LOTR:TTT Extended Edition to be Rated PG-13 (1 Viewer)

[GlennH]

I think it had been reported some time ago, based on Peter Jackson's comments in an interview, that the upcoming Extended Edition (EE) of Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers would include more intense battle scenes that may bring an R rating.

I just noticed that TTT EE version is now listed at Link Removed, and it has a PG-13 rating, same as all previous LOTR:FOTR and TTT versions.

If that turns out to be the case, it's good IMO.

The entire epic is really one continuous story; I think it's best to have a consistent rating throughout. To do otherwise may alienate part of the audience that has already been developed.

I also don't think there needs to be any additional excessive gore in this film. It's intense enough to tell the story at the PG-13 level.

It's not like going to the R level would sell more copies.

 

[Gary->dee]

Yeah I remember the rumors of the extended cut of Fellowship being rated R for violence and that didn't happen. But it does lead me to a question: How much or what kind of violence, especially in a fantasy genre such as LOTR, could provoke an R rating?

 

[WillG]

Yeah, I think the same thing happened last year with FOTR:EE where is was rumored that added footage would up the rating to a "R" but still PG-13

 

[GlennH]

I would think that any more intense scenes of gratuitous decapitations or limb hacking accompanied by lots of blood would get an R. And I for one don't need to see it to enjoy this series.

 

[DavidBL]

We've been discussing this lately in the Movies forum under the ROTK/TTT:EE spoilers thread. A comparison was made between Pearl Harbor: Director's Cut, and FOTR:EE. Both had more violence in the extended editions vs. theatrical versions, but PH cranked the graphic violence WAY up to Saving Private Ryan-type war gore, while the additional violence in FOTR was not drastically more graphic than what was already there, just a little more of it. Thus PH got an "R" and FOTR stayed PG-13.

And I agree 100% with Glenn's sentiments that the "high PG-13" level of violence and gore in the LOTR series is sufficient to tell the stories in all theatrical and extended versions. No fan of these films is going to say "dang, I'm not buying that 4-disc extended edition because it's not gory enough."

Some concern has been expressed about a particular scene in ROTK involving catapults, but that's a possible spoiler so I'll refer anyone interested to the Movies forum thread for further discussion on that.

 

[Nathan V]

I'm quite satisfied with the level of violence (hard PG-13) in the series. I'm glad it isn't PG, like SW. The battle sequences have an energy that Pearl Harbor (theatrical), or any other recent PG/PG-13 offerings lack. It actually reminds me a lot of Kurosawa. Fierce action/atmosphere without graphic gore; most directors can't/don't do that. Of course, I wouldn't have objected to seeing orc blood spattering the camera , but I guess that's why we have Black Hawk Down (which, for those of you who don't know, will be a 3-disc set in june).

Regards,
Nathan

 

[Stephen_Ri]

You know, I think Ralph Bakshi's animated LOTR is actually more violent that FOTR;EE. More bright red blood filling the screen. The series does get more and more brutal as it goes on, however, so an R wouldn't be too suprising. It doesn't matter to me either way, and I don't think an R would alienate very much of an audience.

 

[MarkHastings]

Didn't PJ say (in the FOTR commentary) that the orc blood didn't get an R rating because it wasn't red?

 

[Malcolm R]

Didn't PJ say (in the FOTR commentary) that the orc blood didn't get an R rating because it wasn't red?

I'd imagine that's it. Most of the violence in LOTR is inflicted upon non-human characters, many of which seem to have non-red blood and guts. If everything was bright scarlet red, I think the "R" would be applied pretty quickly.

 

[Nathan V]

Yeah. that's why Scorsese had to desaturate the finale in Taxi Driver, the MPAA was threatening an X rating; they thought the blood was "too red." I realy don't get this concept. How is the movie any less violent now that it's been desaturated? Maybe it's a few iotas less startling, but certainly not less violent.

 

[Dave F]

How much or what kind of violence, especially in a fantasy genre such as LOTR, could provoke an R rating?

I gave up trying to figure out the rating system a loooonng time ago. I suspect it's completely random.

-Dave

 

[Tim Glover]

I'm glad they're keeping it a PG-13 rating too. I think if there was excessive violence it could detract from the film's already existing intensity and drama.

While the Pearl Harbor: Vista Series Director's Cut is a Fabulous dvd set; I prefer the theatrical version over it.

 

[Gary->dee]

I was always under the impression that heavy sexual scenes and/or saying the word "fuck" more than once in a movie gets it an R rating. That's why I can't imagine any version of an LOTR movie getting an R rating based on violent scenes alone, but correct me if I'm wrong because I haven't read the books. I think Conan the Barbarian might be an example of a fantasy movie getting an R rating based on violent content even though it does contain some nudity.

 

[Daniel J]

The battle sequences have an energy that Pearl Harbor (theatrical), or any other recent PG/PG-13 offerings lack. It actually reminds me a lot of Kurosawa. Fierce action/atmosphere without graphic gore; most directors can't/don't do that.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point; PJ is making really cool movies so far, but his battle scenes are nothing like Kurosawa's. I'd say The Phantom Menace was better than FOTR (as far as duels go, anyway); and TTT is only exiting because of the cavalry charge and some stuff with the archers: the rest of Helm's Deep was terribly underwhelming for a battle of that intensity. And don't get me started on the "documentary-style" (re: drunken monkey helmet-cam) camera work...

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Didn't PJ say (in the FOTR commentary) that the orc blood didn't get an R rating because it wasn't red?

Yeah, like pink Klingon blood in ST VI!

 

[Bill Buklis]

As I recall weren't a lot of people complaining that the violence in Pear Harbor was too clean? I imagine then that the new R rating would be an improvement. At least from that viewpoint. However, I haven't seen the movie since thatone time in the theatre, so I can't really say one way or the other.

 

[Tommy G]

No, there is essentially no rhyme or reason to the MPAA. If you watch "The Patriot", there is no swearing at all in the entire film and there is no sexual content. It just depends on the mood of the MPAA at the time. Lilo and Stitch rated PG......Papillon rated PG case in point.

 

[GlennH]

The Matrix was R rated for violence.

A good point. Maybe it's that in today's society violence involving guns is viewed as more threatening and deserving of an R than more primitive weapons like axes, swords, and spears, even though the latter can be more gory.

 

[JustinCleveland]

I was watching Back to the Future the other day, and I was just MARVELED by the amount of profanity (F-bombs etc) dropped by MJFox... yet that was only PG. I'm with Dave... it's random.

 

[MarkHastings]

As I recall weren't a lot of people complaining that the violence in Pear Harbor was too clean? I imagine then that the new R rating would be an improvement. At least from that viewpoint. However, I haven't seen the movie since thatone time in the theatre, so I can't really say one way or the other.

MUCH MORE GORE! The severed foot and heads laying around have burned their images into my brain. Icky!