Author Topic: Peter Jackson question (Read 1725 times)

Momus-- · « **Reply #60 on:** January 12, 2005, 09:04:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
...are there any direct stories about those wars?

They are covered to a certain extent in Unfinished Tales, which deals with material largely left out of the Silmarillion.

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo Those swords where not enchanted to kill the witchking.

I'd disagree with that point, and can cite two passages from LOTR to support the contrary view.

In The Two Towers, Aragorn says, referring to the capture of Merry and Pippin:

"Doubtless the Orcs despoiled them, but feared to keep the knives, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor.

Later, in ROTK, The commentary itself states in regard to the fate of Merry's blade:

"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 when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not thought 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.

Pongo · « **Reply #61 on:** January 12, 2005, 10:29:25 AM »

You can read that how you chose I suppose. Like many of Tolkiens writtings. Was the wound one that was as deadly as any that could have been delt or was the sword dealing a wound that no other sword could have dealt. I read it that the wound was as lethal as could be. That the quality of the sword and its good enchantments made it worthy is of no doubt.
But the sword was not crafted to be the bane of the witchking. Tolkien is being ironic. This little dagger for a princling as a man would see it ended up being centeral in the demise of the being that destroyed the 2 northern realms of the faithfull numeronians.

Besides, It was Eowens sword that dispatched the witchking.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #62 on:** January 12, 2005, 11:14:57 AM »

"And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 144, dated 1954

In my research Tolkien left alot of unresolved mysteries in his books. What killed the Witch King of Angmar is insignificant, all that is needed to be known is that he was killed.

In the movie you can clearly see Merry react to something happening to him as he stabbed the Nazgul. I have always wondered about that and I think Jackson left it vague on purpose.

Pongo · « **Reply #63 on:** January 12, 2005, 11:27:31 AM »

Irrelivent to you perhaps. But not irrelivent to Tolkien. Such details are the foundation of the books that Tolkien wrote, the hint of them fills the movie and makes it far better then it would be otherwise.

The witch king was fated by Glorifindal to not be killed by a man, in tolkien land fate is a real thing. Elves in particular are bound by their fates.

Merry is reacting to the black breath. This is a power or curse that the nazgul possess that afflicts most who strike them or are stricken by them. Frodo suffered from it after weathertop, Eowen, Famier and Merry suffered from it after the battle of the pelenor fields. It can be cured by a herb called kings foil that Aragorn found near weather top. It is actually a semi major part of the book that Tolkien revisits several times.

Boreing details of the Tolkien nazis to you I am sure.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #64 on:** January 12, 2005, 11:28:30 AM »

Oh, that's another thing. They left out the entire "The hands of the king are the hands of a healer" part.

But the point still stands. Had Eowyn stabbed the witchking before merry did, nothing would have happened.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #65 on:** January 12, 2005, 11:42:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
Irrelivent to you perhaps. But not irrelivent to Tolkien. Such details are the foundation of the books that Tolkien wrote, the hint of them fills the movie and makes it far better then it would be otherwise.

The witch king was fated by Glorifindal to not be killed by a man, in tolkien land fate is a real thing. Elves in particular are bound by their fates.

Merry is reacting to the black breath. This is a power or curse that the nazgul possess that afflicts most who strike them or are stricken by them. Frodo suffered from it after weathertop, Eowen, Famier and Merry suffered from it after the battle of the pelenor fields. It can be cured by a herb called kings foil that Aragorn found near weather top. It is actually a semi major part of the book that Tolkien revisits several times.

Boreing details of the Tolkien nazis to you I am sure.

No, exactly the opposite. I wonder if you read what I posted? I said insignificant, not irrelevant. I really like finding out the details of the story but I realise that you can't put them all into a film. As I said in my research of Tolkien's work he likes being vague at times. What bores me to tears are the TN's constant cry of "the movies suck because they deviate so far from the books". We can go ad nauseum into the details that were left out or were changed but the bottom line is this, Jackson could not put everything into the movies that would make everyone happy. But if you want to keep arguing this go right ahead.

rshubert · « **Reply #66 on:** January 12, 2005, 11:44:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
The Silmarillion is a terrible tease. Great hints of fantastic stories.
I wish Tolkein still lived so he could flesh them out.

Boy, I agree with that.

Pongo · « **Reply #67 on:** January 12, 2005, 11:50:37 AM »

I have read your posts carefully, your repeated whining to the contrary is old and frail.

I must have missed anyone who loves the books saying the hate the movies. I certainly love the movies. But it is sad to those of us who know the story by reading it(not reasearching it) that the story was changed(weakend) for no reason. But if you learn the chicks version of the tale first you will never realize that.

