Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
The Small but Bemusing Matter of Bloodless Swords
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

The Grey Elf
Gondor


Mar 11 2013, 2:38am

Post #26 of 37 (227 views)
Shortcut
So a Hollywood sanitation crew did the color grading for the battle scenes [In reply to] Can't Post

making them devoid of red for the sake of the desired (and more profitable) rating. Rather wrong-headed thinking, in my opinion, if it's genuinely about protecting children. Personally, I don't believe that killing and maiming without a drop of blood being spilt truly diminishes its violence. And believing that not showing the natural horrible consequences of slicing into a living thing with a gleaming blade is more tasteful than protective. (I actually think, long-term, such measures are detrimental because it makes violence against others seem less visceral, less real and therefore less serious.)

I'm not advocating that The Hobbit movies depict bloody deaths and battle with utter truthfulness (or that children should be exposed to inappropriate subject matter). It simply struck me that PJ and company took such detailed pains to make Middle Earth real that it seemed a small aberration for it to "fib" in this way. But no biggie. This is a fantasy world and seeing raw panoramas of death and destruction are the very last thing I care about. Now hobbit heroism and dwarf drama, that's what I'm buying my ticket for!


swordwhale
Grey Havens


Mar 11 2013, 4:50am

Post #27 of 37 (199 views)
Shortcut
300... sort of [In reply to] Can't Post

I rather liked the color grading in the battle scenes: thought it made everything look gritty, real, messy, and somewhat removed from the present, a flashback, a memory faded to black and white. I immediately thought of the limited color in "300". Or how "Schindler's List" used color, or lack thereof. It is a conundrum; doing actual battle scenes for a kids' book adaptation. According to a 9 year old I met, you can read a lot of stuff in a book, and it's fine, because it's limited by your imagination and experience. A film is clearly different, the visuals are right there, no imagination needed. And yes, they wanted to keep it in the PG-13 range. And I think there are ways to tell the story without doing it Tarantino style.

My friends had the same issue with Narnia, the battle being too unbelievable ("oh, look at all the people pretending to be dead"), like a backyard game. I happened to love the films, but that was a point, now sure how they could have cured that problem there.

Go outside and play...


Old Toby
Gondor


Mar 11 2013, 7:36am

Post #28 of 37 (180 views)
Shortcut
You're right about the depiction of violence not necessarily being diminished [In reply to] Can't Post

by the actual showing of bloodshed. The degree of violence certainly has little to do with the quantity of blood being spilt, but rather the act itself. However, I don't think we need to see the blood in order for it to be more 'real', and I don't believe that we are making violence more acceptable and less serious by not showing it. In fact, I believe the opposite: that we are becoming numb to seeing bloodshed because we see so much of it on screen nowdays that it's become par for the course. The very fact that people actually want to see more blood being depicted in this film, I find really...disturbing.

"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)

(This post was edited by Old Toby on Mar 11 2013, 7:38am)


The Grey Elf
Gondor


Mar 11 2013, 11:36am

Post #29 of 37 (172 views)
Shortcut
Posters' cry for blood -- [In reply to] Can't Post

"The very fact that people actually want to see more blood being depicted in this film, I find really...disturbing. "

-- I think has less to do with bloodthirst and more to do with a desire for truthfulness. (Though of course I don't speak for everyone.) We want Middle Earth as real a fantasy world as possible. And it is a matter of discretion and degree. The suggestion of bloodletting is far preferrable to actually depicting it authentically or venturing into the realm of a gore-fest.


elaen32
Gondor

Mar 11 2013, 11:47am

Post #30 of 37 (164 views)
Shortcut
In LOTR the blood shown was a bit inconsistent [In reply to] Can't Post

There was certainly blood in the Aragorn/Lurtz fight, especially the infamous Lurtz licking blood off the knife blade bit (EE only I think), but then no blood when Aragorn lops off Lurtz' arm, then his head. In TTT, when the uruk hai kill and eat one of their fellows on the edge of Fangorn forest, there is no blood, but intestines etc are shown being thrown in the air! I think in LOTR they got away with more, because they showed orc blood as being black, rather than red- same with the trolls and other evil creatures. There was not much blood shown when one of the "goodies" was injured/killed.
It is a tricky question- blood and gore does not bother me personally, one iota, but it does some people and especially children and has to be limited to keep the classification more open (PG13 in the US, 12A in the UK). I agree that the suggestion of bloodshed and consequences of using dangerous weapons in battle, is better than an outright gore-fest, but it is a thin line between authenticity and being unsuitable for children etc

