Dumbing it down - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Essex · 03-10-2005, 05:52 AM

Davem, sorry but your point re the Nazgul

Quote:

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 · 03-10-2005, 06:09 AM

Quote:

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 · 03-10-2005, 06:19 AM

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 · 03-10-2005, 06:36 AM

davem,

Quote:

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.......

Lalwendë · 03-10-2005, 07:00 AM

I think that there is one major difference between the Istari and the WK which explains why the latter cannot be despatched (I prefer to say despatched, as I'm not sure 'killed' is the right word) by any conventional weapon. The difference is that the WK is already effectively dead. He has no body, he is a wraith, and this is made clear in the film. I would expect anyone who watches attentively, book reader or no, to notice this fact, and so they might reasonably ask questions. As to how Aragorn chases the wraiths in the film, they are presented as being afraid of fire and he drives them back while the Hobbits make a run for it. I'd presume by this logic that this is why WK wants to break Gandalf's staff, after all, he's a;ready used it to drive off the fell beasts on the Pelennor Fields. I'll not get into the whole Istari thing though, not yet anyway...

Essex · 03-10-2005, 09:02 AM

no, not dead, but as davem points out, they are neither dead nor living.

what's this then. Undead?

Hmm, what other major character do we have in literature (and movies) that was undead?

Dracula.

A supernatural being you might say. he could change his form into all sorts of things.

Now, how was he killed, in the book as well as in the movies? Ah yes, with a wooden stake to the heart.

Very conventional!

PS

Quote:

He has no body, he is a wraith, and this is made clear in the film.

it's made clear they have no bodies? not to me it isn't. ok, so you can;t see their faces behind the masks, but would the average movie goer think that they don't have bodies?

Again, I'm taking this perspective from the movies alone. It's quite fun working it out and arguing the points from a different perspective. thanks for the heads up, alatar!

**The Saucepan Man** · 03-10-2005, 12:27 PM

I suspect that the "average movie-goer" would not give the matter quite the same degree of thought as is being exhibited here.

davem · 03-10-2005, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essex

Hmm, what other major character do we have in literature (and movies) that was undead?

Dracula.

A supernatural being you might say. he could change his form into all sorts of things.

Now, how was he killed, in the book as well as in the movies? Ah yes, with a wooden stake to the heart.

Very conventional!

I'm not sure about this argument - Dracula is vampire & only certain things will kill a vampire - wooden stakes, running water, sunlight, etc. In the same way only the Barrow sword could make the invulnerable WK vulnerable to Eowyn's sword strike.

The point is, the WK should be difficult to kill, just as Dracula is. His death requires the right kind of weapon, employed by the right person, in the right circumstances ...

mark12_30 · 03-11-2005, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essex

it's made clear they have no bodies? not to me it isn't. ok, so you can;t see their faces behind the masks, but would the average movie goer think that they don't have bodies?

Something holds up those clothes. The black robes are in this world; their armor and other clothing is in the wraith-world. You see when Frodo puts the ring on that they do have bodies... nasty shrivelled ones.

(Edit: the word 'mummified' comes to mind...)

03-10-2005, 07:00 AM	#5
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	I think that there is one major difference between the Istari and the WK which explains why the latter cannot be despatched (I prefer to say despatched, as I'm not sure 'killed' is the right word) by any conventional weapon. The difference is that the WK is already effectively dead. He has no body, he is a wraith, and this is made clear in the film. I would expect anyone who watches attentively, book reader or no, to notice this fact, and so they might reasonably ask questions. As to how Aragorn chases the wraiths in the film, they are presented as being afraid of fire and he drives them back while the Hobbits make a run for it. I'd presume by this logic that this is why WK wants to break Gandalf's staff, after all, he's a;ready used it to drive off the fell beasts on the Pelennor Fields. I'll not get into the whole Istari thing though, not yet anyway... __________________ Gordon's alive!

03-10-2005, 12:27 PM	#7
The Saucepan Man Corpus Cacophonous Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: A green and pleasant land Posts: 8,390	I suspect that the "average movie-goer" would not give the matter quite the same degree of thought as is being exhibited here. __________________ Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!

03-10-2005, 06:19 AM	#3
Boromir88 Laconic Loreman Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: USA Posts: 7,521	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.