Consequences of no Barrow-Downs

[Voralphion]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before but, has anyone else noted that since the barrow downs scene isn't in the movie, and the hobbits are just given ordinary swords by Aragorn that Merry and Eowyn wouldn't be able to kill the Witch-King because it was the barrow downs sword that was woven with spells by the men of Westernesse that finally broke the spell that held his body together and allowed him to be killed?

[Diamond18]

I think we are to believe that Aragorn gave them special swords. I remember this being discussed somewhere...somewhere back in the deeps of time before FotR came out. I cannot direct you to it...but I think the generel conclusion is that Aragorn would have no trouble getting hold of Westernesse swords that he could give to the hobbits.<P>Of course the real consequence is that we can't use images from that part in the movie (since it wasn't there!) as avatars. It would be spiffy, indeed.<p>[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

[Aragorn_the_Ranger]

Merry and Pippin are given special swords by Galadriel during the gift giving scene that won't be seen untill the extended version of Fotr. I think that the swords that she gives them are of Westernesse.

[Bêthberry]

There are other consequences, although more subtle. When the hobbits leave the Shire, the trek is a bit of a lark and even Frodo has no real conceptual understanding of what he has undertaken, despite Gandalf's talk with him about the Ring, even if he as yet has spoken only of taking the Ring to Rivendell.<P>The dangers in the Old Forest and in the Barrow Downs temper this enthusiasm and give Frodo some small intimations about the Ring. Yet, these are "normal" dangers you might say. They put the subseqent challenges and terrors in relief as profound and serious ones.<P>Without them in the movie, the scene at the Prancing Pony must accomplish this, must give them a forewarning of how serious is the road ahead. Thus, Strider is more sinister and is rougher with Frodo in the movie than he is in the book. He is even a bit over the top. Thus, Jackson has put Aragorn more in the line of the Rochesters and Heathcliffs--slightly dangerous to know--than Tolkien did. Had we seen the dangers of the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs, he would not have had to do this--unless, of course, Jackson was also pandering to pitty patty little hearts the way the Brontës were.<P>Bethberry

[Diamond18]

Are you saying that<BR>Peter picked a pack of pitty patty little hearts to pander to?

[elfling]

I never really fully understood the Barrow-Downs part but it would have definitly added a little more risk to the journey earlier on. That is very insightfull about PJ having to make Aragorn tougher in the beginning. Very wise Bethelberry!

[Kalimac]

That'll be interesting if it turns out that Merry and Pippin are given their swords by Galadriel (and not totally unbelievable, since she's been around for a while and might well have picked up a few swords of Westernesse, though it's hard to picture her trying to actively find them). The only awkwardness is that that would be a DVD-only scene, and when they're releasing the movie in the theaters, having a flashback to a scene that wasn't in the original theatrical FOTR release would look like a continuity error (or like one of those bad "Had I But Known" detective stories where someone rushes in with relevant information which has been kept secret in a rather unlikely way throughout most of the story just to keep the whole mystery from being cleared up on Page 3). Though you have to admit that swords would be niftier gifts than what M & P originally got in the books - belts are nice, but not terribly helpful in times of crisis.<P>I'm guessing that unfortunately Merry's sword is going to be demoted to a venerable yet ordinary and unmagical blade. The reason for this is that in the books Tolkien gives the Witch-King a double whammy, so to speak; there's Merry's sword, which breaks the spell, however there's ALSO the prophecy about how "No man may hinder me" to which Eowyn replies "But no man am I." As in Macbeth, the "No man" bit would easily be enough, plotwise, to convince the movie watcher that Eowyn is "able" so to speak, to kill the Witch-King. It's not like Merry stabs with the sword and then Eowyn is suddenly magically capable of killing the Witch-King - if that happened in the movie with Merry wielding an ordinary sword, that would be a pretty big hole in the plot ("Wait..he can't be killed but now he can be? Hang on!") But undoubtedly they'll keep in the dialogue between Eowyn and the Witch-King to be the explanation for why she could do it.<P>Hopefully they'll let Merry still stab the Witch-King, though. Not to make him vulnerable - the prophecy can take care of that - but to distract him long enough so that Eowyn can recover and strike at him. After all, just because the prophecy is worded so that a woman may kill the Witch-King doesn't mean that he can't still kill her first.<p>[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Kalimac ]

