The Mouth of Sauron and more

Nikia

Nikia

New member
This will only make sense if you've seen the Extended Edition of Return of the King.

Anyone else feel completely cheated by that scene? I'm no huge fan of Aragorn, but he was a noble man, what Peter Jackson did to him in the Mouth of Sauron scene was disregard for all Aragorn stood for. It's an old rule of war not to shoot the messenger and that is what the Mouth of Sauron was, the messenger for the Dark Lord. He came not to fight the men of the west, but to relay a message to them. He was evil, but he was still a messager. In the movie (and book) he was not going to physically harm anyone (that was the army's job) and he was supposed to intimidate them and taunt them. Which he did, so Aragorn's beheading of him showed Aragorn as a less than honorable man. You don't shoot the messenger regardless of who he serves.

Am I alone in thinking Peter Jackson has made serious and unneeded changes and that it has robbed Middle-Earth of it's charm?
 
wow..I never looked at the scene in that way before..you do bring up a very good point though. hmmm, well I guess he had to do something "drastic" that would enrage Sauron enough to empty out Mordor..after all, Aragorn wanted all the time and ease he could givve Frodo, which in itself was courageous, since he was facing certain death....I think if Aragorn just sent a message back via Mouth of Sauron saying "I challenge you to...., etc" Sauron would have scoffed or laughed at it....
as for the other point, I think PJ did a pretty good job, considering Tolkien writes in sooo much, it's hard to pick what to show, how to represent it, etc...also the movies are just one of many possible interpretations of Middle Earth...I think in the documentaries PJ said he wanted Middle Earth to seem like a real actual place to the audience, not a charming fairytale land....I knowhe and everyone in the production went to excruciating detail to make it the way it is...
 
No, you're not alone. Jackson made a lot of distortions of the story, and I think you've put your finger right on why: being a modern man, he has no concept of nobility or honor. Jackson overlaid his own postmodern point of view on a timeless story. To him, men were irredemable, while Tolkien didn't see it that way. His interpretation of Faramir was another gross violation of Tolkien's intent, and there are many others.

That's why I hope the movies fade quickly from the public consciousness. The books are classics, and will live forever.
 
PrinceOfTheWest said:
No, you're not alone. Jackson made a lot of distortions of the story, and I think you've put your finger right on why: being a modern man, he has no concept of nobility or honor. Jackson overlaid his own postmodern point of view on a timeless story. To him, men were irredemable, while Tolkien didn't see it that way. His interpretation of Faramir was another gross violation of Tolkien's intent, and there are many others.

That's why I hope the movies fade quickly from the public consciousness. The books are classics, and will live forever.
Click to expand...
oh i agree that Faramir was not at all like Tolkien's...I am a fan of Tolkien too, i like the movies but the books ARE better.
and i think the movies are already fading. people really don't talk about them that much...although New LIne Cinema is trying to re-boost popularity by releasing a new edition sometime this month i think...
 
PrinceOfTheWest said:
His interpretation of Faramir was another gross violation of Tolkien's intent, and there are many others.
Click to expand...
Faramir and Denethor I feel. Faramir was not as alike to Boromir as he was made out to be and Denethor was not a crazy old man. He was learned and still could wield a sword, though he chose not too.
I also had a problem with the movie Eowyn. She fawned far too much over Aragorn and was not as fierce and cold in the movies (until her battle against the Witch-King).

I guess he had to do something "drastic" that would enrage Sauron enough to empty out Mordor.
Click to expand...
Mordor was being emptied in any case. Everything was set, the Mouth of Sauron was out to enrage them or enter them into a deal with the Dark Lord. Sauron sent him ahead of the army to try and ensnare the men first, if that failed the army was going to come out and finish them off.

I know the hard work that goes into making movies, but there are certain things that should not be changed when you're making a classic into a movie. I seriously hope Peter Jackson does not make The Hobbit into a movie.
 
The thing that mystifies me is that there were things Jackson did that he didn't have to do. I mean, that whole business about Faramir capturing Frodo and Sam and getting them as far as Osgiliath - why distort the story like that? What actually happened was at least as exciting and compelling, and would have been just as fun to film.

Plus, it introduces a severe inaccuracy into the story - that business about the winged Nazgul sensing Frodo and trying to compel him to put on the Ring. If that had happened, then Sauron would have been aware of where the Ring was on that day. It's utterly essential to the plot of the story that Sauron doesn't know where the Ring is from when the Fellowship leaves Rivendell until Frodo stands at the Crack of Doom! If Sauron had known that the Ring was even in the vicinity of Osgiliath at that point in time, the entire War would have unfolded differently.
 
