|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NateGate
Rivendell
Jul 4 2014, 8:09pm
Post #1 of 32
(6852 views)
Shortcut
|
No Blood in The Hobbit???
|
Can't Post
|
|
Constantly hearing about how PJ had to tone down the realism/blood in fights to keep the PG-13 rating. If this is true, then how come he was able to have blood gushing out of Azog's arm when Thorin cut it off? Funny how he can put blood/gore there but can't anywhere else. Makes no sense....
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olVsFS8Ajtk
Size matters...
http://37.media.tumblr.com/00bbfb5c354255e11cd8386374b03bbe/tumblr_n5p4jtJVNT1siq18no1_1280.jpg
|
|
|
J Pierpont Flathead
Rivendell
Jul 4 2014, 8:36pm
Post #2 of 32
(5130 views)
Shortcut
|
It was just a flesh wound.
Now his life is full of wonder
But his heart still knows some fear
Of a simple thing he cannot comprehend
Why they try to tear the mountains down
To bring in a couple more
More people, more scars upon the land
|
|
|
Aitieuriskon
Lorien
Jul 4 2014, 8:39pm
Post #3 of 32
(4996 views)
Shortcut
|
Black orc blood doesn't cause as much of a stir as spurts of scarlet. This was true back in LotR days as well. An example of Tolkien's descriptions making things easier for the production.
"After all, I believe that legends and myths are largely made of 'truth', and indeed present aspects of it that can only be received in this mode; and long ago certain truths and modes of this kind were discovered and must always reappear." Professor Tolkien, 1951
|
|
|
Name
Rohan
Jul 4 2014, 9:44pm
Post #4 of 32
(4922 views)
Shortcut
|
Maybe it's a studio thing. The Hunger Games is PG-13 and there's much more blood. It's not really like "blood spurting from wounds" type of a thing; more just like bloody faces, bodies, etc. But even that would be a "nice" thing to see in The Hobbit.
How many Tolkien fans does it take to change a light bulb?
"Change? Oh my god, what do you mean change?! Never, never, never......"
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Jul 4 2014, 10:22pm
Post #5 of 32
(5019 views)
Shortcut
|
That kind of thing has always been inconsistent. Like when the studio specifically told them they couldn't have any blood when Lurtz got his head chopped off. But for some reason they allowed blood when that random Moria orc lost his head. And they didn't seem to have a problem with Frodo's finger gushing blood.
I guess it's like how a PG-13 movie can have one F word, but anymore than that and I think it gets an R rating. It's just silly and doesn't make sense to me.
(This post was edited by Mooseboy018 on Jul 4 2014, 10:23pm)
|
|
|
Name
Rohan
Jul 5 2014, 2:32am
Post #6 of 32
(4810 views)
Shortcut
|
Cause I swear the movie Lincoln, rated PG-13, used the F word at least 2, maybe 3 times.
Edit: According to Common Sense Media, the F word was used twice.
How many Tolkien fans does it take to change a light bulb?
"Change? Oh my god, what do you mean change?! Never, never, never......"
(This post was edited by Name on Jul 5 2014, 2:34am)
|
|
|
Metal Slug
Rivendell
Jul 5 2014, 3:02am
Post #7 of 32
(4810 views)
Shortcut
|
Takes the realism of many other films right out of the Hobbit. At least put a little blood on the swords (even black blood for Petes sake) after you eviscerate 5 orcs.
|
|
|
Vepariga
The Shire
Jul 5 2014, 9:28am
Post #8 of 32
(4724 views)
Shortcut
|
Yeah, back in the LOTR days Swords and Spears where literally covered in Orc or Uruk blood. Hobbit is very clean,even Bilbo stabbing that goblin Sting was shiney like it was just polished,maybe CGI orcs dont leave traces :P
I'm sure the Battle will have its fair share of blood, we see enough Arrows go through faces and heads being chopped off,whats alittle juice going to do?
- Vep - Guardsman of the woodland realm of Mirkwood -
|
|
|
CathrineB
Rohan
Jul 5 2014, 11:13am
Post #9 of 32
(4711 views)
Shortcut
|
I kind of wish there were more blood and gore in the movies. Not over the top, but something to make it more realistic - like LotR. I know it's made more kid friendly, but I don't want to see a big battle like BOTFA and no realism. If I wanted bright colors and weirdness like that I'd watch Narnia again  (not a Narnia movies fan).
|
|
|
Lurker in the Mirk
Valinor
Jul 5 2014, 3:09pm
Post #10 of 32
(4643 views)
Shortcut
|
I know it's made more kid friendly, but I don't want to see a big battle like BOTFA and no realism. What's war without some bloody, gutsy spillage?
Fan of both books and movies; it seems I have severely misnamed myself... for the moment.
