|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QueenCirce
Bree
Aug 27 2015, 2:25am
Post #1 of 61
(17863 views)
Shortcut
|
|
All 9 armoured Nazgul Designs?
|
Can't Post
|
|
HI All,
Are there clear images online of the all 9 of the Nazgul armoured designs from the DG battle?
I wasn't sure of the change at first, but now i love the different armours and the effects used, I thought it look incredible and creep when in motion.
I was hoping I could find a close up look of the designs and pics of all the 9.
Thanks
|
|
|
Pandallo
Rivendell
Aug 27 2015, 4:13am
Post #3 of 61
(17692 views)
Shortcut
|
The Chronicles Book No. 5 has desigsn for the entirety of the 9, they are a bit too creepy if you ask me, these designs lack the pale lingering glory and self-asssuredness of the original designs used on Weathertop when Frodo put on the ring.
|
|
|
QueenCirce
Bree
Aug 27 2015, 4:26am
Post #4 of 61
(17682 views)
Shortcut
|
And I do know what you mean I love both! The white spectral versions especially of the Witchking are super creepy though as well :-D
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Aug 27 2015, 8:06am
Post #6 of 61
(17555 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Trying to speak more about what I LIKE about these movies...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... I must stress how great I thought these armour designs looked.
I think the Witchking could have worn his RotK helmet but still... something about the design really worked for me (also their movements... so creepy).
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
(This post was edited by Arannir on Aug 27 2015, 8:06am)
|
|
|
adt100
Rohan
Aug 27 2015, 11:45am
Post #7 of 61
(17444 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They are one of the aspects of the film that really bug me actually!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I like the Dol Guldur subplot, despite being a little too short, but the designs, or rather the visualisation of them is something that REALLY bugs me!
I can accept the quirky, slightly bizarre/OTT armour designs (even the jester!), what I don't understand is why they are rendered in the very much 'computer game' style.
I had fully expected/hoped for the 'wraith world' view of them that we get in FOTR. Not only does that look more real and ghostly, but it ties them in directly as being the same beings as in FOTR. Ok there's the issue of the wraith world only being seen when Frodo (or whoever) has the ring on, but this can easily be reasoned as being something that the white council can see as being ringbearers themselves/powerful wizards 'etc'.
Even more frustrating though that we see this FOTR wraith world nazgul in AUJ when the witch king attacks Radagast!
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 27 2015, 6:35pm
Post #8 of 61
(17264 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree with a couple posters here
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It seems odd to me that the Nazgul would make an appearance so clearly linked to the Weathertop scene in FOTR just once. I think it's important to note that this manifestation of the Nazgul was also substantial, having a tangible presence in the real world and wielding a physical sword. I have no idea what the filmmakers were getting at with this.
On the armor I think the design is excellent in its own way, but also disparate in the same the way the dwarves look so unnecessarily unique. I also didn't like the way they crawled around and acted like animals.
|
|
|
Dcole4
Rohan
Aug 27 2015, 7:03pm
Post #9 of 61
(17242 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes, this was irritating. If they were going to armor them up, they should have gone with cloaked stunt ment (ala the Witch King in ROTK). Having them as armored ghosts didn't make sense and is now the third version of the wraiths that we've seen. It should have either been physical manifestations in cloaks and armor or, as you say, the ghost versions we saw in AUJ. It's unnecessary for such a short appearance and only serves to confuse what they are.
On that note, I think their original plan was to do the ghost FOTR version, as shown in AUJ. As with many things, it seems PJ changed his mind at the last second. Why? Who knows. What's also annoying is how their movement is portrayed as ghost ninja warriors. It goes against the creepy slowness we've come to expect from them in four movies.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 27 2015, 9:12pm
Post #10 of 61
(17189 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Would you say the Nazgul are consistent beings
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In the text or inconsistent ones?
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 28 2015, 9:43am
Post #11 of 61
(17098 views)
Shortcut
|
There certainly appears to be a consistency or continuity in the text. Can you describe what you're thinking and how it relates to the films?
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 28 2015, 10:21am
Post #12 of 61
(17088 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Oh I would say they are hugely inconsistent and mysterious beings
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In the texts. Their powers, their appearance, whether they have bodies or not or partially, their relationships to people and the physical world etc etc.
All of which is great and part of the way in which Tolkien makes magic (and indeed evil) mysterious in the texts. My own thought would be that I'm not quite sure why we would want the opposite in the films.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 28 2015, 10:52am
Post #13 of 61
(17080 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But if it's the films we're looking at
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Then there is 100% consistency and continuity. In LOTR they appear one way in the "ring world" and are otherwise cloaked figures. That is established and then not broken. Does that qualify as wildly inconsistent? Or off the charts magical?
