I also don't think it's a word people need to ponder overly much. It just seems a natural thing to me.

That might be because you use it in daily conversation (I prefer slay, slaughter, annihilate, myself). But outside of the hardcore, I bet not that many do.

Also a fan of smitings and bitings. (Also, of Lloyd Alexander.) But:

But smiting is not a word people use in conversation. It's a word we are more comfortable reading rather than hearing.

Fair point. I think if Eowyn had been given more to say, "smite" might have fit into the speech, but since her lines were so brief (and the scenery so busy/rushed), I can understand simplifying. But "smite" really fits in with the declaiming she does in the book.

(Also, Tolkien went to some trouble to come up with lines that sound good aloud -- rhythmic, sometimes assonant even in prose -- and I'm always sorry to lose that high old style. That high old style that "the mass audience" supposedly hates or fails to comprehend.)

That might be because you use it in daily conversation (I prefer slay, slaughter, annihilate, myself). But outside of the hardcore, I bet not that many do.

Use in conversation, no. Have heard it often enough to not have to stop and think, I figure yes. Hell between the bible and the Simpsons, most of North America is covered.

Annihilate is better than alright. I've also been known to use defenestrate because of the comedy aspect. For something particularly brutal, my old roomate was partial to 'Hatefuck'.

I think that "smote" worked better for Gandalf than "smite" would have worked for Eowyn. Since Gandalf is way the heck older than Eowyn and was telling an important story when saying, "smote", I'm more comfortable with the more archaic sounding word coming out of his mouth. Hearing Eowyn say "kill" rather than "smite" worked for me. "Smite" seems kinda fussy to me, and she's not a fussy woman.

That perspective makes sense, Calli. Especially considering you don't get to hear the original context of the speech, which makes "smite" seem much less fussy/old-fashioned. Just as "smote his ruin on the mountainside" looks a lot better than "smote his ass and kicked him off a cliff", "Begone if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you if you touch him" -- well, the whole context also foregrounds the don't put the word kill next to the word undead problem.

Generally speaking, I didn't expect much in the way of high style from the film's dialogue, so every time I got something nice I was pleasantly surprised; but at key moments where, you know, I happened to know the original lines by heart, and they didn't especially try to reproduce the tone of the original, I can't help but be disappointed.

Not sure what ypu mean by the horse bolting.

As Mecha pointed out, the Witch-King is already dead, thus smite makes much more sense to me than kill. It implies more than kill, a righteousness which is necessary for an undead thing. I feel it is a dumbing-down of the text for the not just bookless, but clueless audience. I would argue that audience barely exists, because there are plenty of clues that there is something mighty messed up going on.

I also think that shying away from archaisms in speech from people who are themselves archaic is false logic. This is an ancient story. It isn't happening at the mall. You don't want to stilt their language entirely, but the occasional old power word from someone who is fighting an ancient horror is appropriate, I think. Smite is as effective as kill in context, properly spat out. Perhaps more so, but it is an unusual word in some modern ears and they might appreciate it more. Finally, the geeks would love it, rather than bitching about the choice to back away from the richness of the text on message boards. That last not a very powerful argument normally, but PJ et al did make conscious fan-friendly choices.

They might have chosen to avoid taking strength from Gandalf's "smote his ruin on the mountainside" but I would argue that using smite with Eowyn would echo Gandalf's smote and in a situation with equal dramatic power. The killing of the Witch-king is pretty much prophecy-fulfilling and as important to the story as Gandalf's fall and return.

Sure, it is a taste thing, but my preference would be for them to use the snippets of Tolkien's powerful, magic-laden language in key moments. They did do it in numerous places, but I question the situations where they didn't and to my ear, the book language would have had more power. As Nutty said, Tolkien's language is intentionally powerful when read aloud. The book is amazing in that way, and it is no accident. He's writing Beowulf for his time. It is meant to be effective when read aloud. The occasions when stretches of his text are worked into the movie just sing out and make my hair stand on end.

the Lich-King is already dead, thus smite makes much more sense to me than kill. It implies more than kill, a righteousness which is necessary for an undead thing.

I'd agree with this here. I think such a big, dramatic moment could have use a little of the "high-style" wording. I don't think anybody would have stumbled over the meaning, especially with the visuals.

It's not enough to make me bitter about their choices, though. The fact that they did such a great job in capturing the spirit of the books, when so much could have gone wrong, allows me to accept that changes that they did make much more easily.

(If I'm bitter about anything, it has to be that the scene of Gandalf facing down the Witch-King at the Gates of Minas-Tirith didn't make the movie. I understand that something like it will be included in the EE, but as I hear it isn't at the main gate. I think that was the scene from the books that I most anticipated,)

It's not enough to make me bitter about their choices, though. The fact that they did such a great job in capturing the spirit of the books, when so much could have gone wrong, allows me to accept that changes that they did make much more easily.

Yeah, I feel like I need to post a disclaimer with every post. I luurrved the movies, especially the EEs. I have to quibble with choices here and there, and I'm unhappy with some scenes, directions, etc. And little things like "disloyalty" do get up my nose. However, this has been some of the happiest entertainment time of my life. Having these movies pending (and some of the others that have come out in this time) has been wonderful. Like Early 80's (Blade Runner, Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Terminator) wonderful, for me. Seeing like one in ten people with one of the books in their hands as I walk through a food court, or ride the subway has been really magical for me.

We're still in the afterglow, with the EEs on the horizon. I really don't want this time to end.

If I'm bitter about anything, it has to be that the scene of Gandalf facing down the Witch-King at the Gates of Minas-Tirith didn't make the movie. I understand that something like it will be included in the EE, but as I hear it isn't at the main gate. I think that was the scene from the books that I most anticipated,)

No, for me it's still Eowyn and Faramir in the Houses of Healing. The story still makes sense without the Witch-King, but Eowyn and Faramir are treated as characters of great importance and then their stories are dropped without a real conclusion.