# Question about the Witch King in LOTR



## Kai Lord (Dec 21, 2003)

Do the novels offer any insight as to why the Nazgul King fled from Aragorn on Weathertop considering ROTK's revelation that he was invulnerable to all living men?  Or did that encounter not occur in the books?


----------



## ConnorSB (Dec 21, 2003)

oh, no, it was in the books. its mostly cause nazgul really dont like fire, like REALLY. and cause aragorn was hardcore. If i remember correctly..


----------



## ConnorSB (Dec 21, 2003)

I just read the scene. Basically its cause aragorn is hard core. The witch king stabs Frodo, and he puts the ring on. before he fades to black he sees aragorn leap from the shadows with "a flaming brand in each hand," and then thats basically it. So its cause nazgul dont like fire, or b/c aragorn is good looking.


----------



## Kai Lord (Dec 21, 2003)

Then I can see why the Nazgul had their own castle instead of hanging out in Sauron's volcanic landscape.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 21, 2003)

Yeah they needed their own digs. Sauron doesn't mind fire. Probably why he had control of the Barlogs during the first couple wars against the elves and the Men of Numeron(sp).


----------



## demiurge1138 (Dec 21, 2003)

I remember hearing somewhere that the Nazgul were vulnerable to the elements, which was why they could be driven off with flames and had problems fording rivers. I don't remember where I read that, though...

Personally, I think the whole "no man may harm me" is just so Eowyn can have her big "I am no man" scene before offing the Witch-King.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 21, 2003)

*re*

As I understand it from the books, the Nazgul fled because they felt they had accomplished their mission after the Witchking stabbed Frodo. The piece of the knife that broke off was slowly turning Frodo into a wraith that would eventually do the bidding of the Witchking. There was no reason to press the fight, so they pulled back after Frodo said the name of Elbereth and removed the ring. That name also is apparently a bane to the Nazgul as well as the fire. I would say it was a combination of the fire, the name of Elbereth, and the Witchking thinking the knife would do the work of finishing Frodo and recovering the ring without having to risk disembodiment.

If not for the help of the elflord Glorfindel, his swift horse, and Elrond's and Gandalf's magic, he would have been right.


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 21, 2003)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Yeah they needed their own digs. Sauron doesn't mind fire. Probably why he had control of the Barlogs during the first couple wars against the elves and the Men of Numeron(sp).



Ya know, it's a good thing that Sauran had those _Barlogs_ on his side.  Cause when your drinkin' some fine mead with a good buzz on and ya trip over one, it really stings like a sonofagun.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 21, 2003)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> I would say it was a combination of the fire, the name of Elbereth, and the Witchking thinking the knife would do the work of finishing Frodo and recovering the ring without having to risk disembodiment.




Also, they mention that at Weathertop the nazgul are not yet at their full strength.  Even if the Witch King is not vulnerable, his lackeys might be, and he might withdraw to get them out of the fight.

The original quote from RotK is "No living man may hinder me."  We'll note that in saying "man" not only is the Witch King leaving out women, but dwarves, elves, and istari (like Gandalf).  Aragorn is as pureblooded a Numenorian as exists in Middle Earth at the time, and the Numenorians have elven blood in thier lines.  He may not quite count as human in that regard.  Facing Strider might be nearly as bad as facing Glorfindel...


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 21, 2003)

I also recall that it's because all nine weren't present for the attack on Weathertop.  Though I might be misremembering.  

All nine were there by the time they got to the ford of Rivendell.  And regarding that, the flood killed their horses, and washed their clothing and armor away, leaving them nothing but ghosts who couldn't really interact with the living world.  Gandalf says something about them having to make their way back to Mordor as pale shadows.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 21, 2003)

* Walks into thread with copious reams of Tolkienish erudition

Begins, "Well, you see, their actual mission...

* Looks at Celtavian's post

Clears throat. "Then let me just add that they are not at...

* Sees Umbran's post

Tries desperately one more time. "Since there were only five...

