Thranduil killing the prisoner

[axordil]

Elves can't help being style statements.

But what I took away about Thranduil was less "cool" than "cold"...and scared.

[N.E. Brigand]

In the essay on Orcs in the "Myths Transformed" section of Morgoth's Ring, he wrote:

Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defense of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost.* This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded.

[Footnote to the text]*Few Orcs ever did so in the Elder Days, and at no time would any Orc treat with any Elf. For one thing Morgoth had achieved was to convince the Orcs beyond refutation that the Elves were crueler than themselves, taking captives only for 'amusement', or to eat them (as the Orcs would do at need).

Yes, that was the text I was thinking of.

I haven't watched the extended editions of Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies, but I know that some people were bothered by Aragorn killing the Mouth of Sauron. Is this similar?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Somewhat similar, at least on the surface. Aragorn's beheading of the Mouth of Sauron was unethical because he attacked an ambassador. Thranduil's beheading of this orc was unethical because he was a prisoner and because he had given his word that he would "free" the Orc if he answered their questions. But I would argue that Aragorn's action was completely against the character as written by Tolkien. I would not say that is true about Thranduil's.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Agreed. The Aragorn moment with the Mouth was a travesty. I have no problem with Thranduil's action, in terms of its consistency with his character.

[yovargas]

Whereas I never had a problem with Aragorn. They were at war. The Mouth was not sent as an "ambassador" but as another act of war, an attack from The Enemy. Destroying it was entirely justifiable IMO.

[N.E. Brigand]

Whereas I never had a problem with Aragorn. They were at war. The Mouth was not sent as an "ambassador" but as another act of war, an attack from The Enemy. Destroying it was entirely justifiable IMO.

Does "it" refer to this attack (which again, I haven't seen) or to the MoS, and if the latter why "destroying it" rather than "killing him"?

[Smaug's voice]

Whereas I never had a problem with Aragorn. They were at war. The Mouth was not sent as an "ambassador" but as another act of war, an attack from The Enemy. Destroying it was entirely justifiable IMO.

Agree with yovargas, here. As I always state, the books are mythologies - stories made (and evolved) from what really happened. But in the film, we are seeing the real events. In a real war, I don't think someone would think as much of what morally is right or wrong in a crucial moment as that of how to win a the situation.
In this case, Mouth was threatening to weaken the assaulters morally by exposing their key force - Gandalf's weakness. By giving him news of Frodo's death.
Aragorn sees Mouth demoralizing his men, his troops. Considering the huge risk they all had taken, their only hope to survive was to live out the battle as long as they could. And low spirits certainly don't help.

Seeing this and -whether he truly believed it or not- he kills the Mouth so that his soldiers could regain their morale.

This scene also, for me, added depth to Aragorn as a great leader. Someone who doesn't lose his heart by the treacheries of evil. Someone who always keeps hoping against all hope. ("There is always hope"~TTT)

[Passdagas the Brown]

In this case, Mouth was threatening to weaken the assaulters morally by exposing their key force - Gandalf's weakness. By giving him news of Frodo's death.
Aragorn sees Mouth demoralizing his men, his troops. Considering the huge risk they all had taken, their only hope to survive was to live out the battle as long as they could. And low spirits certainly don't help.

Seeing this and -whether he truly believed it or not- he kills the Mouth so that his soldiers could regain their morale.

I understand the rationale behind it. But based on the ethical constitution of Aragorn, I think it is out of character.

By your logic, seizing the Ring, and enhancing the power (and thus, the morale) of all the free peoples of Middle Earth would also be justified. There are some red lines for certain characters that should not be crossed, IMO, and the red line Aragorn crossed is one of them.

Heck, the entirety of LOTR is about rejecting the practical and expedient solution: Keep the Ring! Why have Aragorn embrace the practical and expedient solution in his dealings with the Mouth of Sauron, when he has rejected such a solution in relation to the Ring?

[kzer_za]

A lot of good points in this topic - you guys have convinced that it's not out of character for Thranduil. Though it is still kind of jarring set with the rest of the movie's sort of casual and flippant attitude toward violence (arguably more than any other Middle-earth movie - even AUJ has Azanulbizar to emphasize that war is costly and serious). After one viewing, this is my only major complaint with DoS besides "Taurili."

I agree that Aragorn beheading the Mouth of Sauron was a terrible idea and possibly the worst thing PJ ever filmed. Especially since they specifically say in the book that he's a messenger and shouldn't be harmed!

[yovargas]

Heck, the entirety of LOTR is about rejecting the practical and expedient solution: Keep the Ring!

Keeping the Ring is not practical since everyone knows it corrupts people and generally drives people mad or worse. If it wasn't for that, it'd be pretty stupid for them to not use it.

[N.E. Brigand]

As I always state, the books are mythologies -- stories made (and evolved) from what really happened. But in the film, we are seeing the real events.

Interesting. I tend to see it the other way around.

(Edited to fix misapplied quote function.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In this case, Mouth was threatening to weaken the assaulters morally by exposing their key force - Gandalf's weakness. By giving him news of Frodo's death.
Aragorn sees Mouth demoralizing his men, his troops. Considering the huge risk they all had taken, their only hope to survive was to live out the battle as long as they could. And low spirits certainly don't help.

