Disturbing scenes in the movies

I found it quite alarming that the film showed Gimli sitting on a dead orc with an axe in his head, as though this was a joke. After a titanic battle with the Uruk-Hai (or at least to begin with) in the Two Towers, one would have thought there would be a sense of relief, & joy of victory, as well as rememberance for the dead at the scene of the battle. Does anyone else agree with this & other scenes?

Although orcs are the true enemy for all & deserve no mercy, they should not be treated to this pathetic level. Gimli, afterall, is not an orc so why was he acting like one here?

[alatar]

Think that I covered this in my SbS post. Gimli may or may not have any respect for the Uruk dead. However, this same dwarf found a Warg rider to be repulsive - smelly - and so why then would he sit upon a dead orc?

PJ just wanted his joke (note the placement of Legolas' arrow).

Originally Posted by alatar

Think that I covered this in my SbS post. Gimli may or may not have any respect for the Uruk dead. However, this same dwarf found a Warg rider to be repulsive - smelly - and so why then would he sit upon a dead orc?

PJ just wanted his joke (note the placement of Legolas' arrow).

Do you think PJ should have been punished for this scene? If this was his idea, it was a gravely foolish one.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Well, I don't think he should be strung up. It wasn't the most sensitive scene but the general public wouldn't consider it a serious war film so there's no real problem.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Do you think PJ should have been punished for this scene?

By whom?

[Mithalwen]

Well isn't there a kangaroo court thread somewhere on the board....mirth presumably? I doubt there will be a shortage volunteers to execute its judgment...

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)

[Macalaure]

In the book, even the baddies don't kill ambassadors. Take Aragorn at Helm's Deep, for example. The Uruks could have shot one of the main leaders of the defenders with one arrow. They don't.


However,

my most disturbing scene of the movies is when the men of Faramir maul Gollum. It is extremely hard to watch for me. I could repeat what I said in the SbS, but I'll just say that is was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Dunedain that should be good behaving like orcs...

[Essex]

but the Movie mouth of Sauron was not an ambassador of Sauron neither was he there for Parley as was his book counterpart. he was there to taunt them, to bring down their hope to absloutle zero

- that was why Aragorn killed him - to stop him spouting on about Frodo being dead - his troops were probably at their lowest ebb as it was - and his companions too - (Aragorn would NOT believe it himself) - that is why he killed the MoS.

I know of no laws of War that stops you killing someone who just comes along to taunt you!

now if he were offering Parley, then fair enough. But notice Jackson does not have movie MoS do this.

Off with his head I say!!!!

Originally Posted by Macalaure

In the book, even the baddies don't kill ambassadors. Take Aragorn at Helm's Deep, for example. The Uruks could have shot one of the main leaders of the defenders with one arrow. They don't.


However,

my most disturbing scene of the movies is when the men of Faramir maul Gollum. It is extremely hard to watch for me. I could repeat what I said in the SbS, but I'll just say that is was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Dunedain that should be good behaving like orcs...

Which reminds me of what I said earlier - PJ & his team should apologise for some of the scenes in the films, or face punishment from film conduct regulatory officials.... if PJ & Co. want to do the Hobbit, as things stand they can get lost & film another Gorilla movie.

On a more positive note, I think Aragorn let the emotion & aggression get the better of him, after hearing that Frodo may have been captured & tortured by Sauron. This may have been severe already after the deaths of Boromir & Haldir to name but a few at the hands of the enemy.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Essex

I know of no laws of War that stops you killing someone who just comes along to taunt you!

We're talking about a movie, in a fantasy world with clear distinctions between good and evil, and so I won't comment on your statement as it may apply to the real world.

Originally Posted by Mansun

Which reminds me of what I said earlier - PJ & his team should apologise for some of the scenes in the films, or face punishment from film conduct regulatory officials.... if PJ & Co. want to do the Hobbit, as things stand they can get lost & film another Gorilla movie.

I would disagree. If you don't like PJ's version of "The Lord of the Rings," then do not support it in anyway. Return your DVDs, if you purchased them, and send a polite letter to New Line with your opinions. I would prefer using my own noodle to 'censor' the films than for some group of persons, who just happened to be blessed with the ability to 'know better,' to act as gatekeepers on what I can and cannot see.

Some of the violence, specifically when MoS is executed and when Gollum was beaten, was just stupid and sick, but we at least see what was in Jackson's head and what he thought would 'work' or was needed or would get him a few cheers in the theater. We here can allow others know that we find those scenes repulsive and not in the spirit of Tolkien (though Essex may disagree, which just goes to show you that with the MoS scene, some fans thought that it was all well and proper to behead the dentally-challenged one). Not sure what more one could want.

