How will Merry slay the Witch-King?

Tar-Palantir · 10-22-2002, 02:20 PM

If someone has answered this already, feel free to point me to a thread.

Since the barrow-downs were cut from the first movie and Merry doesn't pick up his elvish blade there, how will it be explained in the third movie that a little ol' hobbit kills the witch-King with an ordinary blade?

Surely Peter J. has thought of this.

Renille · 10-22-2002, 04:55 PM

Hmm...good point. Maybe he'll let Arwen bring him the elven sword along with Aragorn's blade. If that happens. Or maybe *sob* Merry will be cut. But I really hope not. Maybe he'll find some dead elf's blade on the ground. I seriously do not know.

entss89 · 10-22-2002, 07:49 PM

merry kills the witch king?????? he gets a elven blade??????? aragorn leaves behind his sword??????? now this thread i definatlly call a spoiler! he he. to tell you the truth i think if that does happen in the book

, in the movie they will probilly cut it out! to bad merry my beloved!

***IronParrot*** · 10-22-2002, 08:28 PM

Um, Merry doesn't slay the Witch-King. Not exactly.

Also, the reference to Merry's Westernesse blade dealing such a foul and bitter wound to the Witch-King was mostly a reference to the ancient conflict with Angmar, one that was finally resolved in a symbolic way. Although in the film of Fellowship, Aragorn gives Merry the latter's sword, there's nothing to say so far that this can't still hold. Who says Aragorn didn't give him a Westernesse sword in the film?

Millane · 10-23-2002, 12:31 AM

i think that before pellenor fields both Merry and Pippin will be armed by Denethor and Theoden ready for battle...

BeardofPants · 10-23-2002, 12:39 AM

Or the blades that Aragorn gave them were elvish blades.

Lief Erikson · 10-23-2002, 01:56 AM

I think it's a trivial detail, and will likely be ignored. When I say this, I don't mean to be abraisive, but that's simply my opinion. (Shrugs)

Sween · 10-23-2002, 04:42 AM

maybe someone one somewhere down the line will make a comment on them.

PS i never though it was that stupid for aragorn to have them it was obvious he was waiting for them and theres nothing wrong with a bit of preperation.

Agburanar · 10-23-2002, 07:40 AM

Eowyn will turn up and impale him on a spike on top of Orthanc whilst doing battle with an imaginary orc and a fiery goat...

Draken · 10-23-2002, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Agburanar
Eowyn will turn up and impale him on a spike on top of Orthanc whilst doing battle with an imaginary orc and a fiery goat...

*Gasps* Not the Fiery Goat of Antioch?

Tar-Palantir · 10-23-2002, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IronParrot
Um, Merry doesn't slay the Witch-King. Not exactly.

Also, the reference to Merry's Westernesse blade dealing such a foul and bitter wound to the Witch-King was mostly a reference to the ancient conflict with Angmar, one that was finally resolved in a symbolic way. Although in the film of Fellowship, Aragorn gives Merry the latter's sword, there's nothing to say so far that this can't still hold. Who says Aragorn didn't give him a Westernesse sword in the film?

Well, I realize it was tag-team action, but didn't Merry deliver the death-blow? When I re-read the book recently, my immediate reaction to that was that it was too easy. If the Witch-King were that easily slain, then why not a long time ago? But my misgivings were sufficiently answered when I realized it was largely attributable to the blade used by Merry, one picked up in the barrow-downs. In the movie, Merry does not get a special blade in the barrow downs, he gets his blade, as you have noted, from Aragorn.

"Who says Aragorn didn't give him a Westernesse sword in the film?"

Who says in the film that he did? That's my point. How does the non-reading movie goer know that there is something special about the blade if the movie doesn't tell him? And if the movie is going to tell him this important piece of information, then how will the story-line be changed? But if the movie doesn't inform us that it is a special blade, then won't a lot of movie-goers have the reaction of, "well, that was too easy?"