* Spies Buttercup's comment

"Aw, phooey!"

*Stalks off to find someplace where nobody else really knows about the books


----------



## Daniel Knight (Dec 21, 2003)

Am I the only one who thought that the Witch King wasn’t being literal when he said the line?  Like… you know when you’re in the heat of battle against an army – you’re going to say some things that aren’t necessarily true but sound good at the time to put the willies up the enemy, like “Bwahaha… I’m gonna suck out your eyeballs through your nose and make balloon animals out of your intestines when I’m through with you!!”

I guess what I’m saying is, when he said “No man can hurt me” (or something like that), “man” didn’t latterly mean, “man”.  He meant it as in “man-kind”, (which includes females).

She then goes, “Well bugger that, you ugly looking sod, I’m gonna stab you in the hat and show you that I’m a lot better with this sword then you think I am.  And then when you die, I’m gonna say “I am no man”, ‘cause that would be a really clever pun on what you just said, and show that I truly am kick-arse in combat!”

Or am I the only one who thought that?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 21, 2003)

Daniel Knight said:
			
		

> Or am I the only one who thought that?




Perhaps you are  

Mythically speaking, the "cannot be killed by a male human" is probably more correct. It's a fairly old saw in mythology - the villain that acts as invulnerable because he's not vulnerable to the basic weapons available.  Can't be slain by any man of woman born, only to be slain by someone ripped untimely from mother's womb.  Or cannot be slain by any weapon forged by man, only to be beaten to death with a tree branch. Mythology is full of things that are intended literally, but are taken more generally by the characters.

Remember that, next time you're making up prophecies and omen and oracles. Usually, one goes about it by saying somethng vague.  Sometimes, it's better to say something very, very specific, but word it so that it'll be read in a more general fashion.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 21, 2003)

Daniel Knight said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who thought that the Witch King wasn’t being literal when he said the line?  Like… you know when you’re in the heat of battle against an army – you’re going to say some things that aren’t necessarily true but sound good at the time to put the willies up the enemy, like “Bwahaha… I’m gonna suck out your eyeballs through your nose and make balloon animals out of your intestines when I’m through with you!!”
> 
> I guess what I’m saying is, when he said “No man can hurt me” (or something like that), “man” didn’t latterly mean, “man”.  He meant it as in “man-kind”, (which includes females).
> 
> ...




I think you can make a credible argument that in the movie he wasn't being literal. There's no other mention of that information (I don't think Gandalf mentions it when he's describing him, but I might have missed it) in the movie. 

In the book, however, there is a specific mention of it, and it's even covered in the appendices when the host of Angmar is defeated by the forces of Gondor and Rivendell. Earnur is about to follow the fleeing Witch-King and Glorfindel stops him, saying that he cannot be slain by mortal man. So it's definitely not just a cool line from him in the book.

(Recalled all of the above without having looked at the books in a couple of years. My geek-fu is strong  )


----------



## Taren Seeker (Dec 21, 2003)

Gandalf mentioned it in the movie as well.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 21, 2003)

shilsen said:
			
		

> (I don't think Gandalf mentions it when he's describing him, but I might have missed it)




I think you missed it.  I believe words to the same effect come from Gandalf when he's describing the leader of Sauron's forces.  But I've only seen the movie once, so I might just be wrong.


----------



## Pants (Dec 21, 2003)

There's something really similar to the 'No man can hinder me' in MacBeth.  I can't remember the exact line, but the circumstances and the line are very similar.  Although, Shakespeare did borrow from other sources so... what's the point of my post?  I like saying the name 'MacBeth.'

MacBeth! MacBeth!


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 21, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> ...I like saying the name 'MacBeth.' MacBeth! MacBeth!



*Aahhhhh! Hot potato, off his drawers, pluck to make amends. Ohhh!*


----------



## Morrus (Dec 21, 2003)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> *Aahhhhh! Hot potato, off his drawers, pluck to make amends. Ohhh!*



I heard it as "Puck will make amends".