Note that, as may be inferred from my posts, that I am no big fan of PJ's work, but it was his work, his vision and his efforts that produced these incredible films. Much of what he did was good; some bad, and there's a long list on how I would have done it (better, to be sure ). That being said, how do we know that another director would produce the Hobbit any differently than the flavor created by Jackson's team? Some producers' works may have you wishing the Hobbit were the dread pirate Jackson's work. So be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.

alatar climbs back off of his soapbox and goes for the tylenol and coffee.

[Essex]

re "Dunedain that should be good behaving like orcs..." and Alatar's point on 'Good and Evil'

I really don't think Tolkien's world is that 'black and white' (to coin a phrase).

Why should all men descendant of Numenor (ie the Dunedain) be 'good'. If that was so then Isildur would have thrown the Ring into the Fire and we wouldn't have all this trouble in the first place.....!

The same for the Elves - people go on about them being Pure and 'Good' - who took part in the Kin Slaying then?

Tolkien's world is multi-faceted - and I think PJ realised this in his work - Yes, we did have an ultimate evil in Sauron, but a movie like this does really need a 'baddie' for non book readers to see the forces of 'Good' rally against.

PS Faramir's men were, let's be honest, practicing standard interrogation techniques with Gollum! We might not like it, but it is what goes on. They're being atttacked from all sides from the forces of 'Evil' as we call them, so sometimes we might understand (but not agree with) their tactics in the cold light of War......

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Mansun

On a more positive note, I think Aragorn let the emotion & aggression get the better of him, after hearing that Frodo may have been captured & tortured by Sauron.

You seem to have a double standard here. One one hand you accept Aragorn's emotions getting the best of him, I disagree and think killing a messanger which he was is wrong, and on the other hand Gimli is not allowed to have his emotions get the best of him. He wanted to gloat and boast over his kills and he was proud of them, remember the 'contest' he and Legolas had, these, in his mind, are creatures who tried to kill him so to gloat and celebrate their victory seems appropriate if misguided.

I would also like to echo what Alatar said about PJ having his version of the film. Well stated and thank you.

Also I distinctly remember that in the theater there were many cheers at the beheading of the Mouth of Sauron so I think PJ acheived his desired effect.

The only scene that I really find 'disturbing' is where Smeagol is strangling Deagol. I edit that myself and don't watch it when I'm watching that film. It's too 'real' to me and makes me upset. But PJ was trying to show how evil Gollum was and his attitude when he took the ring, it was accomplished but in a way I don't like. So it was successful but I would have done it differently.

Originally Posted by mormegil

You seem to have a double standard here. One one hand you accept Aragorn's emotions getting the best of him, I disagree and think killing a messanger which he was is wrong, and on the other hand Gimli is not allowed to have his emotions get the best of him. He wanted to gloat and boast over his kills and he was proud of them, remember the 'contest' he and Legolas had, these, in his mind, are creatures who tried to kill him so to gloat and celebrate their victory seems appropriate if misguided.

I would also like to echo what Alatar said about PJ having his version of the film. Well stated and thank you.

Also I distinctly remember that in the theater there were many cheers at the beheading of the Mouth of Sauron so I think PJ acheived his desired effect.

The only scene that I really find 'disturbing' is where Smeagol is strangling Deagol. I edit that myself and don't watch it when I'm watching that film. It's too 'real' to me and makes me upset. But PJ was trying to show how evil Gollum was and his attitude when he took the ring, it was accomplished but in a way I don't like. So it was successful but I would have done it differently.

I think you may have deceived yourself here. Are you serious in suggesting that the scene where Gimli is sitting on a dead orc after the battle closely matches the scene where Aragorn beheads the Mouth of Sauron?? The two are like chalk & cheese. Gimli just uses insensitive humour as his emotions - if he had been using more respectable & meaningful emotions then he would not have come under such criticism. The manner in which important heroic characters conduct themselves in these films is imperative - humour & morbidity do not bode well toghether.

Originally Posted by alatar

We're talking about a movie, in a fantasy world with clear distinctions between good and evil, and so I won't comment on your statement as it may apply to the real world.



I would disagree. If you don't like PJ's version of "The Lord of the Rings," then do not support it in anyway. Return your DVDs, if you purchased them, and send a polite letter to New Line with your opinions. I would prefer using my own noodle to 'censor' the films than for some group of persons, who just happened to be blessed with the ability to 'know better,' to act as gatekeepers on what I can and cannot see.

