Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Marquis de Leech

Tolkien 2.0

Recommended Posts

Yes, Merry played a role. There's a passage in Appendix A about it:

Quote

In that day Éowyn also won renown, for she fought in that battle, riding in disguise; and was known after in the Mark as the Lady of the Shield-arm.(1)

(1) For her shield-arm was broken by the mace of the Witch-king: but he was brought to nothing, and thus the words of Glorfindel long before to King Earnur were fulfilled, that the Witch-king would not fall by the hand of man. For it is said in the songs of the Mark that in this deed Éowyn had the aid of Théoden's esquire, and that he also was not a Man but a Halfling out of a far country, though Éomer gave him honour in the Mark and the name of Holdwine. [This Holdwine was none other than Meriadoc the Magnificent who was Master of Buckland.]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eowyn was a Man, but not a man, while Merry was a man, but not a Man.

That, and the Ents' destruction of Isengard, was Tolkien having a go at Shakespeare, whom he felt had delivered a couple of prophecy cop-outs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, and taking that into account we can also agree that Gandalf the White could also have put down the Witch-king had he met him in battle as he intended to do. Gandalf, too, was male but not a Man. Especially not in his new incarnation as Gandalf the White.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, but my point is, if Merry didn't have the Barrow-blade, but say, just a Rohirrim sword (like the movie implies), they would have been toast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14.7.2017 at 1:49 AM, Corvinus said:

Right, but my point is, if Merry didn't have the Barrow-blade, but say, just a Rohirrim sword (like the movie implies), they would have been toast.

Sure, but the prophecy wasn't specifying how the Witch-king could be killed but just how he would be killed. Or rather, how he would be stopped. After all, according to a letter he wasn't killed at all but merely extremely weakened. The Nazgûl went down collectively only when the One Ring was destroyed.

But in general that is something one has to keep in mind where prophecy is concerned. Even if it is correct it doesn't necessarily that a threat or person can only be stopped/killed by the hero mentioned in a prophecy. It may merely mean that this or that (group of) person(s) are going to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

A thought experiment - adapting The Silmarillion:

https://phuulishfellow.wordpress.com/2017/07/19/how-to-adapt-the-silmarillion/

I've been reading The Book of Lost Tales Part 2 and I think you're spot on. The 5 movie arc is how I would do it, although I feel that Turin's story would make for a more compelling flick than Beren and Luthien and should be told unabridged talking sword and all. I think the Nauglafring has potential to tie in with the violence of Feanor's sons and the aftermath of the Fall of Gondolin. Unless it didn't make it into the Silmarillion and remained a Lost Tale, my memory fails me at the moment. 

One of my biggest dissapointments in reading tBoLTP2 was finding out just how little material there was for the Tale of Earendil. If translated into the big screen the director would have to be very careful as to how they would go about sifting through Tolkien's clues and setting up a a narrative. 

Side note- when reading The Fall of Gondolin it said Balrogs were only twice the height of an elf. Does this hold true for the rest of Tolkien's writings including the one in Moria? If so, Peter Jackson was wayyy off in his depiction of that scene. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ghjhero said:

Side note- when reading The Fall of Gondolin it said Balrogs were only twice the height of an elf. Does this hold true for the rest of Tolkien's writings including the one in Moria? If so, Peter Jackson was wayyy off in his depiction of that scene. 

I think Balrogs, in general, are just slightly larger than the size of men. Jackson's is a behemoth, and it also has wings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, AlpenglowMemories said:

I think Balrogs, in general, are just slightly larger than the size of men. Jackson's is a behemoth, and it also has wings. 

Yeah I'm not surprised he took some "creative liberties" although I thought balrogs did have wings in the books?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a topic of debate. Sometimes comically so. The description can either be interpreted as a metaphor for a Balrog's shadow or actual wings. I've always felt it read metaphorical in context. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that a twelve-foot balrog is going to do just about as much damage to the Fellowship as a twenty-foot balrog. Either one will kill you dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson was also off on the size of the trolls, or some of the trolls at least. From the description of the trolls that fought at the battle of Black Gate, I don't think Sauron's trolls were more than 8 ft tall, 9 at the most. Pippin could not have killed one of the movie trolls, like he did the one at the Black Gate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2017 at 7:56 PM, Darth Richard II said:

I have lots of issues with the films but the Balrog looked fookin awesome and you all just have to deal. :P

True it did. I was just wondering how the Noldori could've held on for as long as they did if there were so many balrogs of that size at Gondolin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why was LOTR banned in the Soviet Union until 1988?

I imagine that some people would draw parallels between the Soviet Union and Mordor, and that the bourgeois society of the Shire was drawn in much too favourable a light for the censors' liking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why was LOTR banned in the Soviet Union until 1988?

The censors thought that the Scouring was a pot-shot at socialism (nor were they alone - Tolkien had to rebut quite a few claims that the chapter was his petty little attack on the 1945-1951 British Labour Government). Tolkien's own view, as expressed in letters and the Foreword, was that the episode was just an outgrowth of Saruman's personality, and was conceived as a story element long before 1945.

I've also finished watching the 1993 Finnish Television adaptation of LOTR:

https://phuulishfellow.wordpress.com/2017/10/26/hobitit-1993-the-lord-of-the-rings-on-television/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is now actually a movement to make Tolkien a Saint(!):

http://file770.com/?p=38490

According to the article, you don't need miracles to get to the first two levels (Servus Dei, and Venerable), whereas you need one to get to Blessed, and two to get full Sainthood.

The funny thing - I actually think you have a better case for Tolkien's mother than Tolkien himself. Not in terms of miracles, but rather the martyrdom aspect. I think a sainthood discussion of Tolkien himself would become too heavily tied up with his literary works, rather than the man behind them - valuing Things more than People, so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×