The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Boromir88 · 03-07-2005, 06:32 PM

This thread here goes into some of the changes made by Jackson and team, and explaining why they decided to do what they did...it may be of some interest.

Then this one brings me to a key point. You can't take things explained in the book, that weren't shown in the movie, and say "it doesn't work in the movie." If you want to explain how something doesn't work in the movie, then stay within the movie's context. The recent debate seems to be the Withch-king Merry sequence...

Since nothing is in the movies is shown about a special sword specifically designed to harm the witch-king we must assume that any sword would be able to do so. Does this weaken the WK's power? Possibly, we'll look at that a little later. First however...I'll let you know any blow to the knee is going to hurt, speaking from experience from tearing my ACL, it's going to hurt if you get stabbed in the back of the knee, so you're going to go down. Heck them whip out batons the police you, a crack from them in the knee, you're down...it's a very vulnerable spot.

Jackson has nothing on the sword of westernesse, so now we must think does it weaken the WK's character from being struck in a vulnerable spot, that will likely bring you down? The Wikkie doesn't do nearly as much as he does in the book. If you ask me Gothmog seems more in command of the armies then the WK, there is nothing to show that Wikkie had anything to do with breaking the walls of Minas Tirith...The one arguable scene we see, that could possibly fit in, would be WK owning Gandalf. Which happens to bring up another question about inconsistancy in the films...Gandalf the grey able to defeat a Balrog, but Gandalf the White is owned by the WK? So, did it weaken Wikkie's power by having him stabbed in the back of a knee by a "normal" sword? That I'll leave for the debaters, I'm merely a messenger, I know nothing

.

03-07-2005, 06:32 PM	#250
Boromir88 Laconic Loreman Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: USA Posts: 7,521	This thread here goes into some of the changes made by Jackson and team, and explaining why they decided to do what they did...it may be of some interest. Then this one brings me to a key point. You can't take things explained in the book, that weren't shown in the movie, and say "it doesn't work in the movie." If you want to explain how something doesn't work in the movie, then stay within the movie's context. The recent debate seems to be the Withch-king Merry sequence... Since nothing is in the movies is shown about a special sword specifically designed to harm the witch-king we must assume that any sword would be able to do so. Does this weaken the WK's power? Possibly, we'll look at that a little later. First however...I'll let you know any blow to the knee is going to hurt, speaking from experience from tearing my ACL, it's going to hurt if you get stabbed in the back of the knee, so you're going to go down. Heck them whip out batons the police you, a crack from them in the knee, you're down...it's a very vulnerable spot. Jackson has nothing on the sword of westernesse, so now we must think does it weaken the WK's character from being struck in a vulnerable spot, that will likely bring you down? The Wikkie doesn't do nearly as much as he does in the book. If you ask me Gothmog seems more in command of the armies then the WK, there is nothing to show that Wikkie had anything to do with breaking the walls of Minas Tirith...The one arguable scene we see, that could possibly fit in, would be WK owning Gandalf. Which happens to bring up another question about inconsistancy in the films...Gandalf the grey able to defeat a Balrog, but Gandalf the White is owned by the WK? So, did it weaken Wikkie's power by having him stabbed in the back of a knee by a "normal" sword? That I'll leave for the debaters, I'm merely a messenger, I know nothing . Last edited by Boromir88; 03-07-2005 at 06:36 PM.