The Nazgul: do you feel they made them look weak?

Not a surprise, but I agree with Beryl and Vuron. The Nazgul did look good, but the way they portrayed them in the movie was week. Every time the Nazgul were close to Frodo, I felt like I was watching one of those Sci-Fi Channel horror films where the "bad guy" could have captured his prey 6 or 7 times already, but for some reason doesn't seem to want to walk fast enough to catch up with him. Again, this point stands whether you've read the books or not-it was just poorly done. I mean c'mon! Who is scared of something that is five feet from the "good guy" (weathertop), knows the ring is on his finger and then takes a stinkin' nap before he does anything to acquire his prize?! The aliens in "Aliens" were better enemies: when they saw what they wanted they wasted no time in trying to get it.<BR> Now, I did say before that the nazgul were weak whether you'd read the LOTR or not, and without suggesting, although I think Beryl is right, that PJ should have given us some background on these guys, consider this: Why couldn't PJ have done what he should have done in many other places in the film. That is, STICK TO THE BOOK! It would not have damaged the rest of the movie at all if the nazgul king had "sprang forward and bore down on Frodo"; nor would it have hurt if in response Frodo "struck at the feet of his enemy". The result would have been a more terrifying, no-nonsense nazgul, along with a more courageous and Took-like Frodo; both of which would have been more enjoyable in film form. This is not one of those things that PJ "just could not have done with his limited resources, and limited time" as so many seem to be commenting. It could simply have been appropriately done, by sticking to the book. He could have handed his actors a copy and said, "Here. Do it like this".<P>Elrian: Who said otherwise?<P>[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]<p>[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]