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:

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:
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 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.

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.

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.

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!"

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. ;)

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.

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

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.

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" (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.

:D Thanks, nice to meet u

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?

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.

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.

I went to see Crazy Christmas Cabaret 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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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, 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.

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.