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 21, 2003)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I heard it as "Puck will make amends".




There's debate.

Someone's done an analysis here.

-Hyp.


----------



## Green Knight (Dec 22, 2003)

"No man of woman born may harm MacBeth". 

Unfortunately for MacBeth, MacDuff was born through a ceasarian. So he was able to kill MacBeth. Likewise, no man could literally kill the Witch King. Only a woman could do it (It may also be likely that it refers to human men. After all, Merry got a good shot in there).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 22, 2003)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> So he was able to kill MacBeth. Likewise, no man could literally kill the Witch King. Only a woman could do it (It may also be likely that it refers to human men. After all, Merry got a good shot in there).




Given that the term "human" is rarely (ever?) used in Tolkien, I'd have preferred to see "No man" exclude both male and female Men.

... leaving it open for all the other races, but warding against Eowyn.

Ah well.

-Hyp.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 22, 2003)

In the book the Nazgul fled when Frodo invoked the name of Elbereth (sp?).  This name was painful for them to hear.  Aragorn couldn't see them, let alone fight them, in the book.  Indeed, none of Frodo's companions saw the Nazgul on Weathertop, though they felt their presence.

I like the movie on it's own merits, and knowing the difficulties involved in composing a book to film I can appreciate the magnificence of PJ's work.  That said, there are several parts that are screwed up to the point of being non-sensical, and this is one of them.

Merry was able to hit the Witch King because the sword he weilded, which he got from the Barrow Wight, was made ESPECIALLY to kill the witch king, who was the enemy of the kings of the barrows in life.

I also was sorely dissapointed with RotK's Eowyn scene.  It was the only miss in otherwise fine send off for the series, but it was a let down.  Of all the scenes in the book that was the last one I thought they would muck with.


----------



## kingpaul (Dec 22, 2003)

> No living man may hinder me



Two of my friends and I were discussing this.  I've always held that man meant race, not gender...which is why, when Merry struck first, Eowyn was able to slay the Witch King.

One friend holds that it meant gender, and Merry's strike really didn't do anything.

The third brought up an angle I've never conisdered...he focused on 'living'.  His point is that Merry's weapon was from the Barrows...the realm of undeath.  Therefore, the weapon was not from the living.  As such, it was the blade (wielder didn't matter) that hurt the Witch King.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Dec 22, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Two of my friends were discussing this.  I've always held that man meant race, not gender...which is why, when Merry struck first, Eowyn was able to slay the Witch King.




"But no living man am I!" Eowyn cried.

The Witch-King leaned close and examined her face.  "Don't see no pointy ears," he noted.  "No beard, neither.  Look like a Man to me!  Now, if you'll excuse me while I deal with this Shire-Rat..."

-Hyp.


----------



## Buttercup (Dec 22, 2003)

That must be in the Hypersmurf translation, then?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 22, 2003)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Merry was able to hit the Witch King because the sword he weilded, which he got from the Barrow Wight, was made ESPECIALLY to kill the witch king, who was the enemy of the kings of the barrows in life.




I think that's taking it a little too far.  There were a bunch of such knives in the barrow, and many barrows.  And there's no reason to think the one the hobbits happened into was particularly special.  You mean to say that those folks made an entire class of weapons just to kill one man?

Plus, IIRC, you've got the history a bit wrong.  I think the barrows are filled with the Black Numenoreans - the men of Aragorn's race after they fell under Sauron's sway.  That's why they are wights, they were evil sorcerers in life.  The Witch King was the greatest of these.  The knife bites not because it was made to work against him specifically, but more generally because it is a magical weapon.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 22, 2003)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> Merry was able to hit the Witch King because the sword he weilded, which he got from the Barrow Wight, was made ESPECIALLY to kill the witch king, who was the enemy of the kings of the barrows in life.