 Appreciating Thranduil, thread by thread: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII
(Tis true! More appreciation threads for Thranduil exist than ME movies)
Thrall Wars! Teh partsies: Prologue, One (None save Avandel knows whither teh "One"), Two, Three
"BoFA"= The Battle || "BotFA"/"tBofTA" = The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
=======
 Middle-earth dispatches out of the lurkmirk
|
|
|
Anubis
Rivendell
Jul 5 2014, 7:07pm
Post #11 of 32
(4634 views)
Shortcut
|
LOTR didn´t have that much blood in the fight scenes. Right now, the only such sequence that I can remember where there is a lot of blood is that of Aragorn chopping off a Moria orc´s head.
Sure, we saw some soldiers all covered in blood here and there, a few bloodied hobbits, but there is blood in the Hobbit´s battles, too eg: Spiders losing their legs, Thorin injured...etc.
The fact remains that most orcs, either in LOTR or The Hobbit, are killed in a non-bloody fashion. Frodo himself was stabbed by a Morgul blade, and I don´t recall seeing any blood there.
As for the blood in the swords, we can assume that Thorin and the other dwarves clean up their weapons often. And I can assure you that there was blood over the armors and weapons in the battle of Azanulbizar, which is the only big battle that we have witnessed in this trilogy.
I think that portraying Tolkien´s works with the same gritty realism than that of Game of Thrones (first example that came to mind) wouldn´t be just unnecessary, but completely inappropriate.
|
|
|
J Pierpont Flathead
Rivendell
Jul 5 2014, 9:46pm
Post #12 of 32
(4605 views)
Shortcut
|
I think that portraying Tolkien´s works with the same gritty realism than that of Game of Thrones (first example that came to mind) wouldn´t be just unnecessary, but completely inappropriate.
I don't watch Game of Thrones, but I know what it's about and I am aware of the controversies and events. This is a *fantastic* idea. A lot of people here have posted their wish for a miniseries. I'd love to see TH and LOTR done in Game of Thrones style. It would be great if Hobbiton would remain mostly unchanged from how Jackson has presented it so that there is a stark contrast between its innocence and the more world-ending concerns, events and corruptions outside of it. I'm not wishing for anything gratuitous, but I'd really appreciate an extremely realistic version, including the magic, done in the GOT style so long as things are not invented and are true to the source and Tolkien's sensibilities. That said, please, no talking purse, walking animal servants, or tra-la-la elves. I would want Tom Bombadil, but without the flamboyance - just a nice, regular old lumberjack kinda guy.
Now his life is full of wonder
But his heart still knows some fear
Of a simple thing he cannot comprehend
Why they try to tear the mountains down
To bring in a couple more
More people, more scars upon the land
|
|
|
Aitieuriskon
Lorien
Jul 5 2014, 9:46pm
Post #13 of 32
(4573 views)
Shortcut
|
I remember there being a production diary in which the set design crew is adding more and more blood to the rocky battlefield. I don't think that you could see much of it in the final cut of the film though. Probably something to do with the lighting and color grading of that scene.
"After all, I believe that legends and myths are largely made of 'truth', and indeed present aspects of it that can only be received in this mode; and long ago certain truths and modes of this kind were discovered and must always reappear." Professor Tolkien, 1951
|
|
|
Aitieuriskon
Lorien
Jul 5 2014, 9:57pm
Post #14 of 32
(4577 views)
Shortcut
|
While on the one hand I agree that the miniseries would be an interesting medium for future adaptations of Tolkien's writings, on the other hand you have to think about the constrains of this as well. I enjoy HBO's take on Martin's story, but if it's anything to go by, we should expect a version of the Hobbit as different from the source material as Jackson's is. Additionally, while the episodic structure of the Hobbit might be suited to this type of thing, I think the Lord of the Rings would suffer from it.
"After all, I believe that legends and myths are largely made of 'truth', and indeed present aspects of it that can only be received in this mode; and long ago certain truths and modes of this kind were discovered and must always reappear." Professor Tolkien, 1951
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Jul 5 2014, 10:03pm
Post #15 of 32
(4557 views)
Shortcut
|
LotR would suffer enormously imho.
GoT lives from the fact that a lot of people don't know the books and its content. That coupled with Martin's obsession with shockers the series can be stuffed with cliffhangers.
I cannot imagine how one would make LotR into a miniseries that would have any sort of good construction and set-up.
Unless you fill it with the kind of embellishment and filler that would make even DoS's changes and additions pale in comparison.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
(This post was edited by Arannir on Jul 5 2014, 10:05pm)
|
|
|
Aitieuriskon
Lorien
Jul 5 2014, 10:17pm
Post #16 of 32
(4532 views)
Shortcut
|
I've recently re-read books 3-5 of ASoIaF and constantly have to remind myself that at least three quarters of the lesser characters probably won't even be given a nod in the show, sacrificed for random sex-scenes.
Don't get me wrong, I think the show is great on its own terms, but as an adaptation it frequently fails to meet my expectations in certain pivotal sequences.
"After all, I believe that legends and myths are largely made of 'truth', and indeed present aspects of it that can only be received in this mode; and long ago certain truths and modes of this kind were discovered and must always reappear." Professor Tolkien, 1951
|
|
|
KeenObserver
Lorien
Jul 6 2014, 7:05am
Post #17 of 32
(4526 views)
Shortcut
|
What's war without some bloody, gutsy spillage? "Some" being the operative word.
