But surely that is precisely what he does. He judges Saruman's life to be of greater value than that of Wormtongue, since he kills the latter in an attempt to save the former. And, in the context of the films, he is right to do so because Saruman is more useful to them.

no, my point is that he does not have time to judge. he is trying to stop someone murderering another. in my example the act of person a trying to stab person b in the back means any policeman would try to stop person a doing this, no matter who the people were.

I agree with Essex here. Legolas is shooting out of impulse, not out of calculation. After all, don't the hobbits in the Scouring of the Shire do exactly that? Shoot Wormtongue on impulse? Though, I suppose it could be argued that they panicked because Wormtongue was running away in the book, while that was not the case in the movie.

But it's really difficult to see that in the film, though it must've been their intention. You can't see Grima's hatred of Saruman in the film; this is the first time he's been mistreated. In the books, Grima finally goes off the top after a long line of being abused. In the movies, he's just slapped once. And because in that scene his expression looks like he's trying to repent (after Theoden talks to him), it makes it look like Grima decides to be good and kills the bad guy instead of only killing Saruman because of his hatred for him.

...my biggest problem is that an arrow shouldn't be able to go 500 feet up in the air like that before weakening significantly, if not fall back down, due to gravity. :rolleyes:

So Legolas' first impulse is to kill first and ask questions later - to take one criminal's life in order to save the life of another criminal? As you say, Grima may well have been on the verge of repenting, whereas Saruman clearly was not. And he is too late, resulting in two deaths rather than one. That doesn't say much for either his instincts or his reactions.

No, it is clear to me that he does make a judgement - he judges Saruman to be the more useful to them. And his judgement is correct, in terms of the film.

Regardless of intent (impulse or calculaton) Legolas' firing of an arrow could only have the one result it did.

Assume that the instant Grima made a move to attack Saruman Legolas fired, then since Grima is so much closer to his target it's virtually impossible for Legolas' arrow to save Saruman (unless arrows that defy gravity can also move at virtually impossible speeds). Then if Legolas took even a second to judge Saruman and make a desicion then Grima is already 'that' much closer to his target and the arrow will need 'that much more time', so Legolas would probably shot only out of retribution, not prevention, at that point (I'm assuming he'd be able to tell the hopelessness of trying to save Saruman at that point)

I guess you could argue that the intent is more important then the outcome, but I think the more important question in that would not be "how does this show Legolas' character?" but "why was it done this way?". I know somewhere in this forum (I can't remember the thread, I saw it the first day I looked around this site...if you recognize this idea let me know where it is and I'll gladly give credit to whomever diserves it) someone suggested that they could have had a nameless soldier shoot Wormtongue instead of Legolas. To me that idea makes more sense and keeps it more within the spirt of the books.

Sorry if this is kind of long...I didn't relize it would be so much when written down.

Great analysis. Watched the scene again last night, and Wormtongue has stabbed Saruman twice before Legolas's arrow flies, and so it is retribution. If Legolas wanted to help Saruman, then he would have shot three arrows at once - one to kill Wormtongue and the other two (catching Saruman's robes) to nudge him back off of the edge. Then, par for the movies, Gimli would say something sarcastic...;)


But this wouldn't have worked either. Gandalf silences Gimli twice in regards to slaying Saruman, as he wants him alive and I think that everyone would follow Gandalf's lead (though Theoden would have liked to see Saruman dead). Theoden almost begs Grima to leave Saruman, and so none of the Rohirrim would try to kill Grima unless ordered to do so by the king. So the Gandalf tribe want Saruman alive, and the Rohirrim don't want Grima dead. And yet...

Grima kills Saruman, which must have warmed Theoden's heart, but then gets killed by Legolas. Is this why Theoden isn't really excited about helping Gandalf and Aragorn in regards to Gondor?

Maybe Saruman could have turned to fight Grima, and realizing that it was going to take more than a few holes to kill the wizard, Grima tackles Saruman off of the edge, yelling "Rohan" or "Eowyn" or something as they fall.

I greatly admire the skills of Legolas, but that would be almost impossible. the gravity and then winds to deal with, and come one...it just isnt possible.

in the case of the movie Saruman was the most usefull therefore needed because he had information Gandalf wanted, Grima on the otherhand wasnt needed and prolly wouldnt repent as for the fact that he spent many years, im guessing, under the influence of Saruman. as for Legolas shooting, people do things out of impules and out of the moment. wether he got caught up in the moment, was trying to save Saruman, or trying to kill Grima it happened. In the book they both die, and if the movies were to have one live and the other die, that would be a bigger difference than how they died. am i right?

But in the books Grima kills Saruman (consistent with the movie), & a random hobbit archer that doesn't know any better kills Grima. You'd think Legolas might have responded a little differently than a random hobbit archer...

yes. but consisting with the fact that someone must kill him, who else could accomplish the impossible shot up the tower and hit and kill Grima. none other that the incredible Legolas. come on. do you think that some random Rohan soldier can do it? i konw that i said that its way to much credit for Legolas or anyone, but i dont think anyone else could have done it and if the credit has to go to someone it seems only proper to give it to Legolas who makes the incredible shots all through the movie. and they both have to die some how. and we have to see it otherwise we dont believe it. thats just the way society is.

Actually, I think I am a fan of this route, I hardly think that it's an impossible shot for a random Rohirrim (they're not bad with a bow & arrow on horseback, even). I've heard some people say that this wouldn't work because they would've overheard how Gandalf (or Theoden) didn't want Grima killed & so they wouldn't have killed him. But as I remember, Frodo says many times that he does not want even Saruman killed (much less Grima, who did not attempt to assasinate Frodo)--but a random hobbit archer killed Wormtounge. I see no problem at all with the Rohirrim route.

i wasnt talking about not dong it because of how Gandalf and Theoden didnt want them too. and who knows maybe they could have, but then they would have had to pay someone to come on screen and do it and all that fun stuff. and all the nonbook readers who wouldnt know the difference would prolly much rather have a wellknow character do it instead. you have to remember that the movies were movies for everyone, not just the book readers.

Not the movie Legolas, I wouldn't.

I think it completely discards any shred of human dignity that Grima had to have Action Hero Legolas kill him amidst the delighted shrieks of 12 year old girls in the audience.

But I'm repeating myself, am I not Estel? ;) :rolleyes:

Of course...that's why they have the Oliphaunt scene later.

I suppose I shouldn't answer that. :p

Estel, if it wasn't for the average movie goer, then you wouldn't have seen ANY Tolkien films.

If people want a fantasy film based word for word entirely on the book, go see the (rather dissapointing) Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.

Umm, you do know that movie was the highest grossing movie in the year it was released? It's one of the highest grossing movies of all time, I believe.

To me that suggests people actually do want faithful adaptions.

This is even further supported by the fact that even though many people consider Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban to be a better book, it didn't do nearly as well as a movie because they hacked out so much of the book and disappointed the fans.

Edit - I just checked my facts http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/...yr=2001&p=.htm.

HP outgrossed even FOTR that year.

Of course. I try never to belittle the 'average movie goer' in any way. But I also don't think that any particular scene can be justified by saying that the average audience might've liked it better (Legolas shooting Grima, that is) when the character in qutestion already has plenty of bravo moments.

it not so much as the book fans going to see the movie, its a matter of how big the book is before the movie. the Harry Potter books were a big deal and every one new about them, therefore they went to see the movies. LotR was the same way, it was well known and looked good so people went.