Bad Bricklaying in The Return of the King.

[Lianachan]

and in their discussion on the walls of Osgiliath, well seeing the Witchking talk to himself would have been dafter than just having the actor talking to himself

I didn't think you'd mention that. I thought it went without saying that I didn't mean a literal replacement in each shot, particularly that one. A treatment of Wiki and Gothmog as per the book is all I'm getting at. Army commanded by Wiki, with Gothmog (his Lieutenant) assuming command once he is killed - if he's in it at all. His confrontation with Gandalf should also have been as per the book, mounted on his horse entering the gate - with the original dialogue.

*edit - I'm not a slavering book purist. I realise changes have to be made when adapting a book, especially one like LotR, for film. Tolkien realised (and wrote about) that too. Jackson's treatment of Gothmog is just one of the changes that grates for me.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The Witchking has far more power leading the Nazgul in aerial attacks on the backs of Hellbeasts than he would have had standing on the ground with the orcs. He would not have made a good replacement for Gothmog in the attack on Osgiliath, nor on the Fields of Pelennor. . .

In the book, the Witch-King was on horseback for the attack on Gondor. He didn't switch to his winged mount until the Rohirrim arrived, which was as he was confronting Gandalf just inside the main gate of Minas Tirith.

The orcs needed a personality to embody them in the movie, just as Lurch did the Uruk-Hai in FotR, Gothmog is used as the embodiment of the Orcs in RotK. That is also the reason he got the Screen time. The Orcs were there and visible, so there leader was made so. The Nazgul were shadows that whould strike without warning, using fear and surprise. Dangling them out there all the time and grounding their king in the mire of the orcs would have done little for the character, in fact it would have severly harmed the power it had built up by reducing it to a mundane leader rather then the powerful and awesome being it was meant to be.

From the books it seems to me that the orcs were driven, more than anything, by the will of Sauron. At the final confrontation at the Morannon, when the Ring is finally destroyed, Sauron's army scatters. In the movie this looked like it was nothing more than, "Oh, crap!" In the book, the army began to waver when Frodo put on the Ring. That's because Sauron ceased concentrating on the battle and turned all his attention to Mount Doom.

Obviously there's need for lower level command, though. Personally, I'm not disappointed with the Witch-King's role in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields in the movies, but I think they trumped up Gothmog way too much.

I really liked the movies, but I think Peter Jackson could've made Sauron's influence on the battles a bit more evident.

Edit: Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia of Arda have a little information about Gothmog.

[PhantomWolf]

Personally I have more of a problem with the way they handled Faramir. I felt he come off too much the clone of Boromir whereas in the book he is closer to a Aragorn figure. That was much of the friction between he and Denethor, that Boromir was like his father, while Faramir was more like the Numenor of old. By turning him into a figure that was more like Boromir it affected not only him, but Denethor. It loses the whole area of why Denethor treats Faramir like he does, just turning it into a case of, you aren't your brother.

[James_Digriz]

Personally I have more of a problem with the way they handled Faramir. I felt he come off too much the clone of Boromir whereas in the book he is closer to a Aragorn figure.

Do you mean in his Battle Prowess or resistence to the ring or both? They said they couldn't show him to be as resistent to the ring as he was in the book becuase it would ruin the audiences feeling of the ring being able to tempt anyone. I came away with the feeling Borormir was a better warrior then Faramir was so they did a good job with that part.

My biggest problem was when Frodo told Sam to go home and he did untill he found evidence of Gollum's treachery. Leaving what happened in the book aside and just looking at it from the perspective of what had transpired in the movie so far its ludicrous to think he was just going to walk all the way home to the Shire by himself when he almost drowned himself at the end of the first movie because he would not abandon his mission to follow Frodo.

[Ara Pacis]

As a scriptwriter, I understand some of the concerns of Walsh, Boyen, and Jackson. However, I still would have stayed closer to the book and not have made some of the adaptations they did. I would have handled them differently.

I think the WiKi should have met Gandalf at the door on either a horse or a the hellbeasts. I think the change made both Gandalf and the WiKi appear weak and inconsequential. I think closeups of their hands since they both hold Rings of Power might have established them as nearly co-equal and created more of a hightened tension.

I think Faramir should have had some mental anguish over the ring but not left Ithilien with Frodo and Sam. Leave it to Frodo and Sam to establish that Faramir is a better man through those actions. However, I think I would have kept the Boromir/Faramir/Denethor scenes in Osgiliath.

I don't think the there should have been too many changes made to the plot. Tolkien's plots were sometimes plodding, but didn't need to be changed. Simply adding detail in some places and letting other parts go without comment could have sped things up to a fast pace without alienating fans of the books. Other parts could have been referenced in montage segments. Personally, I think the best way to visualize the books would be with a single 20+ episode season

[Lianachan]

I think closeups of their hands since they both hold Rings of Power might have established them as nearly co-equal and created more of a hightened tension.

Except the Witch-king wasn't wearing his ring. Sauron had it.