Some of the violence, specifically when MoS is executed and when Gollum was beaten, was just stupid and sick, but we at least see what was in Jackson's head and what he thought would 'work' or was needed or would get him a few cheers in the theater. We here can allow others know that we find those scenes repulsive and not in the spirit of Tolkien (though Essex may disagree, which just goes to show you that with the MoS scene, some fans thought that it was all well and proper to behead the dentally-challenged one). Not sure what more one could want.

Note that, as may be inferred from my posts, that I am no big fan of PJ's work, but it was his work, his vision and his efforts that produced these incredible films. Much of what he did was good; some bad, and there's a long list on how I would have done it (better, to be sure ). That being said, how do we know that another director would produce the Hobbit any differently than the flavor created by Jackson's team? Some producers' works may have you wishing the Hobbit were the dread pirate Jackson's work. So be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.

alatar climbs back off of his soapbox and goes for the tylenol and coffee.

I do not think it is right for you to say what I should or should not do with the DVDs - it is starting to sound like bad manners. The films can be appreciated in most aspects for their graphics, film production & cast, but some scenes fell woefully short of being at least acceptable in every sense of the word, & I see no reason why PJ & Co. should not be challenged on them, given that they were supposedly using the works of the greatest fictional novel of all time by the author of the century, & hoping to sell it to the same people who adored these works. In some scenes, e.g. the Corsair ships where legolas fires a warning shot which kills who else but PJ, PJ seemed to be making the scenes to suit himself & nobody else. At times humour was being used by Gimli/Legolas that only represented the director's taste of humour. All-in-all a great trilogy held together by the main themes, but with cracks appearing in odd scenes.

[mormegil]

The films can be appreciated in most aspects for their graphics, film production & cast, but some scenes fell woefully short of being at least acceptable in every sense of the word, & I see no reason why PJ & Co. should not be challenged on them, given that they were supposedly using the works of the greatest fictional novel of all time by the author of the century, & hoping to sell it to the same people who adored these works.

But by whose standard? Long time book fans? Cinema fans? General public? He obviously pleased enough fans to gross as much as the film did in ticket sales and DVD sales not to mention the merchandise that went along with it. Let's not forget the mass amounts of people that ended up reading the book because of the film.

The problem here is that PJ deserves artistic license in that he can mold the work to make it his own. It is based on the book but is not the book itself. So on what basis is it being judged? Overall I think PJ did a great job and should be praised for his work, I appreciate him undertaking such a massive project. Not everything is done the way I would have wanted to see it but it simply demonstrates that we all see things a bit differently.

I think you may have deceived yourself here. Are you serious in suggesting that the scene where Gimli is sitting on a dead orc after the battle closely matches the scene where Aragorn beheads the Mouth of Sauron??

I'm thinking that the premise is close enough to see that you have a double standard on the issue. You think it's okay for Aragorn to callously and cold bloodedly murder a messanger but not okay for Gimli to sit upon an orc who he killed.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Mansun

I do not think it is right for you to say what I should or should not do with the DVDs - it is starting to sound like bad manners.

I meant no offense, just stating the obvious regarding how to have your opinion heard. PJ et al have moved on; New Line may care if suddenly something were to cut into their profits (i.e. you not only return your DVDs for a refund, but then state that you will never ever patronize their business again).

Like another stated, I censor the movies using the 'next' button on the DVD remote. When the kids are watching, I skip over more than when only I am watching them. My point earlier is that if some committee were to censor the flicks then what would Essex and I have to discuss?

[The Saucepan Man]

Please remember to keep the discussion courteous and respectful.

You can criticise the films all you like, but please don't criticise other members.

[Lalwendë]

I have to say I didn't find very much in the films to be 'disturbing'. The treatment of the character of Faramir I thought was just wrong, and I didn't even register that Gimli might have been sitting on a slaughtered Orc, possibly as I'd just been watching a huge battle scene and my senses were filled with the noise and smell of war (or something like that ).

However, one scene I found quite scary in a stunning way and that was where the beam of light shoots up from Minas Morgul and the sound on the film cuts out for a split second - that was incredibly effective as a 'horror' moment for me.

Now there are in fact a few scenes that I do not like watching as they make me feel a bit uncomfortable - any scenes where animals seem to be hurt or slaughtered. I don't like watching the Oliphaunts stampede the Rohirrim horses, nor do I like it when the Fell beast swoops down and takes horses in its mouth and flings them aside. I find myself looking away at those moments as I find it unpleasant and unsettling.

