🧙 The Tolkien Forum 🧝

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

With FOTR a PG-13, how will TT and ROK manage not to be R?

PRH

Registered User
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Messages
689
Reaction score
0
I was a little frustrated with the violence in FOTR. With the exception of a few graphic shots (2 arrows in orc eyes, 2 orc beheadings, 1 good arrow through an orc forehead) it was too clean. All we basically saw was a lot of claustrophobic sword swinging and stabbing without really seeing the point of contact. Some of the most frustrating examples of this are the troll stabbing Frodo and Legolas's killing arrow into the troll -- you can't actually see the weapon really hit in either of these instances and some how that's real frustrating. Just about every orc killed has this same effect too. I understand that this stuff had to be cut down to become a PG-13 and I hope that an eventual director's cut with make this more graphic. It's not that I'm a violence fiend, it's just that the style is going for a real graphic, realistic feels but it doesn't quite give it (unlike Star Wars violence which doesn't even try to be graphic).

I'm not alone in this am I? Maybe I'm just too desensitised to violence. Just as a point of reference, I should note that I did find Gladiator somewhat disturbing. The violence in that movie is the same quick cut claustrophobic style but it wasn't frustrating in the same way as FOTR (of course it's an R movie)

NOW - I said all that to pose this:

If TT and ROK are also to be PG-13s, will the frustrated/unsatisfied effect I described above be far more pronounced? These two films will revolve much more around the sword/arrow/stabbing violence than FOTR did, what with Helm's Deep, Pelennor Field and The Morannon. Furthermore, many men (and possibly elves from what I hear) will have to die in these battles rather than almost entirely orcs like FOTR. This red blood violence doesn't get by the MPAA nearly as much as black blood orc violence.

My questions:

How are these battles going to come across at all satisfyingly with a PG-13 rating? Likely answer - they won't. Does anyone know of a good epic medieval type (or not) battle in a movie that comes across realistically while maintaining a PG or PG-13 rating? Are we going to feel a little gyped after we see these battles? Is it at all possible that TT and/or ROK will be R (almost certainly not considering PJ is contractually obligated to deliver PG-13s)? Will we just have to wait until a director's cut DVD to really get any decent violence in the battles?
 

HLGStrider

All Knowing Magic Cat
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
7,803
Reaction score
33
Location
Moving on the whim of the military
The battle scenes all made me sea sick... I don't know why. I started getting dizzy and wondered if my contacts were drying out to make them look so confusing. I think it was a nice affect. I mean, it is from the hobbits point of view, and who thinks clearly during their first battle?
I n the elf and men battle sequence at the begining the battle was more just showing the different sides running towards each other. It wasn't that violent. Of course, that was maybe five minutes of filming vs. the epic battles in the upcoming films, but they might try something similar and save the rest for a directors cut. ???
Getysburg is a good movie... Refreshing to see Jeff Daniels really act after seeing him in Dumb and Dumber...
 

Legolam

Ad astra per aspera
Joined
Dec 30, 2001
Messages
435
Reaction score
0
Location
Edinburgh, Scotland
I don't think I agree about FOTR being not gory enough. I have to admit, I thought it was cutting it pretty fine for being classed a PG in Britain, even though it had a warning that it wasn't for under eights. The beheading of Lurtz even had me a bit shocked (I'm 19 by the way)!

i don't think there will be a problem with the next 2 installments, mainly because they need to make sure the biggest number of people see it as possible. To be cynical, there isn't going to be any sex and swearing (not really in the Tolkien spirit!) so they won't give it too high a rating.

I sound like my Gran!
 
L

Lord T

Guest
The movie was gory enough for its rating. I dont think it needed anything else. It was fine to me. I thought the beheading was a bit over the top too for its rating. :)

But im extremely curious as to how the Battle of Pelennor(sp?) Fields will play out.
In the book i thought it had two very important gruesome scenes.
1) When the orcs shot the heads of the beheaded back into the city as a type of psychological weapon.
2) How the giant oliphaunts(sp?) were brought down. By brave men that got close enough to shoot them in the eyes.

But lo i dont think ill be able to see these scenes on the screen for their extremely violent nature. :(
 

PRH

Registered User
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Messages
689
Reaction score
0
I'm not sure I'm being totally understood.

I completely agree that FOTR was really pushing the limit for violence on a PG-13 movie. Ratings aside I found the cuts to be too tame. Please understand - the style was trying to look very graphic while not really being that graphic. I'm sure this was edited to achieve PG-13.

Now my main point was that I think the violence will be far more toned down in TTT and ROTK for 2 reasons. First the sheer amount of time spent fighting is sure to be much greater in TTT and ROTK than FOTR. Second, there will have to be much more red blood violence with men dying rather than just black blooded orcs. Given those points I think each individual act of violence in TTT and ROTK will probably be pretty tame compared to the (what I feel is) already pretty tame in FOTR in order to achieve a PG-13 rating. I'm wondering if this will castrate the overall feel of the battles. I don't relish this idea although the rumored director's cut DVD will make it all better I'm sure.
 

Legolam

Ad astra per aspera
Joined
Dec 30, 2001
Messages
435
Reaction score
0
Location
Edinburgh, Scotland
Surely there's nothing to gain by excessive violence. You can show people ALMOST dying (as they did in FOTR) without showing the actual act, and if it's done well I think it can be more powerful than showing the gore.

I agree that TTT and ROTK will have to have a lot more fighting in them to go along with the books, and I will be interested to see if PJ puts in the orcs flinging the heads of men over the walls of Minas Tirith. :D

But I won't be too sad if he cuts out a bit of the fighting, because the next two books have a lot of character development and the lack of it in FOTR was my main problem with the film. I love TTT the best because it's funny, sad, uplifting and a whole lot of other things just because of the characters!