I had problems with the way PJ made Frodo and Faramir and even Arwen.
Frodo was more a grown up man in the books. This Frodo was (No offend to Elijah his portrayal) weaker. Far more weaker. I had huge troubles with him sending Sam away. And it was also unncecessary what was done to Gollum. He was already taken by the ring and his will to get it back, was going above all, but to make Gollum even set up the two hobbits against each other was completely unnecessary. I hate that scene.
I think Faramir was the most damaged. He was so much more noble in the books and alright, maybe the TTT EE showed a bit more of his background, but Faramir could resist the ring. If you read the books, you'll see he is not planning to take the ring to his father, because he already knew it would destroy everything. I think a new scene with more about the REAL Faramir and also a bit more romance between him and Eowyn would be appreciated.
Maybe I'm the only one, but I think Arwen was also not portrayed well.
Liv Tyler is a gorgeous young lady, nothing against her, but the movie Arwen was so extremely weak. Her faith was bounded with the ring? Where in the books can we find that???? Her faith and choice had nothing to do with the ring and she was not dying in the books at all! I think they should have used Glorfindel instead of Arwen to pick Frodo up.

And about the decapitation of the Mouth of Sauron was unnecessary as well.
It made Aragorn a bit more arrogant. Like: How dare you to speak to the King of Gondor like that?! That wasn't Aragorn at all. The mouth made some remarks, yes, but nothing so far to made Aragorn kill him. I guess PJ made horror movies in the past and maybe he couldn't resist it? :confused:
 
no...i think that was good how Aragorn be-headed The Mouth of Sauron....taunting them and saying Frodo was dead, Aragorn would not believe him at all, and was sick of the Messenger's lie's (i just watched that scene today atcually..)
 
Mrs Gil-Galad Took said:
Her faith was bounded with the ring? Where in the books can we find that???? Her faith and choice had nothing to do with the ring and she was not dying in the books at all!
Click to expand...

I think Elrond says in the movies that her FATE is tied to the ring, not faith....which makes sense..kinda, since she gave up her immortality to be with Aragorn, whose life was dependent on it....
but yeah i agree, there were definitely flaws, but then again, it proves how unique and precious Tolkien's work is...I really don't think there could be movies that portray his work accurately unless it was Tolkien himself...but I do have admiration for PJ and Andrew Adamson for undertaking such a huge task of trying to bring such classic works to screen in such a way that it pleases [almost] everyone...
 
Yes, in the movie Elrond said Arwen was dying because she had choosen a mortal life. It doesn't make sense. Because in the books, Arwen wasn't dying at all. Her life and choices had nothing to do with the ring. The ring was tied with Sauron and not with the immortality and choices of the elves.

Of course I love the movies! I am a huge fan of both, but this topic is about what people didn't like. And there are always things that people don't like.
 
Mrs Gil-Galad Took said:
Yes, in the movie Elrond said Arwen was dying because she had choosen a mortal life. It doesn't make sense. Because in the books, Arwen wasn't dying at all. Her life and choices had nothing to do with the ring. The ring was tied with Sauron and not with the immortality and choices of the elves.

Of course I love the movies! I am a huge fan of both, but this topic is about what people didn't like. And there are always things that people don't like.
Click to expand...
ooohh, right....actually looking at it all, i think the parts that Tolkien fans don't like are the bits that were added, or the Hollywood dramatizations...honestly, i dont think th emovies would have done so well if PJ hadn't made changes, since they were trying to outreach to those who hadn't read the books...if they had been absolutely true to the books, i think it would have been more difficult for ppl who hadnt read them to follow the movie...
 
Nikia said:
This will only make sense if you've seen the Extended Edition of Return of the King.

Anyone else feel completely cheated by that scene? I'm no huge fan of Aragorn, but he was a noble man, what Peter Jackson did to him in the Mouth of Sauron scene was disregard for all Aragorn stood for. It's an old rule of war not to shoot the messenger and that is what the Mouth of Sauron was, the messenger for the Dark Lord. He came not to fight the men of the west, but to relay a message to them. He was evil, but he was still a messager. In the movie (and book) he was not going to physically harm anyone (that was the army's job) and he was supposed to intimidate them and taunt them. Which he did, so Aragorn's beheading of him showed Aragorn as a less than honorable man. You don't shoot the messenger regardless of who he serves.

