Star Wars: The Force Awakens Has Officially Been Rated PG-13.
After the recent completion of the film, it’s unsurprising to learn that Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens has been given an official rating by the MPAA: PG-13.
Looks like the MPAA has already rated #TheForceAwakens…Not surprised at the PG-13. #StarWars pic.twitter.com/OlXczBQ341
— Jordan Maison (@JordanMaison) November 24, 2015
The rating itself isn’t too surprising given that the BBFC allegedly rated the movie 12A months ago, which is commonly seen as the British analogue to PG-13. The Force Awakens is the second Star Wars film to receive this rating after Revenge Of The Sith, which most likely means that the film is going to be one of the darker entries in the franchise (barring the fact that most blockbusters are PG-13 these days).
Grant has been a fan of Star Wars for as long as he can remember, having seen every movie on the big screen. When he’s not hard at work with his college studies, he keeps himself busy by reporting on all kinds of Star Wars news for SWNN and general movie news on the sister site, Movie News Net. He served as a frequent commentator on SWNN’s The Resistance Broadcast.
Huh. I’ve been under the impression they’ve all been PG-13 the whole time lol
The thing is that “PG” was a pretty broad rating back in the day. Jaws was PG and it features several graphic scenes of people being eaten by the shark. So technically, the OT could have been seen as “PG-13” in some capacity.
– Pomojema
The PG-13 rating didn’t exist until 1983 or 84… So it wasn’t an option for the ot or jaws.
I think it was rumored that it was created based off people being angry that temple of doom was only rated pg. that’s the rumor I learned in a film studies course anyway.
Temple of Doom and Gremlins were the two that really lit a fire to get a new rating.
I share the same recollection. Gremlins and TOD
Right, I knew that. I’m just saying that if it first came out now, then it would be a PG-13 film.
– Pomojema
Jaws would definitely be PG-13 today, without a doubt. The MPAA have gotten more strict in their ratings. Most PG films are basically what used to be G, and G is used today almost exclusively for films geared toward small children. It’s actually crazy, by today’s standard ratings, to see the things that were allowed in PG films a couple decades ago.
Jaws was originally certified A (unsuitable for younger children) in the UK. Later certified PG for its video release.
Let me clarify – this was the MPAA’s “PG” that I’m talking about, not the UK’s “PG”.
– Pomojema
After Sith was given the PG-13 rating, Lucas resubmitted all of the films and they all came back PG.
Weird. I can only imaging that the MPAA really likes Lucas. With all the blood and mutilation and decapitation and burnt corpses throughout the Star Wars saga, you’d think that they would all the PG-13 nowadays.
Good. I wasn’t that worried, for, as Pomojema pointed out, most blockbusters are PG-13 these days anyway. In today’s cinema, a PG rating almost always means that the movie panders to a younger audience; adding the “-13” to that ensures that we’re getting a proper flick, not some watered down version.
Really happy about this!! Here’s hoping that after a few years we get a live action Star Wars Netflix show that can be really REALLY dark and gritty! Just like they have done with Daredevil and Jessica Jones. Maybe that Star Wars underworld/gangsta show idea will be revived!
Dark and gritty Star Wars. Yeah that could end badly. I would prefer if Star wars show ( if one will be ever made ) was like cartoons shows and movies there is dark essence but they light hearted in the core.
It just like imagining dark and gritty show for Lord of the rings.
This is bull crap! It should have been NC-17, damn it!
Haha I think a lot of us would have liked that, but gotta make it okay for the kids too, after all, the little ones get just as much enjoyment out of this saga as we do.
Maybe there is a similar scene like in Rambo where Finn or Poe gets on a mounted Blaster gun, turns it around and turns a storm trooper into hamburger
We all want to see Daisy Ridley in an NC-17 movie lol but its not happening this year. Next year doesnt look good either lol. She is legal right?
pointless rating. every parent is going to take their kids to see it, no matter how young they are.
