It feels to me like in Jackson's movies that most of the characters are bipolar. Such as Theoden, "Why should we march to help Gondor?!" The beacons are lit Let's March to Gondor with no explanation of why Theoden changed his mind. There are other examples of this; but this one stands out most to my mind.
The killing of the mouth of Sauron in the film is unnecessary and also makes Aragon look like a brute, which couldn’t be further away from his character
@@nevilleslightlylargerbotto1726 Killing an unarmed foreign emissary during a diplomatic meeting for any reason does indeed make one a brute. In fact it's a war crime.
@@abelbabel8484 ah I see. And when the emissary represents an enemy force that just got done pelting the host army’s legions behind their defensive walls with the severed heads of their companions, when does the arbitrary real-politick angle get dropped in favor of realism in the face of an enemy that will kill all of its opposition the second it gets?
I'm glad your brought up the scene with the Mouth of Sauron - everyone seems to love the way that's done in the film but to me it's just loutish and completely inappropriate to Aragorn's character and the customs that the Mouth and Gandalf explicitly refer to in the book.
Yeah. A chance to show the hero as Heroes, and what happens? Aragorn murders a blind man, during a parlay. I appreciate they wanted a definitive end and to get him out of the way, but they needed to beat him on HIS terms.
Aragorn's beheading of the MoS is like Gimli telling Legolas to shoot Saruman. They're bad guys after all, and since the good guys have no mercy on the orcs, why should they have any mercy or morals when dealing with an evil human or wizard? Whatever you do to a bad guy is justified just because you're right and he's wrong. What a contrast to Faramir's words in the book: "I would not trap even an orc with a falsehood."
So Faramir is seen to be wiser and more good than Aragorn. Film Aragorn throws away his right to be King. The people of Gondor would have been wiser to be ruled by Steward Faramir
Tolkien's moral standards make sense when you consider that he was a veteran of the trenches of WWI. As a combat veteran myself I can understand why he is struggling for moral certainty in a morally ambiguous world
This was good stuff. Some of the morality stuff in the book is on a much more mundane less heroic level. Ghan Bhuri Gan. The Sackville Bagginses and Sharkys men. Frodos restraint in the Battle of Bywater, only taking what the need from the Barrow, leaving treasure for all. Trying to recompense Butterbur for his lost ponies. The bravery of Fredegar are all missing too. Thanks and keep up the good work.
I think the movies do a good job of reflecting 21st century self-righteousness and virtue vanity, which is seen often now in social/political issues, especially online. That is, rules, standards, customs, and in some cases even laws, be damned - we "know" what's right and if anybody or anything disagrees, it IS wrong.
Great piece of analysis, subscribed! A clear answer to people asking "Why Elrond didn't take the Ring from Isildur/pushed him into the fire" - "Because he isn't evil" One more episode when emotion is tramping morale and logic in the movie is the whole dismissal of Sam before Cirith Ungol: going against everything in their relations in the book, frriendship and mutual duty and mutual quest of the Ring. Self-baked emotions really dumb the movie down.
And it must be remembered that notwithstanding movie-Elrond's dyspeptic growling about how Men are weak, he could not have destroyed the Ring either. He would have, perhaps at the last minute, attempted to sieze it for himself. Movie-Elrond would have believed himself powerful enough to master the Ring and heal the damage Sauron had done. As for Sam, I was willing to buy Frodo's dismissal of Sam in the film; but I was shocked that Sam actually left, and only changed his mind when he discovered the lembas-as though he didn't know that Gollum had played Frodo false? I had fully expected Sam to follow Frodo and Gollum secretly. It would even have made a nice counterpoint to the way Gollum had followed them secretly before.
Yeah, when I hear people ask questions like that ("why didn't Elrond just shove Isildur into the pit?") I really do worry about the world. It's frightening that people are just walking around without any better morality than that.
That being said, you had such a good point. The movies give the impression to the audience that these characters made rash emotional decisions, a dangerous current trend, eroding the positive influence of Tolkien. His deliberate thorough story writing, philosophy, and theology is such a powerful treasure if only more had the patience and opportunity to delve into it. Keep up the good work!
Very much agreed. In fact, these changes bugged me a lot about the PJ trilogy. You could add Theoden into the mix as well, making decisions on the spur of the moment, rather than thinking things through. In particular, "Where was Gondor when Westfold fell?" You didn't even call them for aid and even if you had, they wouldn't have had time to come! So Theoden was willing to throw the whole Oath of Eorl aside for his own failings. And then when the beacons are lit, suddenly he is all gun-ho about answering the call and helping Gondor. It is just cheap tension that doesn't make sense. I'd argue both Faramir and the Ents are similar: a refusal followed by a quick reversal of opinion mainly on emotion. Here is part of Theoden's answer to Hirgon, showing that Rohan itself is still threatened and yet Theoden will honor the oath of his ancestors: ‘Dark tidings,’ said Théoden, ‘yet not all unguessed. But say to Denethor that even if Rohan itself felt no peril, still we would come to his aid. But we have suffered much loss in our battles with Saruman the traitor, and we must still think of our frontier to the north and east, as his own tidings make clear. So great a power as the Dark Lord seems now to wield might well contain us in battle before the City and yet strike with great force across the River away beyond the Gate of Kings. ‘But we will speak no longer counsels of prudence. We will come. The weapontake was set for the morrow. When all is ordered we will set out. Ten thousand spears I might have sent riding over the plain to the dismay of your foes. It will be less now, I fear; for I will not leave my strongholds all unguarded. Yet six thousands at the least shall ride behind me. For say to Denethor that in this hour the King of the Mark himself will come down to the land of Gondor, though maybe he will not ride back. But it is a long road, and man and beast must reach the end with strength to fight. A week it may be from tomorrow’s morn ere you hear the cry of the Sons of Eorl coming from the North.
Isildur, Théoden, Denethor, Faramir and others all had their character degraded in the service of a bit of cheap cinematic dramatic effect. Théoden is even grumpier and less likeable in the movies, lessening the effect of his death on Merry (who seems unharmed by stabbing the Witch King's leg, lessening the epic effect of that encounter).
@@KevDaly Didn't you know? Most people make decisions based on their feelings, they are only interested in feelings and drama. Moral choices are not a function of rational investigation, but what you've been told is good and bad.
Yes. Most of the changes were totally unnecessary and contradict the theme of the story and the nature of the characters in the story. They do not add any extra interest. Worst of all, really great scenes from the book have to be deleted to make space for PJ's additions.
Well said. When I saw Aragon kill the Mouth of Sauron in the Peter Jackson movie, I instantly lost a lot of empathy for the character and instantly said to myself, "I can't believe Tolkein would've wrote that, seems out of character."
That was a total lapse into generic genre fantasy. It was what a teenager playing D&D would do. There were far too many of such half-serious genre/teen gamer lapses in those movies.
I wonder if Hollywood in general understands the morality of Tolkien. It's very different from the emotional knee jerk "morality" that is common in Hollywood.
Thank you for bringing up the Mouth of Sauron scene. It made Aragorn look almost like a psychopath "I"M KING I GET WHAT I WANT" type of tantrum. Tolkein wrote the characters and lore with customs and courtesies. Sauron has done his share of nasty deeds, but he maintains professionalism. If he just went around hacking off the heads of the people who rejected him he would never have had anywhere near the level of influence, his entire support base outside of Orcs (who serve out of fear) is held together by him keeping his word. So Aragorn to just kill his ambassador seems cruel, even by Sauron's standards. If Sauron was cutthroat he would've just peppered Aragorn/Gandalf with arrows the second they were within range.
Actual kings are psychos. And more than one messenger has been shot on the ride back to his master. Such is the way of men with power. Not saying it was right to make Aragorn do that in the movie, just saying i could see a number of monarchs making that rash decision.
@@user-ks5cg5cd7m He could've just killed them all right there. But chose dialogue even though in retrospect if he had gone full Savage he would've had it already, the Hobbits only survived because he was accepting prisoners.
As for the Ent moot in the movie, I don't think the Ents knew the full extent of Saruman's damage before Treebeard saw it. Which does save the moral reasoning imo
In the movie Treebeard had to know they were cutting down trees. Treebeard says lines like "There is always smoke rising from Isengard." and he makes another comment about Saruman having a mind of metal and no longer caring for growing things. So how would he not know? The movie seems to imply he knows without coming out and saying it directly.
The time constraint isn't always a justifiable excuse in my opinion, in regards to the mouth of sauron, we could have had a scene where aragorn takes a deep breath, controls his emotions and temper and says one sentence like " I will not bow down to your level, I will respect the rules of engagement" So in a scene that takes the same amount of time as aragorn slowly riding up and chopping his head off, we could have had a scene that is more in line with Tolkien's theme of contemplation over righteous emotional impulsivity.
The ultimate restraint would have been for Aragorn to remain silent and allow Gandalf, the Herald and Spokesman for the Captains of the West, to do the speaking. But PJ was too hasty and rash, shooting for cheap thrills instead of respecting the great work of Tolkien.
Yeah, honestly I'd have loved it if there were 6 LotR movies instead of 3. Of course, the director would still need to know how much could be cut from the books or added without bastardizing characters, or changing the story too much, but the "time restraint" excuse is incredibly laughable(especially nowadays with movies like Dune and Zack Snyder's Justice League!)
Was watching with my kids being loud around and am unsure if you mentioned the following example: Hama, the doorward to Theoden, also has to decide whether to follow a legal order or follow his intuition and make his own moral judgement.
An excellent video! One pair of emotional, impulsive responses that we see in the book is Sam's reaction when awaking and seeing Gollum touching Frodo, and then Gollum's reaction to Sam's suspicion. Neither of these are presented as positive outcomes: Sam regrets his, and Gollum is set on his path to, ultimately, a fiery death.
1- The council shortening was because of time limits imo. The movie was already long as it was. 2- The legal and moral battles, I agree. But I think for Eomer they wanted to have one less character. For Faramir they just changed the whole situation, but you could say there was a legal situation, since the someone warns Faramir and says you know the rules of your father, if you let them go your life would be forfeit, and Faramir says then let it forfeit. So it kinda exist. 3- The Ents situation, I agree. But I think they wanted to make it look like Pippin and Merry make them do it, and buff them up per se. And also more dramatic. 4- For the mouth of Sauron, I totally agree. That was in conflict with Aragorn's character. So basically I believe they didn't make these changes deliberately, maybe they didn't even think about the morality perspectives of it. They did it for variety of reasons, shortening the length, having less characters, buffing up characters and so on (except for the mouth of Sauron part, that didn't have any excuse).
Well these are so Nitpick Changes like crumbs basically atleast he didn't take Galadriel and turn her into a Warrior give the Elves short Hair and Make up a Bunch of Original Characters. The only thing we can really deduce is the Mouth Of Sauron thing but that wasn't even in the Theatrical Cut lol only extended edition. We shouldn't even be talking about these changes because their not huge changes just nitpick. He didn't bring any real World bullshit into this world and for that I love him for it. Now to the Rings Of Power OMG 😲 they've destroyed Tolkien's Legendarium i mean WTF are we doing the Storys all over the place along with the Plot and Characters shouldn't be where they are too many Original Characters Galadriel has no husband but she's a Powerful Warrior Tar-Miriel OMG plus both of them in Numenor I mean wtf Rings Of Power is forcing everything to us thats really the bigger story and a much better video if we want to talk about staying true to Tolkien's Lore and Vision.
@@faustoutloud No, they haven't destroyed Tolkien's Legendarium. It's much stronger than that. Ten years from now ROP will be seen for what it is, an irrelevance.
Mouth of souron part wasnt in the movies at first anyway. I know i only saw him for the first time after the Hobbit movie came out and i rewatched the trilogy but apparenly extended this time.
