Dumbing it down

[alatar]

Originally Posted by lord of dor-lomin

Yes! Thank you! It was a problem that could've been fixed. Someone could've said (Elrond, Gandalf, Galadriel, or Aragorn) when looking at the blade, "Hey, this blade was forged specifically to kill the WK". I know that seems like dumbing it down, but Tolkien was very clear on this point. When Merry stabbed TWK Tolkien specifically said that no other blade in the world, though wielded by a mighty warrior, could have hurt TWK so bad- so making it obvious would not have dumbed the movie down.

When Aragorn gives the hobbits their swords, it looks like he found them somewhere (in a junk pile) and hands them over, like, "here, these are better than sticks."

The boy's (Haleth?) sword at Helm's Deep gets more attention and scrutiny.

And why did PJ have Merry's blade wither? Was this to show that something important happened? I don't think that Eowyn's blade suffered so.

[lord of dor-lomin]

And why did PJ have Merry's blade wither?

I thought that every blade that touched TWK was supposed to do that. Did Eowyn's not bust? Or did she drop it too quick to tell?

The boy's (Haleth?) sword at Helm's Deep gets more attention and scrutiny.

Yeah. Can you get any more addle-brained, PJ? Bring in some little kid and have Aragorn swing his sword around (something that was pointless and made up) and don't explain Merry's sword (something that was important and in the book).

Makes sense to me.

When Aragorn gives the hobbits their swords, it looks like he found them somewhere (in a junk pile) and hands them over, like, "here, these are better than sticks."

Ha ha ha!!

You're right on! That's exactly what it was like!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the film, doesn't Merry stab the WK with the dagger he was given by Galadriel in Lorien?? There's not much of a big deal made of that blade, but it was from the White Lady. . .

Or did he use the sword of the Rohirrim given him by Eowyn. . .?

Either way, I too would have liked a bit of an explanation as to the magical provenance of Merry's blade, but I don't think it's necessary. The WK is not diminished by the lack of magic-blade in anyway -- just look at the size of his mace!!!

WHAZZOK!

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the film, doesn't Merry stab the WK with the dagger he was given by Galadriel in Lorien?? There's not much of a big deal made of that blade, but it was from the White Lady. . .

Or did he use the sword of the Rohirrim given him by Eowyn. . .?

Not sure with what sword he is armed. Assume that it was either the one given to him by Aragorn or the one gifted by Galadriel. Most likely the one he received at Weathertop (just thinking about what it looked like when he uses it on the Pelennor fields). How does he get either back after his Uruk Hai riding experience? I can't remember seeing his sword being returned to him when he meets the three hunters at Orthanc.

We readers all know how he gets his sword back, but what assumption did the average movie-goer make, or wasn't it that important as seemingly any sharp object wielded by a Hobbit will do?

[lord of dor-lomin]

The WK is not diminished by the lack of magic-blade in anyway

I wouldn't say that. He kills Theoden, defeats Gandalf, and has the whole "no man can kill" line stuck on him, and as you said, with his mace and all he looks like an absolute beast...

...but then he gets killed in a weak, dumb way. That is definitely getting "diminished".

No doubt about that. You can't argue it. As someone said a few pages ago, he gets poked by a knife and proceeds to kneel down in front of Eowyn for ten minutes and allows her to take off her helmet, say her line, and stab him in the face. How stupid is that?

That's the same way you'd kill some little orc that got on your nerves. The only difference was that TWK's face crumpled up before he died. Ooh, aah, nice visual effect... that cool face crumple action sure makes up for his weak death now, doesn't it? Almost makes me forget he went out like a punk.

[Lathriel]

After reading this thread I began to understand something about why I like the movies so much.

Although I compare the books to the movies like anybody else, I enjoy them appart. (As has been said already) However, I also look at the movies like a piece of art. It is very difficult not to. I think you guys are forgetting that this movie does represent the view of the people who worked on it, which happens with any play/movie that you see, You can't expect the movie to be exactly as you imagined it because the people who made it are different from you. They live differently and have different point of views so they will see the book differently as well.

In this thread it seems that you guys believe it isn't allowed to look at things i from another point of view.So if you want the movie the way you imagined it, go ahead, make it.

Of course I also see there are faults but I just let it lie and accept that everyone sees things from another perspective.

P.S. You also have to remeber that PJ couldn't just focus on the script alone. he had other things to do like directing a movie! Which means overseeing the art department, WETA, the costumes, the sets etc.

[the phantom]

Oh, don't give me all that "different point of view/perspective" stuff. I already addressed that a few pages back when I said this-

Most of the complaints have nothing to do with PJ's "vision" (or personal interpretation) of the story.

If PJ thinks that elves have pointy ears and you don't agree, or if he thinks that Faramir is 6'4" but you think he's 6'6"- that would be where his "vision of the story" would come into play.

But what about having Faramir taking Frodo to Osgiliath? You could read the entire book upside down and backwards and there's still no possible way you could view or interpret the story like that.

Most all of our complaints are about things that were added (to the detriment of the story) or about things that were taken out where the resulting loose ends were left dangling.

Such things have no relation whatsoever to PJ's different "point of view".

You can't expect the movie to be exactly as you imagined it

I seriously doubt that any of us ever harbored such utopian hopes, but we did, perhaps, expect there to be no glaring errors or inconsistencies introduced by complete departures from the text. Was such an expectation unreasonable?