Maybe I'm just nit-picky today. (grin)

Gerbil · 10-23-2002, 12:41 PM

I'd say Merry DID kill the Witch-King. Eowyn's blow is merely symbolic - her sword has no power to harm the Witch-king at all, unless it's that the 'magic' contained in Merry's sword makes the Witcch-King 'mortal' in the normal sense of the word, but I doubt it.

Why would the people fighting Angmar create a sword that in and of itself wasn't enough to kill him? Bit stupid really.

I wouldn't be suprised if they took this out either - let's see now.
Hollywood. We can have:

1) Hobbit stabs Evil guy in ankle and basically kills him.
2) Eowyn kills him in epic sword fight.

Can't imagine which way PJ will lean.....

Also, there's nothing stating that the daggers (short swords for the hobbits, daggers to anyone else) are not of the same type that SHOULD have been taken from the Barrow-downs. However, since I find the thought that Aragorn was carrying 4 extra blades around a pathetic and contrived coincidence, I am not going to bother stretching my belief that extra mile in that they were magical blades.

Gerbil · 10-23-2002, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Um, Merry doesn't slay the Witch-King. Not exactly.

Uh-oh - difference of opinion time

Yes he did

Quote:

Also, the reference to Merry's Westernesse blade dealing such a foul and bitter wound to the Witch-King was mostly a reference to the ancient conflict with Angmar, one that was finally resolved in a symbolic way.

Not true - these blades were specifically fashioned for the purpose of fighting Angmar and it's evil. There's nothing symbolic about creating a weapon specifically to deal with a threat, and that weapon ultimately being used to deal with said threat.

However, the fact that that weapon does it's job many many years later and in circumstances no-one could have foreseen, is nicely.... umm... symbolic. Bugger! You know what I mean

BeardofPants · 10-23-2002, 02:22 PM

Hmm.

I always thought that Merry's blade broke the spells, so that Eowyn *could* deal the death blow.

***IronParrot*** · 10-23-2002, 03:29 PM

Quote:

"How does the non-reading movie goer know that there is something special about the blade if the movie doesn't tell him? And if the movie is going to tell him this important piece of information, then how will the story-line be changed?"

No change is necessary.

It's not like the movie is going to, in any case, pause in a freeze-frame when Merry takes a slice at the Witch-King and bring in a little voice-over that says, "No other sword could have delivered such a bitter wound, yada yada yada"...

It's a detail that can't be described visually, so it probably won't be described at all. Seeing how they weren't at the Barrow-downs, they know nothing of Angmar, the audience knows nothing of Angmar (from the film) and thus, the captain of the Nazgul probably might not even be referred to as the Witch-King of Angmar at all, who knows.

Quote:

"I always thought that Merry's blade broke the spells, so that Eowyn *could* deal the death blow."

Ditto.

Gerbil · 10-23-2002, 05:18 PM

Oh well

I always thought Eowyn's blow was the symbolic one, but I don't have my books handy to see if it's my memory playing tricks or whether I should point fingers at you all and giggle inanely

BeardofPants · 10-24-2002, 01:23 AM

Well, her deathblow would have been pretty useless if the spells that bound the witchking hadn't been broken. No ordinary blade could have damaged him.

Nimphredil · 10-24-2002, 02:59 AM

But i have always thought that Eowyn could kill the Witchking, because she was a woman, because no living man could kill the witchking. And Merry wasn't a man either, plus he had the Angmar sword.

Agburanar · 10-24-2002, 04:18 AM

Yep, both those factors helped. I think the movie will focus on Eowyn's attack because PJ has some kind of fascination with 'strong' female characters (see Arwen).

"It's a detail that can't be described visually, so it probably won't be described at all. Seeing how they weren't at the Barrow-downs, they know nothing of Angmar, the audience knows nothing of Angmar (from the film) and thus, the captain of the Nazgul probably might not even be referred to as the Witch-King of Angmar at all, who knows. "

Another reason the film should never have been made.

