Star Wars II was PG.
Minority Report was PG-13.
<<Spoilers>>
Star Wars had graphic decapitations, mutilations, and assorted violence.
Minority Report had implied descriptions of rape, child molestation, and quite a few murders.
So, why did these movies get the ratings they did?
The MPAA ratings system is arbitrary and capricious, to say the least.
According to the ratings descriptors (which were introduced a couple of years ago and are as vague and confusing as a speech from Jack Valenti), EpII got its PG for “sustained sequences of sci-fi action/violence” and Minority Report its PG-13 for “violence, brief language, some sexuality and drug content.”
Haven’t seen Minority Report, but most of the violence towards humans in EpII (including that decapitation) was brief and bloodless, and more insect-type creatures were killed than humans, IIRC.
I will admit that the rating system (“Confusing Americans Since 1968!”) is nutty, to say the least. Not only that, but it’s a voluntary system. The major studios which are members of the MPAA obviously have the money to present their films for classification, but it’s different from the ratings systems of other countries, such as the UK, where ratings are mandatory and every movie, short, video, and DVD extra is rated.
The MPAA system has made a lot of changes, of course, over the years. (The most recent was the change of X to NC-17, after “X-rated” became a synonym for “pornographic.”) Jack Valenti himself isn’t even involved in the system-he just has Hollywood parents watch the movies for him.
So, in conclusion, the system is good, but somewhat ruptured. Perhaps it can be changed. Who knows? Certainly not Jack-probably too busy showing off his cheeks to care.
What the rating system has done is stigmatize nudity.
In the 60’s and 70’s you could get top-quality movies with nice lingering skin shots with stars the likes of Brando and Deneuve.
But now everyones afraid of 17 rating, much less X, so all nudity is clipped to the point of streaking.
In that sense, the rating system worked too much.
i think the rating system is dumb because i have noticed that nice, wholesome films will slip in a “f word” or two, or some brief nutdity, just to get that pg13 rating. they realize that no one will go see the film if it’s pg and not totally geared toward little kids.
that said, i rented “the graduate” last week and was very surprised to see that it was rated pg. first of all, because of the boobies and the adult theme, but more because if a film of that quality were released today with a rating of pg, everyone would be very confused, since most pg movies are for little kids.
i think they should change the system and have 7 or 8 different ratings instead of only 5. then there would be something between pg and pg13, and something between pg13 and r. and then maybe more films would have a chance at being rated correctly, since there would be more specific standards.
The problem with adding more ratings i think, erin uh oh, is that you couldnt have a movie theater carding everyone who wants to see a move, such as , “Wait, prove you’re 15 for this PG-15 movie.” But maybe the extra ratings just dont need age requirements, but then what’s the point of adding them if they serve no purpose other than to inform, wouldnt it be easier to just make people go see the movie to find out how bad it is?
Expose a nipple, not for breastfeeding, the movie is rated R.
A closeup to the face of a woman climaxing, or a body shot of a woman writhing in estacy, the movie is NC-17.
Kill someone violently, rate it G.
Do drugs or say a curse word, rated PG.
Mutilate someone, or try to molest a child, or commit a violent rape (violence is key),without enjoying it, or do two of the three PG/G actions simultaneously, rate it PG-13.
Do two of the three PG-13, while enjoying it, or all three PG simultaneously, rate it R.
Simple to understand to me.
I thought is was fixed. The last line should say:
Do one of PG/G very intensely, or do most of the G/PG/PG-13 while visibly enjoying it, rate it R.
Try ‘Planet of the Apes’. Heh.
The ratings system is a joke – it’s essentially a committe of “civic folks” who watch films and give decisions based on how offended they were. As others have noted, an action-adventure with gunfights can get a PG-13, but one non-breastfeeding female nipple gets an R.
I say the ratings system should be replaced with a set of 0-4 scales depicting sex, violence, language, and drug use. The reason for each ranking would be simple and clearly stated (“Violence 1: slapstick physical comedy, brief strikes”), and moviegoers can see at a glance what a new film has to offer. Theater owners can ban minors from any movie with a combined score greater than 10.
Sure, it needs a few details worked out, but it’d beat what we have now.
Or even better, try Gone With the Wind." The entire system is biased in favor a big studio films from the best-known directors, which is why James Cameron got that five minute long nudity scene in Titanic, which was PG-13. An independent studio would never be able to get away with that.
I actually read the CapAlert website for just this sort of review, because I just can’t get enough Impudence/Hate. 
No, seriously - while I can do without the religious teaching and whatnot, and couldn’t care less about things like perceived idol worship, there’s something to be said for trusting in fanatics to pick over the details.
