VERY disappointing LOTR news...

[Tuukka]

I just read that LOTR is rated PG in England, which means that kids over 8 years are allowed to see it. Many people have reported early on that the film was pushing the PG-13 rating with black orc blood and orc gore. And now it's going to be PG in some countries? WTF? Ok, gore is not important, althought it suits LOTR. After all the book did have some violent imagery in it. But how dark and scary a PG film can possible be? Not very. This was one of my last fears with the film, that it will be lightweight popcorn with all the dark and scary stuff tamed down to be more kiddie friendly. Is this what has happened? PJ has said that he didnt't want to make the film "overly dark", so maybe he ended up taming down all the scary bits from the story? Then again the film will be PG-13 in USA and K-12 here in Finland, meaning that only teenagers and adults can see it. Have they censored the version that is released in England? What is happening? I don't want a LOTR lite! I want the real thing, not some watered down kiddie version of the story!

[LordKaruku]

I have no idea how the U.K. rating system works, but does their PG also cover the U.S. PG-13? I know several countries don't have a step between "Parental Guidance" and the "R" equivalent.

[Tuukka]

They have a 12 rating, which means that kids under 12 are not allowed to see it. It equals PG-13. PG on the other hand is not for kids under 8. I just checked and the version of the film is exactly the same as in USA. No cuts being made.

If JOBLO is reading this, could you comment on the Cannes footage? Did it feel like a PG-13 or PG? And how was the violence? If there was gore in the footage, what was the most extreme shot in it?

I have understood that the film was gonna have lot's of black orc blood spilling around and even some orc heads being chopped off. These news hint that the flick is going to be dark in the same sense that Empire Strikes Back is dark. Which means that it's gonna be way more lightweight than the book is. I'm not happy at all.

How much tension and sense of terror the flick is gonna have if they are going to shy away from showing the scary stuff that was spread throughout the book? LOTR often reads like a horror story and it did have some pretty graphical violence in it.

[Zed]

I'm not dissapointed in anyway.
There's a tendency, at least outside the US to let the kids see anything.
The rating offices around here are letting movies with some sexual or violent content been watched by kids of 14 years old.
In this case I think is the same. Possibly the PG category for LOTR is just a soft rating example (good for the kids). Anyway the parents should know the type of films their kids look.
The 3th trailer (if you watch it carefully you will notice) is not actually the typical small kids material.

[This message has been edited by Zed (edited 11-20-2001).]

[Tuukka]

For example Jurassic Park and X-men were not allowed for children under 12 in England. But LOTR is. This probably means that it's less "adult" in tone than those two movies. Less violent, less scary. JP had moments of gore and scariness, but did X-men really have any? The most shocking moment of the film was probably the death of Senator Kelly. And it wasn't really that shocking.

I'm hoping that the rating board of UK is making an exception with LOTR for some reason. LOTR the book is a very english phenomenom, so maybe they just want the film to be available for everyone because the source material is sort of considered as a national treasure...

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 11-20-2001).]

[JDog83]

There is nothing to keep youngins' in the USA from seeing Lord of the Rings either. The MPAA USA rating of PG13 does not censor people under 13 from seeing the film, it simply warns parents.

[Tuukka]

I had some mis-information, JP was rated PG as well in England. Apparently the english censorship is softer than the USA one. Maybe I was starting to get worried too fast, but at first I couldn't think of even one PG movie that would have been scary to me. JP was scary and even gory at some points. When I think of american PG movies, I can't really think of any scary ones.

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 11-20-2001).]

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Yes, quite right. There was no need to fear. But, not to be a pain or anything, but I made the Lord of the Rings countdown post for all things LotR so that it would all be in one thread instead of 20.

[SAI]

From the horses mouth
THE LORD OF THE RINGS - THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (PG) Run Time 178m 12s
This work was passed with no cuts made

Source: www.bbfc.co.uk (http://www.bbfc.co.uk)


[This message has been edited by SAI (edited 11-20-2001).]

[ak]

I have never seen a PG-13 rating here in the UK, so, i don't know, this is news to me. All we seem to have is a PG.

[Tuukka]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ak:
I have never seen a PG-13 rating here in the UK, so, i don't know, this is news to me. All we seem to have is a PG.</font>

RE: You have the UK-12 rating, which maybe could stand as similar to PG-13. However, it seems that the UK-PG rating is different than the american PG rating. I checked british PG titles at IMDB, and there are quite a few films that have a PG-13 rating in USA. But since the flick didn't get a UK-13 rating, I doubt that it would be "hard" PG-13 film in USA, like it was reported at one point. Apparently the gory stuff we have heard of will go to DVD release.

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 11-20-2001).]

[ak]

I'm not sure.....the only time i have seen a 12 rating is on a video package, we plainly have a PG rating, whether that's a PG-12 or a PG-13 i have no idea.