I hate how Jackson had to dramatize every decision (the Ents, Theoden) and have it negative to positive and a result of emotion and not thinking. Jackson gave the first wound to Tolkien. Rings of Power is just coup de grace-ing the mans legacy.
I would use much worse language if I could so I'll settle for this: If you really think Tolkien's legacy will be destroyed by two illiterate primates and their billion dollar wank-fest, then that's YOUR problem. Tolkien will certainly outlast your lack of faith.
Look what he did to Gimli. He made Gimli a bumbling jokester running thru the lands of Rohan making jokes about breathing and rolling off the hills B.S. And it really bugs the shit out of me. I am not a huge Dwarf fan, only because we learn very little about them. But Gimli is a straight up Badass! He does not goof or even really laugh at all. He is a true warrior and a great and loyal friend to everyone but an orc. He does not go around with a dumbass helmet, he only wore one after he got a cut to his head in Helms Deep. I am not even gonna go off on the way he makes Boromir more likeable than he really is. Boromir is a whiney contrary prick who respects nobody. So his death scene he calls Aragorn Captain and King!!!!?? No! No No no. sorry I just acted like Boromir, lol. okay enough of my rant!! Cheers!
In the film, Faramir changes his mind mostly because of Sam's revelation that the Ring practically destroyed Boromir, whom Faramir not only idolizes but realistically knows was a stronger man morally than his father. As goofy as some of that addition is, for drama's sake (editing makes it unclear how they even managed to get to the western bank of the city -- not through the sewers or they wouldn't have to be led there later), it's the one moral addition PJ & Co made to the story since in the book Faramir has no problem resisting the temptation to score points with his father by bringing the ring.
While reading Tolkien I got the impression that the characters intended to make the right choices, to do the right things, but that there was an overarching influence above it all, sometimes guiding them to make the right choices even though they were wrong at the time in their decision-making. Some people made mistakes, some people went very wrong (like Gollum) but in the end it all worked out. Gandalf I think at some point said to Elrond that he didn't kill Gollum because one never knows what role they might play in the future: He was leaving options open.
In regards to the book with the parlay outside the black gate I think Gandalf knew exactly what he was doing.. Which was stalling.. he knew Frodo and Sam had been led by Gollum to Cirith Ungol where Shelob resided The Mouth of Sauron only showed them the Mithril mail shirt Frodo had.. not his body or Sams either If Sauron did have the Ring would he really need to send his herald out to meet them?!? He stalled for time as he knew every minute the great eye was watching what was happening beyond the black gate.. He was not paying attention to what was happening within this realm making it a little easier for Sam to get Frodo to Mount Doom
What they did was take out the fluff. They really only did have one choice. If they hid the ring, Sauron would have rebuilt his forces and laid endless sieges until everyone perished and he could devote all his time to finding the ring. Denethor would have been correct had Elrond's advice not been heeded. Elrond's advice is not taken without criticism. Boromir says it is a bad idea and anything else should be done
One thing that has always annoyed me about the movies is the downgrading of the motivations of almost all the characters. A few exceptions - Sam, Gandalf, Boromir (who's portrayed much as Tolkien had him). In many cases I believe it's because Jackson must have thought each character must have a "character arc" to end up making the right decision (cf. Theoden, Treebeard, Faramir, even Aragorn and Arwen) - as if it's not possible to make a moral choice because you're a moral person. And of course what he did to Denethor is utterly shameful - from a great and tragic figure destroyed by despair, he's turned into a cardboard cut-out that the audience is invited to hate. When he went over the cliff in flames (another of Jackson's changes for the worse), the majority of the people in the theatre cheered. Shameful.
@@micklumsden3956 In my view he's up there as a tragic figure with Othello and King Lear - a great man destroyed by his own faults - for Othello it was jealousy,for Lear it was the sin of Pride - and to a certain degree Denethor had the same fault - Pride in thinking he could use the palantir even though he knew Sauron controlled its 'sister' palantir - when none of his predecessors had dared to do so. And that led to the fault that destroyed him - despair.
It's important to remind people that the PJ films aren't faithful adaptations of the books and most importantly why. I've had too many debates with those who treat the film's as some holy grail, yes they are enjoyable films and I have them on DVD, but they are flawed.
"but they are flawed." - all works are flawed. PJ made movies that people like to watch. A faithful adaptation to the text of LOTR would make a boring movie. So PJ's adaptation changes may seem to you as a "flaws", but some may think of them as improvements.
The only good adaptations that I’ve seen where it’s more accurate than the Lord of the Rings movies are the last unicorn and princess bride, mostly because the original author wrote the screenplays. Rings being 80% and still being good on it’s own is a pretty good win.
@@lordinquisitordunn336 Technically the end of "The Princess Bride" as a Happily Ever After story is NOT how the novel ends. For instance, Wesley is still not fully recovered; Inigo is seriously injured and the Prince is still ruler and NOT a forgiving person - so ....
You’re correct about the Mouth of Sauron not being alone in the books. He’s described as riding out robed all in black and accompanied by a small group of black-harnessed soldiery. One of his companions was bearing the banner of Mordor, sable, an eye gules.
No wonder Christopher Tolkien hated the film trilogy and considered it action fantasy for young people. He must have recognized what you Tolkien Lore have so clearly described. J.R.R. Tolkien included much moral reasoning and critical thinking in the books. But these qualities have been declining, at least in West, sometime from the mid 20th century, quite possibly in the 1960s, so I think Peter Jackson and the screenwriters simply reflected modernity and it seeped into the adaptation from book to film. At least they had the awareness and humility to keep modern politics and culture out of the adaptation. Personally the films are great. But to include the moral reasoning and the background which characters provide in lengthy dialogue -- even a reduced version fit for film -- would mean creating 6 four hours films, one film for each book. Perhaps there can be a TV series, divided the books into three seasons, one season for each book, and where each chapter can be one episode. Thus each season would average 20 to 21 episodes. It could actually use the books structure to the benefit of a serialized TV format.
I really appreciate how you drive home the point that morality is consistent and has a framework that matters. Peter Jackson’s films certainly miss the mark here and rely on eliciting an emotional response from the audience and characters rather than thinking through a sophisticated morality and coming to the right decision.
If we look at it from a distance, then it seems that the main point that explains these decisions of some of the main characters in the film trilogy is that power corrupts and the greater the power, the greater the tendency to reduce patience in making of moral decisions. Just remember how and what did Gandalf after he achieved the White Status. Detto Aragorn before the Black Gates and Frodo in Mount Doom. Just a few examples of many from their morally questionable actions.
I think the changes you see are a reflection of today. Emotions create and rule reality, with emotional justifications. Logic, reason, Right vs Wrong are held as valueless when it competes with an emotional ideology. It's subtle...but it builds to the point that all morality is relative to the moment, not to a Truth.
Great video! To your last point - it seems like society as a whole had more general wisdom when it came to reasoning when philosophizing about decisions was done more frequently by even just a few
" society as a whole had more general wisdom when it came to reasoning when philosophizing about decisions" - of what time and to what society do you refer?
@@TheDanEdwards haha good question. I was just responding to his last point which is that Tolkien is careful to construct a scenario where his characters seriously think before acting and that Tolkien had ideas of societies like this either from history or his own time.
@@hodgrix I would argue that Tolkien as a Loyal subject of the British Empire, had few issues when that Empire carried out what today we would clearly label "Atrocities" (the Amritsar Massacre, or the deliberate starving of Bengal, to name but two). Today, our "emotions" would have NO Problem calling those and similar instances as wrong. In the Books, Tolkien seems uncaring that in none of the major battles are ANY of the "Enemy" combatants left alive Orcs and Humans are equally slaughtered. Given that Tolkien was himself a soldier and had fought in BOTH World Wars (he began writing LOTR while recovering from injuries he had received), I doubt that that properly represented his Real Life opinions as to what should happen at the end of EVERY Battle, but he still devotes NO Consideration as to what should be the fate of the Easterlings, Haradrim or even individual Orcs, except Kill Them All. Moral? You decide!
@@michaelodonnell824 First you say the movies don't capture the soul of the books then you say the books have no soul, are you just a contrarian troll for the fun of it?
You make excellent points. First, film is not literature. Time is precious. Battle scenes are much cooler. Careful thoughts and discussions do not play well in a play. The Mouth of Sauron scene loses it's power and even value because in film grammar, we cut back and forth between Frodo et. al. and the others. In the book, we hear nothing about Frodo. We do not know what the mithril shirt signifies. Frodo could be captured and dead. So Mouth works. In the movie, not so much. I am much more disturbed by the film's push-pull fight between Frodo and Gollum at the edge of the volcano. Tolkien was very clear that Frodo failed his task. He could not throw the ring in the lava. The expected "Hero" act did not happen. What did happen (in the book) was what Tolkien called eu-catastrophe - the unexpected good turn of the story. Gollum just slips. Oops. Jackson said, in one of the accompanying videos that he found that not convincing filmmaking - plus he could have Frodo hanging by nine fingernails (an expected cinema trope). Jackson's films are great fun, and a good primer to Middle Earth. However, the "holy scripture" is always there - and must have primacy over the film - as you put quite well. Reading The Lord of the Ring is the only way to delve into the complex and thought-provoking ideas Tolkien inundates us with.
One of the things Jackson did in the film that undermined Tolkien basic themes - but is not directly related to your points here - was when Gandalf decided to comfort Pippin by telling him what lies beyond death. First, Gandalf would probably not know this, since his death was of a quite different sort; second, he would _never_ tell a mortal what lies beyond death, as it is clear that this must be taken on faith, that death is the Gift of the One; and third, his description is transferred from Frodo's vision of the Undying Lands at the end of the novel, which albeit poetic, is most emphatically _not_ Heaven. Wrong in every way. Surely there were other words of comfort Gandalf could have spoken ('Death comes to all mortals in time; but it is a Gift that in time even the elves may come to envy')? I think there was a great deal that Jackson does not understand about Tolkien's work. He is not what I would call a very thoughtful man - his jokes like dwarf-tossing, 'game over', 'meat's back on the menu, boys', and, in the Mouth of Sauron scene, Gimli's 'guess that concludes negotiations' line, evidently intended to be funny, show him to be rather common, really. But then, it turned out all right. As Huckleberry Finn said of 'Tom Sawyer', "That book was made by Mr. Mark Twain, and he told the truth, mainly. There was things which he stretched, but mainly he told the truth."
Yes: _way_ too much joking attitude in those movies. It's the malady of genre fantasy fandom, the same spirit that makes insecure convention-goers, cosplayers and gamers obsessively quote _Monty Python and the Holy Grail._ It crept in all over the place and it drives me up the wall.
Its probably not right but saying its completely wrong for the mouth to die there is mad. Theyre literaly suiciding themselves to help the guy the mouth just said was tortured and killed. It makes quite a lot of sense for that to happen.
Excellent, Tolkien Geek. Excellent. Excellent. I wish more people realized this discrepancy between the books and the movies. This may seem a small matter, but in reality it is huge. Namarie.
The confrontation with the Mouth of Sauron is one of the top 3 travesties in the film (the other two are the way Faramir behaves in TT and the Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff). I think Gandalf knew the Ring had not been captured, though. His 'name the terms' discussion was partly a deception to get information from the enemy, and he discovers that they think there was only one hobbit, and they can't produce proof they have the hobbit, so he figures things might be ok.
Jackson's LOTR (and Snyder's Watchmen, as another example) is an adolescent reading of a very mature, complex work. Slavishly 'respecting' the outward trappings while completely missing the deep meaning. 13-year old me would've loved MovieAragorn's teenage angst and impulsive bad-ass outbursts.