PG-13 is more of a bridge than an actual rating in my opinion. The reason PG-13 started in summer of 1984 was because of parents bitching about the content in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. They were able to ignore Kate Capshaw but that’s a whole different topic.
Ratings don’t mean much these days, especially when you compare TFA to the OT of the 80s. I mean, just look at ESB: Han Solo screaming and getting tortured and the creepy image of Luke’s severed head in the Darth Vader helmet….. only got a PG?
Yeah.. I remember the first time I saw ESB as a child, and I was quite scared by some parts in it (especially the cave, still get the chills from that scene haha). Loved the movie anyways though!
I remember when ROTS was announced to be PG-13 and there was a big uproar about it; parents stating they felt that they couldn’t take their child to go see SW. But you’re right: in this day and age where parenting seems to be pretty lax these days, I don’t think a mere suggestion is going to stop parents from taking their kids to see this film.
The Dark Knight is PG13. “Enough said” Said the vanishing pencil.
PG-13 because of Snoke.
Had it been rated PG, millions of fanboys’ heads would’ve exploded.
It said PG-13 on my tickets bought on October 19.
I got tickets to the Cinerama in early October, they said it had been Rated PG-13 back then, too.
Nice locale, I’ll be Dow the street 😉
I can’t believe anyone thought it was going to be PG. With the amount of explosions and pure awesomeness that Kylo Ren and Captain Phasma exert every time they’re on screen it has to be PG-13. Kids these days just aren’t ready for all that!
Yeah, it was pretty obvious. BUt it dosent really matter. Avatar was also PG 13, but I’ve seen 4 years old in the theatres…
Yeah I mean outside of some rare movies PG and PG-13 are basically the same, especially in this case. There won’t be any real cursing and certanly no sex.
Rated PG-13 for intense lens flares.
HUR HUR HUR YOU’RE REALLY SMART
It’s a blockbuster from 2015, of course it is PG-13. I doubt it will be as dark as Revenge of the Sith.
Well of course it would be PG-13 we live in a age that movies like this are of course going to be PG
Not that I’m too worried about this but with TFA getting a PG-13 rating I hope we don’t see a repeat of what happened with Batman Returns (hint: look in to the whole “parents complaining” ordeal that occurred for that movie).
I’m fine with PG-13 as it sounds to be a legitimately intense movie, but I hate how much the PG-13 rating has been neutered in recent years, especially at the expense of movies that should be rated R (i.e., Die Hard 4, Terminator).
If you ask me, every Marvel movie, except maybe the original Iron Man, deserves a PG rating. There is nothing in any of those movies that I would be uncomfortable taking a 9 year old to see.
Swearing. Gotta remember the swearing. There is no way in hell that a movie like Frozen (PG) should have the same rating as a movie like The Avengers.
Frozen should also not be PG. There’s nothing in that movie that wasn’t done before in Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, and The Little Mermaid (all G movies).
Violence. Elsa got them frozen ice spikes. Anyway, ratings change over time. in order to be G nowadays, a movie can pretty much not have any scary/intense scenes. It’s just kind of the way it is now.
Even though I wonder how Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Warerabbit got a G rating even though it was peppered with sexual innuendos.
Sexual innuendos are a weird exception, I find.
I read a while ago that the PG rating for disney animated films are done more as a ploy for generating higher revenue. These days, if a film is G rated, people automatically think it’s a kiddie movie. That’s why Disney kid flicks almost always got PG films starting in the early 2000s (Atlantis, Lilo and Stitch, Meet the Robinsons, Bolt, etc)
….( and yet the Hunchback of Notre Dame got away with a G rating in the 90s???)
No way! Frozen was PG? For what?!
violence
I haven’t been this un-surprised since I found out that Benedict Cumberbatch was Khan…
This film is rating-proof and critic-proof; people will go see it and take their kids no matter what.
Exactly.
other then MAYBE a couple parents who super shelter their kids and only allow G and PG (honestly, i don’t see a difference between those two), the other 99.99% take their kids to anything under R.
