Artist intent versus viewer perception

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

And why no Grishnack? I think I've asked that before so leave it alone if you like. If the point was to show how much pull the Ring had, why remove ol' Grish?

Quickly, on this, there is an orc credited as Grishnakh.

This one.

(Edit: Ah hah, found the old Grishnakh thread I started - Ring-Driven or Meat-driven)

The difference being instead of getting a fascinating exchange between Grishnakh and Pippin leading Grishnakh to believe he has the Ring with the "gollum" trick...the movies Grishnakh just wants to nom on some Hobbit legs...which starts the orc fight. And I believe Grishnakh is eventually squashed by Treebeard.

Nice thread idea, lmp. I have to throw my voice in with the others, that it seems the more honorable the book-character the more Jackson liked to just tear them down. Don't forget, in Faramir's interrogation of Gollum, he gleefully looks on as 3 of his men turn Gollum into a kicking bag. In the extended edition interviews Jackson just smiles and says "They're softening him up."

It's difficult to catch some of the other, subtler and perhaps interesting artist intents when the artist sways more to the violence/juvenility that's been brought up. I would never have caught the intended message with Theoden had I not read this thread. Of course, now that you mentioned it, the light bulb went on, but it took knowledge of the scene and the intended message before it finally clicked.