Andúril · 10-24-2002, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Nimphredil:
But i have always thought that Eowyn could kill the Witchking, because she was a woman, because no living man could kill the witchking. And Merry wasn't a man either, plus he had the Angmar sword.

I think that refers to the prophecy that the Witch-King would not be killed by a man. That wasn't to say that any non-man could whoop that Black Rider's ass -- just a glimpse of how his death would occur.

Quote:

BoP:
I always thought that Merry's blade broke the spells, so that Eowyn *could* deal the death blow.

Same here. I don't know how possible this is, but I always thought that if the Witch-King was stabbed by that particular kind of blade, he would still be able to run around fighting like any old goofball. It's when you get decapitated that you have a problem.

10-22-2002, 02:20 PM	#1
Tar-Palantir Hobbit Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 31	How will Merry slay the Witch-King? If someone has answered this already, feel free to point me to a thread. Since the barrow-downs were cut from the first movie and Merry doesn't pick up his elvish blade there, how will it be explained in the third movie that a little ol' hobbit kills the witch-King with an ordinary blade? Surely Peter J. has thought of this.

10-22-2002, 04:55 PM	#2
Renille Elven Lady of Speed-posting Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the cheese state Posts: 988	Hmm...good point. Maybe he'll let Arwen bring him the elven sword along with Aragorn's blade. If that happens. Or maybe sob Merry will be cut. But I really hope not. Maybe he'll find some dead elf's blade on the ground. I seriously do not know. __________________ Oh the thinks you can think! Think and wonder and dream...far and wide as you dare! When your thinks have run dry, in the blink of an eye, there's another world there... (from Seussical the Musical. Listen to it...watch it...really.)

10-22-2002, 08:28 PM	#4
*IronParrot* Fowl Administrator Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Calgary or Edmonton, Canada Posts: 53,420	Um, Merry doesn't slay the Witch-King. Not exactly. Also, the reference to Merry's Westernesse blade dealing such a foul and bitter wound to the Witch-King was mostly a reference to the ancient conflict with Angmar, one that was finally resolved in a symbolic way. Although in the film of Fellowship, Aragorn gives Merry the latter's sword, there's nothing to say so far that this can't still hold. Who says Aragorn didn't give him a Westernesse sword in the film? __________________ All of IronParrot's posts are guaranteed to be 100% intelligent and/or sarcastic, comprising no genetically modified content and tested on no cute furry little animals unless the SPCA is looking elsewhere. If you observe a failure to uphold this warranty, please contact a forum administrator immediately to receive a full refund on your Entmoot registration. Blog: Nick's Café Canadien

10-23-2002, 12:31 AM	#5
Millane The Dude Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: at the altar of my ego Posts: 1,685	i think that before pellenor fields both Merry and Pippin will be armed by Denethor and Theoden ready for battle... __________________ Ill heal your wounds, ill set you free,

10-23-2002, 12:39 AM	#6
BeardofPants the Shrike Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA <3 Posts: 10,647	Or the blades that Aragorn gave them were elvish blades. __________________ "Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords

10-22-2002, 07:49 PM	#3
entss89 lord of the ents Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: nc Posts: 539	merry kills the witch king?????? he gets a elven blade??????? aragorn leaves behind his sword??????? now this thread i definatlly call a spoiler! he he. to tell you the truth i think if that does happen in the book , in the movie they will probilly cut it out! to bad merry my beloved!

10-23-2002, 01:56 AM	#7
Lief Erikson Elf Lord Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Fountain Valley, CA Posts: 6,343	I think it's a trivial detail, and will likely be ignored. When I say this, I don't mean to be abraisive, but that's simply my opinion. (Shrugs) Last edited by Lief Erikson : 10-23-2002 at 01:59 AM.