You will never get the "deep meaning" in a tv holywood adaptation, book and cinema are different medias, given the situation: 1 - Hollywood adaptation 2 - Main goal is to make profit 3 - PJ and his team were fans but not purists 4 - PJ main goal was to make good films not good adaptations 5 - The time frame was only around 10 hours Given all that, the movies end up as great as they could.
Alternative take-- In beheading the Mouth, Aragorn doesn't put an end to the deceit so much as he puts an end to despair and preserves hope. In Arda, despair in this sense that suggests the Dark Lord is supreme above Eru, may be considered a capital offense via blasphemy. Aside from that, there are as mentioned repeated decisions to balance law and ethics-- law dictates a messenger must not be harmed, but the killing of a messenger sends a message to the opponent (Sauron) that Aragorn is utterly committed to conflict (perhaps mindlessly emotionally committed). This intensity warrants Sauron's complete attention, drawing it away from Frodo-- the life of a blasphemous evil messenger outweighed by the benefit of banishing all evil.
The part when Aragorn chops off the head of The Mouth of Sauron was the only part of these movies that I felt was off not only on a superficial level, but against the very soul of where The Lord of the Rings stands morally
There was no serious discussion in Rivendell in the book either. Various ideas were suggested and shot down for rather flimsy reasons. Basically. it was necessary that the quest be undertaken and so it was. The film simply cut out the excess verbiage.
glad to finally find someone on UA-cam who is not a Peter Jackson bootlicker. I was geeked to see the movies when they were in production but i found them to be pretty tone deaf in execution. I guess it's good that a lot of people found Tolkien through the movies but I have avoided watching them again since they clash too much with my mind's eye view of ME.
Nice analysis. You made a lot of points worth thinking about. I always wonder what PJ would have done differently if LOTR had been shot as a series and things didn’t have to be cut for time.
In the movie it seemed to me that the Ents' decision to not act was fatalistic due their loss of the Entwives. I know that their manner is subdued compared to ours, but the loss of the Entwives really seemed to have them in a decline toward extinction, and it seemed to come through as part of their decision at the conclusion of the Entmoot. That's possibly me projecting what I might feel in their place, of course. And agreed on Aragorn's sudden wanton violence on the Mouth of Sauron. No one's anger is automatically righteous, not even a king and not even on a known evil being. Violence is inherently dangerous and must be carefully considered, even when it's needed (or thought needed) quickly.
Great thoughts! Sadly the PJ films wanted the "big" cinematic tropes, mainly to produce "big" moments of actions or score use. While being great in every aspect crucial to cinema, they lacked much of the humanity of the novel. And many "big action scenes" are not as epic as in the book, honestly.
the big action scenes were over the top imo. PJs approach was just "more is more" ... the orcs in Moria were particularly egregious , if i recall correctly they were like insects climbing the wall in unrealistic numbers
@@theshrubberer Yes, in Moria is was pretty ridiculous. But then, it all worked for the cinema. It's just that so much was taken out of the depth of tlotr because of that. PJ has a repeated theme in the films, of "big gun topped by bigger gun, topped by an even bigger gun". That happened in Moria, in Helm's Deep, in the Minas Tirtih... It allows you to blast the score, show magnificent shot and what not. But it is therefore a great shift from the meaning behind these events.
@@squashedeyeball you are being generous to PJ imo. He was not a Tolkien book fan, and i don't think he ever got what it was that Tolkien meant to the imagination of readers. He crafted a kind of safe cinematic version ..which i guess is what he was paid to do. Some might say he had no choice but I found the Harry Potter films to be very true o the tone of the books ,while LOTR was not.. I think LOTR would be better served by a long format GOT type treatment but that probably will never happen, ironically because the fan base seems to think that nothing can top PJ movies (faceplant) Then again i hate overblown/overdone/unrealistic action and our society's addiction to this over story and character. So my frustration goes beyond PJ to our collective taste, hence the Superhero nonsense we now have ad nauseam. A great under the radar adaptation of a book is the made for TV "Going Postal" which really translates well to screen. cheers
@@theshrubberer I'll have to watch Going Postal :) I definitely agree that a show or a mini series would've been preferable. And you have a point about the fanbase: many consider the Jackson films as the greatest adaptations, while others view them as more cinematic pillars which top all else. The problem is that if we deny the option of achieving more, we will never achieve more. I think that the films did manage to create "movie magic", when everything cinematic works for huge audiences, while holding a "quality status". But they sure have many tropes we find nowadays in modern superheroes films, even if Jackson did them superbly (in my opinion).
I appreciate your opinion on the literary changes made by Jackson to Tokien's story. I agree that it was poor writing that changes the moral landscape. However, I don't necessarily agree with your reasons, and I don't think a different set of morals makes it immoral. While the concept of embassy and ambassadors has been established in our world for many generations, it has not been without violation. The execution of wars has not been without violation of treaties on laws of war. This film, RotK, was released after 9/11 and everyone had an emotional reaction to a terrorist sneak attack against civilians that was considered by many at the time to be the epitome of evil. So, it was in the zeitgeist for Jackson to respond to a great literary evil with a script that would fit the recent experience of the audience, and perhaps be cathartic in the then present context. A more important point may be the existence of morals, law, and war and their intersections in both our world and the literary world of LotR. Tolkien's mythology gives the characters a firm theological reality, unlike our own world (even if Tolkien may have thought this world had a firm theological reality). Hence, rules about parlay and embassy may be very firm and established and enforced by deity. However, in our world, this is not necessarily the case, despite what some religionists might believe or want to believe, and various religionists may conflict on the proposed meanings for what is moral in a particular instance, even in war. In our reality, war is perceived by many to be not a matter of law but, as von Clausewitz suggested, "politics by other means". In Political Theory, we were taught that the definition of politics is "the process by which a group of people come to a decision." Frighteningly, the sky is the limit for what decisions a group of people can come up with, if our real history is a guide. (I won't recount the many horrors here.) A corollary I came up with explains its counterpoint: "Law/legalism is the process by which a group of people are _prevented_ from coming to a decision." The prescriptions that are argued to prevent decisions could be divine law, or laws and customs developed by us humans. In our reality, war is the exercise of power to force a decision, that is to compel others to comply with the will of the aggressor. Yes, people in our reality talk about "just wars"... not because such a thing exists -it's an oxymoron- but as internal rationalizations to salve our individual and collective consciences for killing other humans. Can we examine the actions of Film Aragorn in a pragmatic context? Killing the emissary of an enemy that one is already in the process of attempting to annihilate might be morally appropriate. After all, if they thought they could take the Black Gate and then the Black Tower and kill everything in between, then the Mouth of Sauron would have surely perished eventually. Killing the emissary in front of his own men might be considered tactically valuable if Aragorn thought it would demoralize them, and it might lead the enemy to think he possesses the Ring. Moreover, it might be considered strategically valuable for Aragorn to provoke the enemy to attack in order to empty the land of Mordor so that Frodo and Sam can get to Mt. Doom and destroy the Ring. This is war, and achieving the objective is the goal. If Tolkien didn't think annihilation was OK, he wouldn't have othered the enemy so thoroughly.
Just a couple of points. It was well established in the movie that ring must be destroyed, so there's no reason to have a discussion of options at the Council of Elrond. And moral reasoning can be shown in a novel much more easily than in a movie.
About 18 years ago I read that Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens urged Jackson to stick closer to the book version of the Mouth of Sauron scene (and others) but that Jackson asked, “What would Conan have done?” In the films we do see a bit of a Conan-ization of Aragorn here and there (Let’s hunt some orc, etc). An expensive fantasy blockbuster has to make a lot of money fast-moral subtlety and intellect are going to get short schrift. Making each individual scene memorable counts for more than narrative coherence.
@@majkus How am going to verify something I read in a probably now-defunct European fan magazine almost 20 years ago? You’re free to not believe I read it. Whether Fran or Philippa really verifiably said it, I don’t know. But i read it and there was a lot of chatter then that Jackson liked compelling individual scenes in favor of hewing to the book. It’s certainly true to some extent in the finished product. Great films but they do deviate considerably from the test.
At the Council of Elrond they considered giving it to Tom Bombadil, but rejected that because they did not fully understand the powers of Tom. Gandalf the White would later seek a better understanding.
@@treebeardtheent2200 Of course Tom Bombadil knows his own powers. For example, as in when he is rather offhand and dismissive of the ring of power. It is irrelevant to him. Both he and Tolkien say and do as much in regard to this.
@@tombombadill22 We know, essentially, that Bombadill has set bounds for himself. Why is not told to us, yet it may be just bc he chose so. As far as understanding the FULL (key word) extent of his powers, that's a pretty rare thing for any creature to know. I would grant that Tolkein's account of Gandalf and Frodo are reasonable examples of full extent, maybe even Sam although even the fight with Shelob didn't do him in the way Frodo was, nearly to his undoing more than once. I would be glad to know of some similar examples where Bombadill was tested to such a limit, if you know of any particular references. Long live Fatty Lumpkin
These movies came at a time when American films avoided showing pure moral heroes, tightly clung to the idea that you can defend yourself however you want, and that you shouldn't sacrifice your right to defend yourself to spare the lives of "other" people. To some extent, that fear continues to this day. My belief is that it was tied up with the attack of 9/11 and what many Americans felt to be their most appropriate response. But either way, it was a very strong trend. If these movies were released in a different time, we might have seen more discussions about morality and more examples of pure-hearted heroes. I personally hope that is coming back.
The real point is that in the movie a representative of Sauron came out to *talk* and Aragorn killed him. That's wrong on a LOT of levels, and THAT is why you don't see it written in the book that way. That was probably the cheapest of all the cheap shots Jackson took in his work.
Btw, "in Tolkien's framwork" - I get a hunch that the moral landscape of Westeros as well as of Dune is _very_ different ....? (Not that I've read them!)
@@TolkienLorePodcast It seems moral theologians have been giving the example of opening a porch in a wall which it is forbidden to open, because opening the door would flood the city. And that one can, despite the law, open the door if there are enemies around who need to be drowned (wonder if that passage may have inspired some scenes around Isengard ...?). And that the virtue that allows us to make this "paradoxal" judgement is called epikeia. A google made me see that the place where St. Thomas Aquinas' Latin involves this Greek loan in English translation has the translation Equity. // I answer that, As stated above (Article 48), a virtue has three kinds of parts, subjective, integral, and potential. A subjective part is one of which the whole is predicated essentially, and it is less than the whole. This may happen in two ways. For sometimes one thing is predicated of many in one common ratio, as animal of horse and ox: and sometimes one thing is predicated of many according to priority and posteriority, as "being" of substance and accident. Accordingly, "epikeia" is a part of justice taken in a general sense, for it is a kind of justice, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). Wherefore it is evident that "epikeia" is a subjective part of justice; and justice is predicated of it with priority to being predicated of legal justice, since legal justice is subject to the direction of "epikeia." Hence "epikeia" is by way of being a higher rule of human actions. //
Ah, similar to the classic example of “letting blood” being illegal in Rome but with the exception of a physician doing so for medical purposes. Yeah, I can see some parallels there, though I’m not sure it’s exactly the same thing without putting a bit more study into it.
one thing that still bugs me about the movies and books is the example of the women and infirm were still in the cities. in the movies theoden abandoned Edoras and retreated to helms deep with all of his folk. In two towers they retreated to the deeping comb though in the books Eowyn was left behind in edoras to look after the people, while the riders were made ready to ride to the fords of isen to reenforce the beleaguered troops there but saruman unleashed Isengard and they were forced to ride back and defend the onslaught of 10,000 orcs and dunlandings at helms deep. then in rotk there were still women, young and infirm in the city during the siege but in the books the civilians evacuated to the coastal regions to keep them safe and only a small amount of women and young boys were left to run messages and to care for the wounded.