"Beneath the roof of sleeping leaves the dreams of trees unfold"


Maciliel
Tol Eressea

Mar 11 2013, 11:54am

Post #31 of 37 (170 views)
Shortcut
i thought one of the most horrific moments of the film did not include blood at all [In reply to] Can't Post

 
this was when gollum attacked the orc, while bilbo was hiding in the fungi.

gollum intends to kill, and just smashes the orc with a rock over and over, while bilbo cowers among the fungal growth. howard shore's music amplifies the brutality. i felt sympathy and much pity for that orc at that moment. it was extremely savage.

and no blood at all. 'tho it would have been understandable.

every time i see that scene i wonder at the appropriateness of it for children.

.


Arannir
Valinor

Mar 11 2013, 12:42pm

Post #32 of 37 (151 views)
Shortcut
I have to say... [In reply to] Can't Post

... that the Battle outside of Moria was perfectly fine to me and showed the violence without needing more blood. Especially after Thorin wounding Azog, the way the two armies storm towards each other has such a level of power and aggressivness that more blood - realistic or not - would have been redundant to me, really. Especially since Tolkien also abstains from describing liters of blood - different to other fantsay writers such as GRR Martin (with a series that uses much more blood than LotR or TH, but not realistically either - because showing the horror and blood of actual medieval battles is something, only few people would want to see, I guess).


Old Toby
Gondor


Mar 11 2013, 3:29pm

Post #33 of 37 (134 views)
Shortcut
Yes, this is my point exactly though [In reply to] Can't Post

"We want Middle Earth as real a fantasy world as possible"

As I said, I don't need to see the blood in order to believe it is there. And I'd rather not.
I also agree with what Arannir said. For me the beheading of Thror was horror enough without seeing blood dripping from his head thanks. This was suggestion enough.

"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)

(This post was edited by Old Toby on Mar 11 2013, 3:34pm)


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Mar 11 2013, 3:49pm

Post #34 of 37 (120 views)
Shortcut
It goes both ways. [In reply to] Can't Post

Perfectly clean swords after an extensive, violent battle can be just as distracting as excessive amounts of blood and gore. I thought in LotR they found the right balance. In AUJ, things were just a bit too clean, and even though i did notice it, it's not a huge deal for me. As many have noted, this one was aimed a bit more at the kids.


Rostron2
Gondor


Mar 11 2013, 4:45pm

Post #35 of 37 (110 views)
Shortcut
Elven blades are self-cleaning :) // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


RaoulJ
Rivendell


Mar 11 2013, 7:18pm

Post #36 of 37 (114 views)
Shortcut
Actually [In reply to] Can't Post

Actually LOTR had also little blood in the Theatrical Version, just for the sake of rating. They wanted the blood of the Orcs to be red, but changed it to black so they could show a little and not get in trouble with the desired rating.

The EE had some gore re-inserted, and it has a higher age-rating. So maybe the EE of The Hobbit will have some more blood?

I don't think so, as AUJ is much, much, cleaner than LOTR (TE). A shame actually, because it really takes me out of the movie...

It must be a test of discipline for Peter Jackson, he really like his gore.. (and the humor in it, haha).


Glorfindela
Valinor

Mar 11 2013, 11:09pm

Post #37 of 37 (91 views)
Shortcut
Yes, that battle was intense [In reply to] Can't Post

I could almost feel the intensity of the battle, and Thorin looked as if he had absolutely been through the mill. To me, the intensity seemed greater than that portrayed in any other battle in the Middle-Earth films. The ground was shown to be soaked in blood, I believe it was sort of rusty red where he fell. I'll have to check this out again tomorrow when I see the film (again).

Blood spurting everywhere is actually unnecessary for me (possibly even too distracting). But poor PJ, not being able to indulge in the gore he so loves. :)


In Reply To
... that the Battle outside of Moria was perfectly fine to me and showed the violence without needing more blood. Especially after Thorin wounding Azog, the way the two armies storm towards each other has such a level of power and aggressivness that more blood - realistic or not - would have been redundant to me, really. Especially since Tolkien also abstains from describing liters of blood - different to other fantsay writers such as GRR Martin (with a series that uses much more blood than LotR or TH, but not realistically either - because showing the horror and blood of actual medieval battles is something, only few people would want to see, I guess).



(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Mar 11 2013, 11:13pm)

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.