Smite sounds much less fierce and powerful than kill. When Gandalfe used it he was telling a story, a natural place for poetic language--when Eowyn used it she was making a threat--a natural place for more direct languge.
Sometimes when I'm sitting in class... You know, I'm not thinking about class, 'cause that would never happen. I think about kissing you. And it's like everything stops. It's like, it's like freeze frame. Willow kissage.
Oz ,'First Date'
LotR - The Return of the King: "We named the *dog* 'Strider'".
Frodo: Please, what does it always mean, this... this "Aragorn"? Elrond: That's his name. Aragorn, son of Arathorn. Aragorn: I like "Strider." Elrond: We named the *dog* "Strider".
A discussion of Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King. If you're a pervy hobbit fancier, this is the place for you.
Scrappy - Apr 21, 2004 2:20:10 pm PDT #2542 of 3902
Life moves pretty fast. You don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.
§ ita § - Apr 21, 2004 2:21:20 pm PDT #2543 of 3902
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I'm emotionally very attached to a lot of Tolkien's language, but I didn't miss that much of it on a poetic level. He has some clunky moments.
MechaKrelboyne - Apr 21, 2004 4:58:17 pm PDT #2544 of 3902
... and that's a Pantera's box you don't want to open. - Mister Furious
See, in any given instance, I'll take smite over kill. Killing is done to death. Smiting also has that biblical implication of righteousness to it.
Connie Neil - Apr 21, 2004 6:29:47 pm PDT #2545 of 3902
brillig
I miss "Begone if you be not deathless!"
Kate P. - Apr 21, 2004 6:32:37 pm PDT #2546 of 3902
That's the pain / That cuts a straight line down through the heart / We call it love
"...for living or dark undead..."
Scrappy - Apr 21, 2004 6:40:02 pm PDT #2547 of 3902
Life moves pretty fast. You don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.
But smiting is not a word people use in conversation. It's a word we are more comfortable reading rather than hearing. It takes a second to process and slows down the impact. In film you don't want people puzzling over information, because they are being given new information all the time and can't go back to clarify or take time to savor things as they can with a novel. The films keeps rushuing forward and the audience needs to stay with it.
amych - Apr 21, 2004 6:40:41 pm PDT #2548 of 3902
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
But smiting is not a word people use in conversation.
Speak for yourself.
(edit: I actually agree with your points about writing for film. I just, you know, do.)
§ ita § - Apr 21, 2004 6:46:32 pm PDT #2549 of 3902
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Tolkien wrote very booky books. PJ had a million things to do to translate to screen. Pacing and interleaving, action and dialogue. I've read the books, love the books, and am really glad there wasn't a huge amount of verbatim Tolkien.
Consuela - Apr 21, 2004 8:30:50 pm PDT #2550 of 3902
We are Buffistas. This isn't our first apocalypse. -- Pix
Actually, I was shocked at how much dialog made it to the screen unchanged. Re-arranged, moved from one character to another, and edited, but still very recognizeable for a geek like me. It was a pleasant surprise.
JohnSweden - Apr 21, 2004 9:41:47 pm PDT #2551 of 3902
I can't even.
I've read the books, love the books, and am really glad there wasn't a huge amount of verbatim Tolkien.
I'm not saying there should be a lot more. The speeches that were used were very effective. I'm saying when you use a speech word for word, have the courage to use the words. In a fealty/oath-based society, oathbreaking is powerful stuff. Smite is better for the Witch-king, because killing? That horse has bolted. Biggest undead creature active in middle-earth needs some smiting.