Mielr said:

Massawyrm at AICN makes some really good points about the whole "kid's film" debate: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37951

.............But lets step back for a moment. Tell me something. In what universe do you live that the charred, smoldering remains of a character’s aunt and uncle constitute the makings of a kids movie?"

Well, I'll tell you what universe. It's the universe where a 10 year old can be glued to the television, watching a movie his parents taped off TV for him, every morning for 3 months straight during summer vacation. Honestly, I guess I just didn't think about the fact that they were "smoldering remains". All I thought was "Luke's Aunt and Uncle are dead now". To take it a step further, how is destroying a planet something you'd see in a kids movie? Again, it's probably not something you expect. And that leads me to...

Gaffer Tape said:
Hehe, I love that. I was all taken in by the poignancy of the second paragraph only to bust a gut at the end. And, of course, that reminds me of George's flip-flopping stance about his own movies, where he constantly asserts that Star Wars is for kids yet was forced to defend himself for the violent imagery in Revenge of the Sith.

The violent imagery in ROTS was far worse than seeing two charred skeletons in the remains of the homestead. Even today, when I saw ROTS, I was physically grossed out. But when I watch ANH, I do not get that same feeling. On the contrary, when seeing Beru and Owen's charred remains, my only thoughts were that Luke was now free to move on and begin his training as a Jedi.

Don't forget that ROTS is the only Star Wars movie to receive a PG-13 rating.