When i saw the Dark Knight Rises the first time, i saw a lady bring her 4 year old. and some woman brought her kid to see The Martian. He kept asking “What’s the name of this movie again?”. was kind of annoying lol
Well, I saw Airplane, Alien, and the Shining in their original theater runs before I was 10 so I was definitely not in the sheltered category. Now I have an 8-year-old daughter and I can’t imagine letting her see any of those films in the next two years, but I will take her to see The Force Awakens if she wants to go.
My cousin’d first ever PG-13 movie was Ant-Man, according to my aunt. I can only imagine that my aunt doesn’t bother checking the rating of films like Star Wars, because they’re assumed to be kid-friendly (enough).
what is the uk equiv of usa pg13 ? ….. ours are u – pg – 12a – 12 – 15 – 18 .
so 12a ,12 or 15 ? … seems a bit high .
It should be a 12a. I can’t imagine it being a 15 here if it’s only a pg13 across the pond. And since 12 isn’t used in cinemas anymore it can’t be that!
I expect 12a but the BBFC is separate from the folks who rate them for the U.S so they don’t always agree
People get caught up in this rating business. It would be awful hard nowadays for any film as intense as SW to garner anything but the PG-13 rating in the States. Back when Star Wars came out in ’77, I’m pretty sure the PG-13 rating didn’t exist. The next step up was an R rating which it obviously didn’t merit. Honestly, I think the first two prequel films flew under the radar. It was almost like, “the other SW films are PG, so these should have the same rating.” When they got to the intense elements of ROTS, they could no longer swing that. I doubt any SW film beyond an animated one will see a rating below PG-13 ever again.
Naturally, as a parent, this raises some questions. Should I allow my child to see this film? As a general rule, my wife and I screen all movies before allowing our six-year-old son to see them. I’ll be going without him to the premiere of TFA. If I deem it appropriate for him, I will take him to see it as well. I anticipate getting to do that though, as I have allowed him to watch all of the other ones, including ROTS. The rating is not the issue for me, it’s the content. Sexual content, pervasive language, and extreme violence are always deal breakers for me. But if the rating is achieved based solely on its intensity as it seems to have been, I anticipate letting him seeing this one as well. My advice to parents is to know your child and what they can handle, and more importantly what you want to expose them to. Watch the film first, and then make your decision based on what you have seen, not just on the rating attached to the film.
Its Star Wars for Christ sake. You would be surprised at what I watched when I was a kid without my parents knowledge. Porkys and The Shining come to mind. You are going to drive that kid to the insane asylum! Way too over protective.
Like I said, it’s up to the parent. If a film doesn’t line up with what we are trying to teach our child, we don’t let him watch it. When he’s old enough, I will allow him to watch more mature films. My parents did the same with me, and it taught me to make good decisions for myself as an adult with what I allow my own child to watch or even what I watch myself. We allow him to watch most things that kids his age are watching, but we watch it first. I don’t see that as overprotective; I see it as responsible parenting. But to each his own. Like I said, traditionally, Star Wars is nothing to worry about in that regard, but I will watch it first regardless, because I don’t want to be surprised in the theater, no matter what the film is. My point is, don’t just assume something is okay or unacceptable based on rating alone; check it out for yourself. My son has watched every Star Wars film and the entire Clone Wars series with me, as well as many other shows and films of that nature. We generally allow PG and some PG-13 , but it all dependis on content. I don’t see it as sheltering; more like actively protecting your child’s innocence until he or she is ready for more mature themes. And no, I wouldn’t be surprised at the things you watched as a child. Why? Because I did the same thing. Will my son eventually? No doubt. But we are attempting to teach him what values are important so that when he eventually chooses his own entertainment, he can make good choices that are in line with the values we taught him. He will be able to make those adult decisions eventually, but he’s six for crying out loud.