I hated what Aragorn did to the Mouth of Sauron but unfortunately in a movie you simply can't allow a villain that evil to just ride off and never get his just deserts. This why I have never watched this trilogy. There's a lot of good things but also a lot of bad ideas that ruin the story for me.
Tolkien’s version has plenty of drama though. That’s the sad thing-Jackson didn’t have to invent drama for most of these scenes but decided to spend more time on Arwen and traveling to Osgiliath instead.
_LOTR_ was a _Bildungsroman_ of humanity. The elves were passing into the West and had to hand the torch to the race of humans. Jackson didn't understand this at all. Thus, Boromir is kinda sus from the beginning. There is no "we must not shoot a man alone and unawares.' Faramir wants the Ring. 300 elven archers show up at Helm's Deep. Aragorn _falls._ Arwen breaks up with Aragorn, who then flirts with Eowyn. Denethor is a doddering fool with no nerves in his chin.
Having to cram a book that spans several hundred pages into a two, two and a half hour long film necessitates cuts to the story. It's unfortunate, but that's how adapting books into movies goes. There are some things Jackson changed in translation that I find myself agreeing with. Other changes seemed odd. I don't envy Jackson the task he had to take on.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Three hours, my mistake, but still only so much that can be fit into a three-hour movie. Having gone to film school and taken screenwriting, I'm well aware of the challenges of adapting novels into screenplays. There's so much to choose as to whether to include or omit without compromising the integrity of the narrative. Me, I'd do a straight adaptation of the novels beginning with The Hobbit, but for that I would need miniseries to do proper justice.
Jackson biffed the Mouth of Sauron scene so badly. Just about everything about it. First of all, MoS has the absolute worst design of any character in those movies. Jackson & Co. apparently thought he should look like a horror movie villian. I'm sure Howe and Lee tried to reign him in, but I wish they would have tried harder. So his appearance is terrible, his voice is terrible, and of course it's ridiculous that Aragorn commits a war crime and murders him. I love the movies. My family watches them once a year. But that scene is just so bad. The only scene that's worse is when Gandalf bludgeons Denethor.
I thoroughly enjoyed this video, and while I agree with your every point it distresses me how everyone is commenting on the 'Conanization' of Aragorn or using Conan as the model for 'big dumb, angsty and just not thinking things through' when this is not entirely accurate. I've not read all the stories, and while Conan has a lot of impulsive moments, he often thinks and over-thinks things through, being written with a great deal of philosophical thought given to the character as Howard was an author rather more akin to Tolkien than most realise in some ways (not all just some). And I think people are missing the point with Conan; he would not have attacked the Mouth of Sauron for example, and might well have preferred to ready his army better and see about arranging ambushes against the enemies. Especially in his stories that are later in the timeline, where he's become a King and has to think about the consequences of his actions. If anything, his stories has a slow softening of the character in some ways. Sorry it is shocking how so many are making the connotation that if there's a poorly written scene in PJ's trilogy it is because it is too much like Howard a.k.a. Howard was a bad writer. When the truth of the matter was that it was far more complex than that. And Conan the Cimmerian's tales were no less thought provoking at times than Tolkien's. I still prefer Tolkien as a writer, and do agree that PJ's series was indeed terrible, but this does not mean Howard was bad or that Aragorn in the Mouth of Sauron scene behaved at all like Conan. If anything he behaved like some of the 2$ knock offs of Conan, such as Geralt of Rivia from the Witcher, or any number of 'angsty-bad-boy' 'Dark Fantasy' characters who always behave like dumber versions of Conan. Conan initially in the younger Conan stories acts more on emotion, with these stories involving Conan suffering for his impulsive actions and coming to regret it. It is only in the later stories when Conan has aged and suffered for his lack of moral-thinking and long-term thinking so that there is a similar theme in Howard's stories and Tolkien's. Arguably, Conan by the Hour of the Dragon has learnt to think things through, and often making the more moral choice such as when he spares his enemies preferring to show mercy than cruelty. Sorry for the rant JRRT Lore Geek, it's just as a fan of both Tolkien & Howard, I dislike to see the mud-slinging between the two fanbases and think that both are deep, both were exceptional and both had far more in common with each other than we realise. Heck, Tolkien read one of Howard's stories the Black Colossus, and liked it (I've got a video on the topic for those interested).
Saying Aragon shouldn't of killed the mouth of Sauron is like saying ohh he shouldn't kill an ork because there's no moral reason too like come on bro you he had ll the reasons
Excellent video and commentary. A have a few close friends that are major Tolkien fans, like me, and we were not that impressed with the Jackson films when they came out largely because of the changes you mentioned. There were lots of other annoying changes that made it seem like Jackson didn't understand the stories, such as the desecration of Gandalf -- how he seems to lose hope a few times in Return of the King, and how many of his important decisions were given to other characters to make him look foolish -- the leaving out of the scouring of the Shire, Elrond showing up at Dunharrow, the army of the dead scenes being silly, Frodo and Sam being taken to Osgiliath, and on and on. We didn't hate the films, but when the extended editions came out and Peter Jackson and his wife were interviewed and said that they had to "improve" the story, well, that really pissed me off.
It is a reason I have always liked Diane Duane's 'Young Wizards' series ("So You Want To Be a Wizard" et seq.) more than Harry Potter, a series to which it invites comparison. Duane's world has a spiritual and moral underpinning that is rich, and is critical to the stories; Rowling's wizarding world has a spiritual basis only a little more complex than Mammy Yokum's (look her up) dictum that 'Good is better than Evil because it's nicer!'
@@majkus In the Harry Potter books, good and evil are defined by two things: the color of your school tie, and whether or not you speak nicely to Harry Potter. Not exactly up to Tolkien’s level of moral complexity.
Peter Jackson made a lot of changes from the books that in some cases lessened their potential impact while making more radical alterations to enhance the emotional potential of a scene. He also chose not to (or possibly could not due to limitations of the time) film iconic book scenes like the Tom Bombadil chapters or the Scouring of the Shire which could have amplified the artistic impact of the film trilogy. But Payne and McKay ARE SO. MUCH. WORSE.
At 1:18 (I'm tired and have had my stomach wasted since Friday evening to this morning, so I am impatient) - would you consider it plausible that: * PJ was much better suited for doing Beatles documentary which is his now (perhaps already extant) project * through him, Beatles got their revenge for Tolkien turning them down?
@@TolkienLorePodcast Look up: When The Beatles wanted to star in a Lord of the Rings movie by Natalie Zamora7 months ago Peter Jackson speaks about The Beatles’ failed attempt to make ‘The Lord Of The Rings’ movie "For a moment in time they were seriously contemplating doing it" By Damian Jones 25th November 2021 Peter Jackson: 'I got through the pandemic with the Beatles' Tom Hunt Nov 20 2021
The mouth stuff was probably cut for that reason since its extended only. And yeah as a fan of the movies mouth is one of the worst parts and the scene served little purpose even in the movies.
I enjoyed watching the films. But perhaps in retrospect I’d have been better not to see them. The visual impact of all the scenes mentioned is so powerful that our understanding and appreciation of the real characters is clouded. The films are Tolkien, but not Tolkien as we know it. I feel that I have been corrupted……..
All legitimate criticisms though I disagree with a few, I just hope the criticism is this exacting of this new show that is about come out. I think Jackson’s heart was in the right place and the heart of Tolkien still shines through in them (hence why the books had such a huge boom in sales). You will see no such boom after this abortion of a show is released. Please, PLEASE be consistent and absolutely eviscerate the show if it’s as bad as it is almost certain to be.
Excellent video! It's unfortunate that time constraints forced these scenes to have so much of their depth cut. It would have been wonderful to see it even if it was only in the super-extended editions. The scene with Aragorn and the Mouth of Sauron irks me every time I see it though; Aragorn would have never done that and the change was obviously made to the movie audience could have something to cheer about before Mordor's armies march out and attack.
I wonder whether the reason for people thinking that it was justified to kill the Mouth of Sauron is because virtually nobody in Western societies actually experiences violence, and more importantly, violent conflict. Maybe if people had a greater understanding of violence, they would understand more why it should be tempered, if not avoided if possible?
he decapitated the mouth because it was implied he killed frodo. you cannot parley with murderers, so you may as well get on with it. there is nothing to discuss at that point. it had nothing to do with being insulted. you cannot meet evil with lukewarm bs. of course he had the right. he is a known evil doer and murderer. entirely justified. the mechanics of the scene play out that way to build tempo for the last battle of the film. it works
13:16 _"if you make decisions in this wat all the time, it's a lot harder to say that you're certain you are doing the right thing all the time"_ ... certain you are doing the right thing _most of the time._ We are creatures, limited, not omniscient, and, if not ents, some are fallen too (most I'd be likely to meet this world this side of the grave), so, being sure to do the right thing _all_ the time is impossible. Just a nit-pick. But it has applications. Some people love to deliberate really at length but on a moral basis far inferior in substantiality than the entmoot.
It feels to me like in Jackson's movies that most of the characters are bipolar. Such as Theoden, "Why should we march to help Gondor?!" The beacons are lit Let's March to Gondor with no explanation of why Theoden changed his mind. There are other examples of this; but this one stands out most to my mind.
Drama of the moment is more important to Jackson than consistent characters.
The killing of the mouth of Sauron in the film is unnecessary and also makes Aragon look like a brute, which couldn’t be further away from his character
That mouth was a real jerk!
@@EdgarStyles1234 That he was! However, Aragorn would not resolve to what we saw
I didn’t interpret it that way. Killing a guy openly mocking the death of Frodo and taunting the fellowship hardly makes Aragorn a “brute”
@@nevilleslightlylargerbotto1726 Killing an unarmed foreign emissary during a diplomatic meeting for any reason does indeed make one a brute. In fact it's a war crime.
@@abelbabel8484 ah I see. And when the emissary represents an enemy force that just got done pelting the host army’s legions behind their defensive walls with the severed heads of their companions, when does the arbitrary real-politick angle get dropped in favor of realism in the face of an enemy that will kill all of its opposition the second it gets?
I'm glad your brought up the scene with the Mouth of Sauron - everyone seems to love the way that's done in the film but to me it's just loutish and completely inappropriate to Aragorn's character and the customs that the Mouth and Gandalf explicitly refer to in the book.
To be fair, it was removed. Perhaps Jackson realized it or was made to realize it later.
The Mouth of Sauron was an incredible disappointment. One of the most exciting scenes in the books reduced to "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" level.
Yeah. A chance to show the hero as Heroes, and what happens? Aragorn murders a blind man, during a parlay. I appreciate they wanted a definitive end and to get him out of the way, but they needed to beat him on HIS terms.
AND the Mouth was unarmed AND Aragorn strikes him from behind. Just nuts for Aragorn.
Couldn't agree more. Brought the whole scene down - action movie stuff for 10 year olds.
Aragorn's beheading of the MoS is like Gimli telling Legolas to shoot Saruman. They're bad guys after all, and since the good guys have no mercy on the orcs, why should they have any mercy or morals when dealing with an evil human or wizard? Whatever you do to a bad guy is justified just because you're right and he's wrong. What a contrast to Faramir's words in the book: "I would not trap even an orc with a falsehood."
So Faramir is seen to be wiser and more good than Aragorn.
