PJ Talks Bombadil

[samwise of the shire]

As for the swords. Aragorn has access to things. He can use the Palantir, he is the only man that can rightfully so to speak claim the Ring,and he can have Narsil so I imagine he has access to swords that have been lost. He could have had them at Rivendell OR he could have had them made with elvish magic woven into the blades to strengthen them. I dont worry about the sword, I worry that Merry will be Merry meaning he'll mess up on something or do something really dumb and mess up.
Sam

[jerseydevil]

I'd really like to know where Aragorn got the four weapons in the first place. If he was carrying them around, why? Why didn't he give them to the hobbits at Bree? If he found them - then where? The whole sword thing does not make any sense. Who carries around four extra small swords with them?

I also think people are looking too much into the history of Middle-Earth. I feel it is obvious that Jackson is not following the history and he really doesn't have to explain how Merry's sword (if the scene even follows the book) kills the Witch-King. People that are unfamiliar with the books will just accept that the Nazgul are able to be destroyed by an ordinary sword. OR maybe Jackson will have some corny line where Aragorn says -"Wow, that must have been an Elvish Sword." Or something equally stupid. Something that the real Aragorn from the book would have known. Just look at how Jackson changed the Weathertop scene - in the book Aragorn purposely lights a fire - knowing that it will offer some protection from the Nazgul. In the movie he changed it to Frodo stamping it out. Aragorn isn't even there with them - even though he knows how important the Ring is and how dangerous the Nazgul are.

I know some of this is off topic - but I want to know also how the Nazgul at Weathertop get set on fire - but then they're robes on the Flight to the Ford are fine. Do you think they had suitcases with a change of robes with them?

I don't think Tom Bombadil's full scene should have been in - maybe acknowledging his land. Having him save the Hobbits from Old Man Willow - then sending them on their way - only to be captured in the Barrow Downs and rescued again. That would have at least have explained the swords. Dragging out the whole Goldberry and his home and everything would have been too much.

[Yazad]

Hee hee, Jersey, you crack me up! Great points! I was just wondering the same thing about the swords myself when I got to your post. The burning robes hand't even occured to me. But you may find that if you look carefully in Unfinished Tales, it is, I believe, stated that the Nazgul, while they didn't carry around a suitcase, did have one common Adidas dufflebag, where they stored changes of robes as a group.

One could justify that Strider had the swords 'cause he was planning on meeting the hobbits, but that's a clear device just to explain it without having to explain it. Still why he didn't give them to him in Bree is another good question.

I thought the fact that Strider was able to single-handedly fight off 5 Nazgul at once was really silly. Tolkien made it very clear that there was no swordfighting on Weathertop (other than by Frodo) and that the Nazgul's chief weapon was fear. Unless I'm mighty mistook.

On Bombadil, I think he was fantastic, and as Barrelrider pointed out, it doesn't matter why Tolkien put him in. The choice by Jackson to take him out was one made for many reasons I'm sure. Personally I'm glad he was removed in a 3 hour movie, and I'll stick to the notion that they could have/should have removed more in order to make the film flow more smoothly.

In the early draft of the Bakshi script, he had the hobbits wandering through the Old Forrest and into a Barrow to start with (skipping Old Man Willow), then Bombadil happens along and rescues them (like he did from the Willowman). He gives them the swords and is off at the call of Goldberry. I thought that was a pretty good way to deal with things. A shame it didn't make it into the film. It is quick, frightening, a chance to see the Hobbits in a precarious situation, and explains the blades and Bombadil.

As Jersey suggested, I don't think Jackson will explain the blades any farther, sufficeth to say a regular blade can at least distract a Nazgul. I think Jackson is trying to represent the old world with his myriad of statues everywhere rather than taking the time (which is precious) to explain it in words or situations. I think he did a pretty good job of showing the viewer that as old as these events are, there's a history more ancient still, though we won't be told much about it.

Robin Williams, ehhhhhhh... I don't think so, at least not for my tastes, but maybe. I just wish we coulda got Kenneth Branaugh as the Mouth of Sauron.

Yazad

[jerseydevil]

Well the other problem, that I didn't mention in my previous post is, how was Aragorn expecting the hobbits in Bree so he could bring the swords for them. Gandalf - supposedly ran right off to Hobbiton to check about the Ring. He then went off to Isengard and was captured by Saruman. At this point it seems, in the movie, nobody knows that the hobbits are on their way to Bree - other than Gandalf. Aragorn seems to just happen to be there by chance and doesn't even know what Frodo is carrying or who he is until Frodo does his little disappearing trick in the tavern. Also Gandalf only knows about Sam and Frodo going to Bree - so if that's the case, then Aragorn should have only bothered to carry two swords.

Sorry - but it's the computer programmer in me coming out.

Do you think the Nazgul's horses might have had a carry-on-rack or an overhead compartment to store their dufflebags? Because I didn't see them carrying the change of robes..

[ragamuffin92]

Re: Unless I'm mighty mistook.
(or a fool of a Took! )
You made a number of good points, yourself. The answer to the question: "How did the Black Riders replace their burnt robes after the fight at Weathertop?"can be found in a secret film-maker's manual, entitled, "Gilligan's Island, et al, Size-of-Wardrobe Discrepancies--Just IgnoreThem!!"