Not exactly; I just re-read this passage today, and you're confusing things a bit. His weapon was made by someone who happened to hate the Witchking of Angmar and who would have been pleased to see it put to such use, but it was just a "normal" magical elven weapon. The book discusses this on the same page that Merry stabs him.


----------



## BSF (Dec 22, 2003)

Hmm, I'm going to have to disagree with you here Piratecat.  Though, it might be a matter is interpretation.  I will quote from my copy of RotK.

"So passed the sword of the Barrow-Downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know it's fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-Kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and it's sorceror king.  No other blade, not though mightier hand 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."

As I read it, that blade was made to kill the Witch-King.  Which is why the cutting of the barrow downs in FotR bugged me.  

Now, the barrow downs were never a place for Black Numenoreons.  In fact, the Dunedain of Cardolan took refuge there during the wars with Angmar in Third Age 1409.  200 years later (1636) the barrow wights took residence, from Angmar.  The Witch-King, it would seem, wanted to desecrate the area.

As for the scene in the movie, I am curious what Mr. Morris did not like about it.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 22, 2003)

Hrmm. I read "no other blade" less literally, but I can see your point. It's hard for me to believe that this happened to be the only blade around that would have worked.


----------



## BSF (Dec 22, 2003)

For some reason, I thought all the blades in that particular barrow were designed to affect the Witch-King.  But, I cannot find anything that backs that up.  The Witch-King was the leader at Angmar.  I am sure there were more of the Nazgul around.  Perhaps that blade was just a Nazgul-bane ghost touch blade and since it slew the Witch-King himself it would have pleased the creator more.  

It is also worth noting that the blade was not Elven.  It was a Dunedain weapon.  Dunedain = Men of Westernesse


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 22, 2003)

*re*



			
				Michael Morris said:
			
		

> I also was sorely dissapointed with RotK's Eowyn scene.  It was the only miss in otherwise fine send off for the series, but it was a let down.  Of all the scenes in the book that was the last one I thought they would muck with.




I was disappointed by RotK's Eowyn scene as well. It lost alot of its power because you didn't see what it cost to kill the Witchking. In the book, Eowyn was laid out and you weren't sure she was alive until Prince Imrahil proved it so. I really wanted to see Eomer ride up and look down to see his fallen king, then notice his fallen sister, and become enraged. 

Merry should have been talking to King Theoden as he died weeping. The scene in the book is much more moving and powerful than the scene in the movie.

In the movie, you would have thought the worst wound suffered for killing the Witchking was a broken arm. Merry was in the last battle before the Black Gates, he should have been laid up suffering from the "black breath". 

The Nazgul weren't well-developed in the film. It was hard to see their power. The flying steeds the Nazgul rode seemed stronger than the Nazgul themselves. Very disappointing IMO.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Dec 22, 2003)

Hunh.  

Makes me want to reread the books AND see the movie again.  

That's pretty cool.


----------



## BSF (Dec 22, 2003)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> I was disappointed by RotK's Eowyn scene as well. It lost alot of its power because you didn't see what it cost to kill the Witchking. In the book, Eowyn was laid out and you weren't sure she was alive until Prince Imrahil proved it so. I really wanted to see Eomer ride up and look down to see his fallen king, then notice his fallen sister, and become enraged.
> 
> Merry should have been talking to King Theoden as he died weeping. The scene in the book is much more moving and powerful than the scene in the movie.
> 
> ...




Fair enough!  I completely understand your perspective on that.  But, I think (hope) that much of that was a side affect of ripping out the House of Healing scenes.  I was relatively pleased with the scene.  Of course, that is because I was afraid they were going to have Theoden take down the Witch-King, or something equally ludicrous.  Perhaps I wasn't as disappointed because my expectations were lower?

In any event, I liked the movies despite the things that bothered me.  It is a massive undertaking and I can fall back onto the books whenever I want to.


----------



## Celtavian (Dec 22, 2003)

*re*



			
				BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> In any event, I liked the movies despite the things that bothered me.  It is a massive undertaking and I can fall back onto the books whenever I want to.




