Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

[Jonathan101]

A big one that bugs me: in the book Gandalf pits his supernatural power of Hope against the Witch King's supernatural Despair in magical combat at the gate and wins, driving him off and keeping the enemy army from entering the city. In the movie the Witch King unceremoniously smacks Gandalf down at a random spot on the wall and the city is largely overrun.

In the book they have a stand-off for a few seconds which quickly ends when Rohan shows up. Gandalf doesn't beat him because they barely even have a fight.

They don't meet in the movie at all; they meet in the Extended Edition, which shows the Witch King having the upper hand. From a storytelling perspective, the logic is that they are raising the tension and the stakes by having the bad guys have the upper hand, even if only for a moment.

In both book and film, Gandalf hypes the Witch-King up and it is implied he is wary of him, and isn't sure which of them would come out on top if they met in combat- book Denethor even flat-out says that Gandalf might have met his match if I remember correctly.

[Frustration]

Indeed, the Witch King is so contemptuous of Gandalf that he turns his back on him and goes to deal with the riders, seemingly feeling that the disruption of the gloom and the coming of an armed force behind his army might mess up his plans - but sees nothing critical or time-sensitive about the showdown with Gandalf.

It's part of why Eowyn's slaying him is so awesome. And the movie didn't do a good job of representing her Crowning Moment of Awesome.

[clearspira]

Indeed, the Witch King is so contemptuous of Gandalf that he turns his back on him and goes to deal with the riders, seemingly feeling that the disruption of the gloom and the coming of an armed force behind his army might mess up his plans - but sees nothing critical or time-sensitive about the showdown with Gandalf.

It's part of why Eowyn's slaying him is so awesome. And the movie didn't do a good job of representing her Crowning Moment of Awesome.

Eowyn slaying the Witch King is poorly explained in the film I'll give you that. The scene seems to imply that only a woman can kill him. Which might be true if LOTR magic operated on "exact words", but it really doesn't seem to.

I'll give you another one out of fairness. The film doesn't explain properly why Gandalf cannot summon a bird to carry Frodo to Mt Doom when he clearly does at the end.

[Frustration]

Denethor's character is practically reversed in the films. And they were sloppy in having him chowing down on cherry tomatoes. Didn't they also have fields of maize in the first film? That's not what Tolkien meant when he talked about corn.

[CharlesPhipps]

Eowyn slaying the Witch King is poorly explained in the film I'll give you that. The scene seems to imply that only a woman can kill him. Which might be true if LOTR magic operated on "exact words", but it really doesn't seem to

No, it's because a Hobbit cheap shotted him and she cut off his head.

Which is the MacBethian, "It's not that a man CANT kill you. It's that someone of no woman born WILL kill you."

[Lazerlike42]

I suspected that Faramir might be cited as the worst example of a difference in the films because really since the films were first released this has been the biggest complaint people have had.

That said, I just don't see it as being so bad as to make the Jackson films a bad adaptation. Is the characterization different from the books? Well, sortof... but as I mentioned in more general terms above I think it's less a matter of being different and more a matter of taking a detour. They get there by the end, and I'd even go so far as to say that in a certain way this portrayal even augments one of the thematic elements of the story. Aragorn and Boromir are often taken to represent different conditions of mankind: Aragorn the prelapsarian, unfallen man, and Boromir fallen man. Put differently, Boromir is what we human beings actually are, whereas Aragorn represents what we were meant to be. In the films, Faramir can be seen as an extension of this idea, because unlike the in the novel Faramir is tempted by the ring just as Boromir was, but unlike Boromir he ultimately does not give in to that temptation. Thus, in the films we have not only what we are and what we should have been, but in Faramir resisting temptation we also have what we can be: human beings who, though fallen, can nevertheless choose good.

Thus, I see Jackson's Faramir as a good adaptation. He's not exactly the same as Tolkien's, but he works his way to being thus, he works for the film (as someone else has already noted), and critically he maintains - and possibly even extends - the themes of the source material.

Someone else has already mentioned what I consider the worst part of the films: the Witch King's defeat of Gandalf. I think this is far and away the worst thing in these films in countless ways. It truly is awful. Yet as bad as it is it's still only one quick thing that is almost immediately forgotten and so I don't think it should be taken to ruin the entire film.

[MightyDavidson]

Eowyn slaying the Witch King is poorly explained in the film I'll give you that. The scene seems to imply that only a woman can kill him. Which might be true if LOTR magic operated on "exact words", but it really doesn't seem to

No, it's because a Hobbit cheap shotted him and she cut off his head.

Which is the MacBethian, "It's not that a man CANT kill you. It's that someone of no woman born WILL kill you."

Always wondered how man was being defined in this particular case. Does it mean he's immune to death from any male or just male humans? The fact the Hobbit managed to hurt him suggests the latter. Furthermore, could an underaged male harm him 'cause he's not a man but a boy? Could the Witch King be harmed by animals, could Beorn have taken him in bear form?

[Lazerlike42]

Eowyn slaying the Witch King is poorly explained in the film I'll give you that. The scene seems to imply that only a woman can kill him. Which might be true if LOTR magic operated on "exact words", but it really doesn't seem to

No, it's because a Hobbit cheap shotted him and she cut off his head.

Which is the MacBethian, "It's not that a man CANT kill you. It's that someone of no woman born WILL kill you."

Always wondered how man was being defined in this particular case. Does it mean he's immune to death from any male or just male humans? The fact the Hobbit managed to hurt him suggests the latter. Furthermore, could an underaged male harm him 'cause he's not a man but a boy? Could the Witch King be harmed by animals, could Beorn have taken him in bear form?

The actual text says "not by the hand of man shall he fall," so it's not really a statement about who is able to kill him but of who will kill him. Thus, I'd think any of these could, in theory, kill him - it's just that none of them ultimately would be the one to do it. Also, it wasn't just that he was slashed by a hobbit - it was that the hobbit slashed him with an enchanted blade which broke a spell which was protecting him.

[CharlesPhipps]

Always wondered how man was being defined in this particular case. Does it mean he's immune to death from any male or just male humans? The fact the Hobbit managed to hurt him suggests the latter. Furthermore, could an underaged male harm him 'cause he's not a man but a boy? Could the Witch King be harmed by animals, could Beorn have taken him in bear form?

Note that in the Silmarillion, the Witch King rabbited when he was up against Glorfindel.

[clearspira]

Question. Is it an indication of the general quality of this series that the entire thread so far has been taken up with a discussion of the original trilogy and not of the Rings of Power?

That seems to be the general statement i'm getting across the internet. Once you get past the haters and the fanboys etc, this series just doesn't seem to be all that interesting compared with either the trilogy or GOT. I've even seen Youtubers claim that the Hobbit trilogy has now been ''Vindicated By History'' on the back of this.