But I wouldn't say there were disturbing scenes - as I always manage to comfort myself with the knowledge that this is all just smoke and mirrors, they are computer generated horses, not real ones. And yes, I also feel sad when the Oliphaunts get stuck full of arrows. Poor creatures.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But I wouldn't say there were disturbing scenes - as I always manage to comfort myself with the knowledge that this is all just smoke and mirrors, they are computer generated horses, not real ones. And yes, I also feel sad when the Oliphaunts get stuck full of arrows. Poor creatures.

As for poor Shelob ....

[Kath]

I have to agree with Lalwendë in that I didn't find any of the scenes "disturbing" as such. Some people were treated in a way I didn't think appropriate and some things were a little bizarre, but nothing worth petitioning PJ over. He made the films in a way that was pleasing to him, and that he thought would get a good reaction from audiences, something he certainly achieved.

Probably the only thing I would classify as truly disturbing is Denethor's table manners.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Essex

re "Dunedain that should be good behaving like orcs..." and Alatar's point on 'Good and Evil'

I really don't think Tolkien's world is that 'black and white' (to coin a phrase).

Why should all men descendant of Numenor (ie the Dunedain) be 'good'. If that was so then Isildur would have thrown the Ring into the Fire and we wouldn't have all this trouble in the first place.....!

Maybe I should have left the "who should be good"-part out. Of course, none of them is entirely good. What I meant is that pounding a poor, wretched creature like Gollum the way they did for whatever reason is a particularly orcish act. Dunedain simply should not act like that - Faramir, even movie-Faramir, the least.

PS Faramir's men were, let's be honest, practicing standard interrogation techniques with Gollum! We might not like it, but it is what goes on. They're being atttacked from all sides from the forces of 'Evil' as we call them, so sometimes we might understand (but not agree with) their tactics in the cold light of War......

Standard interrogation techniques? I agree that torture, and we're talking about torture here, can be applied in interrogation when lives are immediately at risk. But not only is this not the case here, but the interrogation hasn't even started when Gollum was beat up. And if it is standard, then why are Frodo and Sam not interrogated standardly?
In the given situation I neither understand nor agree.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Now there are in fact a few scenes that I do not like watching as they make me feel a bit uncomfortable - any scenes where animals seem to be hurt or slaughtered. I don't like watching the Oliphaunts stampede the Rohirrim horses, nor do I like it when the Fell beast swoops down and takes horses in its mouth and flings them aside. I find myself looking away at those moments as I find it unpleasant and unsettling.

I think I must feel like Lal does. Aragorn's horse snogging brought tears to my eyes.

[Essex]

ok so I'll remove the word standard from that sentence then.

but they are interrogation techniques that are used in the time of War. And they were no doubt 'softening him up' - not nice to see, but PJ is adding some realism into the scene. When reading a book we may not see what is happening in the background as we are focused on what is happening on the page, and can divert our precious time to it. But to translate this across to the medium of the Screen, in an ABRIDGED version, then we need to see what is happening in context to the scene.

Sorry, not making myself clear here - what I mean is that Gollum turns against Frodo at this point (in both movie and book to be honest) - in the book we can have narrative to explain why this is happening - in the film we have a roughening up of the character and interrogation by Faramir that jolts 'Gollum' back into the fray. This is a pivotal scene in the film - and Jackson shows his view of what helped turned Gollum back against Frodo (ie being tricked by Frodo into being caught and then roughed up by Faramir's men). PJ was able to show a reason for Gollum's turn in a few seconds. Tolkien could take as long as he wanted.......

[Macalaure]

I agree on the importance of this scene in the development of movie-Gollum.

But the way the scene was in the theatrical version was sufficient, I think. When I watched it for the first time in the cinema (without book knowledge back then) I found the reaction of Gollum comprehensible. He feels like he is tricked by the first being in centuries he thought he could trust. It made perfect sense to me.

And realism is over-rated.

[alatar]

The problem with the 'torture' of Gollum is that it puts Faramir and his men in a bad light. Remember, in FotR, we hear Gollum's shrieks as he endures an interrogation in the dungeons of Sauron. Great company for Faramir to be in, to be sure. Now, I can see PJ thinking that if he were to show Gollum being beaten that it would be clear to all why he turns back to the dark side. This is typical of moreMoreMORE PJ as it's not enough for Gollum to feel betrayed when Frodo leads him into the hands of Faramir's men. No, we need more and then some to make sure the message 'hits' home. It doesn't work for me as I feel sorry for Gollum, and again, it's hard to watch this small frail wretched creature being abused.

