Disturbing scenes in the movies

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

By whom?

Aren't there any regulatory bodies which monitor content & conduct of films which are to be released for the majority audience? Not to mention what Prof Tolkein would have thought . . . The fact that Legolas later sticks an arrow into the orc to follow up the count (& the joke) is probably just as bad. At least Aragorn & Eomer etc lead by example, true lords of men & dignity.

[Mithalwen]

Well there is the British Board of Film CLassification but I doubt discrepancise in book to film characterisation or the rule of engagement in a fantasy world would particularly bother them. They are more concerned with things that "might frighten the horses".

As for what the Prof would have thought ... well I think he would have started spluttering into his ale long before - possibly when he saw that Frodo was being played by someone who looked 12. Apart from perhaps Boromir and Eowyn, I think most of the characters were demeaned by the character simplification required by a plot driven film. Legolas and Gimli suffer most probably especially when their key points of use in the plot (Moria and Lorien) have passed. The serious Gimli becomes comic relief and the reflective Legolas becomes Captain Obvious. It is the nature of the beast....

The orcs are one of the more problematic issues in Tolkien generally and one he struggled with. The film simplifyu this by showing them as being spawned and not as I recall including the Cirith Ungol orcs aspiration to lead a quiet life when the war was over. Even with the portrayal of orcs as sub-animal let alone subhuman the killing game of Legolas and Gimli is something I found uncomfortable in both book and film. But this incident seems fairley trivial in comparison with Aragorn killing an ambassador during parley .

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Well there is the British Board of Film CLassification but I doubt discrepancise in book to film characterisation or the rule of engagement in a fantasy world would particularly bother them. They are more concerned with things that "might frighten the horses".

As for what the Prof would have thought ... well I think he would have started spluttering into his ale long before - possibly when he saw that Frodo was being played by someone who looked 12. Apart from perhaps Boromir and Eowyn, I think most of the characters were demeaned by the character simplification required by a plot driven film. Legolas and Gimli suffer most probably especially when their key points of use in the plot (Moria and Lorien) have passed. The serious Gimli becomes comic relief and the reflective Legolas becomes Captain Obvious. It is the nature of the beast....

The orcs are one of the more problematic issues in Tolkien generally and one he struggled with. The film simplifyu this by showing them as being spawned and not as I recall including the Cirith Ungol orcs aspiration to lead a quiet life when the war was over. Even with the portrayal of orcs as sub-animal let alone subhuman the killing game of Legolas and Gimli is something I found uncomfortable in both book and film. But this incident seems fairley trivial in comparison with Aragorn killing an ambassador during parley .

The end result was that the character of Gimli & Legolas was devalued largely for their foolishness after the aftermath of the battle of Helm's Deep. Tolkein started the joke with the counting, but PJ (as usual) made a massive cock-up of it by going a giant step too far with ''his humour'' - an important point, when you consider that humour should be shared by all the audience, not by just the director.

As for Aragorn slaying the Mouth of Sauron in cold blood, that was a valiant act because the fell creature was just setting up a trap to crush the free people of ME. The Mouth of Sauron is probably the most powerful chief left in Mordor after Sauron at the time - so a good feather in the cap for Aragorn.

[Mithalwen]

I disagree. You don't kill ambassadors even if they are corrupt and this makes Aragorn look like a brigand rather than the rightful leader of the free world.... orcs may not be protected by the Geneva Conventions but to make Aragorn breach diplomatic immunity (a modern word I know but the concept did originate on early battlefields) dishonours him.

[Folwren]

I'd say the most disturbing scene in the trilogy is when Frodo turns Sam off and sends him home. That was horrible, not only in the fact that he did it, but also because the reason he did it for was pathetically horrible.

However, one could try to defend that and say that it did give it an unexpected, crazy twist to the plot that surprised even the old readers. It's a bad defence ,but still one all the same.

-- Folwren

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I disagree. You don't kill ambassadors even if they are corrupt and this makes Aragorn look like a brigand rather than the rightful leader of the free world.... orcs may not be protected by the Geneva Conventions but to make Aragorn breach diplomatic immunity (a modern word I know but the concept did originate on early battlefields) dishonours him.

