Disturbing scenes in the movies

[Mansun]

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).

[Mansun]

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]

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... :cool:

[Mansun]

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 (http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/448074/index.html) 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 .

[Mansun]

Well there is the British Board (http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/448074/index.html) 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.... :rolleyes: 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

[Mansun]

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.... :rolleyes: 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]

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. :(

[Mansun]

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]

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]

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!!!!

[Mansun]

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]

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.


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]

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.

[Mansun]

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.

[Mansun]

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]

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. :(

[Mansun]

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]

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]

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.

[Mansun]

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]

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.

[Mansun]

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.

[Boromir88]

Usually it is Essex and myself arguing (of course in a friendly fashion :) ) as far as Jackson and the movies. But on this occasion, I fully agree, and some excellent points have been brought up:

I really don't think Tolkien's world is that 'black and white' (to coin a phrase)
Completely agree. It's not a simple of 'all these pure and honorable good guys' are against all these 'evil and hateful bad guys.' Tolkien's work was of several levels, where the good guys may not be as honorable as they should be, and the bad guys are not necessarily allied with Sauron, the symbol of near absolute evil:
“Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry, and with only fragment to read, and, of course, without the earlier written but unpublished Elvish histories. But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right…In their way the Men of Gondor were similar: a withering people whose only ‘hallows’ were their tombs. But in any case this is a tale about a war, and if war is allowed (at least as a topic and a setting) it is not much good complaining that all the people on one side are against those on the other. Not that I have made even this issue quite so simple: there are Saruman, and Denethor, and Boromir; and there are treacheries and strife even among the Orcs.”~Letter to Naomi Mitchinson, dated Septer 25th 1954
Tolkien remarks that even his lovely Elves are not always 'in the right' and also goes further to say that it is the same with the 'Men of Gondor.' And I think Jackson shows this quite effectively.

I still will never agree with you about the Mouth of Sauron, as he comes out and says "I have a message from my master," this sets him up as a messenger and protection under parley....but that's just a difference of opinions. :D

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.~Mansun
I find the interspliced scenes between Aragorn and Arwen to be much needed. In the books there is the Appendix where the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen can be read. And in the movies Jackson is pretty much taking that and intersplicing these moments in the movies. After all as a viewer wouldn't it baffle you as to why Aragorn married this hot elf chick in the 3rd movie, when throughout the majority of the movies he was with the hot Rohan chick? Weaving in Arwen and her love for Aragorn I think is an important addition in the movie as it reminds the viewers as to why Aragorn does not feel affections for Eowyn, and the person that he is truly in love with. Without these scenes, I think would cause to question as to why in the heck does Aragorn end up marrying the elf chick.

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.~Azaelia
Problem is this is a fact of life, a fact of war, and included in the books. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't get upset over it all, but I don't think Jackson should be criticized for showing reality.

Bottomline is if you find something disturbing, there is no one over you forcing you to watch it or view it. But, I sure don't want someone watching over me, censoring what I can and wish to see. You may find me to have a bit of a mental problem, but I like watching things that sort of rattle or don't sit right with me, especially if it has something to do with reality. Take the recent WTC movies to come out...United 93, World Trade Center...etc, it has caused much stir and debate, or perhaps V for Vendetta. It may be that I'm slightly deranged, but it's these very things that stir me, get me disturbed and riled up that really hits home. As it's my personality to not be ignorant or shy away from reality and to live in this contained, 'safe,' fantasy.

[Mansun]

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.


Personally, I don't think the Arwen character was beautiful enough to play the part. But the character who played Galadriel did a near perfect job, one of the best in the entire trilogy alongside the likes of Gandalf & Frodo.

[Beanamir of Gondor]

It may be that I'm slightly deranged, but it's these very things that stir me, get me disturbed and riled up that really hits home. As it's my personality to not be ignorant or shy away from reality and to live in this contained, 'safe,' fantasy.

I completely agree. Also, sometimes when part of a film (huge creepy spiders, fathers burning their sons alive, a wizard being impaled on a waterwheel) is particularly revolting or disturbing, people are drawn to it. If I may use a cliche, it's like moths drawn to a lightbulb. It's so joltingly different that you can't stop watching it, like The Boondock Saints or Pulp Fiction. In the words of my grandmother, "Oh, the beginning of it was so awful, I could hardly watch it... and it was just as bad all the way to the end!"

Personally, I don't think the Arwen character was beautiful enough to play the part.