Your first few sentences actually conjured up an old memory (I’m old, not OT cast old but JJ Abrams old, I saw the original Star Wars in theaters when I was 9) so anyways it completely reminded me of hearing that the original movie initially received a G rating and was resubmitted to get its PG rating … the rumor back in the day was that Lucas added the bloody decapitated arm in the Cantina scene to receive the PG rating, turns out the Lucas adding that scene wasnt true … the truth is a little less exciting but still interesting … heres a link to an article that reveals what really happened
http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2014/08/27/movie-legends-revealed-did-star-wars-add-a-severed-arm-to-earn-a-pg-rating/
when Star wars came out in 1977 the only ratings in the UK were U, A, AA and X.
U = Universal for all, A was the equivalent of a PG, AA a 15 and X was an 18. I went with my Mum to see jaws 2 at the cinema.. i was only 8 and loved sharks!! the 70’s and 80’s were very different to now!!
I still haven’t let my 8 years old watch Sith.. she would def have nightmares about the immolation scene.
I love it when British people say Mum…
Well someone’s got to say it right!
Mum is the word after all. 🙂
LOL, sure, sure.
I just hope this new trilogy has a consistent tone like the OT did. They tried to get more mature with each episode for the PT but many stopped caring after I and II due to how they were largely aimed at small children and early adolescents as opposed to everyone with the original trilogy.
Good. Just be December 17 now!!!
Still, I can’t help but feel disappointed. I thought that if anyone could make a really cool sci-fi adventure movie that the whole family could go to, it would be Disney… I don’t want to turn SW into a kiddie movie, of course–but I’m wondering, why alienate the 8-11 year-old fanbase/market? I grew up on SW (yes, I was there in ’77) and had hoped my 8-year-old son would do the same. But of course, you’re right: I was sitting in the theatre next to a 4-year-old watching Anakin get burned by lava; so, obviously, some parents would disagree with me. And I don’t judge how other people chose to raise their children. But I had hoped for a PG rating for my own children and can’t help but feel disappointed/let down. I think it could have been done…
The PG-13 rating was literally for “sci-fi action violence”. If that’s all it takes to be PG-13, then there will never be another PG Star Wars movie again. The little kiddies will not be alienated; it’s not like they’ll be seeing the movie on their own anyway.
Yep. Else almost skewers some people with her ice spikes. Any level of intensity/action is an automatic PG nowadays.
The MPAA is nothing like it use to be. Allot of PG-13 films today would have been rated PG back in the 80’s and 90’s.
I’m really disappointed. My little boy (5 years old) is really looking forward to this, and now I feel I had better preview it before letting him see it. I had wanted to see it for the first time with him, and now there is the possibility that I’ll have to tell him, “Sorry, son, but you’re going to have to wait until you’re a little older to see this one.” I’m already making him wait to see RotS; now this? Thanks, Disney.
You’re making him wait to see RotS? Well if you consider that too bad for him, you might as well break out the blindfold and just stop going to the movies, because PG-13 is the master rating nowadays.
Why do you seem astonished? I want to take into consideration how impressionable and immature a 5 year old’s mind is. The fact that none of it is real is irrelevant. I took my older son to see RotS without previewing it when it came out, and was sorry I did. He was 9 at the time, and the scene in the Jedi Temple where Anakin confronts the younglings bothered him. Granted, it bothered me, too, as it was meant to, but as an adult I’m able to come to terms with that a lot easier.
THIS IS THE EXACT SAME RATING AS ANT-MAN EARLIER THIS YEAR. So that gives you some perspective on what to expect. There will likely not be any drawn out scenes of someone being burned alive, a la Revenge of the Sith. The rating doesn’t even consider the action and violence in the movie “intense” like it does in so many other PG-13 blockbusters. For instance: Avengers: Age of Ultron, Jurassic World, and Guardians of the Galaxy. So if you let your children see those Marvel movies without previewing them (which many do), then your kiddies are going to have no problem with The Force Awakens.
disappointing. My 4 and 7 year old are excited to see it. I’ll see it first. But this movie looks dark. Not fun. Star Wars should be a fun adventure. There is no reason for Star Wars to be darker scarier or more serious than anything in the original films. These film should be aimed at everyone young and old.