No, it was specially forged to defeat the WK - it says so in the book and I have quoted the words in this forum before now. Der Trish posts the relevant passage here.
Here’s the quote you linked:
“So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dúnedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.”
This does not say that the sword was specifically forged to defeat the WK. Only that it was created by the WKs foes. Barring additional evidence, my original comment stands.
What was the estate upset about?
The film rights were sold years and years before Peter Jackson ever got involved, and Christopher Tolkien was against it from the very beginning, IIRC. I remember reading about his displeasure well before the first movie came out, so I don’t think it had a whole lot to do with any specific thing PJ did.
He won’t last forever, though, and I have no idea how his heirs will approach LoTR rights going forward.
In regards to the Fields of Pelennor battle, I feel like PJ missed the boat on a number of things in that sequence; Eowyn was only slightly off to me. Once it was clear that they weren’t going to try and keep her identity hidden from the audience, I wasn’t surprised that some changes happened. Keep in mind that hidden identity tricks are far harder to pull off in film than in a book.
I had more of a issue with how things played out after that; I’ve always loved Eomer’s suicidal push into the midst of the orcs, only to be cut off from retreat and then losing all hope when he sees the black sails coming from the south - only to then realize it’s Aragorn. That of course, also is due to the difference between book and film; it’s far easier in a book to tell the story of the hidden paths via Gimli’s exposition rather than see it play out on screen; which takes the surprise of Aragorn and Company having taken the corsair’s ships out of the equation.
Add in the Goonies-Orc commander, invented out of whole cloth and given way too much screen time, and the lack of Gandalf/Witch King confrontation at the gates of Minas Tirith (I think that made it into the extended cut but wasn’t in the theatrical cut) and I just was disappointed in the whole thing.
Stormcrow - Yes, definitely. well said. The great battle at Minas Tirith/Pelennor Fields was not handled well, compared to the book. Yet there are bits of it that I still find compelling to watch.
I don’t think the Tolkien estate has any claim to film rights - according to wikipedia, the film rights (and many other rights) were sold by J.R.R. Tolkien way back in 1968. Considering they were resold, then licensed, and used more than once (the Rankin-Bass shows, the Bakshi film, and the Jackson films), and were still valid a full 40+ years after the original sale, it seems they were sold permanently, and the Tolkien estate will never get them back. So another studio could license them tomorrow and start filming, and there’s nothing Christopher Tolkien could do about it.
There was a confrontation though not at the main gate - it was on a terrace further up into the city, I believe. Gandalf’s staff was broken (I never understood that, how could the witch king have had more power than Gandalf at that point?) but further confrontation was interrupted by, I believe, trumpets signalling the attack of the Rohirrim. The witch king pulled away from Gandalf to deal with that.
eta: I think an Orc commander was necessary in the movie to personify the other side, otherwise you just have hordes of orcs that all seem the same. It’s easier to hate one person than a horde.
Don’t forget how the Ghost “Scrubbing Bubbles” Army completely trivialized the battle by wiping out the orc horde in 30 seconds.
Just wanted to clarify - I was only referring to the rights to The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings books. The film rights to everything else J.R.R. wrote still belong to the Tolkien estate.
Beyond that…how long until it becomes a generic fantasy background setting, and original stories get written. The way Robin Hood or King Arthur work today. Fan-fiction on the professional level.
I interpret this locally, not globally. Not that it magically made the Nazgul material again when it had been magical (or whatever) but just that it cut his leg.
Eowyn had an ordinary sword…but was a woman, and that was a second weakness the foe had.
Trinopus - as far as “Beyond that…how long until it becomes a generic fantasy background setting, and original stories get written. The way Robin Hood or King Arthur work today. Fan-fiction on the professional level.” : Dear God no. That way leads to - shudder - Terry Brooks. Hopefully the Tolkien Estate can keep the world of Middle Earth safely protected for a long, long, long time.
I agree. The blade didn’t nullify his nature. It was just so full of inherent, ancient emnity that it was able to wound him despite his supernatural quality. The blade was naturally antithetical to the WK.
The Witch-King did not have some special vulnerability to being attacked by any woman (or, more broadly, by any “not-a-man”). Random women were no special threat to him – it was prophecied that no man would defeat him, and Eowyn (or Merry) was just the particular no man who would do it.
In other words, the “no man” mention in the prophecy was just the descriptor for Eowyn (or Merry), specifically. Not a warning that any woman could walk up and lop off his head. The Witch-King’s weakness was to being attacked by Eowyn (and Merry).
I think this may be an ongoing dispute, but I understood that the “no man can kill me” thing was a prophecy, not some magical control over his mortality.
If that is the case, then Merry’s blade does become critically important, in that for whatever reason it was able to undo the magic that held him together, and that allowed Eowyn to deliver a deathblow. Her being female was not a weakness of the witch king; his weakness that lead to his death was vulnerability to the power of Merry’s blade.
Of course “not by the hand of man will he fall” is suitably vague for a prophecy. “Not a man” could be anything that is not a human male: a human female, an elf or hobbit or dwarf of any gender; a rock falling off a cliff; even a maia like Gandalf.
eta: sigh, I really do need to learn to type faster.
It’s going for the cite that leaves you vulnerable to thread-ninjas. 
I occasionally try to work through in my head how I would have filmed the Paths of the Dead/Corsairs/Black Sails --Surprise! It’s Aragorn! sequence. You’d basically need to use an extended flashback, which should be used sparingly.
In the Extended Cut there is a confrontation between Gandalf and the WK, but the WK is on his fell beast, rather than a horse; it’s on a battlement, rather than the courtyard inside the gates, and doesn’t have the eerie quiet and the fantastic exchange of dialog…something like:
G: Go back to the nothingness that awaits you and your master!
WK: Old fool! Do you not see my hour has come? Die now, and curse in vain!
which I love and sorely miss.
On the question of if the Witch-King was already dead by the time Eowyn drove her blade into the place where the base of his neck would have been(had it been visible), remember she was injured by the black breath. Merry also took such a harm because the Witch-King, like all the Nazgul, had some sort of defensive magic. Aragorn comes into the city and uses athelas and the power of the line of kings to heal Eowyn and Merry. Aragorn also remarks to the healers that Eowyn’s left arm(the shield-arm) was broken by the mace and had been tended by the healers of Gondor, but her “chief harm” was due to what those healers called the “black breath” which happened to anyone who dared smite a Nazgul with a weapon or was injured by a Nazgul’s weapon.
If Eowyn was stabbing into an empty cloak, why did she get her “chief hurt” in her sword arm from stabbing the foul thing?
Enjoy,
Steven
You both may very well be right. I am seeing the (obvious) parallels to Macbeth. Is it MacDuff’s nature that enables him to fulfill the prophecy, or was it just a cute way of pointing to MacDuff? It can be interpreted either way…
“A man with a foolish-looking beard shall slay thee…”
or
“Trinopus of the SDMB shall slay thee…”
The first, being more general, forces the enemy to be wary of all men with foolish-looking beards. So when I face the enemy and rip off the latex that was covering my chin, and say, “Lo! I have a foolish-looking beard!” and the enemy gasps in terror – it appears as if the beard is the talisman of power, rather than just a prophetic indicator.
Anyway, I won’t push it any farther, lest a mod call it a highjack and we from the debating room be untimely rip’d.