Well, I thought she was lovely compared to the mud-encrusted, straggly-haired Strider we see at Bree and Weathertop. Maybe the comparison in cleanliness was what made me jump to conclusions. ;)

[Sir Kohran]

I thought some of the Orc/Uruk behaviour was rather disturbing. I'm reminded of how Lurtz grins as he shoots Boromir - and he also does it slowly, giving Boromir the chance to fight on against the Uruks, teasing him with a glimmer of hope - Lurtz has fun taunting this brave man as he kills him (as mentioned, even at the expense of his own warriors' lives). Or like during the Siege of Gondor, when Skully laughs as they shoot the soldiers' heads onto the Gondorians, as if it's some kind of clever joke, or when Gothmog chuckles as the catapults pound Minas Tirith, like he's actively enjoying the chaos and slaughter he's bringing about.

It's odd really, as I don't find movies like Saving Private Ryan or Gladiator or Braveheart (all of which are more gory and brutal) disturbing, mostly because the enemy, even though they're trying to kill the heroes, are mostly just doing their jobs - they don't seem to like the killing much more than the heroes do. But the Orcs take great pleasure in death and destruction, and that's a bit disturbing, to my mind.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

Problem is this is a fact of life, a fact of war, and included in the books. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't get upset over it all, but I don't think Jackson should be criticized for showing reality.

I wasn't criticizing Peter Jackson for showing deaths of animals...It's true that it is a reality during wartime that a lot of creatures are going to get hurt, both people, and animals. I just said it bothered me, that's all. :p

Bottomline is if you find something disturbing, there is no one over you forcing you to watch it or view it. But, I sure don't want someone watching over me, censoring what I can and wish to see. You may find me to have a bit of a mental problem, but I like watching things that sort of rattle or don't sit right with me, especially if it has something to do with reality. Take the recent WTC movies to come out...United 93, World Trade Center...etc, it has caused much stir and debate, or perhaps V for Vendetta. It may be that I'm slightly deranged, but it's these very things that stir me, get me disturbed and riled up that really hits home. As it's my personality to not be ignorant or shy away from reality and to live in this contained, 'safe,' fantasy.

I completely agree with you, actually. I also like movies that don't flinch away from truth. The real world can be a harsh place. People kill each other, perform terrorist acts, etc. The purpose of theater (and I'll extend it to cinema, though it is often forgotten) is to "hold...the mirror up to nature". And sometimes, nature isn't all that pretty. It shouldn't be censored or lightened or what have you.

I actually think it's good when I am disturbed/upset/made uncomfortable by a movie--it means that someone is doing their job: the director, the actors, the makeup artist, etc...Of course, there might be something wrong with me, too: one of my favorite movies is Schindler's List, though I've only seen it once and can't bring myself to watch it again.

[Alcarin]

This topic makes no sense, sorry. It was rated as a movie of what? 12+? 16+? It was an ACTION/ADVENTURE movie. I'm not gonna play softy here and say those scenes are ''not allowed'' because they are to violent. Like Middle-Earth was a funpark.

[alatar]

This topic makes no sense, sorry. It was rated as a movie of what? 12+? 16+? It was an ACTION/ADVENTURE movie. I'm not gonna play softy here and say those scenes are ''not allowed'' because they are to violent. Like Middle-Earth was a funpark.
I'm not sure what you mean. Can a film be rated the equivalent of the USA "G (http://www.mpaa.org/FilmRatings.asp)" (all audiences) and not contain anything that someone may find disturbing? There are scenes in children's movies that have given me nightmares...then again, just how much Wiggles can the adult brain take?

There are things that I find more disturbing now, now that I'm a little older than 16, that I did as a newly minted teenager. It's relative/subjective.

By the by, welcome to the Downs, Alcarin.

[Alcarin]

:D Thanks, nice to meet u

[doug*platypus]

Someone jogged my memory regarding the Déagol strangulation scene. When I saw that in the movies, it did seem excessively violent. Possibly because of the realism and the fact that it was one friend killing another, it just seemed to stand out above all the beheading and limb-severing as "a bit too far".

Also, it disturbed me when Sam pulled Sméagol down off the rocks by the elven rope around his neck. In fact, I think I can generalise and say that the good guys get away with some real atrocities which we are somehow meant to forgive them for, or gloss over. In the book, they were the good guys precisely because they shunned these types of actions. For example, Faramir "would not snare even an orc with a falsehood". I believe that the heroes in the LOTR movies should have maintained moral superiority rather than descending into violence.

