Dumbing it down

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

So again, I ask why can't the witch king be killed with a sword (or dagger) to the back of the leg to down him, and a blow to the head with a sword? Just because he is powerful does not mean he is invincible.

Aragorn atBree(in the movie) 'They are the Nazgul, neither living nor dead.' This is the point. The Nazgul are not simply very powerful mortal foes. They are supernatural beings. Therefore only supernatural means may defeat them. In the book it is Merry's barrow blade which 'unknits' the WK's magically knitted together sinews,which breaks the spell & makes it possible for Eowyn's sword to destroy him. It is the fact that the blade, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor, strikes him, that enables Eowyn to dispatch him.

The WK can be 'killed' - though only in a very specific way. As I said, in the radio series the writers had to change the story to account for Merry only having a standard sword. It doesn't really work if you think about it, but at least the writers made an attempt to account for it. In short, Merry's blow with the barrow blade is vital. If we just go with the movie, why have Merry there at all? Anyone could have struck the WK an unexpected blow to distract him.

The movie spends a lot of screen time building up the WK as an overwhelmingly powerful supernatural force & then prceeds to have him 'killed' by a couple of people with normal weapons. It simply doesn't make sense. Why the build up if he can be brought down by an unexpected blow & killed by any woman who just happens to be on the field?

What this does is lessen the 'magic' & hence the significance, of the event, as well as making the WK into no more than a big powerful mortal enemy. You might as well have replaced him with a troll - in fact that would have made more sense & served the purpose of the event - to show Merry's & Eowyn's desperate act of courage. If you introduce a supremely, supernaturally, powerful foe you have to account for his destruction in a believable & convincing way.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

The movie spends a lot of screen time building up the WK as an overwhelmingly powerful supernatural force & then prceeds to have him 'killed' by a couple of people with normal weapons. It simply doesn't make sense. Why the build up if he can be brought down by an unexpected blow & killed by any woman who just happens to be on the field?

... If you introduce a supremely, supernaturally, powerful foe you have to account for his destruction in a believable & convincing way.

Which is why I consider this an inconsistency on PJ's part.

However, again assume non-reading viewer - how was the mightly Sauron brought down? A seemingly normal blade, broken at that, cut his ringed finger off. Seemingly the sword could have dismembered him too, given the chance (I have visions of Sauron ala the armless, legless knight of Grail fame ). His underling, WK, could be dealt a similar blow as he had a ring too.

And in regards to the flight/fight comment, I hide behind the fact that the WK was undead, meaning that obviously knee stabs and dog bites would freeze him. Note that one of the Nazgul does not attack the hobbit with the dogs (though the dogs cowered, it was just to set up a sneak attack). And Farmer Maggot is the example from the books.

If only the Rohirrim had ridden dogs...big dogs...with lasers...

[The Saucepan Man]

I am somewhat mystified as to why I am continually being pulled up on this thread for my references to the popularity of the films. I thought that I had made by position perfectly clear.

I am not saying that anyone’s (adverse) opinion on the films is wrong simply by virtue of the fact that they are popular. I fully respect that everyone has, and is entitled to, his or her own opinion. Nor am I saying that anyone should like them because they are popular. And I am most definitely not saying that the fact that they are popular means that they could not have been better. My opinion is that they could have been better and remained just as popular, if not more so. But, as I have said, you could say that about just about anything.

I do think that they would not have been as popular if some of the changes made to the story and the characters, with a view to (necessarily) simplifying the films and broadening their appeal, had not been made. In other words, I think that many (although not all) of the decisions taken with a view to achieving this goal were good ones. That is purely my opinion, although it is based on my own perceptions and experiences. I have no problem if people choose to take a different view, based on their own perceptions and experiences.

But I do firmly believe that, when we are discussing the merits of the films and considering the extent to which they have been (to use that expression that I dislike so much in this context) “dumbed down” and why the story and the characters were changed in the ways that they were, then their popularity is a relevant factor. In seeking (as far as we are able) to establish on an objective basis the merits of the films as films, their (popular and critical) appeal must surely be a factor. If they are popular and successful, then they must be doing something right (and all the more so if their popularity acquires a lasting quality, although we can only speculate on that at this stage). I am not seeking to suggest that this is the only factor in determining their quality, and there have been some compelling critiques on this thread of certain aspects of the films which do, to my mind, speak to their quality. But it is a factor nevertheless.

Moreover, almost without exception, the changes that were made were made with the aim of enhancing their success as films. Why else would they make them? They wanted the films to succeed as films and to appeal to as many people as possible. And the popularity of the films, to my mind, suggests that they succeeded in this aim. In all likelihood, they could have achieved greater success by making different choices. But, the way I see it, the fact is that they made the choices that they did and those choices were (broadly) successful ones in the context of what they were trying to achieve. The fact that inconsistencies were introduced as a result does not change that, although I fully accept that it is a relevant factor when considering their quality (provided that one takes into account the incredible difficulty involved in adapting such a complex and carefully crafted book to the screen).

In addition, given that this thread has, at certain points during its history, become rather a cosy film “hate-in”, I thought it worth pointing out that the majority view here is not the only view, in order to bring a bit of persepctive to the discussion. There are many many people out there that consider these films to be great films. Whether you agree with them or not, that is, in my view, a relevant factor in this discussion.