[olsonm]

Good post jerseydevil, but what makes you think Strider had the swords with him at Bree?

[jerseydevil]

I don't necessarily think he had them at Bree -

If he found them - then where?

But there is no explanation for them at all. Does he keep a stash of short swords at Weathertop? Or were they just lying conveniently around neatly wrapped up - just so he could find them right before the all important first battle with the Nazgul.

[olsonm]

Why does it matter where he found them?

[olsonm]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
...Or were they just lying conveniently around neatly wrapped up - just so he could find them right before the all important first battle with the Nazgul.

Yeah. Imagine finding four swords short enough for hobbits just laying conveniently in a hill. Why didn't Jack$on just have them find a couple of elf swords from Gondolin, laying in a Troll cave?
Just kidding.

[jerseydevil]

Well it doesn't really matter - but that's what everyone is trying to figure out. However, I do think it was poor scripting. I hate when movies just have things appear out of thin air and the audience is just supposed to accept it. I think just like Jackson doesn't explain many other parts of the movie - there is no known explaination for the swords.

As I said in an earlier post -

I also think people are looking too much into the history of Middle-Earth. I feel it is obvious that Jackson is not following the history and he really doesn't have to explain how Merry's sword (if the scene even follows the book) kills the Witch-King. People that are unfamiliar with the books will just accept that the Nazgul are able to be destroyed by an ordinary sword.

Tom Bombadil's scene had one key element that affected the rest of the story - Merry's sword.

[jerseydevil]

Are you saying that Tolkien did the same thing in the hobbit? Because the thing that was different about that was the trolls horded the plunder from their victims. Also I believe in the Hobbit it's stated that Sting was a man's dagger - but made a good enough short sword for Bilbo. I could be wrong about that though - I don't have the copy of the hobbit in front of me.

Also a battle didn't insue right after finding the weapons - Tolkien could have just have easily had Elrond give them to Thorin's company as a parting gift.

Hopefully Jackson wouldn't even stoop so low as to have Strider find the swords in some abandoned troll cave. But maybe they will somehow be explained in the Directors Cut DVD.

[olsonm]

First of all, I would hardly call what happened at Weathertop a 'battle'. Since Ol'Tommy B. was cut out, when else could the hobbits have gotten the swords were it wouldn't have seemed convenient? Seriously, I'm interested in your ideas.

[jerseydevil]

See I would have said Gandalf could have sent word to Aragorn to be on the look out for a couple of UNARMED hobbits. Or met up with him on the way to Isengard. Then Aragorn could have been prepared and brought a couple of short swords. However, that doesn't explain why he'd have four of them or why he wouldn't give them to the hobbits before they left Bree - especially knowing that the Nazgul were following them.

I don't think there is any noncheesy hollywood way of explaining the swords without the Barrow Downs.

You're right it wasn't a battle - but it was their first confrontation.

[Foul_Dwimmerlaik]

Maybe he bought them in Bree, and PJ didn't want to include the "King of Gondor and Arnor goes shopping at the Middle-Earth equivalent of Target" scene, and he didn't want to give untrained hobbits swords unless it became a necessity, which he was hoping it wouldn't, but then he realized the Nazgul were still on his tail, so he gave them the swords to make them feel less helpless.

[Foul_Dwimmerlaik]

and keep in mind while we're discussing the idea of narrative convenience...was anything ever more narratively convenient than having a flock of giant Eagles handy to whisk our heroes to and fro whenever they needed a lift?

[jerseydevil]

Well I had thought about the "Aragorn and the Hobbits Go Shopping" scene. He could have had Pippin knock over a huge table or something and had a dominoe effect type thing among the booths. (sarcasm) There are just so many possiblities that Jackson didn't pursue with the "shopping expedition".

Tolkien's conveniences made a little more sense though I think. Even the eagles. The moth going to get the eagles didn't make as much sense as how it happened in the book. Radagast the Brown sending the eagle to give word to Gandalf was at least more believable.

[olsonm]

How about this. Strider could have said "I found these in those burial mounds over there" (Shot of Barrow-downs nearby). Then Aragorn gives a little spial about the Men of Westernesse. Of course, this means moving the B-downs, but is that better or worse?

[Foul_Dwimmerlaik]

Watch as the Hobbits are humiliated by being sent to the children's section!

Thrill as Aragorn attempts to receive a senior citizen discount!

Marvel as the Hobbits evade the Nazul by going in and out of the aisles (a la Scooby-Doo)!

Laugh as Tom Bombadil appears as a special cameo as the old greeter at the store!

[jerseydevil]

I think that might have been better - even though Aragorn should have been (according to the book) very knowledgeable about the area. Of course any barrow downs in that area would have been picked over long ago. Having Aragorn ignorant of Weather Top and it's surroundings isn't really anything worse than what they did to his character in other parts of the movie.

At least it gives some saisfactory explanation.

Foul_Dwimmerlaik: That is so funny. I need to show that to Rogue Elf - she could add that to our "LOTR Battle at the Mall" story or whatever it's going to be called in the "What would you do? heh heh heh" thread.

[olsonm]

What do you mean any B-D's in the area would have been picked over long ago?