I found Denethor's running jump in flames in Minas Tirith to be a little gratuitous and unecessary. And Gandalf's line about "thus passes Denethor son of Ecthelion", or whatever it was, suddenly seemed to be inappropriate where it did not so in the book. Most likely because the same sense of horror, tragedy and loss is not present. It almost appears that movie Gandalf is glad to see the end of him! Heroic, indeed. :rolleyes:

I can't recall seeing Aragorn decapitating the Mouth of Sauron... is this in the EE? But it certainly sounds horrific. Provoked or not, Aragorn should not have assaulted (let alone killed) an opponent who was not there to fight him, but only to taunt him. If Tolkien had intended Aragorn to be so violent, then surely he would have lopped off Bill Ferny's head as well! And why not Butterbur to boot?

[Nimrodel_9]

I can't recall seeing Aragorn decapitating the Mouth of Sauron... is this in the EE?Yes, it was in the EE. I also found it rather disturbing. It makes Aragorn out to be arrogant. Others may argue that he is arrogant, but I don't think so.

I found Denethor's running jump in flames in Minas Tirith to be a little gratuitous and unecessary. Very unnecessary. In the book, Denethor's death is gruesome, but I say that Denethor running around on fire and then jumping is worse. It's like being killed twice, in a way.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I went to see Crazy Christmas Cabaret (http://www.londontoast.dk/) this week. . .This year it was called "Bored of the Rings" and actually had a charachter called "Arrogant (Viggo) Mortensen"

sorry to be off topic, but Nimrodel_9 made me think of it. . . .blame her.


Not only was Denethor flame jump unnecessary it was also plain weird. . .It seems to be an unreasonable long run that just doesn't make sence. I must confess that it is not a thing that trouble me much, I found it more weird than disturbing.

[Aaron]

Most disturbing scene? Probably the part in Two Towers when Faramirs men are kicking Gollum around. Why exactly were they doing that?

[mormegil]

Most disturbing scene? Probably the part in Two Towers when Faramirs men are kicking Gollum around. Why exactly were they doing that?

Come to think of it I found it a bit distrubing as well. Although I think it goes hand in hand with the change made from book Faramir to movie Faramir, not nearly as noble and more like Boromir.

[Rikae]

The only thing I found disturbing in an inappropriate way was Denethor's death scene. It appears that Gandalf, rather than Denethor, is reponsible for his death; plus, having him run out in flames makes it seem almost silly when it should be an extremely tragic, serious scene. I agree that it makes Gandalf's line seem inappropriate, as well. It should have been a disturbing scene, but the disrepectful/somewhat absurd way it was handled made it disturbing in another way.

The Smeagol/Deagol fight is very disturbing, but I wouldn't want it to be otherwise. The scene is inherently horrifying and ought to be filmed that way, so the horror of it is felt. I felt the story called for a scene where the relative innocence of the hobbits beforehand, the lure of the ring, and the suddeness and insanity were apparent; that's what I saw, and so I consider it "appropriately" disturbing, if you catch my drift.
The scene where Faramir's men beat Gollum didn't really strike me as particularly disturbing (no pun intended), because I assumed Gollum struggled/bit etc., and we know what nasssty sharp teeth he has.
Aragorn killing the MOS also didn't because, honestly, I didn't really see the movie MOS as a human in his own right, but as a sort of zombie (right or wrong) and it seemed plausible that Aragorn would stop it from saying things that would cause the men to lose heart.
I might be wrong (I realise that the MOS in the book was in fact human), but I felt that in the context of the movie, it made sense.

[Boromir88]

Rikae, nice point about Denethor's death scene. It was a bit silly and didn't make a lot of sense. The way Denethor went out screaming like a mad man, made it seem like he did not know the concept of wood + pouring oil on oneself + a flame = catching oneself on fire. I mean Denethor knew he was going to burn himself alive, so why did he act so surprised and freaked out when it actually happened?

[Aaron]

He was going insane, he thought "his line" had ended. Sometime insane people are not very logical, sometimes they are.

[alatar]

.It seems to be an unreasonable long run that just doesn't make sence. I must confess that it is not a thing that trouble me much, I found it more weird than disturbing.
It makes perfect sense. Denethor, aflame, suddenly comes to his senses and decides to divebomb the enemy at the Gate, sacrificing himself for his people (those that haven't been eaten at that time, that is). It was discussed here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=375397&postcount=9), as it's obviously why PJ had Denethor run the mile or so from Rath Dínen to the wall's edge by the White Tree.

[sassyfriend]

I feel really bad for Smeagol being treated like that by Faramir and his men. Wouldn't it have been easyer softing him up by just maybe yelling at him?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I feel really bad for Smeagol being treated like that by Faramir and his men. Wouldn't it have been easyer softing him up by just maybe yelling at him?

It certainly seems as though the director couldn't, for whatever reason, accept the character of Faramir as being this ideal military leader. It was deemed necessary to show that the good guys aren't always good, and this character took the hit! Despite his being one of the very best of men in the book.