I'm pretty sure the sheer What the Hell, Hero?-ness of it is why it was cut.
edited 9th Oct '10 4:48:46 PM by GabrielGloom
Definitely awesome. And think about it: the Mouth of Sauron has just "proved" that Frodo is dead and died in horrible agony, which means the Ring is almost surely back in the hands of Sauron, and the last stand against the Black Gate is for nothing. They are going to die.
I'd want to chop off that bastard's head too.
Isn't it followed with a Bond One-Liner? "Negotiations over," or something like that?
But yeah—aside from the Shoot the Messenger value (the Mouth of Sauron wasn't the guy who killed Frodo, after all), it's a complete act of Genre Savvy. Aragorn knows that he's a good guy and the Mouth of Sauron is a bad guy and so it's okay to kill him. Realistically (and in the book), who's the good guy depends on what you do: if you slaughter an emissary during peaceful negotiations, it seriously calls into question whether you are in fact the good guy. Imagine if Americans killed an Iranian or North Korean diplomat, for instance.
The relevant DM of the Rings is here
.
Of course, that assumes that Mordor was big on honouring international law in the first place. This is Middle-earth, not our world. For all we know, the standard diplomatic convention is "Don't shoot the messenger... unless he was sent by Sauron, in which case he's probably here to screw with your head so that his boss can wreck your shit with impunity. Seriously, guys. Look at Numenor. Look at those poor bastard Ringwraiths. You don't want that to happen to you, do you?"
edited 11th Oct '10 5:16:46 AM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?I just felt they invoked Rule of Cool when he broke truce by doing that. Didn't bother me since the Mouth of Sauron is an arrogant dick.
My FF.net accountAside: Funny, I didn't realize that DMOTR ended so quickly and anticlimactically; I never got around to reading the whole thing.
Second, yes, I imagine that it being a significant OOC moment on Aragorn's part is why the scene was cut from the theatrical version.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Always Chaotic Evil solves all questions of ethics and morals. If you have problems with that and would prefer real-world morality, then please consult the always-hilarious unused audio commentary for the film by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn
.
I was under the impression that it wasn't about being better than the orcs so much as not being killed about them. When you're in a Bug War, all bets are off.
Fight smart, not fair.Mouth of Sauron. What was Sauron's primary method of control for a long time, and one still used by his agent Saruman? Talking. They are beings with magically enhanced manipulation powers. In this world where magic is blurred with just plain being really good at something, your diplomat is kind of a weapon. The wizardry turns it to Blue-and-Orange Morality.
It's true that nobody on Gondor's side expected Sauron to parlay seriously with them. The whole point was to keep the distraction up as long as possible. It's also the case that Sauron thought that Aragorn, or someone near him, had the Ring, and hoped to force him to reveal himself so he could challenge the would-be Ringlord's power directly.
In the novel, when the Mouth showed them Frodo's gear, he was surprised by the depth of their reaction and realized that he had an unexpected advantage. In the film, I expect that the original idea was to have Aragorn kill the Mouth as a form of Shut Up, Hannibal!, but as we've agreed, it was cut for Moral Dissonance reasons.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"There was no diplomacy going on. They were not in the midst of negotiations.
The army rode up to the Black Gates and demanded Sauron's unconditional surrender. Period. Aragorn's speech essentially made his position very clear: "Sauron can surrender himself to our justice or you can fight all of us."
Even if the Mouth of Sauron was dumb enough to believe he was actually entering into diplomatic negotiations (hahahaha), by what Aragorn announced when they arrived he was effectively just the first guy of the Mordor army who ranged really far ahead of the ranks and then, for some silly reason, sat there and talked to them instead of fighting.
Negotiations were not violated because there were never any negotiations to violate. Sauron declared open war on the lands of Gondor and Rohan. Gondor and Rohan repelled these invasion forces, launched a retaliatory strike, and in the process of that strike said "You've got one chance to surrender or we'll kill you." The moment the Mouth said something other than "We surrender", he was fair game.
Small point, the Mouth went out to talk because that's his job- he's not a fighter like the Witch-King, his purpose is to act as Sauron's proxy, and Sauron wanted him out there demoralizing the Army of the West, as the books in particular make plain (though he also survives in the books, or at least isn't killed by Aragorn). He also probably knew full well that risking getting killed by the enemy army would be a lot kinder than what his boss would do to him if he said he really didn't want to go out there and talk after all...
- cough* Actually, in terms of perhaps the best example of international law, the Geneva Convention? Not following "the law" *specifically* gives the other part the right to disregard it themselves. Protections under the Geneva Convention only apply to those who follow it.
This never bothered me. I agree that in the original books it would have been out of place, but these are the movies. They are most decidedly not the same thing. They do get a lot of it right and capture a surprisingly large amount of the spirit of the books, but since they're action-oriented blockbuster movies, they still have to sacrifice some of the more intellectual aspects of the book to fit it into that mold.
And you know what? It works. And when that scene happened, it was immensely satisfying and didn't feel out of character for the Aragorn of the movie at all.
Besides, it's fucking Sauron. LOTR does not have a morally ambiguous Big Bad like some works. Smeagol/Gollum is there to provide some moral gray area for a villain. Sauron, on the other hand, is almost literally evil personified.
Always, somewhere, someone is fighting for you. As long as you remember them, you are not alone.

I'm sure there are entire websites devoted to people's annoyance with changes in the adaptations of Tolkien's books. I wasn't too bothered overall, but I had a few problems, one of which I'm curious what others think.
In The Return of the King, when the Mouth of Sauron tells them that Frodo has been captured, Aragorn's response is to ride up and cut his head off. This seriously bothered me from the first, as this discussion was under a banner of truce, Aragorn believed in the ideas of chivalry (although the term is never explicitly mentioned) and this is something that the noble good guy simply *does not do*!
So what did you think of this moment?