Film Aragorn throws away his right to be King. The people of Gondor would have been wiser to be ruled by Steward Faramir
Tolkien's moral standards make sense when you consider that he was a veteran of the trenches of WWI. As a combat veteran myself I can understand why he is struggling for moral certainty in a morally ambiguous world
This was good stuff. Some of the morality stuff in the book is on a much more mundane less heroic level. Ghan Bhuri Gan. The Sackville Bagginses and Sharkys men. Frodos restraint in the Battle of Bywater, only taking what the need from the Barrow, leaving treasure for all. Trying to recompense Butterbur for his lost ponies. The bravery of Fredegar are all missing too. Thanks and keep up the good work.
I think the movies do a good job of reflecting 21st century self-righteousness and virtue vanity, which is seen often now in social/political issues, especially online. That is, rules, standards, customs, and in some cases even laws, be damned - we "know" what's right and if anybody or anything disagrees, it IS wrong.
Great piece of analysis, subscribed! A clear answer to people asking "Why Elrond didn't take the Ring from Isildur/pushed him into the fire" - "Because he isn't evil"
One more episode when emotion is tramping morale and logic in the movie is the whole dismissal of Sam before Cirith Ungol: going against everything in their relations in the book, frriendship and mutual duty and mutual quest of the Ring. Self-baked emotions really dumb the movie down.
And it must be remembered that notwithstanding movie-Elrond's dyspeptic growling about how Men are weak, he could not have destroyed the Ring either. He would have, perhaps at the last minute, attempted to sieze it for himself. Movie-Elrond would have believed himself powerful enough to master the Ring and heal the damage Sauron had done.
As for Sam, I was willing to buy Frodo's dismissal of Sam in the film; but I was shocked that Sam actually left, and only changed his mind when he discovered the lembas-as though he didn't know that Gollum had played Frodo false? I had fully expected Sam to follow Frodo and Gollum secretly. It would even have made a nice counterpoint to the way Gollum had followed them secretly before.
Yeah, when I hear people ask questions like that ("why didn't Elrond just shove Isildur into the pit?") I really do worry about the world. It's frightening that people are just walking around without any better morality than that.
That being said, you had such a good point. The movies give the impression to the audience that these characters made rash emotional decisions, a dangerous current trend, eroding the positive influence of Tolkien. His deliberate thorough story writing, philosophy, and theology is such a powerful treasure if only more had the patience and opportunity to delve into it. Keep up the good work!
Very much agreed. In fact, these changes bugged me a lot about the PJ trilogy. You could add Theoden into the mix as well, making decisions on the spur of the moment, rather than thinking things through. In particular, "Where was Gondor when Westfold fell?" You didn't even call them for aid and even if you had, they wouldn't have had time to come! So Theoden was willing to throw the whole Oath of Eorl aside for his own failings. And then when the beacons are lit, suddenly he is all gun-ho about answering the call and helping Gondor. It is just cheap tension that doesn't make sense. I'd argue both Faramir and the Ents are similar: a refusal followed by a quick reversal of opinion mainly on emotion. Here is part of Theoden's answer to Hirgon, showing that Rohan itself is still threatened and yet Theoden will honor the oath of his ancestors:
‘Dark tidings,’ said Théoden, ‘yet not all unguessed. But say to Denethor that even if Rohan itself felt no peril, still we would come to his aid. But we have suffered much loss in our battles with Saruman the traitor, and we must still think of our frontier to the north and east, as his own tidings make clear. So great a power as the Dark Lord seems now to wield might well contain us in battle before the City and yet strike with great force across the River away beyond the Gate of Kings.
‘But we will speak no longer counsels of prudence. We will come. The weapontake was set for the morrow. When all is ordered we will set out. Ten thousand spears I might have sent riding over the plain to the dismay of your foes. It will be less now, I fear; for I will not leave my strongholds all unguarded. Yet six thousands at the least shall ride behind me. For say to Denethor that in this hour the King of the Mark himself will come down to the land of Gondor, though maybe he will not ride back. But it is a long road, and man and beast must reach the end with strength to fight. A week it may be from tomorrow’s morn ere you hear the cry of the Sons of Eorl coming from the North.
Isildur, Théoden, Denethor, Faramir and others all had their character degraded in the service of a bit of cheap cinematic dramatic effect. Théoden is even grumpier and less likeable in the movies, lessening the effect of his death on Merry (who seems unharmed by stabbing the Witch King's leg, lessening the epic effect of that encounter).
@@KevDaly Didn't you know? Most people make decisions based on their feelings, they are only interested in feelings and drama. Moral choices are not a function of rational investigation, but what you've been told is good and bad.
Yes. Most of the changes were totally unnecessary and contradict the theme of the story and the nature of the characters in the story. They do not add any extra interest. Worst of all, really great scenes from the book have to be deleted to make space for PJ's additions.
@@KevDaly When Aragorn said "lets' hunt some orc", he forgot to say "Yo dudes"...
"Cheap tension" is a great way to put it.
Well said. When I saw Aragon kill the Mouth of Sauron in the Peter Jackson movie, I instantly lost a lot of empathy for the character and instantly said to myself, "I can't believe Tolkein would've wrote that, seems out of character."
That was a total lapse into generic genre fantasy. It was what a teenager playing D&D would do. There were far too many of such half-serious genre/teen gamer lapses in those movies.
@@charlesstanford1310 Exactly.
I wonder if Hollywood in general understands the morality of Tolkien. It's very different from the emotional knee jerk "morality" that is common in Hollywood.
america in general doesn't, it's a very emotionally charged place where logic has very little to say
Thank you for bringing up the Mouth of Sauron scene. It made Aragorn look almost like a psychopath "I"M KING I GET WHAT I WANT" type of tantrum. Tolkein wrote the characters and lore with customs and courtesies. Sauron has done his share of nasty deeds, but he maintains professionalism. If he just went around hacking off the heads of the people who rejected him he would never have had anywhere near the level of influence, his entire support base outside of Orcs (who serve out of fear) is held together by him keeping his word. So Aragorn to just kill his ambassador seems cruel, even by Sauron's standards. If Sauron was cutthroat he would've just peppered Aragorn/Gandalf with arrows the second they were within range.
Actual kings are psychos. And more than one messenger has been shot on the ride back to his master. Such is the way of men with power. Not saying it was right to make Aragorn do that in the movie, just saying i could see a number of monarchs making that rash decision.
He was cut throat. He just wanted the ring and thought Aragorn or Gandalf knew where it was.
@@user-ks5cg5cd7m He could've just killed them all right there. But chose dialogue even though in retrospect if he had gone full Savage he would've had it already, the Hobbits only survived because he was accepting prisoners.
Aragorn was supposed to be the rightful and righteous king.
As for the Ent moot in the movie, I don't think the Ents knew the full extent of Saruman's damage before Treebeard saw it. Which does save the moral reasoning imo
In the movie Treebeard had to know they were cutting down trees. Treebeard says lines like "There is always smoke rising from Isengard." and he makes another comment about Saruman having a mind of metal and no longer caring for growing things. So how would he not know? The movie seems to imply he knows without coming out and saying it directly.
The time constraint isn't always a justifiable excuse in my opinion, in regards to the mouth of sauron, we could have had a scene where aragorn takes a deep breath, controls his emotions and temper and says one sentence like " I will not bow down to your level, I will respect the rules of engagement" So in a scene that takes the same amount of time as aragorn slowly riding up and chopping his head off, we could have had a scene that is more in line with Tolkien's theme of contemplation over righteous emotional impulsivity.
The ultimate restraint would have been for Aragorn to remain silent and allow Gandalf, the Herald and Spokesman for the Captains of the West, to do the speaking. But PJ was too hasty and rash, shooting for cheap thrills instead of respecting the great work of Tolkien.
Does Everyone know that the Mouth of Sauron is from the Extended Edition 🤔
Yeah, honestly I'd have loved it if there were 6 LotR movies instead of 3. Of course, the director would still need to know how much could be cut from the books or added without bastardizing characters, or changing the story too much, but the "time restraint" excuse is incredibly laughable(especially nowadays with movies like Dune and Zack Snyder's Justice League!)
Was watching with my kids being loud around and am unsure if you mentioned the following example: Hama, the doorward to Theoden, also has to decide whether to follow a legal order or follow his intuition and make his own moral judgement.
I didn’t, but that is another great example.
An excellent video! One pair of emotional, impulsive responses that we see in the book is Sam's reaction when awaking and seeing Gollum touching Frodo, and then Gollum's reaction to Sam's suspicion. Neither of these are presented as positive outcomes: Sam regrets his, and Gollum is set on his path to, ultimately, a fiery death.
1- The council shortening was because of time limits imo. The movie was already long as it was.
2- The legal and moral battles, I agree. But I think for Eomer they wanted to have one less character. For Faramir they just changed the whole situation, but you could say there was a legal situation, since the someone warns Faramir and says you know the rules of your father, if you let them go your life would be forfeit, and Faramir says then let it forfeit. So it kinda exist.
3- The Ents situation, I agree. But I think they wanted to make it look like Pippin and Merry make them do it, and buff them up per se. And also more dramatic.
4- For the mouth of Sauron, I totally agree. That was in conflict with Aragorn's character.
So basically I believe they didn't make these changes deliberately, maybe they didn't even think about the morality perspectives of it. They did it for variety of reasons, shortening the length, having less characters, buffing up characters and so on (except for the mouth of Sauron part, that didn't have any excuse).
Well these are so Nitpick Changes like crumbs basically atleast he didn't take Galadriel and turn her into a Warrior give the Elves short Hair and Make up a Bunch of Original Characters. The only thing we can really deduce is the Mouth Of Sauron thing but that wasn't even in the Theatrical Cut lol only extended edition. We shouldn't even be talking about these changes because their not huge changes just nitpick. He didn't bring any real World bullshit into this world and for that I love him for it. Now to the Rings Of Power OMG 😲 they've destroyed Tolkien's Legendarium i mean WTF are we doing the Storys all over the place along with the Plot and Characters shouldn't be where they are too many Original Characters Galadriel has no husband but she's a Powerful Warrior Tar-Miriel OMG plus both of them in Numenor I mean wtf Rings Of Power is forcing everything to us thats really the bigger story and a much better video if we want to talk about staying true to Tolkien's Lore and Vision.
@@faustoutloud No, they haven't destroyed Tolkien's Legendarium. It's much stronger than that. Ten years from now ROP will be seen for what it is, an irrelevance.
Mouth of souron part wasnt in the movies at first anyway. I know i only saw him for the first time after the Hobbit movie came out and i rewatched the trilogy but apparenly extended this time.
I hate how Jackson had to dramatize every decision (the Ents, Theoden) and have it negative to positive and a result of emotion and not thinking. Jackson gave the first wound to Tolkien. Rings of Power is just coup de grace-ing the mans legacy.
I would use much worse language if I could so I'll settle for this: If you really think Tolkien's legacy will be destroyed by two illiterate primates and their billion dollar wank-fest, then that's YOUR problem. Tolkien will certainly outlast your lack of faith.
Look what he did to Gimli. He made Gimli a bumbling jokester running thru the lands of Rohan making jokes about breathing and rolling off the hills B.S. And it really bugs the shit out of me. I am not a huge Dwarf fan, only because we learn very little about them. But Gimli is a straight up Badass! He does not goof or even really laugh at all. He is a true warrior and a great and loyal friend to everyone but an orc. He does not go around with a dumbass helmet, he only wore one after he got a cut to his head in Helms Deep. I am not even gonna go off on the way he makes Boromir more likeable than he really is. Boromir is a whiney contrary prick who respects nobody. So his death scene he calls Aragorn Captain and King!!!!?? No! No No no. sorry I just acted like Boromir, lol. okay enough of my rant!! Cheers!
