[Hannibal]

'Star Wars' not for kids: Lucas
By Christine Sams
February 13, 2005


Director George Lucas has warned that young children might not be allowed to watch the third and final instalment of his Star Wars prequel films, because of the increased level of violence.

Lucas revealed his concerns about audience expectations and the likelihood of a stronger rating for the film during an interview with an American magazine.

"I think children, young children especially, should be warned that this is not your average Star Wars," he told Vanity Fair. "It's a lot darker. There's a lot more scary stuff in it. It's brutal in places and they should be aware of that.

"The parents are warned to be careful of bringing tiny little kids, like five and six years old, because it might be too much."

The film is likely to be classified by the Australian Office of Film and Literature Classification just before its local release date in May, but the increase in violence is likely to create consternation among parents who have taken their children to previous films. Australian-based representatives of Twentieth Century Fox unveiled the full trailer for the film to a group of selected media earlier this month.

Marketing director John Scott said the final film was expected to generate record-breaking box-office takings.

The film, officially titled Star Wars Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, is the culmination of George Lucas' extraordinary film-making feat: the sixth film in the series, which ties together the remaining questions centred on the emergence of Darth Vader.

[Despondent]

'Star Wars' not for kids: Lucas
By Christine Sams

...the sixth film in the series, which ties together the remaining questions centred on the emergence of Darth Vader.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Neat and tidy. Remember Jedi?

Senator, he can't be serious.

If losing an audience was not important to box office revenue, Lucas would deliver a longer, possibly more satisfying film. Benefit of the doubt.

Of course if the film is a non-stop action sequence where characters are killed-off, there's less likely the plethora of gundark-quality dialog.

Call me optimistic. I'm not worried about it being awful, I'm certain of it.

If I'm wrong, it's a bonus.

[Hannibal]

Jake and the Fat Man:



"You see this film is for kids, the second one is for morons, and the third is for the last brain damaged few who still think the Force is real..."

[Chefelf]

Jake and the Fat Man:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Brilliant.

[barend]

cool... so instead of a G rated film, we're going to get PG rated film...

hot dawg... lucas you rebelious punk you!!! will you be replacing the term 'poo-doo' with 'crap'?

that's pretty dark...

[jariten]

It might get a PG 13. dont you consider a 13 year old to be a "kid"? whatever, only 3 more months to go. yippie!

[Paladin]

Question: What exactly makes a movie 'dark' or not? That's one little thing which I'm not exactly an expert on.

[Lord Aquaman]

"Dark" usually implies the presence of unsavory, unpleasant elements like death, drug addiction, child abuse, bodily mutilation, torture, rape, etc. Movies like "Requiem For A Dream" and "The Accused" are examples of this.

Does that help?

We've seen lots of death in the Star Wars movies but not a lot of the other stuff (unless you consider having hot sparks blow up in Han's face in ESB torture).

This post has been edited by Lord Aquaman: 15 February 2005 - 04:24 PM

[Helena]

'Dark' doesn't necessarily mean 'violent'; it usually refers to the handling of themes such as pain, grief, loss and moral uncertainty in a mature fashion. In fact, there's often an inverse relationship between how violent a movie is and how truly 'dark' it is. Unfortunately, I get the feeling Lucas interprets it as 'loads of blood and gore and explosions and chopped-off limbs!'

[barend]

dark films:
the crow
the shining
bladerunner
dark city

usually a combination of evil/scary themes and poor lighting.

This post has been edited by barend: 15 February 2005 - 11:05 PM

[Paladin]

Those helped, thanks.

I guess that grimness and general... well... 'darkness' in a movie could pass out under that catagory, and I agree that violence doesn't mean 'darkness' at all. I've seen a lot of cartoons and movies with violence, killing and general brain bashing and wouldn't count as 'dark' at all.

[jariten]

It depends how you look at it. In one respect the prequels are fairly dark in that they deal with issues like betraying trust as well as people going bad.

[Jordan]

In one respect the prequels are fairly dark in that they deal with issues like betraying trust as well as people going bad.

Are you talking about the films? Or George Lucas? Zing!

[Helena]

It depends how you look at it. In one respect the prequels are fairly dark in that they deal with issues like betraying trust as well as people going bad.

Well, yes, and the prequels should be fairly dark; the trouble is that these issues are handled so badly that it's impossible to take seriously.

[Paladin]

Well, yes, and the prequels should be fairly dark; the trouble is that these issues are handled so badly that it's impossible to take seriously.

That's what I just couldn't believe about Mr. George Lucas and his cronies. What EACTLY is his problem? You'd think that such an esteemed Hollywood director and producer would actually write something so stupid.

Although don't get me wrong, I've written stupid stories before and I still do, but I always know they are stupid either during the process, slightly afterward, or even beforehand, and I would NEVER take any of that shit seriously. George Lucas came up with what is potentially the WOREST stuff I've ever seen and made them canon and into multi-million dollar movies.

GL is a man in his 50's, but his level of creativity is that of a small child, or even worse!