This is where I stand as well. As unsatisfying as the movies are as an adaptation of Tolkien's _Lord of the Rings_, they are still excellent movies. I can tell that P.J. put his heart and soul into them. 

I figure in the future (probably after I'm dead) someone will try to make them again. Just as P.J. seemed to draw some inspiration from Bakshi's animated attempt, the director who tries this in the future will draw much of what is good from P.J.s version and make an even better adaptation.


----------



## shilsen (Dec 22, 2003)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Hrmm. I read "no other blade" less literally, but I can see your point. It's hard for me to believe that this happened to be the only blade around that would have worked.




That's how I read it. The barrow-blades (plural, not singular) fortuitously happened to be made by enemies of the Witch-King.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 22, 2003)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> This is where I stand as well. As unsatisfying as the movies are as an adaptation of Tolkien's _Lord of the Rings_, they are still excellent movies. I can tell that P.J. put his heart and soul into them.
> 
> I figure in the future (probably after I'm dead) someone will try to make them again. Just as P.J. seemed to draw some inspiration from Bakshi's animated attempt, the director who tries this in the future will draw much of what is good from P.J.s version and make an even better adaptation.




I don't think the silver screen could hold it.  What I want to see or make someday is a 12 2-hour episode mini-series on HBO or some other premium network.  If you want a true adaptation of the book, then a mini-series is the only way.

PJ took the screen as far as it can go.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 22, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I think that's taking it a little too far.  There were a bunch of such knives in the barrow, and many barrows.




But the hobbits didn't find it..  Tom did.

He's not the fool everyone thinks he is.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 22, 2003)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Yeah they needed their own digs. Sauron doesn't mind fire. Probably why he had control of the Barlogs during the first couple wars against the elves and the Men of Numeron(sp).



Ouch, Nightfall!  That post is just painful.


----------



## frog (Dec 22, 2003)

Here is another thought, Glorfindel's prophecy wasn't referring to the fact that no man COULD kill the Witch King, but rather that no man WOULD kill the Witch King. A moment of Elven foresight having shown him the true future of the Witch King he would be safe in saying that. 

If the Witch King heard of it and took it to mean that none COULD harm him, well, that just sets him up for the fall.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 22, 2003)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I think that's taking it a little too far.  There were a bunch of such knives in the barrow, and many barrows.  And there's no reason to think the one the hobbits happened into was particularly special.  You mean to say that those folks made an entire class of weapons just to kill one man?



Completely agree.  The idea that an entire class of weapons, in this case a dagger no less, were designed to kill one person doesn't seem to fit the passage at all.


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Plus, IIRC, you've got the history a bit wrong.  I think the barrows are filled with the Black Numenoreans - the men of Aragorn's race after they fell under Sauron's sway.  That's why they are wights, they were evil sorcerers in life.  The Witch King was the greatest of these.  The knife bites not because it was made to work against him specifically, but more generally because it is a magical weapon.



Uh, now that's not right.  Actually, the barrows were originally built by the _ancestors_ of the Dunedain as they passed through Eriador on their way to Beleriand ("Of Dwarves and Men" in _Peoples of Middle-earth_) and were later used again by the men of Arnor and the splinter kingdoms (Cardolan in this case, IIRC.)  The evil spirits sent out from Angmar to be the barrow-wights had nothing to do really with the bodies laid in the barrows to begin with (from the Appendices of _Return of the King_.)


----------



## Mystery Man (Dec 22, 2003)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> I don't think the silver screen could hold it.  What I want to see or make someday is a 12 2-hour episode mini-series on HBO or some other premium network.  If you want a true adaptation of the book, then a mini-series is the only way.
> 
> PJ took the screen as far as it can go.




55 hours of film shot for this movie. We haven't seen it all by a long shot.