In the film, Faramir changes his mind mostly because of Sam's revelation that the Ring practically destroyed Boromir, whom Faramir not only idolizes but realistically knows was a stronger man morally than his father. As goofy as some of that addition is, for drama's sake (editing makes it unclear how they even managed to get to the western bank of the city -- not through the sewers or they wouldn't have to be led there later), it's the one moral addition PJ & Co made to the story since in the book Faramir has no problem resisting the temptation to score points with his father by bringing the ring.
While reading Tolkien I got the impression that the characters intended to make the right choices, to do the right things, but that there was an overarching influence above it all, sometimes guiding them to make the right choices even though they were wrong at the time in their decision-making. Some people made mistakes, some people went very wrong (like Gollum) but in the end it all worked out. Gandalf I think at some point said to Elrond that he didn't kill Gollum because one never knows what role they might play in the future: He was leaving options open.
Clearly, Jackson thought his audience was there to feel, not think.
Because its a movie? First you feel, afterwards you think. Thats how movies work.
In regards to the book with the parlay outside the black gate I think Gandalf knew exactly what he was doing..
Which was stalling.. he knew Frodo and Sam had been led by Gollum to Cirith Ungol where Shelob resided
The Mouth of Sauron only showed them the Mithril mail shirt Frodo had.. not his body or Sams either
If Sauron did have the Ring would he really need to send his herald out to meet them?!?
He stalled for time as he knew every minute the great eye was watching what was happening beyond the black gate..
He was not paying attention to what was happening within this realm making it a little easier for Sam to get Frodo to Mount Doom
I agree. In fact I did a video on the scene where I discussed that theory.
Well said, great work man! I've been reading the books and it's amazing how deeper they are compared to the movies
What they did was take out the fluff. They really only did have one choice. If they hid the ring, Sauron would have rebuilt his forces and laid endless sieges until everyone perished and he could devote all his time to finding the ring. Denethor would have been correct had Elrond's advice not been heeded. Elrond's advice is not taken without criticism. Boromir says it is a bad idea and anything else should be done
One thing that has always annoyed me about the movies is the downgrading of the motivations of almost all the characters. A few exceptions - Sam, Gandalf, Boromir (who's portrayed much as Tolkien had him). In many cases I believe it's because Jackson must have thought each character must have a "character arc" to end up making the right decision (cf. Theoden, Treebeard, Faramir, even Aragorn and Arwen) - as if it's not possible to make a moral choice because you're a moral person. And of course what he did to Denethor is utterly shameful - from a great and tragic figure destroyed by despair, he's turned into a cardboard cut-out that the audience is invited to hate. When he went over the cliff in flames (another of Jackson's changes for the worse), the majority of the people in the theatre cheered. Shameful.
It’s great to find someone sticking up for Denothor.
@@micklumsden3956 In my view he's up there as a tragic figure with Othello and King Lear - a great man destroyed by his own faults - for Othello it was jealousy,for Lear it was the sin of Pride - and to a certain degree Denethor had the same fault - Pride in thinking he could use the palantir even though he knew Sauron controlled its 'sister' palantir - when none of his predecessors had dared to do so. And that led to the fault that destroyed him - despair.
It's important to remind people that the PJ films aren't faithful adaptations of the books and most importantly why. I've had too many debates with those who treat the film's as some holy grail, yes they are enjoyable films and I have them on DVD, but they are flawed.
They captured the soul of the books
"but they are flawed." - all works are flawed. PJ made movies that people like to watch. A faithful adaptation to the text of LOTR would make a boring movie. So PJ's adaptation changes may seem to you as a "flaws", but some may think of them as improvements.
The only good adaptations that I’ve seen where it’s more accurate than the Lord of the Rings movies are the last unicorn and princess bride, mostly because the original author wrote the screenplays. Rings being 80% and still being good on it’s own is a pretty good win.
They are the closest we will ever have to the soul of the books, period.
@@lordinquisitordunn336 Technically the end of "The Princess Bride" as a Happily Ever After story is NOT how the novel ends. For instance, Wesley is still not fully recovered; Inigo is seriously injured and the Prince is still ruler and NOT a forgiving person - so ....
It's a shame Peter Jackson didn't put a scene in there where he says to Treebeard from his tower: Why don't you act like a tree and leave.?
You’re correct about the Mouth of Sauron not being alone in the books. He’s described as riding out robed all in black and accompanied by a small group of black-harnessed soldiery. One of his companions was bearing the banner of Mordor, sable, an eye gules.
No wonder Christopher Tolkien hated the film trilogy and considered it action fantasy for young people. He must have recognized what you Tolkien Lore have so clearly described.
J.R.R. Tolkien included much moral reasoning and critical thinking in the books. But these qualities have been declining, at least in West, sometime from the mid 20th century, quite possibly in the 1960s, so I think Peter Jackson and the screenwriters simply reflected modernity and it seeped into the adaptation from book to film. At least they had the awareness and humility to keep modern politics and culture out of the adaptation.
Personally the films are great. But to include the moral reasoning and the background which characters provide in lengthy dialogue -- even a reduced version fit for film -- would mean creating 6 four hours films, one film for each book.
Perhaps there can be a TV series, divided the books into three seasons, one season for each book, and where each chapter can be one episode. Thus each season would average 20 to 21 episodes. It could actually use the books structure to the benefit of a serialized TV format.
I really appreciate how you drive home the point that morality is consistent and has a framework that matters. Peter Jackson’s films certainly miss the mark here and rely on eliciting an emotional response from the audience and characters rather than thinking through a sophisticated morality and coming to the right decision.
If we look at it from a distance, then it seems that the main point that explains these decisions of some of the main characters in the film trilogy is that power corrupts and the greater the power, the greater the tendency to reduce patience in making of moral decisions. Just remember how and what did Gandalf after he achieved the White Status. Detto Aragorn before the Black Gates and Frodo in Mount Doom. Just a few examples of many from their morally questionable actions.
Fantastic video and wise insights! Thanks for sharing 🙌
I think the changes you see are a reflection of today. Emotions create and rule reality, with emotional justifications. Logic, reason, Right vs Wrong are held as valueless when it competes with an emotional ideology. It's subtle...but it builds to the point that all morality is relative to the moment, not to a Truth.
Great video! To your last point - it seems like society as a whole had more general wisdom when it came to reasoning when philosophizing about decisions was done more frequently by even just a few
" society as a whole had more general wisdom when it came to reasoning when philosophizing about decisions" - of what time and to what society do you refer?
@@TheDanEdwards haha good question. I was just responding to his last point which is that Tolkien is careful to construct a scenario where his characters seriously think before acting and that Tolkien had ideas of societies like this either from history or his own time.
@@hodgrix I would argue that Tolkien as a Loyal subject of the British Empire, had few issues when that Empire carried out what today we would clearly label "Atrocities" (the Amritsar Massacre, or the deliberate starving of Bengal, to name but two).
Today, our "emotions" would have NO Problem calling those and similar instances as wrong.
In the Books, Tolkien seems uncaring that in none of the major battles are ANY of the "Enemy" combatants left alive Orcs and Humans are equally slaughtered. Given that Tolkien was himself a soldier and had fought in BOTH World Wars (he began writing LOTR while recovering from injuries he had received), I doubt that that properly represented his Real Life opinions as to what should happen at the end of EVERY Battle, but he still devotes NO Consideration as to what should be the fate of the Easterlings, Haradrim or even individual Orcs, except Kill Them All.
Moral?
You decide!
@Michael O’Donnell not true-the Dunlendings and Haradrim are shown mercy when they surrender. You need to brush up on your facts.
@@michaelodonnell824 First you say the movies don't capture the soul of the books then you say the books have no soul, are you just a contrarian troll for the fun of it?
I appreciate your deep insights of Tolkien in your videos.
This is a great video. The movies… though enjoyable… are symptomatic of the modern day focus on emotion over reason.
You make excellent points. First, film is not literature. Time is precious. Battle scenes are much cooler. Careful thoughts and discussions do not play well in a play. The Mouth of Sauron scene loses it's power and even value because in film grammar, we cut back and forth between Frodo et. al. and the others. In the book, we hear nothing about Frodo. We do not know what the mithril shirt signifies. Frodo could be captured and dead. So Mouth works. In the movie, not so much.
I am much more disturbed by the film's push-pull fight between Frodo and Gollum at the edge of the volcano. Tolkien was very clear that Frodo failed his task. He could not throw the ring in the lava. The expected "Hero" act did not happen. What did happen (in the book) was what Tolkien called eu-catastrophe - the unexpected good turn of the story. Gollum just slips. Oops. Jackson said, in one of the accompanying videos that he found that not convincing filmmaking - plus he could have Frodo hanging by nine fingernails (an expected cinema trope).
Jackson's films are great fun, and a good primer to Middle Earth. However, the "holy scripture" is always there - and must have primacy over the film - as you put quite well. Reading The Lord of the Ring is the only way to delve into the complex and thought-provoking ideas Tolkien inundates us with.
One of the things Jackson did in the film that undermined Tolkien basic themes - but is not directly related to your points here - was when Gandalf decided to comfort Pippin by telling him what lies beyond death. First, Gandalf would probably not know this, since his death was of a quite different sort; second, he would _never_ tell a mortal what lies beyond death, as it is clear that this must be taken on faith, that death is the Gift of the One; and third, his description is transferred from Frodo's vision of the Undying Lands at the end of the novel, which albeit poetic, is most emphatically _not_ Heaven. Wrong in every way. Surely there were other words of comfort Gandalf could have spoken ('Death comes to all mortals in time; but it is a Gift that in time even the elves may come to envy')?
I think there was a great deal that Jackson does not understand about Tolkien's work. He is not what I would call a very thoughtful man - his jokes like dwarf-tossing, 'game over', 'meat's back on the menu, boys', and, in the Mouth of Sauron scene, Gimli's 'guess that concludes negotiations' line, evidently intended to be funny, show him to be rather common, really.
But then, it turned out all right. As Huckleberry Finn said of 'Tom Sawyer', "That book was made by Mr. Mark Twain, and he told the truth, mainly. There was things which he stretched, but mainly he told the truth."
Yes: _way_ too much joking attitude in those movies. It's the malady of genre fantasy fandom, the same spirit that makes insecure convention-goers, cosplayers and gamers obsessively quote _Monty Python and the Holy Grail._ It crept in all over the place and it drives me up the wall.
Another fantastic video. Thanks for sharing!
Channels like yours are gold nuggets
Its probably not right but saying its completely wrong for the mouth to die there is mad. Theyre literaly suiciding themselves to help the guy the mouth just said was tortured and killed. It makes quite a lot of sense for that to happen.
I didn’t say it was wrong for him to die.
Excellent, Tolkien Geek. Excellent. Excellent. I wish more people realized this discrepancy between the books and the movies. This may seem a small matter, but in reality it is huge. Namarie.
The confrontation with the Mouth of Sauron is one of the top 3 travesties in the film (the other two are the way Faramir behaves in TT and the Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff).
I think Gandalf knew the Ring had not been captured, though. His 'name the terms' discussion was partly a deception to get information from the enemy, and he discovers that they think there was only one hobbit, and they can't produce proof they have the hobbit, so he figures things might be ok.
Jackson's LOTR (and Snyder's Watchmen, as another example) is an adolescent reading of a very mature, complex work. Slavishly 'respecting' the outward trappings while completely missing the deep meaning.
13-year old me would've loved MovieAragorn's teenage angst and impulsive bad-ass outbursts.
This analysis is on point.
You will never get the "deep meaning" in a tv holywood adaptation, book and cinema are different medias, given the situation:
1 - Hollywood adaptation
2 - Main goal is to make profit
3 - PJ and his team were fans but not purists
4 - PJ main goal was to make good films not good adaptations
5 - The time frame was only around 10 hours
Given all that, the movies end up as great as they could.
