What would the OT be rated today

I agree with ANH staying at PG (though the burned body can leave an impression on younger kids if they recognize it for what it is). There were guys being choked etc but it never strayed too far from easy PG.

ESB is definitely dark enough for a PG-13, but I don't think it is inevitably doomed to it. The hand is kind of gruesome but they don't dwell on a bloody stump. I think the biggest issue is on Dagobah with the lightsaber fight in the cave. Even here, though, not too graphic, it is more of an issue with the tone. And the duel at the end leading up to the hand is very tense. I have kids at or under 7, there are definite parts of the movie where at least one was hiding when we showed it to them for the first time (last month or so). But for a 10 or 11 year old, I don't see anything that is going to be over the top.

ROTJ I think would end as a PG. The ewoks take too much time I think for a PG13 On a more serious reasoning, the lightsaber duel at the end was dark, but short enough and no one was hurt -- it was showing off Luke's growth more than threatening his life. When the emperor attacks and is subsequently killed, this is the most PG13 part; however, it's short as well, clearly fantasy lightning, and his death is more left to imagination than shown.

TLDR: ANH and ROTJ are PG, I think ESB wavers but I would personally make PG.

 

Honestly, having watched The Force Awakens, I'm a little confused why it's PG-13.
But I can say this: in 2005, after Revenge of the Sith was rated PG-13 (which it does deserve), Lucas resubmitted the previous films to see if they needed to be re-rated. All five came back with their old PG ratings intact.
I don't think the Original Trilogy would be considered PG-13 today.

Also, fun fact: when A New Hope was sent to the MPAA for the very first time, it came back with a G rating. Remember, this was 7 years before PG-13 was invented, so G covered more then (same thing with PG). Lucas actually asked for the film to be given a PG rating as not to come across as a film for young children and young children alone (ironic considering Jar Jar two decades later).

Meh, the Special Editions didn't do anything to honestly change the ratings. In fact, considering the fact I just shared, it didn't (those were the versions submitted in 2005).

 

Currently, PG is basically "We would rate this G, but we don't want to get yelled at by parents who complain that their toddler cried." G movies don't have threatening moments or tackle tough subject matter. General rule of thumb: if a kid is under 10 and not scared or upset, it's G. if a kid is under 10 and scared or upset, it's PG. If the kid is over 10 and is scared or upset, it's PG-13. All the OT movies would be PG off the bat.

Let's look at ANH. The violence is pretty persistent, that there's a lot of deaths in those scenes, with plenty of close-ups of people screaming as they are consumed by explosions. And I can't see the MPAA ever letting lingering shots of severed, bloody limbs and charred human remains in a PG movie. So ANH would probably be PG-13 by today's standards.

ESB's PG-13. If only for Han's screams in the torture scene and Luke getting his hand taken off. I actually saw a tv cut of ESB where Han's screams were cut.

RotJ is a little tricky. Part of me wants to say PG. And, on the whole, probably is. I just don't know how 10-12 year olds would handle the Emperor. He's the deciding factor in my book.

 

i completely agree. i was 9 when ESB came out. it was fine.
Raiders of the Lost Ark, which came out a year later, was way worse in terms of graphic violence and it's retained its PG rating as well.

i have no idea why TFA is PG-13. it says "for sci-fi action violence" but there's really nothing in it that's worse than anything in the OT.

 

To ease the fear of seeing .. "He Who Must Not Be Named" ..

 

the fishy-eyed toilet monster???

seriously, after seeing that production shot of Snoke without his robe, i'd rate that NC-17.

 

Hahaha. I was thinking the gungan. Haha.

I believe J.J. mentioned during pre-release his bones are in the sand on Jakku. Rather he was joking, I'm not sure.