----------



## Mystery Man (Dec 22, 2003)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> I was disappointed by RotK's Eowyn scene as well. It lost alot of its power because you didn't see what it cost to kill the Witchking. In the book, Eowyn was laid out and you weren't sure she was alive until Prince Imrahil proved it so. I really wanted to see Eomer ride up and look down to see his fallen king, then notice his fallen sister, and become enraged.
> 
> Merry should have been talking to King Theoden as he died weeping. The scene in the book is much more moving and powerful than the scene in the movie.
> 
> ...




I tell ya, there's a monday morning quarter back for everything.


----------



## kingpaul (Dec 22, 2003)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> 55 hours of film shot for this movie. We haven't seen it all by a long shot.



That much?  Wow.  I wonder if we'll be seeing an ultra-super-duper set that has all the footage, rough cuts and all.


----------



## Numion (Dec 22, 2003)

frog said:
			
		

> Here is another thought, Glorfindel's prophecy wasn't referring to the fact that no man COULD kill the Witch King, but rather that no man WOULD kill the Witch King. A moment of Elven foresight having shown him the true future of the Witch King he would be safe in saying that.
> 
> If the Witch King heard of it and took it to mean that none COULD harm him, well, that just sets him up for the fall.




Thats how I thought it too. Tolkien was very fond of different sagas and how they've changed during times. This could follow in a similar vein - a prophecy made a long ago that the Witch-King himself has decided to interpret more beneficially to himself, and people have began to use that meaning. 

Prophecies are hardly ever exact, so it's only natural that this should happen.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 22, 2003)

frog said:
			
		

> Here is another thought, Glorfindel's prophecy wasn't referring to the fact that no man COULD kill the Witch King, but rather that no man WOULD kill the Witch King. A moment of Elven foresight having shown him the true future of the Witch King he would be safe in saying that.




That would fit well with the traditional idea of how a Celtic _gesa_ or Norse _wyrd_ prophecy would work. Which makes sense, since those probably formed the basis for Tolkien's use of this sort of thing in his works.


----------



## Kestrel (Dec 22, 2003)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> I was disappointed by RotK's Eowyn scene as well. It lost alot of its power because you didn't see what it cost to kill the Witchking. In the book, Eowyn was laid out and you weren't sure she was alive until Prince Imrahil proved it so. I really wanted to see Eomer ride up and look down to see his fallen king, then notice his fallen sister, and become enraged.




I really think this scene is in the EE.  If you watch one of the trailers that they are showing on tv, you see Eomer on his knees crying and screaming.  I don't remember this scene actually being in the film.  It could be him grieving over the "death" of Eowyn or Theoden.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Dec 22, 2003)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> 55 hours of film shot for this movie. We haven't seen it all by a long shot.




The average film has at least a 10:1 or 20:1 ratio of film shot to finished product.  The vast majority of that 55 hours is multiple takes of the exactsame thing we saw on the screen.

The extended edition will have another hour or so, but to expect more than that is foolish.

If you _really_ want something to blow out of proportion, consider the rumor that actors are supposed to report to NZ for another round of "pick-up" shots in a couple months.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 22, 2003)

Kestrel said:
			
		

> I really think this scene is in the EE.  If you watch one of the trailers that they are showing on tv, you see Eomer on his knees crying and screaming.  I don't remember this scene actually being in the film.  It could be him grieving over the "death" of Eowyn or Theoden.




Spoiler:  



Spoiler



According to what I've read, this isn't Eomer finding the King. They filmed Gamling as he dies on the battlefield.  Apparently, the shot with Eomer is when he discovers the body of his old friend and Uncle's servant.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Dec 22, 2003)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> If you _really_ want something to blow out of proportion, consider the rumor that actors are supposed to report to NZ for another round of "pick-up" shots in a couple months.