Alternative take-- In beheading the Mouth, Aragorn doesn't put an end to the deceit so much as he puts an end to despair and preserves hope. In Arda, despair in this sense that suggests the Dark Lord is supreme above Eru, may be considered a capital offense via blasphemy. Aside from that, there are as mentioned repeated decisions to balance law and ethics-- law dictates a messenger must not be harmed, but the killing of a messenger sends a message to the opponent (Sauron) that Aragorn is utterly committed to conflict (perhaps mindlessly emotionally committed). This intensity warrants Sauron's complete attention, drawing it away from Frodo-- the life of a blasphemous evil messenger outweighed by the benefit of banishing all evil.
The part when Aragorn chops off the head of The Mouth of Sauron was the only part of these movies that I felt was off not only on a superficial level, but against the very soul of where The Lord of the Rings stands morally
The Mouth Of Sauron scene, to be fair was in the extended version. Just Be Glad It was never a part of the theatrical cut.
Thank you very much!
There was no serious discussion in Rivendell in the book either. Various ideas were suggested and shot down for rather flimsy reasons. Basically. it was necessary that the quest be undertaken and so it was. The film simply cut out the excess verbiage.
If you think the reasons were flimsy I think that says more about you than the story.
glad to finally find someone on UA-cam who is not a Peter Jackson bootlicker. I was geeked to see the movies when they were in production but i found them to be pretty tone deaf in execution. I guess it's good that a lot of people found Tolkien through the movies but I have avoided watching them again since they clash too much with my mind's eye view of ME.
the movies are great
Nice analysis. You made a lot of points worth thinking about. I always wonder what PJ would have done differently if LOTR had been shot as a series and things didn’t have to be cut for time.
In the movie it seemed to me that the Ents' decision to not act was fatalistic due their loss of the Entwives. I know that their manner is subdued compared to ours, but the loss of the Entwives really seemed to have them in a decline toward extinction, and it seemed to come through as part of their decision at the conclusion of the Entmoot. That's possibly me projecting what I might feel in their place, of course.
And agreed on Aragorn's sudden wanton violence on the Mouth of Sauron. No one's anger is automatically righteous, not even a king and not even on a known evil being. Violence is inherently dangerous and must be carefully considered, even when it's needed (or thought needed) quickly.
What do you think these sophomoric showrunners can pull from Tolkein in an Era where morality is dead?
It seems “right and wrong” are changing faster and faster these days.
Very well laid out. Thank you.
Great thoughts!
Sadly the PJ films wanted the "big" cinematic tropes, mainly to produce "big" moments of actions or score use. While being great in every aspect crucial to cinema, they lacked much of the humanity of the novel. And many "big action scenes" are not as epic as in the book, honestly.
the big action scenes were over the top imo. PJs approach was just "more is more" ... the orcs in Moria were particularly egregious , if i recall correctly they were like insects climbing the wall in unrealistic numbers
@@theshrubberer Yes, in Moria is was pretty ridiculous. But then, it all worked for the cinema. It's just that so much was taken out of the depth of tlotr because of that.
PJ has a repeated theme in the films, of "big gun topped by bigger gun, topped by an even bigger gun". That happened in Moria, in Helm's Deep, in the Minas Tirtih... It allows you to blast the score, show magnificent shot and what not. But it is therefore a great shift from the meaning behind these events.
@@squashedeyeball you are being generous to PJ imo. He was not a Tolkien book fan, and i don't think he ever got what it was that Tolkien meant to the imagination of readers. He crafted a kind of safe cinematic version ..which i guess is what he was paid to do. Some might say he had no choice but I found the Harry Potter films to be very true o the tone of the books ,while LOTR was not.. I think LOTR would be better served by a long format GOT type treatment but that probably will never happen, ironically because the fan base seems to think that nothing can top PJ movies (faceplant)
Then again i hate overblown/overdone/unrealistic action and our society's addiction to this over story and character. So my frustration goes beyond PJ to our collective taste, hence the Superhero nonsense we now have ad nauseam.
A great under the radar adaptation of a book is the made for TV "Going Postal" which really translates well to screen.
cheers
@@theshrubberer
I'll have to watch Going Postal :)
I definitely agree that a show or a mini series would've been preferable.
And you have a point about the fanbase: many consider the Jackson films as the greatest adaptations, while others view them as more cinematic pillars which top all else. The problem is that if we deny the option of achieving more, we will never achieve more.
I think that the films did manage to create "movie magic", when everything cinematic works for huge audiences, while holding a "quality status".
But they sure have many tropes we find nowadays in modern superheroes films, even if Jackson did them superbly (in my opinion).
Don't forget that the Mouth of Sauron part didn't actually appear in the original cut of the film.
Oooooh, we're getting full speed ahead into the hot takes now! 😎
I appreciate your opinion on the literary changes made by Jackson to Tokien's story. I agree that it was poor writing that changes the moral landscape. However, I don't necessarily agree with your reasons, and I don't think a different set of morals makes it immoral. While the concept of embassy and ambassadors has been established in our world for many generations, it has not been without violation. The execution of wars has not been without violation of treaties on laws of war. This film, RotK, was released after 9/11 and everyone had an emotional reaction to a terrorist sneak attack against civilians that was considered by many at the time to be the epitome of evil. So, it was in the zeitgeist for Jackson to respond to a great literary evil with a script that would fit the recent experience of the audience, and perhaps be cathartic in the then present context.
A more important point may be the existence of morals, law, and war and their intersections in both our world and the literary world of LotR. Tolkien's mythology gives the characters a firm theological reality, unlike our own world (even if Tolkien may have thought this world had a firm theological reality). Hence, rules about parlay and embassy may be very firm and established and enforced by deity. However, in our world, this is not necessarily the case, despite what some religionists might believe or want to believe, and various religionists may conflict on the proposed meanings for what is moral in a particular instance, even in war.
In our reality, war is perceived by many to be not a matter of law but, as von Clausewitz suggested, "politics by other means". In Political Theory, we were taught that the definition of politics is "the process by which a group of people come to a decision." Frighteningly, the sky is the limit for what decisions a group of people can come up with, if our real history is a guide. (I won't recount the many horrors here.) A corollary I came up with explains its counterpoint: "Law/legalism is the process by which a group of people are _prevented_ from coming to a decision." The prescriptions that are argued to prevent decisions could be divine law, or laws and customs developed by us humans. In our reality, war is the exercise of power to force a decision, that is to compel others to comply with the will of the aggressor. Yes, people in our reality talk about "just wars"... not because such a thing exists -it's an oxymoron- but as internal rationalizations to salve our individual and collective consciences for killing other humans.
Can we examine the actions of Film Aragorn in a pragmatic context? Killing the emissary of an enemy that one is already in the process of attempting to annihilate might be morally appropriate. After all, if they thought they could take the Black Gate and then the Black Tower and kill everything in between, then the Mouth of Sauron would have surely perished eventually. Killing the emissary in front of his own men might be considered tactically valuable if Aragorn thought it would demoralize them, and it might lead the enemy to think he possesses the Ring. Moreover, it might be considered strategically valuable for Aragorn to provoke the enemy to attack in order to empty the land of Mordor so that Frodo and Sam can get to Mt. Doom and destroy the Ring. This is war, and achieving the objective is the goal. If Tolkien didn't think annihilation was OK, he wouldn't have othered the enemy so thoroughly.
Just a couple of points. It was well established in the movie that ring must be destroyed, so there's no reason to have a discussion of options at the Council of Elrond.
And moral reasoning can be shown in a novel much more easily than in a movie.
No, Elrond is the first person to say it has to be destroyed.
About 18 years ago I read that Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens urged Jackson to stick closer to the book version of the Mouth of Sauron scene (and others) but that Jackson asked, “What would Conan have done?”
In the films we do see a bit of a Conan-ization of Aragorn here and there (Let’s hunt some orc, etc). An expensive fantasy blockbuster has to make a lot of money fast-moral subtlety and intellect are going to get short schrift. Making each individual scene memorable counts for more than narrative coherence.
Citation needed. I am not denying the assertion, but a rather extraordinary claim like that requires some documentation.
@@majkus How am going to verify something I read in a probably now-defunct European fan magazine almost 20 years ago? You’re free to not believe I read it. Whether Fran or Philippa really verifiably said it, I don’t know. But i read it and there was a lot of chatter then that Jackson liked compelling individual scenes in favor of hewing to the book. It’s certainly true to some extent in the finished product. Great films but they do deviate considerably from the test.
At the Council of Elrond they considered giving it to Tom Bombadil, but rejected that because they did not fully understand the powers of Tom. Gandalf the White would later seek a better understanding.
But to be fair, who does fully understand Tom's powers? Does Tom himself even know?
@@treebeardtheent2200 Of course Tom Bombadil knows his own powers. For example, as in when he is rather offhand and dismissive of the ring of power. It is irrelevant to him. Both he and Tolkien say and do as much in regard to this.
@@tombombadill22 We know, essentially, that Bombadill has set bounds for himself. Why is not told to us, yet it may be just bc he chose so.
As far as understanding the FULL (key word) extent of his powers, that's a pretty rare thing for any creature to know. I would grant that Tolkein's account of Gandalf and Frodo are reasonable examples of full extent, maybe even Sam although even the fight with Shelob didn't do him in the way Frodo was, nearly to his undoing more than once.
I would be glad to know of some similar examples where Bombadill was tested to such a limit, if you know of any particular references.
Long live Fatty Lumpkin
These movies came at a time when American films avoided showing pure moral heroes, tightly clung to the idea that you can defend yourself however you want, and that you shouldn't sacrifice your right to defend yourself to spare the lives of "other" people. To some extent, that fear continues to this day. My belief is that it was tied up with the attack of 9/11 and what many Americans felt to be their most appropriate response. But either way, it was a very strong trend.
If these movies were released in a different time, we might have seen more discussions about morality and more examples of pure-hearted heroes. I personally hope that is coming back.
I would really love to read/see the version where the Fellowship decides instead to hurl the ring into the ocean.
Probably something like the release of snuffy the seal back into the ocean.
Excellent. Thank you.
It was definitely a choice regarding film length, in regards to the Mouth of Sauron. That is why the theatrical release does not have it.
Very true and very good on all counts.
Another one is the court of Rohan.
The real point is that in the movie a representative of Sauron came out to *talk* and Aragorn killed him. That's wrong on a LOT of levels, and THAT is why you don't see it written in the book that way. That was probably the cheapest of all the cheap shots Jackson took in his work.
6:15 Faramir and Eomer - would you consider the solutions examplify what used to be called by the Greek epikeia?
And obviously, Denethor's madness as well ...
Btw, "in Tolkien's framwork" - I get a hunch that the moral landscape of Westeros as well as of Dune is _very_ different ....? (Not that I've read them!)
I’m not so good with my Greek so you’ll have to explain that word 😅
@@TolkienLorePodcast It seems moral theologians have been giving the example of opening a porch in a wall which it is forbidden to open, because opening the door would flood the city.
And that one can, despite the law, open the door if there are enemies around who need to be drowned (wonder if that passage may have inspired some scenes around Isengard ...?).
And that the virtue that allows us to make this "paradoxal" judgement is called epikeia.
A google made me see that the place where St. Thomas Aquinas' Latin involves this Greek loan in English translation has the translation Equity.
// I answer that, As stated above (Article 48), a virtue has three kinds of parts, subjective, integral, and potential. A subjective part is one of which the whole is predicated essentially, and it is less than the whole. This may happen in two ways. For sometimes one thing is predicated of many in one common ratio, as animal of horse and ox: and sometimes one thing is predicated of many according to priority and posteriority, as "being" of substance and accident.