*edited afterthought - reading that back, it sounds like I'm disagreeing with you. I'm not, there's a silent "I agree" before the "except". As for being near equals - Gandalf is, of course, Maia whereas the WiKi was formerly a man. WiKi, though, is probably the most skilled warrior in Middle-earth in the Second and Third Ages, and was also a sorcerer (although Tolkien is always a bit vague when it comes down to the use of magic). Also, Sauron had made him more powerful after the incident at the ford. I would still think that Gandalf would have the upper hand, certainly Gandalf the White if not Gandalf the Grey. Certainly, neither should have feared the other.

[James_Digriz]

I think closeups of their hands since they both hold Rings of Power might have established them as nearly co-equal and created more of a hightened tension.

Excellent idea. Unless you read the books you wouldn't know this and it would have had a big impact on that sceane.

[Lianachan]

Excellent idea. Unless you read the books you wouldn't know this and it would have had a big impact on that sceane.

....but......but..... the Witch-king wasn't wearing his ring.

[Fram]

And the location of the Three shouldn't be made known to Sauron, IIRC.

[James_Digriz]

....but......but..... the Witch-king wasn't wearing his ring.

What, you mean in the book he wasn't? I don't honestly remember now.

[Lord Jubjub]

There has been much controversy over whether the Nine wore their rings or not. References to Sauron holding the nine could be considered metaphorical rather than literal.

[James_Digriz]

There has been much controversy over whether the Nine wore their rings or not. References to Sauron holding the nine could be considered metaphorical rather than literal.

Do you mean in the movies or in the books? Because I thought that was the whole point in the books. That the Nine had been corupted by the nine rings of power. Seems like they would be inseperable as the rings are what brought about the change.

[Lianachan]

There has been much controversy over whether the Nine wore their rings or not. References to Sauron holding the nine could be considered metaphorical rather than literal.

Not really. There are descriptions of physical evidence too. There are a load of references to Sauron having the rings, and only one (which was re-written out prior to publication) which said the Nazgul had them.

link

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Do you mean in the movies or in the books? Because I thought that was the whole point in the books. That the Nine had been corupted by the nine rings of power. Seems like they would be inseperable as the rings are what brought about the change.

They weren't beholden to their rings, but rather the One Ring. Once they were wholly corrupted, there really was no need for them to be in possession of their rings; they received their power through Sauron.

At least that's my rationalization...

[Lianachan]

Do you mean in the movies or in the books? Because I thought that was the whole point in the books. That the Nine had been corupted by the nine rings of power. Seems like they would be inseperable as the rings are what brought about the change.

They had no free will or choice about anything. If Sauron said to them "Rings, please, gentlemen" they would have handed them straight over.

his mightiest servants, the Ring-wraiths, who had no will but his own, being each utterly subservient to the ring that had enslaved him, which Sauron held.

[Lianachan]

They weren't beholden to their rings, but rather the One Ring. Once they were wholly corrupted, there really was no need for them to be in possession of their rings; they received their power through Sauron.

At least that's my rationalization...

Actually, it is their own rings that they're beholden to (see the quote in my earlier post). Their own ring is controlled by the One Ring, which is in turn controlled by Sauron. If a suitably powerful person had locked himself up somewhere and learned how to use the One Ring (a lengthy process) then he would eventually have been able to control the Nazgul as well.

[Lianachan]

Just to take this even further from the subject of dodgy Gondorian masonry, I found this website. The author lists all the differences between the films and the books, and talks a little about them. You may not agree with his assessment of the "seriousness" of the changes (I know I don't, on many occasions) but if anybody is interested in, or curious about, what's different - it could be quite handy.

[James_Digriz]

Cool. I saw a site like that for the Harry Potter stuff. I was amazed at how much I didn't realize was different.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Just to take this even further from the subject of dodgy Gondorian masonry, I found this website.

Whoa... What he says happened in the movie for "Smeagol gets the Ring" is just plain wrong. Déagol finds the Ring when he's pulled from the boat by a large fish. That might be in the Extended Edition, though, but he's still got it wrong.

Edit: Oops! I forgot this is only for the first movie. The scene I mention was at the beginning of the third.

[Ara Pacis]

I've read the books a few times and never really analyzed who had the rings, but I always assumed the wraiths were wearing their rings. I thought he was collecting the 7 to him in order to give them to more men who are more readily corrupted, suggesting that the thralls actually needed to wear them to be enthralled. When Sauron collected the nine back to him, I thought that was a metonymy for the ringwraiths themselves... since the WiKi had been off on his own doing dastardly deads at Angmar while Sauron was indisposed.

I thought that sauron had put part of himself into the One Ring, kinda like he uploaded his soul into a physical avatar. The ring's own design had some natural power to it, but his essence inside the ring allowed his will to kinda filter down to the other rings. The downside would be that the loss of the ring would divide his essense and the destruction of the One Ring would kill that part of his essense. Since the elves detected him when they put on their rings, and he could presumably detect them, it would stand to reason that the rings were like communication devices of the soul or will. So, taking a ringwraith's ring from him would make him incommunicado with the will of Sauron which should lessen his power. At least, that's how I pictuired it.

