Death of the Witch King; will YOU care?
 

Is anyone else slightly concerned at the so-far-equal status of the nine Nazgul? When Eowyn and Merry slay the Witch King, why on Earth will anyone in the cinema think that it is particularly significant?<P>Surely from the very beginning, the Lord of the Nazgul should have been built up as Sauron's mightiest servant.<P>Any thoughts?

Hi im new here this is my first post.<BR>I know this is bizzare, I really wished they made a distinction between the the witch king and the rest of the nazgul, I still think none book readers will still be very impressed though, I mean think about Gollum and Aragorn go on about how they are living nor dead and "You can not kill them" This really suprised me in the book. The bane of so many being taken down by a hobbit and a lady. I think audiences will be amazed by this death even if they dont say anything in rofk movie to make him more inportant than the other nazgul.

Suilad,<P>I think that the slaying of the Witch-King will definitely leave a strong impressoin on the viewers of the movie, whether the Witch-King is built up any more than the rest of the Nazgul. If they do the attack on Minas Tirith correctly, there should be no viewer left without knowing the power of any of the wraiths (especially with the part where the wraith, don't remember if it's the big dude or not, banters with Gandalf).<P>I think that as with any other suspensful part of any other movie the effect comes with the delivery. If Peter Jackson is the awesome producer we all know him to be, the delivery given will definitely be effective.<P>~Scott

What I noticed in the preview on TTT dvd is that Gandalf does indeed confront the Witch King. I am assuming in this scene that Gandalf will say something that will give away the Nazgul's true identity.

I don't believe The Witch King got particularly special treatment until Return of the King in the books as well. It sure worked there.<P>H.C.

The fact that the Witch-King is the head Nazgul and second to Sauron is likely to be shown in the movie by the fact that it is he that is leading Sauron's forces in the battle of Pelannor Fields. One way that might be used to explain to the audience the significance of the witch-king would be to have Gandalf explaining to Pippin the history of the WK, this way could also be used to put in the prophecy that he shall not fall by the hand of man.<BR>Anyway these are just my thoughts, it will be interesting to see how Peter Jackson covers it.

This is the event that has me most on pins and needles. Jackson would definitely provide unforgettable and gasp-inducing spectacle, but would there be substance? By that I mean--until I see Battle of Pelennor Field as it is in the book, I remain skeptical of how Jackson and/or producers will deal with it. We know what they're capable of doing for Hollywood.

darn it all, i'm in school right now, but i have time to get online and stuff. i think the witch king is a key role in the books and movies. if the witch king weren't there,the terror that was put in the hobbits on weathertop would not be the same.

<p>[ September 15, 2003: Message edited by: Mithadan ]

Gimpel, that is not an appropriate post and I think it shall probably be deleted.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I don't believe The Witch King got particularly special treatment until Return of the King in the books as well. It sure worked there. (HCIsland)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Excellent point, HC. The Witch-King was only really identified in the books (before the Return of the King and the end of the Two Towers) by the cold white helm he is wearing when he stabs Frodo in the Fellowship of the Ring. It has been the same way in the movies.

sorry, lunch break. anyways<BR>"Gimpel, that is not an appropriate post and I think it shall probably be deleted."<BR>why's that?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Death of the Witch King; will YOU care? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Um, No. I do care about the great victory of Éowyn and Merry though... but the witch king, youve got to be joking.

HC, once again you point out my basic mistakes. Thanks! Of course, it didn't really happen in the books, I don't know what I was thinking.<P>However, in a vain attempt to try and save this thread, how about this for an idea. The Witch King could have been built up from the start, incorporating the prophecy of Glorfindel into the films. Aragorn could have told the Hobbits about the prophecy in Bree, and then met up with Glorfindel a few days later. <P>As the films are, its quite possible that the prophecy of Glorfindel (that the Witch King will not be slain by Man) won't make it into the film. There's a slight chance it could make it, under the guise of 'The Prophecy of Elrond' or *gasp* 'The Prophecy of Arwen'. After all, the prophecy clearly enhances the death of the Witch King.<P>Now, I think that Glorfindel should have been in the film regardless. His prophecy is maybe one of the little fruits his appearance could have born later on in the trilogy.

Whenever I mention the Witchking to any of my friends, they ask, "who's that?" so I definately think that he should have been made more significant! But even without him being shown differently than the rest of the Nazgul, The fact that he is killed will indeed stir up the audience.