Accordingly, "epikeia" is a part of justice taken in a general sense, for it is a kind of justice, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). Wherefore it is evident that "epikeia" is a subjective part of justice; and justice is predicated of it with priority to being predicated of legal justice, since legal justice is subject to the direction of "epikeia." Hence "epikeia" is by way of being a higher rule of human actions. //
Ah, similar to the classic example of “letting blood” being illegal in Rome but with the exception of a physician doing so for medical purposes. Yeah, I can see some parallels there, though I’m not sure it’s exactly the same thing without putting a bit more study into it.
one thing that still bugs me about the movies and books is the example of the women and infirm were still in the cities. in the movies theoden abandoned Edoras and retreated to helms deep with all of his folk. In two towers they retreated to the deeping comb though in the books Eowyn was left behind in edoras to look after the people, while the riders were made ready to ride to the fords of isen to reenforce the beleaguered troops there but saruman unleashed Isengard and they were forced to ride back and defend the onslaught of 10,000 orcs and dunlandings at helms deep. then in rotk there were still women, young and infirm in the city during the siege but in the books the civilians evacuated to the coastal regions to keep them safe and only a small amount of women and young boys were left to run messages and to care for the wounded.
Eowyn didn’t wait in Edoras; she took the people to Dunharrow.
I hated what Aragorn did to the Mouth of Sauron but unfortunately in a movie you simply can't allow a villain that evil to just ride off and never get his just deserts. This why I have never watched this trilogy. There's a lot of good things but also a lot of bad ideas that ruin the story for me.
OT
Are you going to make another video about Rings of Power after the last teaser? Do you prefer to wait until it actually comes out?
Honestly I’m not the teaser-analyzing type so I generally don’t comment on stuff unless there’s some real substance to discuss.
a good ol' beheading is certainly more cinematic than a drawn out parlay, I suppose
Tolkien’s version has plenty of drama though. That’s the sad thing-Jackson didn’t have to invent drama for most of these scenes but decided to spend more time on Arwen and traveling to Osgiliath instead.
_LOTR_ was a _Bildungsroman_ of humanity. The elves were passing into the West and had to hand the torch to the race of humans. Jackson didn't understand this at all. Thus,
Boromir is kinda sus from the beginning.
There is no "we must not shoot a man alone and unawares.'
Faramir wants the Ring.
300 elven archers show up at Helm's Deep.
Aragorn _falls._
Arwen breaks up with Aragorn, who then flirts with Eowyn.
Denethor is a doddering fool with no nerves in his chin.
Something I was wondering about lately, maybe you can help me: Did the free people have any idea what would happen, when the ring gets destroyed?
They had some idea; Elrond guessed that the Three would lose their power and he was right. I doubt they knew anything for certain though.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Okay, than my memorys were right. Thanks a lot :D
Having to cram a book that spans several hundred pages into a two, two and a half hour long film necessitates cuts to the story. It's unfortunate, but that's how adapting books into movies goes. There are some things Jackson changed in translation that I find myself agreeing with. Other changes seemed odd. I don't envy Jackson the task he had to take on.
There were three movies, all longer than three hours.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Three hours, my mistake, but still only so much that can be fit into a three-hour movie. Having gone to film school and taken screenwriting, I'm well aware of the challenges of adapting novels into screenplays. There's so much to choose as to whether to include or omit without compromising the integrity of the narrative. Me, I'd do a straight adaptation of the novels beginning with The Hobbit, but for that I would need miniseries to do proper justice.
Jackson biffed the Mouth of Sauron scene so badly. Just about everything about it.
First of all, MoS has the absolute worst design of any character in those movies. Jackson & Co. apparently thought he should look like a horror movie villian. I'm sure Howe and Lee tried to reign him in, but I wish they would have tried harder.
So his appearance is terrible, his voice is terrible, and of course it's ridiculous that Aragorn commits a war crime and murders him.
I love the movies. My family watches them once a year. But that scene is just so bad. The only scene that's worse is when Gandalf bludgeons Denethor.
Aragorn was totally using psionics on the MoS
I thoroughly enjoyed this video, and while I agree with your every point it distresses me how everyone is commenting on the 'Conanization' of Aragorn or using Conan as the model for 'big dumb, angsty and just not thinking things through' when this is not entirely accurate.
I've not read all the stories, and while Conan has a lot of impulsive moments, he often thinks and over-thinks things through, being written with a great deal of philosophical thought given to the character as Howard was an author rather more akin to Tolkien than most realise in some ways (not all just some).
And I think people are missing the point with Conan; he would not have attacked the Mouth of Sauron for example, and might well have preferred to ready his army better and see about arranging ambushes against the enemies. Especially in his stories that are later in the timeline, where he's become a King and has to think about the consequences of his actions. If anything, his stories has a slow softening of the character in some ways.
Sorry it is shocking how so many are making the connotation that if there's a poorly written scene in PJ's trilogy it is because it is too much like Howard a.k.a. Howard was a bad writer. When the truth of the matter was that it was far more complex than that. And Conan the Cimmerian's tales were no less thought provoking at times than Tolkien's.
I still prefer Tolkien as a writer, and do agree that PJ's series was indeed terrible, but this does not mean Howard was bad or that Aragorn in the Mouth of Sauron scene behaved at all like Conan. If anything he behaved like some of the 2$ knock offs of Conan, such as Geralt of Rivia from the Witcher, or any number of 'angsty-bad-boy' 'Dark Fantasy' characters who always behave like dumber versions of Conan.
Conan initially in the younger Conan stories acts more on emotion, with these stories involving Conan suffering for his impulsive actions and coming to regret it. It is only in the later stories when Conan has aged and suffered for his lack of moral-thinking and long-term thinking so that there is a similar theme in Howard's stories and Tolkien's. Arguably, Conan by the Hour of the Dragon has learnt to think things through, and often making the more moral choice such as when he spares his enemies preferring to show mercy than cruelty.
Sorry for the rant JRRT Lore Geek, it's just as a fan of both Tolkien & Howard, I dislike to see the mud-slinging between the two fanbases and think that both are deep, both were exceptional and both had far more in common with each other than we realise. Heck, Tolkien read one of Howard's stories the Black Colossus, and liked it (I've got a video on the topic for those interested).
Bruh the movies are amazing and Conan is awful compared to LOTR.
@@aesir1ases64dude you do nothing but write the worst takes...
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay new video!
Saying Aragon shouldn't of killed the mouth of Sauron is like saying ohh he shouldn't kill an ork because there's no moral reason too like come on bro you he had ll the reasons
Excellent video and commentary. A have a few close friends that are major Tolkien fans, like me, and we were not that impressed with the Jackson films when they came out largely because of the changes you mentioned. There were lots of other annoying changes that made it seem like Jackson didn't understand the stories, such as the desecration of Gandalf -- how he seems to lose hope a few times in Return of the King, and how many of his important decisions were given to other characters to make him look foolish -- the leaving out of the scouring of the Shire, Elrond showing up at Dunharrow, the army of the dead scenes being silly, Frodo and Sam being taken to Osgiliath, and on and on. We didn't hate the films, but when the extended editions came out and Peter Jackson and his wife were interviewed and said that they had to "improve" the story, well, that really pissed me off.
Good and evil in modern media are based on their being defined as such, not on morality. And usually good is just defined as 'us'
It is a reason I have always liked Diane Duane's 'Young Wizards' series ("So You Want To Be a Wizard" et seq.) more than Harry Potter, a series to which it invites comparison. Duane's world has a spiritual and moral underpinning that is rich, and is critical to the stories; Rowling's wizarding world has a spiritual basis only a little more complex than Mammy Yokum's (look her up) dictum that 'Good is better than Evil because it's nicer!'
@@majkus In the Harry Potter books, good and evil are defined by two things: the color of your school tie, and whether or not you speak nicely to Harry Potter. Not exactly up to Tolkien’s level of moral complexity.
Peter Jackson made a lot of changes from the books that in some cases lessened their potential impact while making more radical alterations to enhance the emotional potential of a scene. He also chose not to (or possibly could not due to limitations of the time) film iconic book scenes like the Tom Bombadil chapters or the Scouring of the Shire which could have amplified the artistic impact of the film trilogy.
But Payne and McKay ARE SO. MUCH. WORSE.
At 1:18 (I'm tired and have had my stomach wasted since Friday evening to this morning, so I am impatient) - would you consider it plausible that:
* PJ was much better suited for doing Beatles documentary which is his now (perhaps already extant) project
* through him, Beatles got their revenge for Tolkien turning them down?
Now that’s an interesting theory 😂
@@TolkienLorePodcast Look up:
When The Beatles wanted to star in a Lord of the Rings movie
by Natalie Zamora7 months ago
Peter Jackson speaks about The Beatles’ failed attempt to make ‘The Lord Of The Rings’ movie
"For a moment in time they were seriously contemplating doing it"
By
Damian Jones 25th November 2021
Peter Jackson: 'I got through the pandemic with the Beatles'
Tom Hunt
Nov 20 2021
Tolkein was not beholden to Hollywood mentality. 'nuff said.
The mouth stuff was probably cut for that reason since its extended only. And yeah as a fan of the movies mouth is one of the worst parts and the scene served little purpose even in the movies.
I enjoyed watching the films.
But perhaps in retrospect I’d have been better not to see them. The visual impact of all the scenes mentioned is so powerful that our understanding and appreciation of the real characters is clouded.
The films are Tolkien, but not Tolkien as we know it.
I feel that I have been corrupted……..
i just accept the trilogy as a loving oversimplification
All legitimate criticisms though I disagree with a few, I just hope the criticism is this exacting of this new show that is about come out. I think Jackson’s heart was in the right place and the heart of Tolkien still shines through in them (hence why the books had such a huge boom in sales). You will see no such boom after this abortion of a show is released. Please, PLEASE be consistent and absolutely eviscerate the show if it’s as bad as it is almost certain to be.
Modern films are about action and emotion. Tolkien was about thought and morality. That is one of the main reasons I call the LOTR films worthless.
I have my gripes against the PJ adaptions, but they will be so wastly superior to Amazons fanfic-abomination that it’s not even funny.
Excellent video! It's unfortunate that time constraints forced these scenes to have so much of their depth cut. It would have been wonderful to see it even if it was only in the super-extended editions. The scene with Aragorn and the Mouth of Sauron irks me every time I see it though; Aragorn would have never done that and the change was obviously made to the movie audience could have something to cheer about before Mordor's armies march out and attack.
I wonder whether the reason for people thinking that it was justified to kill the Mouth of Sauron is because virtually nobody in Western societies actually experiences violence, and more importantly, violent conflict. Maybe if people had a greater understanding of violence, they would understand more why it should be tempered, if not avoided if possible?
11:01 Ents are very slow.
If they had invented rock and roll, the "slow" would have been their equivalent to certain very high speed punk, I think.
he decapitated the mouth because it was implied he killed frodo. you cannot parley with murderers, so you may as well get on with it. there is nothing to discuss at that point. it had nothing to do with being insulted. you cannot meet evil with lukewarm bs. of course he had the right. he is a known evil doer and murderer. entirely justified. the mechanics of the scene play out that way to build tempo for the last battle of the film. it works
13:16 _"if you make decisions in this wat all the time, it's a lot harder to say that you're certain you are doing the right thing all the time"_
... certain you are doing the right thing _most of the time._
We are creatures, limited, not omniscient, and, if not ents, some are fallen too (most I'd be likely to meet this world this side of the grave), so, being sure to do the right thing _all_ the time is impossible.
Just a nit-pick.
But it has applications. Some people love to deliberate really at length but on a moral basis far inferior in substantiality than the entmoot.