lembas

That is my impression having finally just watched The Two Towers last night. The changes that Jackson has made from the original source I can deal with, but the one disappointing thing for me is how he seems to have toned down the story to make it more 'family-friendly', thereby making more bucks from youngsters. The siege at Helm's Deep, which I've been hearing about for so long, is especially frustrating in that we see all this fighting and yet it's completely bloodless and without much tension. Imagine how much more powerful this whole sequence would be if it had the intensity and rawness of the battle scenes in, say Braveheart or even Ed Zwick's Glory. As it is the impact is lessened, imho, because of a need to appeal to a younger crowd. LOTR was NOT written for children, as can be said about The Hobbit. Because of the PG-13 rating we most likely won't be seeing such scenes in ROTK like the orcs tossing the decapitated heads of the Rohan soldiers over the walls of the Morannon, or even Gollum getting his "snack" at the end. Too bad. Thus ends my rant.

Groucho

Big deal. I realize that I'm in a tiny little minority in this forum saying this, but more gore and violence does not make for a better film. I think the movies are great the way they are, and look forward to the third installment without bellyaching about the rating.

PixyJunket

I back you up 120%.. I think the people that would enjoy the extra violence that would earn an R rating aren't probably old enough to get into an R movie.

Jepthah

Please. You are just about the first person I have ever heard complain about the battle scenes in the LOTR films not being intense enough. Not only would it have been an economic impossibility for the films to be R-rated, it would have added absolutely nothing to the action scenes--maybe would have even looked ridiculous. As it is I'm grateful that they're rated PG-13 and not PG and that the characters do get dirty, bruised, and bloody without going overboard and being distracting.

And I think your suppositions about what we will NOT see in ROTK are going to be proven spectacularly wrong. Also try being considerate and use for those who haven't read the books.

lembas

You are right. Groucho says more gore doesn't make for a better film and he convinced me.

theneobez

Amen

Goldberg74

fumanstan

Unlike everyone else that's posted, i wouldn't have minded a R rating at all. Would have hurt the box office, but i can definitely see it adding some "oomph" to the fights

tvpuff

Did Lembas get banned for this thread? Oh well, I also don't think that violence would add to much.

Kaffe_02

Extra blood might have made it better or it might not. Either way the movie that we have I enjoyed in the theater and look forward to getting the EE. If anything Id want to see more Ents stuff

Jason

KillaBeez

So I must be the first 1 that you heard someone say it sucks and its completely overrated and it stinks more then my poop!. Thats rights folks, you heard me right, I do not like the LOTR's.

Boot

Well great, now my whole world is entirely shattered. Thanks. Thanks a whole helluva lot.

Jackskeleton

You got back up there. There is no real reason to make it rated R. these films should be seen by young and old and violence != better.

Groucho

While I respect your opinion, I must ask...if the first one sucked so bad, why did you go and see the second?

majorjoe23

It seems to be that the violence in Glory and Braveheart helps lend some gravity to the fact that it really happened, and that people really suffered through those events. Lord of the Rings is a fantasy, I really don't need to see some Ork skewered to enjoy it more.

DRG

I seriously doubt a director like Peter Jackson would ever make a movie with excessive gore.

Josh-da-man

Now, I like horror movies are gore as much as the next guy, but I don't think having severed heads and limbs flying through the air would've improved LOTR much.

Even in movies like "Braveheart," it felt a little over the top. Too much of that stuff can sort of veer off into Monty Python territory.

That said, I wonder if, in "Return of the King," they'll show

TREX1993

Your irony (Dead Alive) isn't lost on everyone...

PixyJunket

żOw3nd?

Inverse

It's no big deal. There's no graphic descriptions of gore in Tolkien anyway.

But come back when Troy is released. It's just not Homer without the ultraviolence. A PG-13 rating would be an affront to classical literature, I tells ya!

Giles

My serious problem with Helms Deep sequence is that like the book they are defendng the fortress, it's not a full head blown fight sequence until Gandalf appears and that scene is a downer as well, since the final attack is all too brief and nowhere as intense as say the opening battle in "Fellowship of the Rings" I was expecting some sweaping flying camera angle showing the full force of Gandalf and the men of Rohan killing orcs like flies, instead we see a tight closeup of Gandalf attacking - you don't get the scope of the two armies colliding - word is the Expanded Edition will add intensity that is lacking in the theatrical cut of the film.

littlefuzzy

This far into the thread, and nobody has mentioned "Elf boobs?"

Parcher

Helm's Deep is NOTHING spectacular. Barely any fighting! Boil it down? It isn't there.

KillaBeez

I haven't seen the second 1 but since I didn't like the 1st one whatsoever, why would I like the 2nd one if both of them connect in story and charecters and I did not like some of the charecters and I did not like the story either. So whats the chance of me likeing the 2nd?, None. Also, from hearing people who liked LOTR's liked the 1st one better and most people said its better then the 2nd one. Yes, I'm making assumptions on the 2nd one because I haven't seen it but like I said earlier, I do not like the story and the story connects together from the 1st to the 2nd one to the 3rd one and I do not like some of charecters and those charecters are in the 2nd one.