[Voralphion]

The prophecy didn't say that the witch-king couldn't be killed by a man, just that he wouldn't die by by the hand of man.<BR>Anyway, I believe that Merry's strike was far more important than Eowyn's in the Witch-King's demise. It was Merry's sword that caused him to die because it was woven with spells by the men of Westernesse, not the fact that he had a normal sword thrust at him by a women in his non-existent face.<BR>The sword broke th spell that held his unseen sinews together. The unseen sinews were in his entire body, not just the knee. The sword strike meant that Sauron's ring spell that allowed him to take a physical form was broken so he was killed. Eowyn's sword to the face, although looking impressive I think was just for show but in the end had no effect on him.

[Kalimac]

Voralphion, I see what you mean, but I wasn't trying to say that Eowyn's strike was more important than Merry's in the book, just that they'd probably make it so for the movie. It's true that in the book it's Merry's sword that unlocks the spell, so to speak - then Eowyn takes advantage of that to destroy the Witch-King. But since the subplot of Merry's sword being a magic Sword of Westernesse has so far been cut from the movie (and I can't see where they'd get room to shoehorn it into TTT) they'll have to find another explanation for the Witch-King's demise, and the next-best thing for them would be to adapt ROTK as little as possible and just turn the prophecy about "no mortal man" in the main cause rather than just the immediate cause. The point is that it would make sense to an audience that hasn't read Tolkien, especially if they remember their high school Shakespeare and that tricky prophecy about how "no man of woman born" could harm Macbeth. (Hmm, looks like neither Macbeth nor the Witch-King read the fine print in their prophecies). <P>The prophecy didn't say that the witch-king couldn't be killed by a man, just that he wouldn't die by by the hand of man.<P>For the Witch-King's purposes those two things are pretty much identical. We never see anything to contradict his statement (and the prophecy) that no man will be able to kill him. It's just that he assumed that "man" meant "The race of men" and not "persons of the male sex." <P>And you're right, despite what Eowyn says to the contrary, it's never absolutely PROVED that she would have been able to kill him had Merry not broken the spell; perhaps the prophecy did mean "The race of men" after all. But there's certainly a heavy enough implication (in the "They say that not by hand of any mortal man shall he fall" sense) that the moviemakers would be justified in assuming that women were in fact exempt from that clause, however much assistance they may have required from hobbits (also not of the race of men).

[Diamond18]

The fact that Merry broke the "spell" on the Witch-King was one of my most favorite parts of the entire book! There are some changes in FotR that I didn't mind, and even liked, but I really <I>really</I> hope that they do not take away from any of Merry's glory.<P>I love re-reading that part about him clenching his fist and thinking, "She should not die, so fair, so desperate! At least she should not die alone, unaided."<P>Eru, I love that part!<P>I still think that the swords Aragorn gave the Hobbits at Weathertop were blades of Westernesse. I thought that Galadriel just gave them "little silver daggers".

[Anastasia]

How are they gonna explain that only Merry's sword could seriously kill the Witch King? I mean they're not going to have Gandalf coming in at the end and saying "So you see, it all makes sense, because Merry's sword was made in Gondolin (it was, right, I'm a bit rusty)....blah, blah.", are they? ARE THEY??????!!!!!!<BR>How can they explain something that only the narrator said when there is no narrator? It would be cool if they did like a flashback, showing the men of Gondolin or wherever the sword was made making it and then one of them saying "Hmmm, I really hate the king of Angmar, so now only my blade can kill him" OK, I'll shut up now.

[Diamond18]

Oh, who cares about the people who don't know! <I>We</I> know Merry's sword was special. All they have to do is write some triumphant music, add a little special effects (like some sort of spark or <I>something</I> when Merry stabs him, so we who know can all say, "Aha! Go Merry! You rock!"

[greyhavener]

I think the origin of their weapons is critical to the story and I'm sorry they left it out. The Barrow Downs scene in the book also establishes Frodo as brave and alert in times of danger. He comes off kind of helpless in the movie. He's always getting stabbed and being taken care of by the others.