 

I only saw TFA once but distinctly remember having the thought, "Yeah, I can't bring the kids to see this, definitely PG13" and told my friends with kids in the 6-9 range it is not for them. Maybe if the kids were older I would feel differently. But without being able to recall specifics, I'm going to fall back to the gut feeling that the PG13 fit. (I know that PG encompasses older kids in the 10-12 range, but still didn't think it was carte blanche ok for that age range either, that would depend on the kid a lot more than a PG rating should.)

 

that's really interesting. i know all parents and kids are different.

it's hard to imagine how i would have reacted to TFA as a young child.
the bridge scene certainly would have upset me greatly, i think. more than seeing Obi-Wan die in ANH, which i don't recall being that upset about when i was 6. i remember being pretty upset about Han being put into carbonite when i was 9, and very upset when Vader died when i was 12 (but it was okay, not traumatizing or anything).

my cousin's kids were 9 and 12 when they saw TFA and it didn't faze either of them, but they've probably been exposed to more than most.

 

People can vary. I was very little when I would watch Temple of Doom and I was never freaked out by anything in it.
Also, I think that both Raiders and Temple of Doom would be PG-13. Films are only re-rated if they are resubmitted and PG-13 didn't exist when those films were made. Raiders was R until several edits were made (including add a column of flame in front of Belloq's face when it exploded) and the fight over Temple of Doom's rating (along with other films from the early '80s such as Poltergeist and Gremlins, both PG, though almost were R) led to the creation of PG-13 later that same year. And don't forget that both Last Crusade and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are PG-13.

I don't understand that at all. You need specifics for this line of thought,especially since I would be perfectly fine with showing my future children The Force Awakens at any time. I know that I would have been fine seeing it when I saw the OT, and I was four. Though to be fair, the list of PG-13 movies I saw as a kid is pretty extensive. Here's a quote from me talking about the first episode of Scream Queens back in September:

Can't believe I forgot to mention the first three Terminator films under the R section, though.

 

In my experience, both as a kid and a parent, I lean more on the wait-longer side. I didn't see any PG13s until I was 13 (2 exceptions mentioned below). I didn't see any R's until I was 18, and don't tend to watch many even now. Temple of Doom was age 13, Raiders was 8 and I know I closed my eyes some, though always a second too late, lol. My older cousins did make me watch Gremlins and Leprechaun when I was 6 or 7, something like that, definitely scared me and I had nightmares for a while. (actually, I have no idea what those were rated, were they PG?)

My kids just saw Star Wars OT for the first time in the last month; we've told them the story, shown them scenes, and they've heard the soundtracks countless times, but never seen the whole films. The 7yo (girl) hid under the table or left the room (or wavered in the doorway) during really intense parts because she doesn't like that feeling of tension/seeing people hurt (she cries during Frozen when Ana gets icicle'd). The 5yo (boy) was sucked in completely, looked a bit worried when Solo was carbon frozen and caught up in the lightsaber duels telling Luke to watch out, but otherwise he was fine.

Each kid is different, I don't doubt that some would be fine with TFA at a young age, like my nieces and nephews. But, my 7yo definitely is not in that category, and a lot of 7yos probably aren't, and they are probably the type of kids the screeners were thinking of when they gave the PG13 sticker.

 

But how is The Force Awakens any more intense than the OT?

I remember Gremlins being on the more intense side of my childhood, but never was nightmare fuel for me. Leprechaun did freak me out (well, the titular character on the box art since I have yet to see the series). Gremlins is PG (would be PG-13 if re-rated since it was one of the films that led to its creation in 1984) and Leprechaun is R.
I will say that most kids probably shouldn't see R rated films (after all, they aren't made for kids), though there are always exceptions depending on the film and the kid. For example, I saw Terminator 2 when I was ten. The main reason it's R is actually language (other countries gave it something more along the lines of our PG-13 than their R), so if that bothers you less (and bothers your kids less), it's fine. Well, there is the whole nuke scene, but again, depends on the kid in question.
I have actually given this a lot of thought since I am a film fan and I think back to my own childhood and what films I've seen and when. Even more so since I am a horror fan and I would love to pass that love onto my own children. Don't worry, things like A Nightmare on Elm Street won't be till they are much older. Start with the classics (Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, etc.) and work our way up. Sinister will be after they turn 18 and have moved out since I'm not risking anything.