SCOURING!!!!11!1!!!1


----------



## shilsen (Dec 23, 2003)

frog said:
			
		

> Here is another thought, Glorfindel's prophecy wasn't referring to the fact that no man COULD kill the Witch King, but rather that no man WOULD kill the Witch King. A moment of Elven foresight having shown him the true future of the Witch King he would be safe in saying that.
> 
> If the Witch King heard of it and took it to mean that none COULD harm him, well, that just sets him up for the fall.




Yup. It's very clearly set as a prophecy:

Glorfindel, looking into the gathering dark, said: "Do not pursue him! He will not return to this land. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall."


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 26, 2003)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Yup. It's very clearly set as a prophecy:
> 
> Glorfindel, looking into the gathering dark, said: "Do not pursue him! He will not return to this land. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall."




Throughout the movie's, "man" always seems to mean "humans", so I wonder if Pippin really was the Hand that Fell him. Perhaps Glorfindel wasn't sure if the others would know what he meant if he had said "dude, some hobbit's gonna whack him."

But, the reason I brought the topic back; Does Pippin even have the Barrow sword after being held captive by the orcs? I recall them finding the scabbards in the movie, but don't recall swords. Not having RotK, I can't really check the sword he stabs with, but some of the board members will probably see the movie again tommorow anyway 

The book is specific about the barrow sword, but does it explain how he still had it?


----------



## shilsen (Dec 26, 2003)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> But, the reason I brought the topic back; Does Pippin even have the Barrow sword after being held captive by the orcs? I recall them finding the scabbards in the movie, but don't recall swords. Not having RotK, I can't really check the sword he stabs with, but some of the board members will probably see the movie again tommorow anyway
> 
> The book is specific about the barrow sword, but does it explain how he still had it?




Yes. Aragorn returns the blades to the hobbits when he meets them at Isengard (in the chapter "Flotsam and Jetsam", IIRC). And it's Merry who stabs the Witch-King, not Pippin.


----------



## Sir Whiskers (Dec 26, 2003)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Yeah they needed their own digs. Sauron doesn't mind fire. Probably why he had control of the Barlogs during the first couple wars against the elves and the Men of Numeron(sp).




Just to clarify, the balrogs never really served Sauron. They were basically fallen angels corrupted by Sauron's master, Morgoth. Sauron served Morgoth and might have been given balrogs for specific tasks (I can't remember any examples of this though), but the balrogs always served Morgoth during the First Age.

The only balrog mentioned after the First Age was "Durin's Bane", the balrog that drove the dwarves out of Khazad-Dum, which then became known as Moria.



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> I think that's taking it a little too far.  There were a bunch of such knives in the barrow, and many barrows.  And there's no reason to think the one the hobbits happened into was particularly special.




Actually, this is a theme throughout Tokien's works. I don't remember if the line is in the first movie, but in the book, Gandalf tells Frodo that the Ring was meant to be found by Bilbo; that forces were at work in that moment, and forces other than Sauron caused Bilbo to find it. Which meant that Frodo was intended to receive the Ring. Gandalf meant this to be comforting to Frodo, though I doubt Frodo saw it that way.   

Having Merry "just happen" to end up with the blade most likely to harm the Witch King is just another example of the work of fate in Middle Earth. It's perfectly consistent with Tolkien's mythos.


----------



## Particle_Man (Dec 26, 2003)

Someone says:

"All nine were there by the time they got to the ford of Rivendell.
                        And regarding that, the flood killed their horses, and washed their
                        clothing and armor away, leaving them nothing but ghosts who
                        couldn't really interact with the living world. Gandalf says something
                        about them having to make their way back to Mordor as pale
                        shadows."

And all I can do is think of Pac-Man


----------



## The Serge (Dec 26, 2003)

Sir Whiskers said:
			
		

> Actually, this is a theme throughout Tokien's works. I don't remember if the line is in the first movie, but in the book, Gandalf tells Frodo that the Ring was meant to be found by Bilbo; that forces were at work in that moment, and forces other than Sauron caused Bilbo to find it. Which meant that Frodo was intended to receive the Ring. Gandalf meant this to be comforting to Frodo, though I doubt Frodo saw it that way.