Sure it's just smoke and mirrors; Andy Serkis and CG, but think about it. When Boromir lay dying, Sean Bean was in no mortal (or spiritual) peril, and when the scene was finished, he would get up and go back to his trailer, yet I was moved to (almost) tears as Boromir spoke his last words to his new-found brother. Also got a surge of something when the Elves appeared at Helm's Deep - actors/models all, and not, by the book, even supposed to be there. And, of course, when Dread Pirate Peter catches one of Legolas's arrows, don't you just choke up...hmmm, okay, so that might not be a good example. PJ and WETA painstakingly strove to make us believe that Gollum is real. In that, they were very successful, and that's why I see not CG, or an actor, but a underdog being bullied and beaten, all so that (I assume) I can easily understand why he will turn against his master.

Just in case I would forget, Faramir abuses Gollum once again at the end of TTT before Gollum follows Sam and Frodo in the old sewers of Osgiliath.

Shelob and the oliphaunts were CG, but, seemingly, we have mixed emotions about these creatures. My guess is that persons may warm a bit more to the Middle Earth proto-elephants as they are mammals, have real world cousins that, for the most part, are seen and presented in a good light and that the behemoths most likely did not choose to be horse stompers but were enslaved and forced into servitude. Shelob, on the other side, is a large bug, has deadly real world cousins (but most aren't) which are shown more infamously (think Halloween, were one finds more scary spider decorations than eerie elephants) and acts on her own - she hunts those that pass through her lair.

My children would be more afraid of Shelob (like PJ) than the oliphaunts - though my one daughter is more and more like Wednesday Addams every day, and has taken to playing with small bugs.

Anyway...

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I'm not sure I found many of the scenes mentioned to be disturbing. The thing with Gimli and the orc was inappropriate, yes, and should have been left out of the EE just as it was left out of the theatrical release. But did it disturb me on a fundamental level? no. The thing I felt most was annoyance that Gimli would say "nervous system" and sit on an orc. It felt cheesy and in poor taste, but that was all.

Aragorn killing the MOS was inappropriate, but I was warned in advance about that scene, and have honestly never seen the ROTK EE just because I'd heard from many sources that the theatrical release was the better of the two. So problem solved, at least for me. I never picked that scene out and watched it because I prefer to have some things untouched in my memory, and for some reason the whole chat with the MOS is one of those things.

I was never bothered by the abuses on Gollum in the way that others here were for a simple reason: in Osgiliath and Ithilien, the movie veers in a completely different direction from the book. By then, Faramir, someone who was "supposed" to be good, had already been made otherwise by the scriptwriters. I know why this was done, from a cinematic standpoint, so I've gotten over my initial disappointment. He's Faramir, but in TTT, he's a different Faramir from the book. So I guess it just seemed more possible to me or something. Not that it was nice or pleasant to watch. It was brutal, I'd agree, so I guess that I was bothered more by the violence itself than who was doing it.

I would agree with Lal that I was bothered by the violence against animals most of all...dead horses on the battlefield, horses being killed by the fell beast, confused oliphaunts, etc. I was never bothered by what happened to Shelob, though, mainly because she was an evil entity, while the other animals were thrown into the wars of men.

I guess I'm a movie fan as well as a book fan, something rare around these parts...because while some things bothered me, I can usually solve my problem on my own. If the ROTK and TTT EEs bother me, fine, I won't watch them--I'll watch the theatrical releases instead. I can appreciate why the films deviated from the book, yet still love the movies for the movies and the book for the book. They're excellent as far as movies go, so I see no point in getting all up in arms over changes.

I found the scenes between Aragorn & Arwen to be disturbing (in a humorous sense), not to mention extremely boring. It seemed to me as though these scenes were aimed at bed-wetters who enjoyed the Romeo & Juliet movie in their teens.

If PJ went ahead with sending Arwen to Helm's Deep with the Elves as was planned then this thread would have been the longest in the entire website bar none. Well done PJ for awknowledging what a foolish move it would have been!

[Beanamir of Gondor]

Originally Posted by Kath

I have to agree with Lalwendë in that I didn't find any of the scenes "disturbing" as such. Some people were treated in a way I didn't think appropriate and some things were a little bizarre, but nothing worth petitioning PJ over. He made the films in a way that was pleasing to him, and that he thought would get a good reaction from audiences, something he certainly achieved.

