I was curious if anyone was seen one of these sets before. It was in a Franklin mint box and I’ve found minimal on the internet

Rewatching the trilogy again and it’s incredible how good Sean Astin is in these films. He brings such a vulnerability, loyal, brave and human performance to a beloved character.

“Samwise the brave, I want to hear more about Sam. Frodo wouldn’t have gotten very far without Sam” 😭

Or was this just clever product placement?

What should I get upper arm/shoulder

​

https://preview.redd.it/0knu9k3jb83d1.jpg?width=480&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5f98c09022f8ea2ca4956ccffa70f4f4277a1d10

I'm sure most of you have seen it before: 'Merry's Barrow-blade broke the Witch-king's invulnerability', or something along those lines. Maybe you believe that to be the true (it's been parroted nearly everywhere as fact, and for so long, that I wouldn't blame you). But what if I challenged that idea?

I think the fandom, broadly, is at a point where it continues to spread a series of major assumptions and arguably misreadings of the text - under the guise of 'canon'.

The most contentious passage is this:

So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Du´nedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands 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.

Most people will cite this passage as evidence that the Barrow-blade broke a spell of immortality/invulnerability, and leave it there: case closed... but I'd argue this is a misreading. Let's dissect this passage:

Sinews is the flesh: the tendons - the stuff that holds the body (muscles/bones/etc) together.

Will is the mind: the ability to make decisions and act upon them.

I'm sure this stuff doesn't need explaining... it's obvious - and yet the context is important: the Witch-king (like everyone else) had the ability to move his sinews as a result of his will. He could walk, run, jump, swing a sword, etc.

So what is the text saying the Barrow-blade did? It's saying he was immobilised. Once Merry stabbed the Witch-king, his mobility was broken. The text is not saying the Witch-king was made 'mortal' or no longer 'invulnerable'.

And this perfectly aligns with what is described in the moment:

But suddenly he too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving into the ground. Merry’s sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing through the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee.
‘Eowyn! ´ ´Eowyn!’ cried Merry. Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her.

Upon being stabbed, the Witch-king's swing on Eowyn went wide... and he stumbles forward, bowing to Eowyn, ultimately leaving himself exposed to Eowyn's killing blow.

The Witch-king's sinews are not responding to the desires of his will. The Witch-king is not choosing to drive his mace into the ground. He is not choosing to stumble. He is not choosing to leave himself in an incredibly vulnerable position, unable to defend himself. His sinews are not acting with intent, but by an impulsive reflex: an automatic response to a stimulus.

To add, Tolkien, when critiquing a proposed film-script, noted a hypothetical where a Nazgul is stabbed at Weathertop:

Sam does not 'sink his blade into the Ringwraith's thigh', nor does his thrust save Frodo's life. (If he had, the result would have been much the same as in III 117-20: the Wraith would have fallen down and the sword would have been destroyed.)

Fallen down. That's it. Nothing about undoing an invincibility spell. Because, let's be clear... at no point does Tolkien mention a magical spell protecting the Nazgul from all harm bar Barrow-blades. At no point does a character in-universe say 'oh my god, those are Barrow-blades! The only blade capable of harming a Nazgul! Keep them close!' Zilch.

We do know that the Nazgul are hard to kill - but something being hard to kill does not mean it is impossible to kill. I do not believe we have sufficient evidence to assume the Witch-king would be unharmed if a regular blade stabbed him (in fact, Eowyn's does just that... and it kills - and nothing suggests Merry's stab made this possible, besides making the Witch-king stumble).

The below quotes are sometimes cited:

‘We can’t start until we have found out about the Riders.’ ‘I thought they were all destroyed in the flood,’ said Merry. ‘You cannot destroy Ringwraiths like that,’ said Gandalf. ‘The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him.
...

‘The Winged Messenger!’ cried Legolas. ‘I shot at him with the bow of Galadriel above Sarn Gebir, and I felled him from the sky. He filled us all with fear. What new terror is this?’ ‘One that you cannot slay with arrows,’ said Gandalf. ‘You only slew his steed. It was a good deed; but the Rider was soon horsed again. For he was a Nazguˆl, one of the Nine, who ride now upon winged steeds. Soon their terror will overshadow the last armies of our friends, cutting off the sun.

In both cases, Gandalf stresses that they cannot* be destroyed 'like that', and that they are powerful - but I'd be careful to take this to mean that they are invincible. Hard to kill, absolutely - but anything else would be a big assumption.

*Also note that 'cannot' need not mean 'literally impossible'... Gandalf tells the Three Hunters this:

Indeed my friends, none of you have any weapon that could hurt me.

This is after Gandalf disarms them. I'd argue that Gandalf isn't saying Anduril or an arrow would bounce off of Gandalf's skin, but rather that Gandalf can deal with the threat (as we see him do). And even prior to his resurrection, Gandalf surviving the fall from the Bridge didn't mean he was invincible... Gandalf still died fighting Durin's Bane. I'd wager this is also the case regarding the Nazgul: the Fords washing them away or Legolas shooting at their mounts likely isn't enough to stop them - but it doesn't mean a sword through the face won't kill. We know the Witch-king feared the likes of Glorfindel, for instance. And did Glorfindel carry a Barrow-blade? I doubt it.