[Tuukka]

UK-PG

'PG': General viewing, but some scenes may be unsuitable for some children. Unaccompanied children of any age may watch. A 'PG' film should not disturb a child aged around eight or older. However, parents are advised to consider whether the content may upset younger or more sensitive children.

Theme: More serious issues may be featured, eg crime, domestic violence, racism (providing nothing in their treatment condones them).

Language: Mild bad language only.

Nudity: Natural nudity, with no sexual context.

Sex. Sexual activity may be implied, but should be discreet and infrequent. Mild sexual references and innuendo only.

Violence: Moderate violence, without detail, may be allowed - if justified by its setting (eg historic, comedy or fantasy).

Imitable Techniques: No glamorisation of realistic, contemporary weapons. No detail of fighting or other dangerous techniques.

Horror: Frightening sequences should not be prolonged or intense. Fantasy settings may be a mitigating factor.

Drugs: No references to illegal drugs or drug use unless entirely innocuous.

[ak]

12 is an entirely different rating here in the UK, 12 is "more strict on video than film" according to the BBFC.

Actually........I just read over at the British Board of Film Classification website that the film "passed with no cuts made".

[This message has been edited by ak (edited 11-20-2001).]

[Tuukka]

Yeah, and a film with UK-12 would not allow kids to see LOTR even with parental guidance. PG-13 allows that. The rating system in UK is very different than the one in USA, so the UK-PG doesn't equal the american PG. Not allowing kids under 12 to see the film even with parentla guidance would have been too rough.

The film might easily be scary and violent enough to deserve a UK-12, but I think there are several reason why they might be easier on it: It happens in a fantasy setting, it's based on an important british book and all the kids want to see it anyway, especially after Harry Potter.

I'm feeling better now. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Scorchlord]

And lets all keep in mind that PJ will be releasing the director's cut on DVD with more violence in it.

[Obrotherrules]

IMDb says LOTR is 12. So there shouldn't be a whole lot to worry about.
And, yeah, I think there's some politics involved. If the book has as much violence as you suggest, there's no way the movie should've even gotten a PG13. Of course, like PEARL HARBOR and TITANIC, people feel lots of folks'll watch the movie, so they give it a teen-friendly rating.

[FreakArtist]

Yeah but don,t forget that the first book wasn't really violent anyway.

The 2nd part will be much more violent so we'll see.

[CareBear]

The British BBFC tend to rate films very differently to the US equivalent. In the past major studio releases (Jurassic Park and Jaws being two examples) were all set to receive 15 and 12 certs respectively, but after consulting with the filmakers the BBFC decided to give them a plain old PG, but with a content warning about gore etc. So, kids have been able to go with their parents and see that head pop out of the boat and dismembered bodies in Jaws since 1975.
Basically, fear not, if the PG rating given to LoTR means it will only have as much gore as Jaws.... I can cope with that. Besides, LoTR has never been about violence, and as Orcs don't actually exist, who cares if a few 8 years old see their blood spilled! :-)

[SAI]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Obrotherrules:
[B]IMDb says LOTR is 12.

IMDB appear to be misinformed, check BBFC people. LOTR is a PG in the UK (see my earlier post)

On another subject I think I said this elsewhere but it bears repeating here: The 12 rating in the UK may soon be advisory, this approach is on trial at the moment. This will probably lead to an increase in 15 rated films as the distinction between 12 and PG will be less clear

[Dachande]

I am very glad this movie is rated PG-13. When I found out Peter Jackson was directing it I just knew the Lord of the Rings movies would suck. I don’t care much for Peter Jackson movies, like Bad Taste or Dead Alive. I knew he was going to try and make this too gory and ruin it. Not that I am someone that hates gory movies, but take Dead Alive for instant, I thought it was good for a B movie, but there was so much gore in it the movie became boring. I also hated the movie Bad Taste. I really hope this movie will be good, but I fear it wont be.

[Tuukka]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dachande:
I am very glad this movie is rated PG-13. When I found out Peter Jackson was directing it I just knew the Lord of the Rings movies would suck. I don’t care much for Peter Jackson movies, like Bad Taste or Dead Alive. I knew he was going to try and make this too gory and ruin it. Not that I am someone that hates gory movies, but take Dead Alive for instant, I thought it was good for a B movie, but there was so much gore in it the movie became boring. I also hated the movie Bad Taste. I really hope this movie will be good, but I fear it wont be.</font>

RE: I think you should watch Heanvenly Creatures. PJ is a lot more than just splatter fanatic... Neither Bad Taste or Dead Alive is a good indication of how LOTR will be... Here is a link: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0110005


[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 11-23-2001).]

[Tuukka]

IN ORDER TO KEEP THE NUMBER OF LOTR TOPICS DOWN, I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE THIS DISCUSSION TO THE COUNTDOWN TOPIC:

http://www.joblo.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000969-3.html

So let's continue the discussion in there. I made a new topic out of this because the PG rating really got me worried for a while and I wanted it to gather attention. But now I'm feeling confident again.