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?