However thr Nazgul are presented in TH there should at least be some sort of internal logic instead of a loosy goosy, everything goes quality. For example, the ring world looks the same with the blurry wind effect in TH as it does in LOTR, and Elves look different to Bilbo from that vantage point. It's internal visual logic between the films. Gandalf doesn't see them in the ghostly wraith form even though he's a wizard. Then suddenly showing the wraith in the same form but separated from the ring world, also having a strong physical presence, and only once in the entire Hobbit trilogy defies any kind of logic. Though they look cool once they appear in ghost armor form, there's nothing to grab onto as an audience because what exactly they are and what they're capable of is first established and then closed within approximately 2 minutes of screen time.
Besides that though, you don't think it might be more of an gratifying investment for the audience if the Nazgul were presented in a way that allowed them to understand and recognise them as a threat with some kind of continuity throughout the whole series?
(This post was edited by Bishop on Aug 28 2015, 10:53am)
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Aug 28 2015, 1:22pm
Post #14 of 61
(17049 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Don't know what Spriggan thinks, but for me there is a kind of logic to it....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It works like this - well, for me it does -
Wraith form, as seen by Frodo when wearing the Ring and glimpsed briefly in AUJ, is their real appearance for those able to see them.
Nazgul form, black-cloaked, is how they cover themselves when going out and about in the mortal world to give them an appearance of weight and substance and hide what they really are.
Armoured form as at Dol Guldur is an illusion created by the proximity of Sauron - just as Sauron himself appears to be armoured. How they looked in life, maybe - or how they will look when he rules Middle Earth. This is the Nine revealed as Sauron's lieutenants, in his world.
The only thing in the Dol Guldur designs that I'm not so keen on is the way at least one of them breaks into pieces when struck. That image seems to be used so much in magical films now that I'd rather have seen them disappear or something, for a different look. But that's not something that matters, just me being ultra picky.
|
|
|
Wasserwaldnymphe
The Shire
Aug 28 2015, 5:13pm
Post #15 of 61
(16983 views)
Shortcut
|
Now a image popped up in my mind. The great Nazguls were so young and fresh in the Age of Smaug, but post Dol Goldur they became weary - still stronger than men, yet it takes too much energy to maintain those pretty armors and they decided to get rid of them.
Or maybe they wanted just a great spectacle with cool armors and swords and stuff too impress their foes. Sauron didn't need flames and smoke, either, to make clear that he, the boldest Maiar ever, is back, but he summoned them to mock Gandalf.
Later, Sauron became already angry (because of THAT touchy subject), the Nazgul decided to go back to the roots: their "invisible" bodies clad in invisible royal clothes. But now, since the circumstances had changed, they had to make themselves visible to the mortal men and hobbit and to fulfill their task in secret. So they needed a plain, inconspicuous black cloak, matching their (stolen) black horses.
What can men do against such reckless hate?
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 28 2015, 5:54pm
Post #16 of 61
(16966 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't think that there should be consistency (or at least I don't think that there not being consistent is a problem) any more than I do in the text.
I think the desire to make up "rules" for such creatures is far more based in warhammer or top trumps than it is in Tolkien.
Now actually I don't think that they are presented consistently in the films either (though more so than in the books, by happenstance). The films retain the different "threat levels" of the Nazgul at Wewthertop vs the Nazgul at Minas Tirith for example.
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Aug 28 2015, 6:04pm
Post #17 of 61
(16964 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What is inconsistent in the books??
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They're invisible kings and when Frodo puts the Ring on he can see them. there's nothing inconsistent about their described appearances.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Aug 28 2015, 8:36pm
Post #18 of 61
(16926 views)
Shortcut
|
It's clearly written that they have "faded" from the living world to the point that they cannot be seen, unless cloaked. I don't recall any instances where Tolkien contradicted himself on this.
Peter Jackson, however, DOES contradict himself on a few occasions. In LotR, they are presented much as they were in the books. But in The Hobbit, we see an uncloaked Ringwraith clear as day at Dol Guldur in AUJ, we again see them uncloaked in Bo5A (but looking completely different than their original uncloaked design), and this time they are teleporting all over the place (why didn't they do this in the LotR films when fighting Aragorn?), and perhaps most inconstent of all, now they are apparently "dead" when in the LotR films, they were described (correctly) as "neither living nor dead". Peter Jackson never kept any internal consistency whatsoever with the Nazgul.