I would hazard that no one who loves the books is totaly satisfied with the changes that PJ and the chicks made to the story line in the way of embelishment. where they had to cut they had to cut. Where they changed the fundimental motivations and relationships of the characters they failed.
But its a good movie. People without the attention span to read the books can now considerthemselves tolkein scholars by "researching" the books instead of reading them. Thats progress.

Glas · « **Reply #68 on:** January 12, 2005, 12:03:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184

But the point still stands. Had Eowyn stabbed the witchking before merry did, nothing would have happened.

So wrong...

From the book itself;

Quote

...he raised his mace to kill.

But then he stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving in to the ground. Merry's sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing through the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee.

'Eowyn!', 'Eowyn!' cried Merry. Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her. The sword broke sparkling in to many shards. The crown rolled away with a clang. Eowyn fell forward upon her fallen foe. But lo! the mantle and hauberk were empty.....

Nothing in there about Merry's sword doing much damage, except causing him to 'stumble forward'. It wasnt until Eowyn drove her sword between crown and mantle that he began to disintegrate.

Matter settled I believe

WMLute · « **Reply #69 on:** January 12, 2005, 12:36:26 PM »

Merry's strike only served to allow Eowyn time to kill the Witch King. The knife he used, while powerful (not even CLOSE to Sting, Gandalf's sword etc) is more of a "complet the circle" thingy that JRR liked to do. It's IRONIC that it was forged during the wars in Arnor, but not crucial. I also read it that Merry could hurt 'em 'cause he wasn't a "man".

BUT Merry's strike a death blow? Not hardly. More of an annoyance. It's a timing thing. W/O Merry's strike, it's TRUE the Eowyn might not have struck the fatal blow, but that's like you driving down the road, mud hitting your windshield, and you not seeing the truck that pulled out infront of you. It's not the MUD that killed you, but it contributed to it. Coroner wouldn't put "cause of death: mud splash".

Quit being silly.

Charon · « **Reply #70 on:** January 12, 2005, 12:56:45 PM »

Quote

I must have missed anyone who loves the books saying the hate the movies. I certainly love the movies. But it is sad to those of us who know the story by reading it(not reasearching it) that the story was changed(weakend) for no reason. But if you learn the chicks version of the tale first you will never realize that.

I would hazard that no one who loves the books is totaly satisfied with the changes that PJ and the chicks made to the story line in the way of embelishment. where they had to cut they had to cut. Where they changed the fundimental motivations and relationships of the characters they failed.
But its a good movie. People without the attention span to read the books can now considerthemselves tolkein scholars by "researching" the books instead of reading them. Thats progress.

Well stated.

Charon

Thrawn · « **Reply #71 on:** January 12, 2005, 06:06:50 PM »

I think that the Witch-King wasn't killed by a man because it was his destiny to be killed by Merry and Eowyn. Not because men couldn't physically kill him.

Pongo · « **Reply #72 on:** January 12, 2005, 06:59:19 PM »

I think thats how it works.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #73 on:** January 12, 2005, 10:26:02 PM »

It's kind of like a heartattack. You die because of lack of blood, but the clog in an artery on your heart causes it.

Momus-- · « **Reply #74 on:** January 13, 2005, 04:50:23 AM »

Pongo, the implication is obvious that Meriadoc's blade , while not the one to deal the actual death-blow, was absolutely crucial, fashioned as it was by the ancient enemies of Angmar, the Dunedain of the North. Read that line again:

..breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.

Later on in ROTK, Gandalf says: "All blades perish that pierce that deadly King", the implication being that the WK had been struck by lesser blades previously to little or no effect.

Tolkien makes it clear that this blade was the right blade in the right hands at the right time. Merry breaks the spell, Eowyn deals the final blow. Neither one without the other. No irony intended or required. It is self-evident.

Tolkien creates a specific mythology around the barrow blades; if as you argue, the blades's provenance had so little do do with the final outcome, then why would Tolkien have reason to reference the magical properties of the blade following the WK's defeat? I think the narative intentions are explicit on this count.

Quote

I think that the Witch-King wasn't killed by a man because it was his destiny to be killed by Merry and Eowyn. Not because men couldn't physically kill him.

This is absolutely right. The motif of fate runs throughout Tolkien's works. Just as Bilbo was meant to find the ring when he did thus triggering the whole chain of events, the Fellowship were fated to be waylaid on the Barrow Downs and thus find the blades whose use would be crucial later on in the story.