To be honest, I don't understand why PJ made Aragorn do it in the first place. Just another of the countless faults with the movies. But the Mouth of Sauron is still a true symbol of evil, & beyong the stage where he could be forgiven (being cruel to a level which surpasses every living thing, save Sauron & the Nazgul perhaps). I repeat again, this ''ambassador'' came to trap & crush the Aragorn's men & the rest of ME. The killing by Aragorn was a sign to Mordor:- if you want to endure more pain on us let it be so, but we have now drawn first blood. Law, order & the rest goes out of the window here, the only thing that matters is the BFME.

[Valier]

Originally Posted by Folwren

I'd say the most disturbing scene in the trilogy is when Frodo turns Sam off and sends him home. That was horrible, not only in the fact that he did it, but also because the reason he did it for was pathetically horrible.

I completely agree with you on this one Folwren!! This scene in the movie was the one that made me choke up. I went to all three films with close family members and they bawled at the scene with the famous "you bow to no one" Line and of course the scene at the end when Arwen arrives. I found the meer thought of Frodo sending Sam home at that point in the story was just horrendous to imagine and having to watch it was even worse.

Originally Posted by Valier

I completely agree with you on this one Folwren!! This scene in the movie was the one that made me choke up. I went to all three films with close family members and they bawled at the scene with the famous "you bow to no one" Line and of course the scene at the end when Arwen arrives. I found the meer thought of Frodo sending Sam home at that point in the story was just horrendous to imagine and having to watch it was even worse.

I agree on this too. When I was watching the commentary for this scene, with PJ & his two colleagues, I wanted to vomit. The 3 didn't have the first clue how poor this scene was, & to say that they wanted Frodo entering the tunnel alone as the main reason was pathetic. Infact, the whole tunnel scene was rubbish. If they weren't capable of filming the scene as it was in the book (which would have made a better scene by far), they should have owned up to this by accepting that in some areas they are lacking in their judgement & abilities in basic filim production. I think PJ & the other two whose name escapes me should reveal the plot & storyline of any Tolkien based film in future, or they should get lost.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Law, order & the rest goes out of the window here, the only thing that matters is the BFME.

Et tu, Saruman?

Since when, for the good guys, does the end justify the means? Aragorn and company walked willingly into the trap. The entire point of the army was to get the Eye searchlight focused on themselves and away from Frodo. Aragorn pledges his very life to the Quest. Frodo and Sam endure countless hardships to see the Quest done.

For these characters it is the 'means' and not just the ends that makes them heroic. Why, Elrond could have had an Eagle drop Frodo into Mount Doom and be done with the Ring (and the Ringbearer), but no one would have grown/changed, and so what would be the point?

Resistance may be futile, but it sure builds big muscles and sharp minds.

Sorry for the rambling.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Mansun

To be honest, I don't understand why PJ made Aragorn do it in the first place. Just another of the countless faults with the movies. But the Mouth of Sauron is still a true symbol of evil, & beyong the stage where he could be forgiven (being cruel to a level which surpasses every living thing, save Sauron & the Nazgul perhaps). I repeat again, this ''ambassador'' came to trap & crush the Aragorn's men & the rest of ME. The killing by Aragorn was a sign to Mordor:- if you want to endure more pain on us let it be so, but we have now drawn first blood. Law, order & the rest goes out of the window here, the only thing that matters is the BFME.

Like it or not had marched to the very gates of Mordor with an army, a small army maybe, but an army. By doing so he challenges Sauron, so I would not call it a trap and don't tell me that Aragorn does not wish to crush Sauron's orcs as well.
The thing is, as earlier stated, that no matter how hated a foe you are facing, there is always a set of rules to be followed. Now Sauron may not follow these rules, but as I see it Aragorn has to. Aragorn is no dark lord, he is not an easterling ensnared by Sauron. He has constantly been shown as the great, wise and honourable lord, but when he chops of the head of a messenger he cast all these things aside. Try to Imagine if Aragorn had been in war with some Dunendings and had chopped off the head of their messenger. . .

I see it as a defeat to Sauron when Aragorn swings his sword, for me it means that Sauron has successfully managed to corrupt Aragorns heart with hate.

Everybody can take a life, it is not always a heroic thing to do, it actually takes more of a person to let a hated enemy go. . . (from my point of view)