Witch-King - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) Discussion

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

I couldn't agree more, and it was just too easy. He didn't present any challenge for Eowyn or Merry.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

Three fucking movies, a lot of special effects, mystery, small screen time just for it to end in a joke.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

What pisses me off is Jackson totally didn't respect the source material and made so many changes that make zero sense, yet the stuff he actually keeps from the novel are the worst parts.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

I heard that it actually isnt his film and the producers just used his name to sell it. I agree. If you see his previous work it isn’t consistent with this movie. It is a lot more independent and intellectual.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I see two idiots here ripe for Ignoring. Maybe I should do it.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

Wat

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8435) 4 years ago

Lolwut? Have you watched any of the hours and hours of behind-the- scenes material on the DVD/Blu-Ray release? He was involved in every inch of that production.

Do you think it had some phantom director? Who would use Peter Jackson's name to sell anything in 2000 anyway? Hardly anyone knew who he was before LOTR. These films MADE Peter Jackson.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

True. But it’s so strange. How this is so commercial and his earlier work was so independent. Heard it from a third party anyway.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8435) 4 years ago

It's definitely a creative shift and I have wondered before why he was considered in the first place. He certainly wasn't the obvious choice.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

That’s why the suspicion of a puppet director. He was solely hired because his fat ass is from New Zealand. Might’ve been better had they hired a more established one.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8435) 4 years ago

I think he did about as well as anyone could have with the trilogy, so I think he ended up being a great choice. Though it would be interesting to see how Spielberg or Ron Howard would've handled the same material.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

I think such a material couldve been well suited with an unknown independent with a lot of experience and ambitious.

reply

[–] Costumer (1803) 4 years ago

There is no joke. The point is that the Witch-King did not understand the prophecy. He thought it made him invulnerable. It didn't. All the prophecy was, as prophecies often are, was a very literal statement of the future. No man would kill him. But a woman, or a hobbit, would.

reply

[–] Moonglum9 (10848) 4 years ago

If I remember correctly, the Witch-King died the same way in the books.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

Yea but his story just as boring and insignificant?

reply

[–] Iffy762 (1331) 4 years ago

Yes. I think at the time it was written it was significant because of Eowyn's involvement. Nowadays, that's a shrug.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

Yea. That’s how I feel.
Just a shrug.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BourbonKing (5695) 4 years ago

Huge Buildup?

He was only given prominence in the middle of the the 3rd movie as Gandalf narrates how Sauron has embued TWK with more deadly power to represent him in his attack on Minas Tirith. The ensuing battle shows how treacherous he has become and he killed King Theoden.

If the Witch King was hyped up in Fellowship of the Ring then I'd get your point, but he wasn't so there's no real letdown

reply

[–] TandyMan (10638) 4 years ago

Lack of iconic villains is one of the problems with the story. I think that's why they went crazy with all that nonsense in the Hobbit movies. There just ain't no Emperor of all space to hurl down an exploding well in LOTR. Just a grubby little gollum.

reply

[–] BourbonKing (5695) 4 years ago

I can agree about that. Sauron is the ultimate villain and the book source has plenty of scenes with Sauron corrupting Saruman as well as destroying Denethor's mind using the Pilantir (not featured as a story line in the movie). He even had a brief mindfuck scene with Pippin but the movie did very little to convey his treachery.

The Hobbit movies were a money grab as soon as the studio realized that the fall out from Del Toro's exit was going to cost them more money. Two movies would have been enough and all of the filler drama added in could have been left out.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

Yeah, well the whole thing with Merry, Eowyn, and the Witch King was one of those things bound to work better on the page than when filmed.
Because in a book you can *say* that Merry is fooled by Dernhelm, but you can't fool a movie viewer by by shoving hair under a helmet, so the whole dramatic identity reveal thing had to be dropped. Without that, all you have left is a short confrontation.

Also, they cast such a fragile little thing as Eowyn that you can't believe she could lift that sword, much less kill something with it. The Eowyn of the book was described as a tall strong sheildmaiden, eager to ride out a kick ass, and able to pass as a young man.

reply