MovieChat Forums > Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) Discussion > Return of the Jedi rating changed over v...

Return of the Jedi rating changed over violence


https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c629dw628y5o

reply

Yup. BBFC guidelines have changed substantially over the last half a century. They've been massively liberalised at higher certificates (15, 18) and become more stringent at the lower certificates.

Because regular public consultations over the last twenty-five years have consistently shown that's what British audiences -- and especially parents -- want from them.

reply

Empire is also PG now (SW'77 is still U) also the OG Indiana Jones trilogy are now 12 (originally PG)

On the flip side likes of Alien, Terminator, Predator, Total Recall were all originally 18 but have been downgraded to 15 (idk how any of those could ever be a 15 the violence, gore, horror levels)

reply

Yeah. And I think Ghostbusters went from PG to 12A too. (Sex references and smoking, I think -- the latter of which was of no concern whatsoever to audiences in 1984.) Times have changed. I get it: I think anyone watching Ghostbusters in 2024 raises an eyebrow at a PG certificate at least once during the films.

idk how any of those could ever be a 15 the violence, gore, horror levels


You say that, but I'm willing to bet you saw all of those films before you were 18, right? Most of us did. I think they're perfect for teenage audiences.




reply

On the flip side likes of Alien, Terminator, Predator, Total Recall were all originally 18 but have been downgraded to 15 (idk how any of those could ever be a 15 the violence, gore, horror levels)


15 is the correct rating for 80s action films like those ones. By the age of 15 you are more than ready to watch those types of movies, especially with the things you're dealing with at that time in your life. Most people I knew had watched these types of films years before 15. It's a rite of passage as a kid to watch a movie made for grown ups.

The 15 rating is basically the equivalent of the American R-Rating, it's nothing.

The 18 rating, what should be the UK's equivalent of the NC-17, should only have been reserved for the 'video nasties' that had the UK public in a blind panic in the 90s. Stuff like Child's Play, Evil Dead, Natural Born Killers, Cannibal Holocaust. Films that are not just violent, but incredibly disturbing and can thus have an influence on weak minded viewers who might try and act them out (which is sadly what happened on a few occasions).

reply

Aliens is still rated 18 which is strange as Alien is the more horror yet was rerated from 18 to 15, maybe it was deemed more intense as its like Alien on steroids and verging on a 'video nasty'?

Alien 3 is also rerated as 15, but Resurrection remains 18 (very gory)

reply


According to their websiite, Alien was last submitted for classification in 2019. On the other hand, Aliens (weirdly) has not been submitted since 1998. That'll be the reason. The moment it's resubmitted by the distributor, it'll drop to 15.

reply

Alien mustve been resubmitted for its 40th anniversary rerelease (when was probably rereleased nationwide), maybe Aliens hadn't been rereleased on a big scale yet? . which would require it to be resubmitted to bbfc? . Maybe

reply

Ah, yeah, that'll be it.

I'm not entirely sure about the rules of when a film needs to be resubmitted. I thought -- for theatrical exhibition -- it was only when it was re-cut. But I'm probably wrong about that. And I'm too idle to look it up right now. But you'll be right about it being resubmitted for the 40th anniversary re-release. So presumably Aliens will become a 15 in 2026?

---

Edit: Oh hold on, I'm an idiot. The distributors will have resubmitted Alien in 2019 even though they didn't legally have to because they knew that under the 2019 guidelines, it would likely get a 15... thereby increasing the potential audience. Mystery solved...

reply

Aliens is still rated 18 which is strange as Alien is the more horror yet was rerated from 18 to 15, maybe it was deemed more intense as its like Alien on steroids and verging on a 'video nasty'?

Alien 3 is also rerated as 15, but Resurrection remains 18 (very gory)


Kane being killed is more disturbing and gruesome than the whole of Aliens put together.

Is Rambo III still an 18? I can't believe that got an 18 while First Blood I & II were 15. The funny thing is that the BBFC gave Rambo III an 18 after cutting out three mins of violence (thanks to Michael Ryan's gun rampage in 1987 which the tabloids blamed on First Blood). What was left was pretty much a PG action movie with all the cuts and they still gave it an 18 haha.

reply

Rambo are still the same. First Blood I & II are 15, Rambo III is 18 (as is IV/V)

reply

That's crazy haha. No way is Rambo III more violent than II. Must be the scenes of the horses falling over.

Is the rat being drowned in The Abyss still cut?

reply

I saw The Abyss last year at the theater for its November 2023 re-release and I think the scene was in the movie. That liquid they used is a coolant called Fluorinert. I worked at a company once that used that to test the waterproofing of optical transceivers by submerging them in it.

reply

Are you in North America? The rat drowning scene has always been banned in the UK. The censors just have never been convinced that the rat wasn't suffering when it was submerged and thus it's never been featured in any theatrical or home release.

That liquid they used is a coolant called Fluorinert. I worked at a company once that used that to test the waterproofing of optical transceivers by submerging them in it.