Gandalf says what you've written almost word for word in the movie adaptation of FotR.


----------



## kengar (Dec 26, 2003)

The knives from the Barrow Downs were forged long before by the men of Westernesse and had been used in battle against the Witch King when he ruled in Angmar to the North. It wasn't that Merry had a "magic" blade, it's simply that those knives were superior to normal knives. The nature of magic in Middle Earth tends to be subtle like that, where the line between skill and enchantment is difficult to draw.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 27, 2003)

I always assumed the barrow-weapons would have much the same effect against any of the 9. That they are as some have already said "ghost-touch ringwraith bane" weapons. I dont see why any normal weapon would be able to hurt any of the Nazgul as they have no bodies.
  Consider the larger issue though...none of the Nazgul are supposed to be able to be destroyed as long as the One exists. But Eowyn and Merry pretty much whacked the Witch-King. How did they manage that prophecy or no?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 27, 2003)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I always assumed the barrow-weapons would have much the same effect against any of the 9. That they are as some have already said "ghost-touch ringwraith bane" weapons. I dont see why any normal weapon would be able to hurt any of the Nazgul as they have no bodies.
> Consider the larger issue though...none of the Nazgul are supposed to be able to be destroyed as long as the One exists. But Eowyn and Merry pretty much whacked the Witch-King. How did they manage that prophecy or no?




I kind of figured the Nazgul always reformed eventually, so that the WitchKing would have returned soon enough had the One Ring not been destroyed.

Can't back that with anything though.


----------



## Merlion (Dec 27, 2003)

You may well be right, but several days did pass between his battle with Arwen and the destruction of the One. and the passage in the book seems pretty final..


----------



## DM_Matt (Dec 27, 2003)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> I was disappointed by RotK's Eowyn scene as well. It lost alot of its power because you didn't see what it cost to kill the Witchking. In the book, Eowyn was laid out and you weren't sure she was alive until Prince Imrahil proved it so. I really wanted to see Eomer ride up and look down to see his fallen king, then notice his fallen sister, and become enraged.
> 
> Merry should have been talking to King Theoden as he died weeping. The scene in the book is much more moving and powerful than the scene in the movie.
> 
> ...




Furthermore, they kept the energy feedback thing that happens when the Witch-King gets hit for when Merry hit him, but, apparently beucase they had to cut the houses of healing scene, it inexplicably does not happen when Eowyn hits him.

BTW, my thoughts on seeing the scene:
Sneak Attack by Flanking!
Dying Witch-King: "Damn those excessively-literal prophessssssssssiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeees.........."


----------



## Mytholder (Dec 27, 2003)

Pants said:
			
		

> There's something really similar to the 'No man can hinder me' in MacBeth.  I can't remember the exact line, but the circumstances and the line are very similar.




Which is exactly where Tolkien got it. Both the Witch-king's death and the march of the ents were basically reactions to Macbeth. Tolkien loved the "no man of woman born" and "when Birnam Wood comes to Dunsinane" bits, but was annoyed by what he saw as Shakespear's shoddy development (respectively, the prophecy refers to a man born by Caesarian section, and an army wearing bits of bark and leaves). So, when he wrote LOTR, he bloody well had a real forest coming to Dunsinane/Isengard.


----------



## Welverin (Dec 29, 2003)

DM_Matt said:
			
		

> Furthermore, they kept the energy feedback thing that happens when the Witch-King gets hit for when Merry hit him, but, apparently beucase they had to cut the houses of healing scene, it inexplicably does not happen when Eowyn hits him.




It did look like Eowyn suffered some sort of harm, though it seem to bother her that long, more a shock than anything else.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 29, 2003)

Mytholder said:
			
		

> Which is exactly where Tolkien got it.




That's partially where Tolkien got it. He mostly got it from the same sources that Shakespeare got his inspiration: Celtic and Norse legends in which such prophecies were common.


----------

