First off, I just watched a TV spot last night and they didn't say it had a rating. Second, if it does wind up as PG-13, it's only because of the violence and the dark themes in the films. Third, it all depends on what the MPAA wants. What would be children's literature and thus PG, could instead warrant a PG-13. The MPAA isn't going to consider the source material in its decision. They're going to consider the cut of the film that's presented to them. It's up to the studios and Jackson to decide if they accept it, or re-cut it for a more favorable rating. I mean, "Snow White & The Seven Dwarves" was G in animated form, but "Snow White And The Huntsmen", not so much.Originally Posted by jediracer
In the end, parents will still take their children to see all three films regardless of the rating. If they've already shown their offspring the LOTR before taking them to "The Hobbit" trilogy, then it won't matter. And vice versa, if they decide to go in order.
When I saw Raiders, I was four and the only part that was an issue was the end when the Ark kills all Belloq and the Nazis. Pretty harsh stuff, but I didn't freak out too bad. But when I went to Temple when I was six, the heart rip was too much for me and a friend who was about that same age. Her older brothers, who had already seen the film, didn't tell their mom, nor mine that this was in the film. The one brother had to take the two of us out of the theater for a while until we calmed down.Originally Posted by Simbob4000
That said, I wouldn't call any of the Indy films a children's film. They're all ages films, but they were in definite need of the PG-13 which is why it was invented. Today's PG-13 films are mostly tamer, but that's because the studios have a different approach to PG-13 now as opposed to fifteen years ago.