That's interesting. I'm sure many viewers watching the Abyss thought that it was real breathing liquid being used.

reply

Nightmare on Elm Street was showing over Halloween. It now has a 15 rating.

I'd love to see a list of changes.

reply

I'd love to see a list of changes.


They only change certificates when the films are resubmitted by the distributors. Return of the Jedi, for example, was resubmitted in April, shortly after the new guidelines came into force.

A Nightmare on Elm Street was resubmitted in 2024.

So there's no big list of changes, but the information for individual submissions is available on the BBFC website under each title.

reply

Halloween 1978 is also a 15 now. Used to be 18 like the rest of them (except HIII is 15)

reply

Now that's just ridiculous! Raiders of the Lost Ark is a heck of a lot more graphically violent than Return of the Jedi! Then again they edit out the violence in our rated R American movies to make them appropriate for teenagers which I also feel is dumb.

reply

The MPAA in the U.S. also rates all Disney movies PG now. They seem to have retired the G rating (intended for all audiences) for the most part.

reply

I may be wrong, but doesn't the MPA work in a similar way to the BBFC? So if Disney (or any other distributor) submits a film to them, the MPA tells them 'Well, that's a PG in its current form. If you make this cut and that cut, we could reduce it to a G.' And then Disney decides if it wants to cut the film or not.

So isn't it Disney that has given up on the G?

Or is that the MPA has just basically said 'almost nothing is a G any more, because we think parents should decide what's right for their children / don't want to take the flak from parents who disagree'?

reply

There is an argument to be made that as the internet has given people more violence, gore and sex in abundance and easier accessibility than ever before, movies that don't include any of those elements just don't hold our interest anymore.

It's ironic that the G rating has come to elicit a public bias similar to the NC-17 (formerly X) aka 18, and movies with a G carry marketing problems similar to movies attached to the latter rating; parents don't want to take their kids to see NC-17 movies because they're too adult and they don't want to take them to see G-rated movies because there is nothing adult.

reply

When the original star wars trilogy was first released in UK cinemas, the BBFC specifically stated they they thought they all deserved a PG rating, but they went for a U-rating because they thought that younger children should not be denied the chance to watch such special movies. They were right, because no one ever complained about it.

Those were old white guys that made that decision, though. The people running the BBFC now are like woke hires which is where this decision comes from.

reply

but they went for a U-rating because they thought that younger children should not be denied the chance to watch such special movies. They were right, because no one ever complained about it.

Thats the impression I got too.

Also they didnt have "PG" when the first one came out.
I'm not sure what the next step up from "U" was .

Although i might have some idea once i've trawled this timeline
https://www.bbfc.co.uk/education/timeline

reply

Also they didnt have "PG" when the first one came out.
I'm not sure what the next step up from "U" was .


PG was created in 1982. Most of the current BBFC ratings were created in 1982 -- except 12 which came in 1989 and 12A which came later again.

In 1981, the next step up from U was A. A stood for 'Advisory'. Anyone five or over could be admitted, but stuff might be unsuitable for under-14s.

AA meant no-one under 14 admitted. And X meant adults only.

reply

Those were old white guys that made that decision, though. The people running the BBFC now are like woke hires which is where this decision comes from.

I don't think it's fair to generalise white males in some way as less caring about their children than black people or other PoC today.

Sure, the 70s / early 80s looks like a bad time looking back now on how white males, e.g. Seville, seemed to be able, quite easily, to get into positions to abuse children. But I think that is wrong to extrapolate that on to all white men as being unprotective of all younger kids. Then or now.

reply

Well come on ,whouda guessed it was a "U" anyway ?

what cert is it in USA?

reply

Nobody seriously gives a fuck if something is a PG or a U. Except for nerds and other twits who unashamedly do both the hand wringing "think of the children" schtick and also the "woke radicals are ruining everything" bullshit.

reply

Parents.

reply

Any parent blithely letting their under 4year old kids watch something called Star WARS in the belief that it is without anything they might not wish their pre-school infant to see is a moron.

reply

Be that as it may, the BBFC is one of the most trusted institutions in Britain according to polling. And its certificates carry weight, particularly with the parents of younger children. So it is indeed possible -- moron or not -- that a parent would 'blithely' allow their pre-school child to watch a U certificate but might want to check out a PG certificate for themselves first. Hence the change.

The guidelines have been altered after a massive consultation in 2023. (The BBFC engages the public in this way every four of five years.) The change is based upon feedback from the general public thinks about the rating system. And, naturally, given the nature of the BBFC's work, what parents require from the system is seen to be of particular importance.

So it's not true that 'nobody seriously gives a fuck if something is PG or U -- except for nerds,' &c. The people who are most invested in the rating system at the lower ratings certificates are... parents.

Who cares about the ratings of children's films? Parents.

reply

Realistically, how many parents do you think preview PG rated material before letting their children watch it?