As long as it's not excessive, I'm game for the graphic and gory.
If every single frame of the battle contains a bloody mess of guts and dismemberment then the film will cease to be an action-adventure flick and thus become a splatter film.
I wouldn't want nor expect PJ to channel Braindead or Bad Taste and give us The Hobbit: Dawn Of The Dead
”The thirst for adventure is the vent which Destiny offers; a war, a crusade, a gold mine, a new country, speak to the imagination and offer…” - Jose Bergamin
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Half-elven
Jul 6 2014, 7:17am
Post #18 of 32
(4524 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Miniseries, yes. "Gritty realism" no.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Tolkien's themes are essentially idealistic. Martin's are, um, not. Tolkien made it very clear that good people died in war (cf. the lovely elegy after the Pelennor Fields), but never portrayed details of blood and gore, and most of his heroes survived.
One of the proposed movie treatments of LotR insisted that at least one, preferably 2, of the hobbits must die. That's the sort of thinking that is consistent with contemporary drama on HBO, but it's so contrary to the essence of Tolkien that it would not be an "adaptation" but a total betrayal.
|
|
|
J Pierpont Flathead
Rivendell
Jul 6 2014, 7:28am
Post #19 of 32
(4517 views)
Shortcut
|
One of the proposed movie treatments of LotR insisted that at least one, preferably 2, of the hobbits must die. That's the sort of thinking that is consistent with contemporary drama on HBO, but it's so contrary to the essence of Tolkien that it would not be an "adaptation" but a total betrayal.
I wrote "...done in the GOT style so long as things are not invented and are true to the source and Tolkien's sensibilities."
It's my fantasy, so I get to make the rules. And what you describe doesn't happen there. 
Now his life is full of wonder
But his heart still knows some fear
Of a simple thing he cannot comprehend
Why they try to tear the mountains down
To bring in a couple more
More people, more scars upon the land
|
|
|
Lurker in the Mirk
Valinor
Jul 6 2014, 9:05am
Post #20 of 32
(4509 views)
Shortcut
|
... I wasn't even thinking that far back. 300 was gratuitous enough for 300 splatter-gore flicks methinks.
Fan of both books and movies; it seems I have severely misnamed myself... for the moment.
Appreciating Thranduil, thread by thread: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII
(Tis true! More appreciation threads for Thranduil exist than ME movies)
Thrall Wars! Teh partsies: Prologue, One (None save Avandel knows whither teh "One"), Two, Three
"BoFA"= The Battle || "BotFA"/"tBofTA" = The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
=======
Middle-earth dispatches out of the lurkmirk
|
|
|
glor
Rohan
Jul 6 2014, 2:44pm
Post #23 of 32
(4477 views)
Shortcut
|
Ok, that wasn't just for the violence. Gladiator was also R rated because of the realistic portrayal of battle.
When TTT and ROTK came out many professional film commentators pointed out that PJ had pushed the limits of the 12A/PG-13 rating with the battle scenes on those films and had only prevented being given an R rating because of the lack of 'real' blood.
M-E movies are PG-13 films so whatever happens in BOTFA will conform to the requirements of a PG-13 film, although I suspect it may push the limits of that cinema classification.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Jul 6 2014, 5:36pm
Post #24 of 32
(4451 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I disagree that LotR would suffer...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...if it were done right, meaning one whole season per book. Instead of just 3 hours or so dedicated to one book, we would get 10 hours per book, which would be more than enough time to fit in things that were omitted from the films, like Fatty Bolger and the move to Crickhollow, supper with Farmer Maggot, Gildor, the Old Forest, Bombadil, the Barrow-downs, a fuller version of the Council of Elrond, the Grey Company, the Druedain, the Scouring, etc. Why would we need a bunch of invented stuff when we'd have so much extra book material, and now time to fit most of it? We don't need a cliifhanger every episode, but I think LotR hjas plenty of opportunities for great episode-ending cliff-hangers - being captured in the Barrow-downs, Frodo being stabbed in either Weathertop or Moria, Gandalf falling, the death of Broromir - plenty of opportunities for those kinds of things. The HBO adaptations of Martin's book are not a good comparison IMO, because ASOIAF is a heck of a lot more sprawling than LotR. 10 episodes per book is not enough to do Martin's story justice, but it IS enough to do Tolkien's story justice. IMO anyway.
I truly think it would be an excellent idea. No, it wouldn't have the budget of a Peter Jackson film, but that might be a good thing.
|
|
|
J Pierpont Flathead
Rivendell
Jul 6 2014, 5:54pm
Post #25 of 32
(4444 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Retaining Talent On Per Book Season Schedule
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Aren't the "books" largely confined to a specific set of characters at times? If you were shooting books per season, you might have to consider how to retain talent under contract with alternating full season breaks. They would have work for a season, then no work. How would you do that?
Now his life is full of wonder
But his heart still knows some fear
Of a simple thing he cannot comprehend
Why they try to tear the mountains down
To bring in a couple more
More people, more scars upon the land
|
|
|
|
|
1
