How can Star Wars get a PG rating while Lord of the Rings gets PG-13? (1 Viewer)

[StephenA]

To me, they both have similar violence, action, and all around intense scenes. So why the difference in ratings? Is it because George Lucas has that much clout over his movies, or what?

 

[Ken Chan]

Star Wars was originally released before there was a PG-13. Plus, you've got sterile stormtroopers with blasters vs. grimy orcs with swords.

//Ken

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

There's something about a battle fought using futuristic laser guns that's just not as physically violent as swords and axes. In FOTR I can recall off the top of my head (no pun intended) at least two beheadings, severed fingers, a severed arm, a dagger in the thigh, three fat arrows in the torso, and at least one run-through with a sword. And half of these are in just one scene.

The shootouts in Star Wars were toned down for the special edition.

 

[Terrell]

Star Wars was originally released before there was a PG-13.

Probably both answers are correct. George does have a lot of clout. But off the top of my head, I can remember 4 beheadings, two arms chopped off, a lightsaber through the thigh, and a lightsaber through the arm, a headbutt, and a big fight with Jango Fett. But, not a lot of blood was shown. Only a bit here and there. So who knows. AOTC probably just seemed less violent, and with all the other Star Wars films being rated PG, they though it was within the bounds of a PG.

 

[Chris]

Exactly. The deal is, when SW came out, no PG-13. And nothing in SW meritted an R rating. So, it became PG. If PG-13 had existed, I would bet money that it would probably fall into that category, but no one can argue it would ever earn an "R" the choice that the MPAA had at the time.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I think StephenA was probably referencing Attack of the Clones, not the 1977 film. Anyway, I'd have to agree with Wayne about the lasers vs. axes issue.
DJ

 

[Terrell]

I think the reference to Star Wars means the reason AOTC got a PG rating, is because nothing else existed when the originals came out, except R. And it didn't deserve an R rating. Since all the previous Star Wars films got a PG, so did AOTC.

 

[Jeffrey Gray]

Would you believe that, when first submitted to the MPAA, the 1977 film got a G? Yes, a G! The more violent stuff (the bloody severed arm, the burning skeletons) were added because George Lucas wanted them to give it a PG instead of a G.

 

[David Rogers]

Star Wars isn't R, definitely.
LOTR isn't G or even PG ... too bloody. I don't necessarily desire graphic and explicit violence, but I prefer violence, if shown, be done so in at least a semi-realistic manner. That means blood and such when you hack and stab and whatever at other characters with swords and axes and arrows. LOTR is epic scale fantasy, which almost always includes medieval/magical war, and the next two installments of LOTR will have such scenes. It'll stay PG-13 and rightfully so. If they have a huge clash between the armies of Man and Orc and it looks like Disney or a GI Joe cartoon ... gonna be upset to say the least!
Personally I wouldn't really mind all that much if LOTR went to an R for the next two, R for violence not for language or skin. I know it won't, but it'd look good on screen I bet.
One of Lucas' rules for Star Wars is there's no blood in Star Wars. Thus lightsabers which enable swordplay without graphic violence with all the bits and drippings that accompany, blasters that hurt without ripping holes in characters, etc... This also, by the way, translates over to the various Star Wars universe licenses for books and games. Those licensees aren't allowed to get graphic with Star Wars. While I prefer realism, I give Star Wars a pass since I love it so much and lightsabers are so *n*e*a*t.

 

[Mike Broadman]

That also explains why light sabers conveniently cauterise wounds as they slice through flesh.

 

[Terrell]

That's one of the things I like about Star Wars. No needless blood. There's a little bit here and their. There was blood shown on Obi-Wan's stab wounds. There was some showed on Corde after the explosion in the opening scene. But other than that, no need.

 

[Richard Kim]

Well there was that cool blood spray when Obi-Wan slices Darth Maul in half , but other than that, very little blood.

 

[Jeff Pryor]

Blood on Luke's face when the Wampa gets ahold of him. Guts, though not bloody, from the Tauntaun Han slices open. Padme has bloody slices on her back in the arena in AOTC. Yeah, Star Wars is definitely more tame.

 

[AllanN]

Where the Star Wars SE's PG or PG-13? If they where PG that could have been one of the reasons that Lucas recut the bar scene where Han shoots Gredo.

 

[Bill Buklis]

I would be surprised if Star Wars (any of the films new, old SE or otherwise) were anything but PG. Personally I think the ratings are correct. Star Wars should be PG, while Lord of the Rings is PG-13. LOTR is much more intense thematically than SW. Combine that added violence, PG-13 is definitely correct.

Actually I think the ratings are done much better today than they were 10-15 years ago. That doesn't mean they're perfect, but back then there were some pretty gross ranges in how the ratings were given out. It seems a lot more consistent now.

 

[Nathan V]

I'd say the ratings are correct about half the time. You can kind of tell a different set of people are rating the films every few years (right now it's seven women); however, I think they are very, very inconsistent. Having recently been a teenager, I cannot explain how infuriating it is to discover a long awaited film to be R; It can be very hard to mastermind plans to sneak in to these films (Two weeks of planning, bogus/extra tickets, fire escape doors and duck tape were needed just for me to see Apocalypse Now Redux). Besides, so many films recieve wildly incorrect ratings (Matrix, Ali, The Insider, Brazil). I don't think anyone will forget the Ben-Hur rating fiasco (the film got a G!). I think the question for the raters should not be 'how many times do we hear 'fuck?' but instead, 'Is the subject matter and overall atmosphere/message of this film inappropriate for adolescents and children?'

Nathan