Doesn't it come back to bite them all in the backside? I wondered if this was one of those acts that would prove to have a beneficial purpose, like not killing Gollum led to the destruction of the ring.
Aragorn says that it is because enough blood has been spilled on account of Wormwood already, but that just seems too simplistic and not enough of a morality tale for the LOTR series.
2007-12-20 06:15:55 · 5 answers · asked by because u don't APPLY urself 4 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
I stand corrected! Wormtongue. Thanks.
2007-12-20 06:28:56 · update #1
First, it's Wormtongue.
Second, it was actually Gandalf's decision to let him go (in the book, if not in the movie).
Third, once his influence over Theoden was broken, he could do no more harm, so it would serve no purpose to kill him, other than revenge.
Fourth, in the book (although not in the movie) it was Wormtongue who threw the Palantir out of Orthanc, hoping to hit and kill one of Gandalf's party.
I've always thought it was a mistake to not include in the movie, Gandalf and Theoden's parlay with Saruman at Orthanc after the Ents and Huorns had defeated Saruman. It's a great scene and symbolically passes the mantle of leadership of the Wizards from Saruman to Gandalf.
You should really read the books. They are much richer and much more detailed than the movies.
.
2007-12-20 06:29:13 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe you're talking about Grima Wormtongue.
The funny thing about the trilogy is that neither Grima nor his master Saruman were killed for their actions. Instead, the Ents made a huge lake in what was once Isengard, trapping them both in the tower. In the books, that wasn't the end of their part in the story. Later on, on the journey home (the journey they don't show in the movies) they run into Grima and Saruman, and if I remember correctly, they had taken over the Shire, and Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin had to liberate their fellow hobbits.
That's why J.R.R. Tolkien let them live. He wanted the hobbits to have a nice welcome home. So yes, it did bite them in the backside.
2007-12-20 06:41:25 · answer #2 · answered by hermione_bjc_06 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
His name is Wormtongue, not Wormwood. As for why Aragorn said to let him go, I'm not sure. It was probably just a nice little thing to put in there for no real reason.
And Wormtail is Peter Pettigrew from Harry Potter.
2007-12-20 06:23:09 · answer #3 · answered by Muse - Viktor's Mommy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's just because Aragorn had honor, and didn't enjoy killing human beings. He just wanted to see all the bloodshed stop. Killing Wormtounge wouldn't stop the war from happening, but by showing him mercy Aragorn was hoping Wormtounge would see the error of his ways and reform. I guess it didn't work. Instead of thinking of this part as a moral story think of it as a test of Aragorn as a leader. Kings are supposed to be merciful, especially to the meek and petty.
2007-12-20 06:44:55 · answer #4 · answered by Johnny Afman 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
this is my favorite movie on the planet!! his name's wormtail by the way, at least im pretty sure, but he lets him go because he didnt want to sink as low as him becuase you know how he always argues with himself about how he hates being human and thinks somehow he'll do somehting that will get the ring back to sauron.
2007-12-20 06:22:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