 

Okay, I feel slightly better about how Gremlins is positioned on your scare-o-meter. If Leprechaun is an R, I don't feel as badly about how it affected me. What were my cousins thinking?! Thankfully I have a great blocking power and only remember a few images now. Speaking of memory block....

I wish I could remember more of TFA and why I had that reaction. I'm willing to cede the judgement to you, since I can't come up with anything concrete. Though, there must have been something in there if others agreed with me, but maybe they were erring on the side of caution. Maybe explosions of a certain size kicks it to PG13? Totally unfounded theory. Or how Han Solo died? Albeit it was more his face and the glow that you saw, but maybe the idea of a lightsaber going through his body, wielded by his son no less, was a sticking point. That's a pretty bad way to go. Maybe echoes of Nazi Germany are considered too mature for certain audiences (even though they may not get the reference)? If I remember what actually spurred my reaction, I'll post it.

A few of the movies you mention are not on my radar and give me goosebumps reading the titles. So! I think this may be more a case of lion vs house cat (mouse is probably more accurate), and just too different of a view to always agree on ratings. I did see the Ring, which is probably the farthest into the horror genre I've gone (maybe it doesn't actually count?). It was fine because I was 19, it was the middle of the afternoon, and I was constantly guessing how they made the effects and telling myself it was not real. But afterwards, I still needed to stand outside in the desert and assure myself there was no large bodies of water or boats or horses for miles. Or VCRs. Many of these statements were bald lies, but necessary for continuing to live in a house with a tv. I guess some people like that feeling, and I can really appreciate the creativity and effort and visuals etc, but .... maybe it isn't for me, lol.

I do like Dracula and Frankenstein though!

 

Honestly, Leprechaun isn't really anything once you become an adult. I mean, he uses a pogo stick at one point.
The Ring is totally a horror film, though I've only read the manga myself.
I don't think the echoes of Nazi Germany is what did it. Especially since the OT did too.

Actually, quick side note, why are so many people commenting on the parallels between the First Order and Nazi Germany like it's something new? The Empire was always influenced by the Nazis:
Both Germany and the Empire were former democracies that were changed into facist, militaristic, genocidal dictatorships by their Chancellor, who used manipulation, force, and scapegoats to assume complete power. Also, they both used Stormtroopers (though the German variant could hit the broad side of a barn). Also, look at the uniform styling of Imperial officers. Hell, look at Vader's helmet!

The parallels were always there. Even The Star Wars Holiday Special showed this. The only thing that The Force Awakens did that was more obvious was that Hux's speech was clearly inspired by many of Hitler's, including the crazed yelling and the blood red banners behind him.

BONUS FUN FACT:
The actor who played General Veers is also well known for playing Donovan, the main villain (and Nazi collaborator) in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Also, in that same movie, we had Indy actually meet Hitler. The actor who played Hitler was in another Lucasfilm production as Admiral Ozzel in The Empire Strikes Back. Do you know what this means? It means that Darth Vader totally killed Hitler!

Sweet.

 

frankly i wish more parents would err on the side of caution.
that said, i saw TFA in the theatre more times than i can remember and saw many families trooping in with kids who were very clearly well under 13 ~ but i don't recall any of them freaking out.

the first time i saw Disney's Sleeping Beauty in the theatre (rate G, mind you), the screaming from seriously distraught kids was way more terrifying than the dragon ~ hahaha. but then, it was a different world then too....

 

Well there are freakin skeletons lying around so I would say PG-13.

 

No, both films (especially Last Crusade) earned their PG-13 ratings.

 

I may be having a brain blip. Just to clarify, are we talking about the toasted skeleton at the beginning of ANH, or am I forgetting some other scene?