[Lianachan]

I've read the books a few times and never really analyzed who had the rings, but I always assumed the wraiths were wearing their rings. I thought he was collecting the 7 to him in order to give them to more men who are more readily corrupted, suggesting that the thralls actually needed to wear them to be enthralled. When Sauron collected the nine back to him, I thought that was a metonymy for the ringwraiths themselves... since the WiKi had been off on his own doing dastardly deads at Angmar while Sauron was indisposed.

He had no need to make more wraiths, but he wouldn't have been able to anyway, unless he had the One Ring. The people who received a ring would become a wraith (depending on their race, a Dwarf, for example, wouldn't) but not under Sauron's control. He already had possession of the nine rings, and however many of the seven as still existed (I can't remember).

I thought that sauron had put part of himself into the One Ring, kinda like he uploaded his soul into a physical avatar. The ring's own design had some natural power to it, but his essence inside the ring allowed his will to kinda filter down to the other rings. The downside would be that the loss of the ring would divide his essense and the destruction of the One Ring would kill that part of his essense. Since the elves detected him when they put on their rings, and he could presumably detect them, it would stand to reason that the rings were like communication devices of the soul or will. So, taking a ringwraith's ring from him would make him incommunicado with the will of Sauron which should lessen his power. At least, that's how I pictuired it.

He didn't so much transfer a load of his power into the Ring, as use a lot of his power to make the Ring - and the Ring was a tool, for a very specific function. Sauron with the Ring was more powerful than the pre-Ring Sauron, Sauron without the Ring is still very powerful and Sauron if the Ring is destroyed.... well, he's in a spot of bother. Tolkien never explained how the One Ring controls the other rings - although the theory that makes most sense to me is that is was done via a "back door" (see the link below). It's known that all the other rings would lose their powers if the One Ring was destroyed, and that the owners of the three rings were safe to wear them as long as Sauron didn't have the One. There's some good information about all of that here. Sauron was able to command the Nazgul when they weren't wearing their rings, and he knew he could still trust them absolutely. He did, after all, send them out to find him the One Ring - while being fully aware that the Nazgul knew exactly what they were looking for.

[James_Digriz]

Seems to me it still makes sense that the 9 would have to wear thier rings to be at thier most powerfull.

[Lianachan]

Seems to me it still makes sense that the 9 would have to wear thier rings to be at thier most powerfull.

]if [a Man or Hobbit] often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he fades: he becomes in the end invisible permanently, and walks in the twilight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Rings

It's a permanent change, the effects of which are essentially the same as if the ring was being permanently worn. If a Nazgul put on his ring, it would have no effect on him whatsoever.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

. . .however many of the seven as still existed (I can't remember).

I believe Sauron was in possession of all 7 of the dwarven rings. If I remember correctly, he had taken the last from Thrain, whom he (as "the Necromancer") had captured and tortured in Dol Guldur.

Oh, heh... Wikipedia: Rings of Power - The final disposition of the Rings of Power.

Dragons destroyed four of the Seven Rings, and after Sauron's return he recaptured the remaining three (the last from Thráin, father of Thorin Oakenshield, nearly a hundred years before the action of The Hobbit).

[James_Digriz]

It's a permanent change, the effects of which are essentially the same as if the ring was being permanently worn. If a Nazgul put on his ring, it would have no effect on him whatsoever.

I just started rereading the best parts of the trilogy again. Basically from Rivendell onward. Anyway Gandalf says the 9 rings are with the Nazgul in a conversation with Frodo in Rivindell.

[Roy Batty]

I just started rereading the best parts of the trilogy again. Basically from Rivendell onward. Anyway Gandalf says the 9 rings are with the Nazgul in a conversation with Frodo in Rivindell.

Yes, that would be the one citation mentioned in the link Lianachan provided several posts back

[James_Digriz]

Yes, that would be the one citation mentioned in the link Lianachan provided several posts back

Ooooooo....Google Slapped. You cad! (This site needs better smilies.)

[Douglas J. Bender]

doltish,

To further the point - the Witch King is killed by a woman. This isn't just some gimmick that was tossed into the story because movie-going audiences love a little ironic humor tossed in with their bloodshed. Tolkien did this to ensure that the Witch King would remain in that realm of mystery that we never fully comprehend in these stories. What was he? How is it possible that no man could ever kill him, but yet a woman could?

He was the embodiment of men who bear the unrequited love of a failed romance - all dark and nasty, mysterious and despairing, yet eerily powerful and scary. The shrieks of the Nazgul were symbolic of men crying out, "Noooooooo!", upon being rejected. Yes? No?

[Lianachan]

There's some discussion of the demise of the Witch-king in this earlier thread.

[JonClarke]

Don't expect me to defend anything in those movies