Am I alone in thinking Peter Jackson has made serious and unneeded changes and that it has robbed Middle-Earth of it's charm?
Click to expand...

Naw I'm glad he beheaded that spewer of lies. :D
 
I strongly disagree with people who say Peter Jackson did a bad or lousy job of bringing the characters and the plot itself to life onscreen. You can't make everyone happy. I read the books and I thought the movie actually helped me to understand the story better. There were so many details in the books, although I suppose you could say that's good in some ways.

My only complaint about the movie was the way Denethor was portrayed. I didn't like that drooling fatalism ( although he was remarkably played by John Noble) or the fact that his knowledge and abilities were downplayed.


The Mouth of Sauron in the extende ROTK was actually somewhat comical to me, although strangely enough, it was that scene alone that really got me into LOTR and collecting Sideshow statues. He was also depicted very differently in the books, and not as comical or grotesque as in the movie. I liked the design of his helm and priest-like garments though, almost like he led some kind of Black Numenorean Sauron 'cult' at one time. And those teeth...well, they sure didn't have dental care in Mordor, did they? When Aragorn cut off his head, I thought that was actually comical...it was like, " Enough with the darn smiling and talking, just shut up, let's go and kick some butt now.":D
 
IceMaiden said:
I strongly disagree with people who say Peter Jackson did a bad or lousy job of bringing the characters and the plot itself to life onscreen. You can't make everyone happy. I read the books and I thought the movie actually helped me to understand the story better. There were so many details in the books, although I suppose you could say that's good in some ways.

My only complaint about the movie was the way Denethor was portrayed. I didn't like that drooling fatalism ( although he was remarkably played by John Noble) or the fact that his knowledge and abilities were downplayed.


The Mouth of Sauron in the extende ROTK was actually somewhat comical to me, although strangely enough, it was that scene alone that really got me into LOTR and collecting Sideshow statues. He was also depicted very differently in the books, and not as comical or grotesque as in the movie. I liked the design of his helm and priest-like garments though, almost like he led some kind of Black Numenorean Sauron 'cult' at one time. And those teeth...well, they sure didn't have dental care in Mordor, did they? When Aragorn cut off his head, I thought that was actually comical...it was like, " Enough with the darn smiling and talking, just shut up, let's go and kick some butt now.":D
Click to expand...
I have seen many joke captions about the Mordor dental plan :D
 
As a fan of both the books and the movies, I think we have to look at them as two separate things. PJ's vision sort of sprang out of Tolkien's, rather than faithfully interpreting it. So while he didn't remain as true the stories as he could have, what he ended up making was still really compelling.

I loved the Mouth of Sauron guy in the movie; when I first got my extended edition DVD, I watched that a bunch -- something about the way they portrayed his distorted head and shark teeth seemed to me just right. I agree Aragorn would not have cut off his head (and didn't do so in the books, of course) but as IM said, in the movie it was comical, as if Aragorn were saying, "Enough of this clap-trap, let's fight!"

it worked OK in the movie, if you take the movies as a separate creation from the books.
 
Mrs Gil-Galad Took said:
I had problems with the way PJ made Frodo and Faramir and even Arwen.
Frodo was more a grown up man in the books. This Frodo was (No offend to Elijah his portrayal) weaker. Far more weaker. I had huge troubles with him sending Sam away. And it was also unncecessary what was done to Gollum. He was already taken by the ring and his will to get it back, was going above all, but to make Gollum even set up the two hobbits against each other was completely unnecessary. I hate that scene.
I think Faramir was the most damaged. He was so much more noble in the books and alright, maybe the TTT EE showed a bit more of his background, but Faramir could resist the ring. If you read the books, you'll see he is not planning to take the ring to his father, because he already knew it would destroy everything. I think a new scene with more about the REAL Faramir and also a bit more romance between him and Eowyn would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
for one time i agree with you :eek: :D

No, i really think Frodo was made far too weak in the movies, i mean, in the book he kind of forces Smeagol to help them and be loyal to his master, but in the movies Sam does all that, and Frodo even tells Sam to leave :eek:
When we watched the scene about Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath i was telling my sister: "He isn't supposed to do that, he is way more... understanding and noble and kind in the books" and he was.
I really love the movies, but there were a few parts that were lost in them.
 
Hey didn't Aragorn behead that one Urakai Lurtz at the end of the Fellowship of the Ring? Well I don't see any use about him beheading the Mouth of Sauron, plus the Mouth of Sauron a bad guy? :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top