Probably the only thing I would classify as truly disturbing is Denethor's table manners.

I completely agree. There are a lot of movies out there that contain material much more horrifying, which abuse their characters a lot more than PJ's films do, and which treat their animals/sub-humans a lot worse. Probably more horrifying to me than the death of many CG horses, oliphaunts, orcs, Uruks, and wargs was the shameful waste of time spent on meaningless battles (involving all of those CG characters), falling staircases, romantic scenes, and overly dramatic Frodo-embarassing-himself sort of moments. That time could have been spent on Tolkien's visions of the BD and perhaps even Tom Bombadil.

We (and I freely include myself) are obsessed with things like the Mouth of Sauron, or the Gimli-sitting-on-the-orc scene, because we are (for the most part) fans of Tolkien's original storyline, and don't like to be unpleasantly surprised when things go differently, or when a character deviates from his/her former patterns. In the case of movie fans who have yet to read the books, we have our own seperate opinions about how the characters should behave, simply because we are drawn into the plot... and occasionally are disappointed by the characters' actions.

Honestly, the scenes I found most disturbing in the movies were the Ride of the Rohirrim at the Pelennor, and Faramir's asssault on Osigiliath (a.k.a. Faramir's Last Stand). Both moved me emotionally because of my attachment to the characters, and since many changes had already been made to the plot (Haldir's death, for one), I wasn't entirely sure if Eowyn, Merry, and Faramir would live to see the end of the movie. I could actually feel Merry's fear that he might not live to greet his friends again, Eowyn's fear that she may never see her brother or uncle, and Faramir's sorrow at perhaps never finding his father's love; PJ's ability to put the audience in the character's shoes makes those scenes unsettlingly full of thought.

Originally Posted by Beanamir of Gondor

I completely agree. There are a lot of movies out there that contain material much more horrifying, which abuse their characters a lot more than PJ's films do, and which treat their animals/sub-humans a lot worse. Probably more horrifying to me than the death of many CG horses, oliphaunts, orcs, Uruks, and wargs was the shameful waste of time spent on meaningless battles (involving all of those CG characters), falling staircases, romantic scenes, and overly dramatic Frodo-embarassing-himself sort of moments. That time could have been spent on Tolkien's visions of the BD and perhaps even Tom Bombadil.

We (and I freely include myself) are obsessed with things like the Mouth of Sauron, or the Gimli-sitting-on-the-orc scene, because we are (for the most part) fans of Tolkien's original storyline, and don't like to be unpleasantly surprised when things go differently, or when a character deviates from his/her former patterns. In the case of movie fans who have yet to read the books, we have our own seperate opinions about how the characters should behave, simply because we are drawn into the plot... and occasionally are disappointed by the characters' actions.

Honestly, the scenes I found most disturbing in the movies were the Ride of the Rohirrim at the Pelennor, and Faramir's asssault on Osigiliath (a.k.a. Faramir's Last Stand). Both moved me emotionally because of my attachment to the characters, and since many changes had already been made to the plot (Haldir's death, for one), I wasn't entirely sure if Eowyn, Merry, and Faramir would live to see the end of the movie. I could actually feel Merry's fear that he might not live to greet his friends again, Eowyn's fear that she may never see her brother or uncle, and Faramir's sorrow at perhaps never finding his father's love; PJ's ability to put the audience in the character's shoes makes those scenes unsettlingly full of thought.

What did you make of the Aragorn & Arwen scenes? Did you enjoy them?

[Beanamir of Gondor]

To tell the truth, the Aragorn-Arwen scenes positively bored me in TTT. For one, I rather enjoyed the patient, platonic, no-touchee relationship between those two characters in the book; for another, the characterization in those scenes felt a little flat to me, and didn't add much plotwise. I realize that they were most likely added in the hopes of keeping battle-bored viewers interested, but still...
I feel that PJ could have left the Aragorn-Arwen action out of TTT, added some stuff from RotK!Movie that was actually in TTT!Book (Flotsam & Jetsam, maybe even Shelob), and then had more room in RotK!Movie for The Scouring of the Shire and suchlike. And the movie probably wouldn't have suffered a bit.
I really have nothing to complain about as far as the A-A scenes in FotR and RotK go, however. They did bring Arwen down from the height of "Lady Arwen" to a more moderate stance of "Aragorn's girlfriend" or "Elrond's daughter", but that was fairly harmless, and, I suppose, made the relationship between grubby old Strider and lovely Evenstar a little more realistic for modern audiences.