And finally, in view of some of the contemptuous terms used to describe these films and the oft prevailing opinion that Jackson and co “messed up big time”, I regard it as appropriate to point out that there are many respects in which they did not “mess up” at all, but rather succeeded wildly.

Again, I am not suggesting that anyone should alter their views on these films simply because they are popular. Neither am I suggesting that their popularity alone establishes their quality as films. I am merely raising it as a factor relevant to this discussion.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I do think that they would not have been as popular if some of the changes made to the story and the characters, with a view to (necessarily) simplifying the films and broadening their appeal, had not been made.

That's speculation. We have no way of knowing how popular the films may have been if certain changes were made; we just know that in their present form that they were successful. Of course if PJ would have listened to me...

If they are popular and successful, then they must be doing something right (and all the more so if their popularity acquires a lasting quality, although we can only speculate on that at this stage).

Much agreed. Let's see where the films are twenty years from now. Note that (an assumption, as I'm a bit out of her demographic) Britney Spears is wildly popular now, but will she become a true classic such as the Beatles or Led Zeppelin? <shudder>. And unlike LOTR, I have never reread a Wheel of Time book, yet I assume that they too are popular. <more shuddering>

Moreover, almost without exception, the changes that were made were made with the aim of enhancing their success as films. Why else would they make them?

Didn't someone post that certain changes were made to 'shock' the likes of us readers? And my gripe (admittedly I have more than one) is that the EE DVDs progressed from 'made for the Tolkien nut' (FOTR EE) to 'heck, let's try this as it would be so cool/funny/etc' (ROTK EE). I do appreciate PJ's work, as without him we would have nothing.

In addition, given that this thread has, at certain points during its history, become rather a cosy film “hate-in”, I thought it worth pointing out that the majority view here is not the only view, in order to bring a bit of persepctive to the discussion.

And finally, in view of some of the contemptuous terms used to describe these films and the oft prevailing opinion that Jackson and co “messed up big time”, I regard it as appropriate to point out that there are many respects in which they did not “mess up” at all, but rather succeeded wildly.

Agreed. Yet it may be that we are pointing out what we do not like (10%) and have forgotten to mention the other 90% as it's not that fun or interesting. Think that this all was discussed here.

[Essex]

Davem, sorry but your point re the Nazgul

Therefore only supernatural means may defeat them.

Why? Is there a Fantasy Equation out there that specifies this?

Let's forget the books for a second, again.

Movie wise, Saruman was killed by a blade and falling onto a Spike. He, being a Wizard, shows to the average non book reading movie goer that 'higher' beings can be killed by conventional means. Therefore the moive Witch King can also be killed this way. So, to me, there is no problem in Merry / Eowyn killing him with conventional weapons.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

Movie wise, Saruman was killed by a blade and falling onto a Spike. He, being a Wizard, shows to the average non book reading movie goer that 'higher' beings can be killed by conventional means. Therefore the moive Witch King can also be killed this way. So, to me, there is no problem in Merry / Eowyn killing him with conventional weapons.

After he had been defeated by Gandalf & his staff had been broken. The WK, on the other hand, was at the height of his powers on the battlefield & had just cast down Gandalf & broken his staff. Also, Saruman, like all the Istari, had a physical body, somewhat akin the the Elves in that if it aged at all it was only incredibly slowly. The exact nature of the WK's physical presence is not the same.

[Boromir88]

Movies today in general, are dumbed down...the average known vocabulary for a highschool student today is 10,000 words. In 1985 it was 25,000. I guess directors just don't think they can introduce a complicated film to our audience today, without attracting the teenage goers who are the ones who make up a lot of the audience in the theatres. I know before I watched FOTR at the theatres, I hadn't seen a movie there for about 3 years. After ROTK the only movie I've seen that the theatres was "National Treasure." Directors have gone away from some of the old days with multiple sub-plots, character changes, camera technology/moviement, and have replaced it with SFX and young studs.

[Essex]

davem,

Also, Saruman, like all the Istari, had a physical body, somewhat akin the the Elves in that if it aged at all it was only incredibly slowly. The exact nature of the WK's physical presence is not the same

Yes, but we're talking MOVIE WISE here. No non lotr reading average movie goes knows what you're on about there.

Also, didn't Aragorn manage to waylay the nazgul using Fire and his Sword? and that wasn't a magic sword in the movie either!

Does it matter how powerful the Witch King was? You stil haven't explained why a 'higher' being CANNOT be mamied / killed by conventional weapons.

But that's where we differ. You think he can't be killed by a standard weapon, but average movie goers might not think this.

For the last few posts I've been looking at it solely from a movie point of view, as brought to my mind by Alatar, as this is what is annoying a lot of people on this thread - the consistency of the MOVIE.

Therefore, as examples in the movie:

Wizard killed by a blade
other wizard saved from probable death from a blade
Nazgul waylaid by fire and an ordinary sword
balrog defeated by a blade (which in the movie we have no knowledge is 'special')

why can't the Witch King be defeated by conventional means? Why make him invincible to these means?

Sorry to keep repeating myself. As you may have seen in other posts, when I watch this scene as a book reader I see Merry unkitting the witch king's sinews with the blade he got from the barrow. I can do this.

But my views above are contending against people's views on this thread that the scene doesn't work for the average movie goer. I say it does. You say it doesn't. We'll probably never see eye to eye on this.......