It's universally acknowledged that the general public treat ratings as an excuse NOT to be wary of a film's contents or subject matter. And all parents have varying ideas of what their children can see at what age.

I happen to know what kind of people engage with the BBFC's consultations. Film and home video nerds who argue the toss over what film from nineteen canteen should be an 18 instead of a PG today because a movie made today with a kid throwing a brick through a window would most likely be in the category etc. All sorts of nitpicky and proprietary logic is imposed. Which just illustrates what a morass trying to classify films is, with all sorts of different motives and emphases, including current trends, having to be considered.

reply

Well, it would depend on the parent. Most probably don't have time or patience to review the material beforehand, but the point is that PG will give them pause. Many would choose to supervise their very young child during PG material but not through a U certificate. Or simply not allow them to watch it until they were a bit older.

The guidelines are reached by consultation with parents (among others), so they're certainly invested in the ratings system no matter how they choose to use it. And as I say, the certificates are generally trusted.

And all parents have varying ideas of what their children can see at what age.


Precisely the point of ratings such as PG and 12A. It places the onus and responsibility on the parents, who know their children best.

reply

Pause or no pause. Practically no parent is claiming, in hindsight, they would not have let their child see something that was rated U if it had been rated PG instead except to manage their own regret. A PG rating, at best, somewhat reduces the parent's ability to delegate most of the blame for their feelings of regret to the BBFC.

reply


The system is designed in consultation with parents for the benefit of parents. And most parents trust the certificates. That's really all there is to it.

reply

That really only has genuine practical implications for explicit, age restriction type ratings.

reply

No.

reply

Since there is virtually no legends of parents chagrined at the BBFC for not slapping a PG rating on the first three Star Wars films these past forty years, it is reaching to conclude that the new rating is the result of parent consultation.

Like many revised ratings, they are the result of the BBFC managing its own image. In 1977, the BBFC took it upon themselves to assure parents that Star Wars was immune from the mid 70s malaise and cynicism. This was a simplistically moral tale without attitude. And was actually no more violent that what kids were being exposed to on TV anyway. So they gave it a U rating to more or less encourage parents to let their children see it. Clearly they no longer feel the need to give parents that kind of encouragement. Plus the reality that parents don't really get themselves too mired in the nuances of a U and a PG lead them to give it the rating it arguably always deserved.

If anything, their feedback from parents probably just amounted to highlighting to them that if Star Wars was brand new they would be giving it a PG.

It also makes the Star Wars saga look less conspicuously like one third of it is intended for a different audience from the other two thirds, some of which is actually age restricted.

reply

The BBFC consults a representative sample of the British public every four or five years and has done for quarter of a century. They most recently did so in 2023. They changed their guidelines in 2024 as a direct result of the consultation. All of this information is publicly available. The guidelines and the research are published.

Return of the Jedi has been certified at PG under the new 2024 guidelines having been resubmitted by the distributor.

Facts.




reply

No parent in that consultation raised the topic of Star Wars VI's rating.

The new guidelines are a reflection of the BBFC managing their image and their brand etc in response to that consultation. And the existing rating for one of the Star Wars films was considered untenable in that context.

reply

Of course no parent in the consultation raised Return of the Jedi's rating. No-one said they had. They weren't asked about it. It wasn't a consultation about Return of the fucking Jedi.

But Return of the Jedi was resubmitted by the distributor under the current BBFC guidelines (arrived at through public consultation in 2023) and found to be suitable for a PG certificate.

I've no idea now what you imagine yourself to be arguing about, so I think I'll leave you to it. You're being frustratingly obtuse. All you had to say was 'Yes, you're right. I actually hadn't thought about it being primarily about parents rather than "nerds".' And you could have saved yourself several paragraphs.


reply

Nah at the and end of Indiana jones when the guys head melts and another sets on fire and explodes while ghosts kill Nazis is definitely "parental guidance" and not a U for everybody.

It's not "woke" craziness. There is some logic behind these guides.

reply

"upgraded from a U to a PG"

A PG RATING???? OH NO!!!

The British are upset over that?? PG rating is basically the new G rating in the U.S.
Anything that gets PG is usually totally tame family-fare.

Meanwhile parents are taking their 8 year old kids to see Deadpool 3 (One of the goriest expletive filled movies I've seen). Why do we even have the ratings system? It's always been a joke.

They only started rating films in the 70s and only started rating GAMES in the early 90s after Mortal Kombat. Why? Concerned parents groups. Same people who shut down skate parks, so kids have no reason to go outside and get excercize.. The PG rating itself has always been hated... its like the Terror Alert Color Codes after September 11th 2001.

reply

I remember being in a music store in 2000 and a kid wanted to buy the Jaws DVD and they wouldn’t sell it to him. That movie came out when I was in grade school and every kid in the school went to see it.

reply

Jaws is a special case as it is PG but comes with an additional warning. There is no law to prevent kids from buying PG or PG-13 movies, but some cinemas and stores may set their own boundaries, I guess.

reply