Seeing this and -whether he truly believed it or not- he kills the Mouth so that his soldiers could regain their morale.

I understand the rationale behind it. But based on the ethical constitution of Aragorn, I think it is out of character.

By your logic, seizing the Ring, and enhancing the power (and thus, the morale) of all the free peoples of Middle Earth would also be justified. There are some red lines for certain characters that should not be crossed, IMO, and the red line Aragorn crossed is one of them.

Heck, the entirety of LOTR is about rejecting the practical and expedient solution: Keep the Ring! Why have Aragorn embrace the practical and expedient solution in his dealings with the Mouth of Sauron, when he has rejected such a solution in relation to the Ring?

Maybe an even better example from the film story is that if Aragorn were to take the practical and expedient path, he would not have released the green scrubbing bubbles, erm, I mean the Dead, and instead would have compelled them to fight on until the end. But because he gave his word, he was honor-bound to release them.

(As aside, there is nothing in either AUJ or particularly DoS that comes close to approaching the green scrubbing bubbles in idiocy.)

[yovargas]

(As aside, there is nothing in either AUJ or particularly DoS that comes close to approaching the green scrubbing bubbles in idiocy.)

How so?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I suppose it is a matter of opinion, but to me it is self-evident. The Dead sweeping through the battlefield and the city and killing everything they touch, just by touching them rendered everything else virtually irrelevant. Plus, it just looked stupid; it didn't even have the benefit of being "kewl". There wasn't anything like that in either Hobbit movie.

My opinion, of course.

[yovargas]

I don't disagree that it's dumb but...it's been a long while since I read the book, but isn't that essentially what happens?

[Passdagas the Brown]

Heck, the entirety of LOTR is about rejecting the practical and expedient solution: Keep the Ring!

Keeping the Ring is not practical since everyone knows it corrupts people and generally drives people mad or worse. If it wasn't for that, it'd be pretty stupid for them to not use it.

I'm not sure "everyone" knows that. It's essentially a few wise men and women that hold this view. Others, including Boromir, likely interpret that "corruption" differently. They see the establishment of a good "power" as a necessary evil in the face of Sauron. Though Boromir realizes the folly of this perspective after he assaults Frodo...

[yovargas]

But when you say "the entirety of LOTR is about rejecting the practical and expedient solution" - the ones who did the rejecting did it because they knew it wasn't practical and expedient.

[Passdagas the Brown]

In this case, Mouth was threatening to weaken the assaulters morally by exposing their key force - Gandalf's weakness. By giving him news of Frodo's death.
Aragorn sees Mouth demoralizing his men, his troops. Considering the huge risk they all had taken, their only hope to survive was to live out the battle as long as they could. And low spirits certainly don't help.

Seeing this and -whether he truly believed it or not- he kills the Mouth so that his soldiers could regain their morale.

I understand the rationale behind it. But based on the ethical constitution of Aragorn, I think it is out of character.

By your logic, seizing the Ring, and enhancing the power (and thus, the morale) of all the free peoples of Middle Earth would also be justified. There are some red lines for certain characters that should not be crossed, IMO, and the red line Aragorn crossed is one of them.

Heck, the entirety of LOTR is about rejecting the practical and expedient solution: Keep the Ring! Why have Aragorn embrace the practical and expedient solution in his dealings with the Mouth of Sauron, when he has rejected such a solution in relation to the Ring?

Maybe an even better example from the film story is that if Aragorn were to take the practical and expedient path, he would not have released the green scrubbing bubbles, erm, I mean the Dead, and instead would have compelled them to fight on until the end. But because he gave his word, he was honor-bound to release them.

(As aside, there is nothing in either AUJ or particularly DoS that comes close to approaching the green scrubbing bubbles in idiocy.)

That is a better example. Also,on principle, Aragorn refused to enter Minas Tirith until the rule of the Stewards was formally relinquished. I bring this up because it shows how committed to principle book Aragorn is. This type of principled individual would never have violated the rules regarding emissaries - even if that emissary is delivering demoralizing news.

[Passdagas the Brown]

But when you say "the entirety of LOTR is about rejecting the practical and expedient solution" - the ones who did the rejecting did it because they knew it wasn't practical and expedient.

Not exactly. They did it because they felt it was the right thing to do (based on their perception that the Ring is altogether corrupting). The fact that is wasn't practical and expedient is simply a consequence of that, not a motivator.

After all, if the Ring could have been destroyed in Frodo's fireplace, Gandalf would have done it! He wouldn't have said: "No, no, that's too practical and expedient. Instead, I'll send an innocent hobbit on a suicide march across the whole of Middle Earth into Mordor, so he can toss it in a volcano!"

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't disagree that it's dumb but...it's been a long while since I read the book, but isn't that essentially what happens?

Not at all, the Dead never come to the Pelennor or Minas Tirith. Nor do they kill things simply by touching them. They help Aragorn capture the Black Ships and Umbar, basically by terrifying the Corsairs. Aragorn releases them from their oath at that point, and then he comes to Minas Tirith's rescue with those ships filled with Gondorians.