Post BAZcnOmbCHbFvaykuu by MartianM00n@nicecrew.digital
 (DIR) More posts by MartianM00n@nicecrew.digital
 (DIR) Post #BAZXMR7pscvVbUEiTw by ChristiJunior@detroitriotcity.com
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       I've been wondering about this for a while now: how does Fedi feel about how Peter Jackson handled the Mouth of Sauron scene in the extended edition of his final Lord of the Rings movie? Because it's completely different from how it was in the book, and it's one of those changes that Tolkien would most certainly have objected to. In the book, the Mouth of Sauron gets humbled by Gandalf and is relieved of his stolen loot, but being a herald and an ambassador, he is allowed to leave unharmed, a promise Gandalf expressly made beforehand.In the movie though? Aragorn straight up decapitates the guy without warning after he taunts our heroes about Frodo having supposedly been captured and tortured to death.I've always felt that the book version of events was far more elegant and showed the likes of Gandalf and Aragorn in a much better light, while Movie Aragorn basically just lets his emotions get the better of him, causing him to disgrace himself by murdering someone acting as a diplomat (albeit a very evil and bad faith diplomat). However, given how Sauron and his forces are as close to pure evil as you can come in Middle-earth, you could also argue that it would be foolish to let them take advantage of rules and protections intended to enable dialogue and diplomacy between free people, like how leftists and Invaders today weaponize our own rules against us. I ultimately don't agree, because killing the Mouth of Sauron doesn't actually notably improve Gondor's military position, it just makes the country seem barbaric when their king acts in such a way. I think "The Moral High Ground" is overrated, but that doesn't mean you should just give it up for no real gain.So anyway, which version of events do you prefer?
       
 (DIR) Post #BAZYm05l7259FC1DTk by ChristiJunior@detroitriotcity.com
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @hazlin In the book Gandalf does make it clear that while the Mouth of Sauron will be allowed to carry out the negotiations in peace, his future will be bleak if his side loses.
       
 (DIR) Post #BAZZ7QrWm9MoLua7JA by Moutie2112@nicecrew.digital
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Book always, especially that novel.
       
 (DIR) Post #BAZcnOmbCHbFvaykuu by MartianM00n@nicecrew.digital
       1 likes, 1 repeats
       
       Oaths (a kind of covenant) are not to be broken. If the Mouth was to be killed it was to be on the battlefield. Another one of Peter Jackson's abominations. He had none of the light Tolkien had.
       
 (DIR) Post #BAa05OcWpzW1aAorp2 by Dubbub@detroitriotcity.com
       1 likes, 1 repeats
       
       @ChristiJunior Pidor Jackoff like all Hollyjew directors doesn't understand the nuances of Christian ethos. The Mouth is Numenorean, just like Aragorn, it represents the duality of free will - the same (breed of) man can choose evil or can choose good, and it will equally transform them. Aragorn is good and he is king, had he been evil and subservient he would've been in the Mouth's place. The movie doesn't make that clear, there the Mouth is just a cartoon villain. Letting the Mouth go suggests that even though Mouth/Sauron have fallen from grace as far as one can fall, they still carry the light of creation, much like Christian icons will not paint even those who persecuted Christians as ugly.
       
 (DIR) Post #BAa064sFjv36d6V1A8 by Vidmastereon@detroitriotcity.com
       1 likes, 1 repeats
       
       @ChristiJunior it is dumb to kill an enemy noncombatant since it doesnt accomplish anything