10-23-2002, 04:42 AM	#8
Sween im quite stupid Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cockermouth Posts: 2,058	maybe someone one somewhere down the line will make a comment on them. PS i never though it was that stupid for aragorn to have them it was obvious he was waiting for them and theres nothing wrong with a bit of preperation. __________________ Yeah god hes ok but i would rather be judged by a sheep than that idiot

10-23-2002, 07:40 AM	#9
Agburanar Elf Lord Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dorset Posts: 608	Eowyn will turn up and impale him on a spike on top of Orthanc whilst doing battle with an imaginary orc and a fiery goat... __________________ I would wish, were it to any avail, that the LORD OF THE RINGS FILMS had never been wrought. ROLLING STOCK, WE'RE ROLLING STOCK!!

10-23-2002, 12:41 PM	#12
Gerbil Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: London, UK Posts: 797	I'd say Merry DID kill the Witch-King. Eowyn's blow is merely symbolic - her sword has no power to harm the Witch-king at all, unless it's that the 'magic' contained in Merry's sword makes the Witcch-King 'mortal' in the normal sense of the word, but I doubt it. Why would the people fighting Angmar create a sword that in and of itself wasn't enough to kill him? Bit stupid really. I wouldn't be suprised if they took this out either - let's see now. Hollywood. We can have: 1) Hobbit stabs Evil guy in ankle and basically kills him. 2) Eowyn kills him in epic sword fight. Can't imagine which way PJ will lean..... Also, there's nothing stating that the daggers (short swords for the hobbits, daggers to anyone else) are not of the same type that SHOULD have been taken from the Barrow-downs. However, since I find the thought that Aragorn was carrying 4 extra blades around a pathetic and contrived coincidence, I am not going to bother stretching my belief that extra mile in that they were magical blades. __________________ Gerbil gerbil@theburrow.co.uk

10-23-2002, 02:22 PM	#14
BeardofPants the Shrike Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA <3 Posts: 10,647	Hmm. I always thought that Merry's blade broke the spells, so that Eowyn could deal the death blow. __________________ "Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords

10-23-2002, 05:18 PM	#16
Gerbil Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: London, UK Posts: 797	Oh well I always thought Eowyn's blow was the symbolic one, but I don't have my books handy to see if it's my memory playing tricks or whether I should point fingers at you all and giggle inanely __________________ Gerbil gerbil@theburrow.co.uk

10-24-2002, 01:23 AM	#17
BeardofPants the Shrike Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA <3 Posts: 10,647	Well, her deathblow would have been pretty useless if the spells that bound the witchking hadn't been broken. No ordinary blade could have damaged him. __________________ "Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords

10-24-2002, 02:59 AM	#18
Nimphredil Sapling Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Estonia Posts: 12	But i have always thought that Eowyn could kill the Witchking, because she was a woman, because no living man could kill the witchking. And Merry wasn't a man either, plus he had the Angmar sword.

10-24-2002, 04:18 AM	#19
Agburanar Elf Lord Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dorset Posts: 608	Yep, both those factors helped. I think the movie will focus on Eowyn's attack because PJ has some kind of fascination with 'strong' female characters (see Arwen). "It's a detail that can't be described visually, so it probably won't be described at all. Seeing how they weren't at the Barrow-downs, they know nothing of Angmar, the audience knows nothing of Angmar (from the film) and thus, the captain of the Nazgul probably might not even be referred to as the Witch-King of Angmar at all, who knows. " Another reason the film should never have been made. __________________ I would wish, were it to any avail, that the LORD OF THE RINGS FILMS had never been wrought. ROLLING STOCK, WE'RE ROLLING STOCK!!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What All Was Wrong with PJ's LOTR	Wally	Lord of the Rings Movies	425	08-14-2016 08:43 AM
Visitors Come to Court	Valandil	Writer's Workshop	56	01-27-2010 11:29 AM
gandalf or the witch king	orithil	Middle Earth	17	08-10-2006 11:26 AM
(EE) Witch King vs. Gandalf	The Wizard from Milan	Lord of the Rings Movies	34	05-20-2005 07:46 PM