AmbushBug
Be very, very thankful that in the US you have a rating system (however wierd certain decisions seem).
In the UK we have a censorship system instead. Certain things are instantly cut from movies;
Headbutting someone is considered an “imitable” scene and is instantly edited but unloading an Uzi on an innocent victim is just fine.
Can’t use butterfly knives or nunchukas (sp?) 'cause they are dangerous weapons but samurai swords and pump-action shotguns are OK.
I seem to remember this sorely irritating James Cameron who put a discalimer on the True Lies Laserdisc along the lines of “this movie has been edited by your government” which I thought quite amusing 
I had this same question when I saw Episode II. There wasn’t just one on screen decapitation, there were three. Plus a few limbs here and their. Someone at work asked me about how a slew of movies she’d seen managed to get PG-13 ratings, because they all had Fuck in them at least once, and she thought that was a big no-no.
Basically, a lot of it comes down to: Who’s directing/writing/producing/staring in the movie. IF you’ve got a big name actor/director/producer with a lot of pull, they can pretty much get a movie rated whatever the hell they want, which is what I’m pretty sure happened with Episode II. Lucas wants it to be PG, he’s got a huge reputation and people know that the movie will bring in a shitload of money, so they let it go. The fact that there are no fountains of blood helps, but I’m sure if there were, the ratings wouldn’t have been that different.
Like all things, it’s a lot of politics. Plus, the general public’s views on such things aren’t as terrifying as they used to be. After 9:00 p.m. here in Austin, we can see such shows like “The Shield” or “NYPD Blue” where words like asshole, shithead, and I believe even fuck manage to get on the air. When you can show that on television with a simple disclaimer, being harsh on regulations during a movie that people are paying good money to see, is kind of silly.
I really did not understand Minority Report’s rating… Although I have seen very, very few R-Rated movies, the movie definately fit that catogory more than it did the PG-13. A lot of the violence was rather graphic, and some of the scenes with the eyes, or the sexual parts alone made me wonder why exactly it got this rating, while T2 or Blackrobe was R. Though I loved the movie, I think that at this point, the directors/producers/screenwriters have way too much influence in getting a lower or higher rating if they so wish. Revising things would make lots of sense from my perspective.
It seems to me that the ratings are biased towards sex/nudity. In Attack of the Clones, all we see is some mush in front of a fireplace and a bare midriff, so it gets a PG. An implied sex scene gets you at least a PG-13, and an actual sex scene or exposed anatomy, R.
Yeah, the system is stupid (I’d much prefer a multi-dimensional system like rjung’s), but it is fairly consistent.
Ha. That’s way too reasonable. The RSAC rating system for video games was very similar to what you describe, but it lost out to the ESRB system, which is similar to the MPAA movie ratings.
What we really need is a non-stigmatized adult rating. The “R” rating is meaningless, because anything that’s considered “adult” is automatically rated R. So, everything considered “offensive” is lumped into one huge category.
There needs to be another restricted rating, an A rating, for movies that are for grownups only. That’s what NC-17 was supposed to be, but the theater chains, in fits of PR prudishness, generally refuse to show movies with a NC-17 rating. morons…
The ratings, incidentally, seem to have gotten tighter at the lower end of the scale than they used to be. The first PG-13 movie, as I recall, was Red Dawn, followed by Dreamscape. Now, I don’t remember the language in Red Dawn very well, but I do remember hearing two distinct 'fuck’s in Dreamscape. That, coupled with some pretty graphic violence, made for a PG-13 rating. But yeesh, try to get a PG-13 with just one spoken ‘fuck’ today…
It is, as said above, all about the power of the studio. A while back, someone linked to this fascinating article about the grossly unfair treatment given to Requiem for a Dream, in large part because they didn’t have the backing of a big studio to push for an “R” rating. Give it a read.
The MPAA seems to have gotten more prudish over time. I remember seeing breasts in a lot of PG movies in the 1970’s (for instance, Beverly D’Angelo in Hair).
In fact, I seem to recall a whole lot more nudity in mainstream movies in general in the 70’s; what the hell happened? When the much-acclaimed movie Amadeus was recently rereleased with some additional footage, its rating was changed from PG to R, going straight past PG-13. Why? Because of a brief glimpse of breasts. So now Amadeus is right up there with Pulp Fiction and Dawn of the Dead (both good movies, but definitely deserving their R rating).
And as Roger Ebert has noted, the MPAA seems determined to make sure that teenagers don’t see any frank, insightful movies about teenagers.
Wait, wasn’t Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom the first PG-13 film?