:cool:
 

Lindir

Registered User
Joined
Jan 11, 2002
Messages
223
Reaction score
0
There will obviously have to be more violence in the next movies and I hope they don´t downplay it too much. And I hope they will somhow be able to convey that the warriors actually enjoy fighting a great deal. One of my favourite quotes are something like this: "And the joy of battle was upon him." That´s Éomer at the battele of Pelennor fields. Also the game that Gimli and Legolas plays at Helm´s deep showa that they don´t mind a good fight.
 

ANB614

Registered User
Joined
Jan 12, 2002
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
I hope the violence is included. It makes it so much more intense. Rated R is the way to be...
 

WARDNINE

Registered User
Joined
Jan 9, 2002
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Jeff Daniels was in "Gettysburg"??!!
Good Lord, how did I miss that?
Fine, fine performance in "The Crossing", though. He makes a great George Washington.
I find it hard to believe "GWTW" was rated 'G'.
I mean, there were some hard scenes, like that soldier getting his leg amputated sans morphine.
The ratings system, like the BCS, is flawed, for sure. ;)
 

Greenwood

The Guild of Ost-in-Edhil
Joined
Dec 26, 2001
Messages
1,596
Reaction score
3
Location
New York
Jeff Daniels was in "Gettysburg"??!!
WARDNINE

Yes, he played Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, a Union officer from Maine. As shown in the movie Chamberlain and his troops from Maine were assigned the task of holding one end of the Union line on Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg. Considerably outnumbered by the attacking Confederate troops, he and his men held their position for several hours against increasingly long odds. At that point Chamberlain was informed that his men were out of ammunition and the Confederate troops were preparing for another attack on his position. He ordered his men to "Fix bayonets" and he led them in a charge (on foot) against the on-coming Confederate troops. The Confederates, exhausted by marching to battle and the long fight, evidently figured no one would charge under those conditions unless they had a large number of troops backing them up. The Confederates surrounded in large numbers. Chamberlain received the Medal of Honor for his actions and went on to be a General before the end of the Civil War.

Chamberlain was an extremely interesting, though until the movie, a largely forgotten figure of the American Civil War. Like Tolkien he was a professor of languages. His only military training was what he read in books. After the war he returned to teaching the study of languages, with a break for four terms as the governor of Maine, then back to teaching. If you were to make up someone like Chamberlain and what he did in the Civil War for a movie, you would be laughed at. Yet, it was a true story.

Enough of the off-topic history lesson. :) Back to Tolkien.
 

apan14

Registered User
Joined
Dec 21, 2001
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Gory version in DVD

Peter Jackson stated somewhere that any "gory" detail that he had to cut out to meet the the PG13 rating will be fully restored to its original splendor in the DVD. Course we'll have to wait about 2-3 years.
 

Ciryaher

Witch of Resurrection
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
2,207
Reaction score
2
Location
Baltimore, MD, United States
I think the PG-13 rating was right on, if not a bit harsh. I think the level of violence in FotR was minimal, and not what I would consider excessively graphic in the least (want graphic? watch the first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan).
 

apan14

Registered User
Joined
Dec 21, 2001
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by Ciryaher
I think the PG-13 rating was right on, if not a bit harsh. I think the level of violence in FotR was minimal, and not what I would consider excessively graphic in the least (want graphic? watch the first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan).
now overtakened by the whole movie of Black Hawk Down/ THAT's violent.
 

HLGStrider

All Knowing Magic Cat
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
7,803
Reaction score
33
Location
Moving on the whim of the military
Chamberlain was my favorite Civil War hero. We just finished an extensive study on the Civil War, and I plan to name my first son Matthew Chamberlain (Matthew just because I like it and I don't like the names Joshua or Lawrence). Of course, I'm not married yet so there will be a few years til Matthew C. appears.
Just wanted to state that cause Greenwood called him a forgotten character. You should watch the Ken Burns civil War documentary. There is a lot about Chamberlain in it (Along with Grant, Lee, Jackson, Lincoln, or whoever else you are interested in.)
 

Mithrandir_II

Registered User
Joined
Dec 24, 2001
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Location
La Crosse, WI, USA
LotR seems to be using the same tactic that was used in The Mummy and The Mummy Returns .

What I mean is, they have lots of violence, but keep the PG-13 down by not showing the blood... and the other thing is that Orcs have black blood, not red blood. This makes it less realistic... so what it comes down to is: excessive violence doesn't matter, all that matters is the amount of realistic blood that is shown. And that has been quite minimal thus far.

I do think they can get by with a PG-13 rating on the other films.
 
L

LOTRs GurL

Guest
why is it, that almost everyone HAS to see a whole bunch of blood and guts in a movie for it to be good?? i thought the gore was fine. besides the movie isnt about being bloody and gutty :\
 
L

*Lady Aragorn*

Guest
they will still be pg-13, most likely. there wasn't anything bad about FotR. it wasn't gory and guts weren't spilling all over the place.
 

the_third_rider

Registered User
Joined
Aug 8, 2002
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Location
in my own little bubble
i just rewatched fotr a few days ago with my boyfriend, and we both agreed that fotr didnt have alot of bloodyness going on for it, but what it did have was in good amounts, i think if it had more blood in it it would have been over done and show-offy, some movies go all out with blolod, pretty much saying, hey look at how much fake blood we can buy, i though fotr was tastefully done, and after seeing ttt i think it was tastefully done also, it didnt have to much, but it had enough in it too.
 

Thread suggestions

Top