get a PG?"

Well, that is what everyone else keeps insinuating, but I've never seen one single Lucas quote stating that in any way, shape or form. If SW was in any danger of losing its PG rating, it would not be for that scene.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
"[Lucas] On altering the cantina confrontation between Han Solo and Greedo

It was always meant that Greedo fired first. In the original film you don't get that too well. But in terms of Han's character, I didn't like the fact that when he was introduced the first thing he did is just gun somebody down in cold blood. That wasn't what was meant to be there. The other issue is a perception issue. We had three different versions of that shot: one he fires very close to when Han fires, one was three frames later, one was three frames later. And we sort of looked at it and tried to figure out which one would be perceivable, but wouldn't look corny. It's very hard to do that, because, I mean, obviously if you know the film real well and you're looking for that you see it. If you don't know the film very well and you're just watching the movie, it almost goes right by you. People don't perceive what's happened there, even now. So, it's trying to find that medium ground, and it's always this way in film, of what can the majority of the audience perceive and what can't they perceive. I like fast-paced movies--accusations have been made about this--and I like things to go by in an almost surreal way. So I'm caught between doing things that work for me--really understanding the scenes and understanding what's going on--and the audience, which I know is looking at something for the first time, and things go by in a very different way. So, there's always the conflict about where you draw the line. Perhaps I should have done it two frames sooner."

LINK

"IGNFF: You're the person to ask about this – when you're talking about these kind of special editions and changes and are they due to an original vision or changing sensibilities – I have to ask you about your thoughts regarding the infamous redo of the scene with Greedo in the cantina.... the whole shooting first thing.

KURTZ: Yeah, I really was livid about that one. I think it was a total – it ruins the scene, basically. The scene was never intended that way. Han Solo realized that Greedo was out to get him and he had to blast him first or he would lose his life. It shows you how much of a mercenary he is. That's what the point of the scene was. And so the way they've changed it around, it loses the whole impact of that whole aspect of it.

IGNFF: Do you think that's due to George's changing sensibilities as opposed to his argument that, "No, that was my original intention"?

KURTZ: Well, he can say that was his original intention, but we could have shot it that way very easily. There was no reason that it couldn't have been shot that way. It was shot and edited the way it was because that's the way the script was. That's what he wanted at the time.

IGNFF: What is your opinion of why he would try and rationalize it, when he could very well just say, "You know, I just thought nowadays, it's better if he shoots first."

KURTZ: Maybe he just didn't want to say that. Maybe he felt it was a stronger argument to say, "That's what I really wanted to do and I just didn't have time or inclination at the time." You listen to all these directors, they all say that. That's the stock argument ... somehow if they say that, you can't argue with them."

LINK

See!? I'm not making this up.



...*jaw drops*..

What kind of idiots does Lucas take us for!?

4

Author
Time
Post link
The kind that will buy anything he throws at us.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
"GL had THX-1138 re-rated and got an R for his director's cut."

But this is a completely different film, and you presume he wanted the R rating.. It was never intended for children to begin with. Many adults don't even get it. It's a niche film, so why should Lucas care about the rating?

Because he knows that many parents today use the DVD player as a babysitter, and would assume that a George Lucas movie is in the same vein as Star Wars or American Graffiti. He needed to make it clear that this particular film was not a kids movie.
Anticipating your next question, Steven Spielberg doesn't suffer from the same stereotyping because he has had a greater and more varied output.

Quote
"The 1997 board was definitely more conservative than the 1977 board, and GL may have done it as a pre-emptive strike."

Films aren't going to be re-rated unless they are re-submitted to the review board. Films with the term "Unrated version" simply weren't reviewed - that's it. This is why most DVDs have thei extra content labelled "unrated". Besides, Lucas doesn't say anything about changing Greedo in order to keep its rating, and McCallum just recently stated that they won't change ROTS if it receives a PG-13 rating, so there's really no basis to this argument.

It may not have been about changing the rating, but every film submitted to the MPAA has the option of being released unrated, altered or not. Going unrated is usually about avoiding the MPAA on thorny issues, like the male frontal nudity in A Room With a View.

Quote
"As for Spielberg and the guns vs. walkie talkies, terrorist vs. hippie, etc., none of those changes would have changed the rating."

Neither would Greedo shooting first, or burning bodies. I'm still wondering where this belief that "he showed the burning bodies of Owen and Beru Lars in 77 to get a PG rating" reasoning is coming from. Seems someone is ignoring the fact that there are many other troubling scenes in ANH, such as Vader choking Antilles, Luke fighting the Tusken (a rather intense scene, even for '77), Alderaan being destroyed, Vader striking down Obi-wan, various pilots being killed face-to-face with the audience or crashing spectacularly, etc. All of which would have blown any chances of a G rating out of the water. Don't tell me that all of these were added simply to avoid a G rating as well...

I never said that; I merely said that skyman's argument is not entirely without merit; I didn't say I agreed with him completely.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
"Because he knows that many parents today use the DVD player as a babysitter, and would assume that a George Lucas movie is in the same vein as Star Wars or American Graffiti. He needed to make it clear that this particular film was not a kids movie."

I'm not sure where you are getting this from, but that's one heck of an assumption about his motivations.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Not really. THX-1138 contains frontal nudity, and he probably felt a need (or @ least his legal counsel did after MGM's Swamp Thing incident) to make it clear that THX-1138 is NOT Star Wars or anything remotely connected to it.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.