(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Aug 28 2015, 8:47pm)
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 28 2015, 8:45pm
Post #19 of 61
(16923 views)
Shortcut
|
It's narrative logic based on Tolkien's world building. It seems you are suggesting that in a world of magic there are no "rules". But what if (in the film) Bilbo's ring sometimes made him turn green instead of invisible. Or into a carrot? What if goblins were sometimes unable to be in sunlight and other times not (whoops! That actually DID happened for no logical reason!). What if Gandalf sometimes didn't have a beard and sometimes he did for no reason?
If the filmmaker establishes that certain things have certain properties it is logical to adhere to those things. So maybe Gandalf's beard does turn on and off, but I would expect it to be consistent in its ability to do so.
As far as the Nazgul go, I'm happy to accept all kinds of speculation to justify a big boss battle like the one onscreen. But given Radagast's earlier confrontation it seems awfully random to me, which means it lacks narrative punch. Plenty of good ninja punches though!
After seeing BOTFA it also occurs to me that given Sauron's strength in LOTR it's a shame the Nazgul can't turn into armored teleporting ninja ghost warriors and cause some real damage, instead of say, beating some pillows to death with swords.
(This post was edited by Bishop on Aug 28 2015, 8:54pm)
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 29 2015, 3:50pm
Post #20 of 61
(16837 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Oh their appearances are the least of their inconsistencies but
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You will find all sort of differences there too. You will find quotes for and against all of the following questions in Tolkien's works.
Do they have physical bodies or not? Do they wear armour or not? Do they wear masks or not? Do they wear physical crowns or not? Do their eyes glow when they are invisible or not? Does their terror betray them or not? Are they more noticeable when invisible or not? Can the Eldar and the wise perceive them or not (and if so how)? Can only the owner of the One see them when invisible or not? Can humans see them as shadows when they are invisible or not?
If we move onto all the other categories I mentioned you will find all sorts of interesting things. It's a great chance to revisit the texts and I heartily recommend it.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 29 2015, 3:55pm
Post #21 of 61
(16832 views)
Shortcut
|
It has varied effects based on its wearer and all sorts of other criteria. You will find all the pertinent references to this in Tolkien's writings. I'm afraid if you think it simply makes people invisible then you just aren't aware of the relevant passages.
It is certainly odd about the Nazgul, I agree. For example, in the text they are ok to assault a fortified city but, despite being completly impervious to harm and able to be invisible with overwhelming terror, they don't even feel up to entering a provincial town and stabbing pillows themselves. Or perhaps you see this as clearly consistent?
(This post was edited by Spriggan on Aug 29 2015, 4:09pm)
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 29 2015, 4:48pm
Post #22 of 61
(16816 views)
Shortcut
|
Unless you can cite an example where it turns someone green and/or into a carrot, which are the only and exact examples that I gave.
More importantly you are conflating the range of any given phenomenon with "inconsistency", which seems like a misstep. That a thing is magical in nature does not mean it doesn't or can't follow a set of rules as laid down by the author or filmmaker. You seem to believe that literally anything could happen at any given point and it should be considered as valid or logical as anything else simply because it is "magical".
(This post was edited by Bishop on Aug 29 2015, 4:55pm)
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 29 2015, 4:56pm
Post #23 of 61
(16804 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Ha - I took those to be examples.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What do you think the various effects of using the Ring are - let's start from there. I do hope you aren't just going to say invisibility.
(This post was edited by Spriggan on Aug 29 2015, 5:02pm)
|
|
|
NManfredi
Rivendell
Aug 29 2015, 4:58pm
Post #24 of 61
(16797 views)
Shortcut
|
I thought of it myself too, and the explanation –or, perhaps, it would better to say possible interpretation– I though of is that as the nine are linked to the power of Sauron, they can manifest and adopt several forms according to the power that he wields at the moment.
When I saw BOFTA, and after seeing how Galadriel exiles Sauron and throws the nine into Sauron's eye, it came into my mind that maybe they lost some of their power after Sauron's exile, which is why they cannot adopt so vivid an image later on. it's only speculation, of course, but I think Peter and the rest might have thought about something like that.
"Is it not a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt for so small a thing? So small a thing! And I have seen it only for an instant in the house of Elrond! Could I not have a sight of it again?"
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 29 2015, 6:21pm
Post #25 of 61
(16779 views)
Shortcut
|
I was hoping you'd point me to the right passages! Bummer.
Also, asking me if I understand there is more to the ring than invisibility is kinda of like me accusing you of not knowing the text (based on nothing) and then asking you if you know Bilbo's last name as evidence that you do. It's just a little condescending. :)
|
|
|
|
|
their style is strategy
[
1