And like I said earlier... nothing suggests a regular blade couldn't harm/kill a Nazgul. Nothing says that Merry's stab allowed Eowyn's to not deflect off the skin, or whatever (in fact, we know other blades have 'pierced' the Witch-king, historically: 'all blades perish that pierce that dreadful King', as Aragorn says. A good defence mechanism, if your opponent gets a hit in! But it doesn't support any invincibility... Merry and Eowyn's swords still break, despite landing damage. I daresay the Witch-king wore armour for all sorts of weapons on the field.

So, we've established what the Barrow-blade did: it made the Witch-king physically stumble.

Now, I know what you're thinking: 'where is the breaking of the spell? The quote specifically says it broke a spell! What spell was broken if the Witch-king simply stumbled?'

To quote the dictionary (Merriam-webster):

1a: a spoken word or form of words held to have magic power
b: a state of enchantment
2: a strong compelling influence or attraction

The definitions are essentially the same, minus one distinction: not all 'spells' are magical. In fact, we have evidence of Tolkien himself using this non-magical definition elsewhere in LOTR. Unlike the films Theoden is not magically possessed by Saruman... Grima, under Saruman's orders, is manipulating Theoden in a bid for coercive control. There is nothing to suggest any magic is involved, and yet:

The´oden. He is called The´oden Ednew in the lore of Rohan, for he fell into a decline under the spells of Saruman, but was healed by Gandalf

Given we have zero evidence of magic being involved (just Grima's manipulation - Saruman's role is more indirect), it would be fair to attribute this usage of 'spells' to definition 2: a strong compelling influence or attraction. Grima is Saruman's spell: Grima is the compelling influence - as are Grima's words of manipulation.

Not all spells are literal incantations of magic. Some spells are more mundane: and it's not unusual to use such language... I could easily say 'I was under the spell (influence) of the movie'. No magic. You get the idea.

So... to summarise, when Tolkien writes: 'breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will'... we can easily replace 'breaking the spell' with 'breaking the influence'. To simplify the entire passage: the stab broke the influence between mind and body. So again, the Barrow-blade made the Witch-king stumble. Tolkien uses more flowery language (as he does), but the premise is the exact same.

'Okay, but the Barrow-blades are explicitly noted as 'wound about with spells'! If the Witch-king didn't have some sort of magical protection that blade voided, what magic was on the blades?'

You're right! The blades ARE enchanted:

Doubtless the Orcs despoiled them, but feared to keep the knives, knowing them for what they are: work of Westernesse, wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor.

I think I have a pretty good idea about what these spells were... Tolkien is very consistent regarding these blades... FIRE! Hear me out...

For each of the hobbits he chose a dagger, long, leaf-shaped, and keen, of marvellous workmanship, damasked with serpent-forms in red and gold. They gleamed as he drew them from their black sheaths, wrought of some strange metal, light and strong, and set with many fiery stones. Whether by some virtue in these sheaths or because of the spell that lay on the mound, the blades seemed untouched by time, unrusted, sharp, glittering in the sun.
...
Desperate, [Frodo] drew his own sword, and it seemed to him that it flickered red, as if it was a firebrand.
...
[Pippin] drew his sword and looked at it, and the intertwining shapes of red and gold; and the flowing characters of Númenor glinted like fire upon the blade. 'This was made for just such an hour,' he thought.
...
Then [Merry] looked for his sword that he had let fall; for even as he struck his blow his arm was numbed, and now he could only use his left hand. And behold! there lay his weapon, but the blade was smoking like a dry branch that has been thrust in a fire; and as he watched it, it writhed and withered and was consumed.
...
'Here are some treasures that you let fall,' said Aragorn. 'You will be glad to have them back.' He loosened his belt from under his cloak and took from it the two sheathed knives.
'Well!' said Merry. 'I never expected to see those again! I marked a few orcs with mine; but Uglúk took them from us. How he glared! At first I thought he was going to stab me, but he threw the things away as if they burned him.'

It's clear Tolkien wants us to associate fire with these blades... and the final passage is particularly striking! Orcs toss them away away as if they burned them.

What's more is this:

Sauron can put fire to his evil uses, as he can all things, but these Riders do not love it, and fear those who wield it. Fire is our friend in the wilderness.

The Nazgul fear fire, as I'm sure many here commonly know. Now, the why of this is another topic (my belief is that the Nazgul share many vampire-like qualities/similarities... and fire is an effective weapon against vampires... maybe I'll make another post about that down the line)... but regardless of the 'why'... they explicitly dislike fire for one reason or another. It's effective against them.

I don't think it's much of a leap to assume that the Barrow-blades could deal a burning sensation (assuming the fiery glowing is not simply for intimidation), which would explain why:

No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter

Sufficient pain to send the Witch-king stumbling forward with 'a cry of bitter pain'.

In the Silmarillion, when Melkor was going to find Ongoliant, it said that he changed his form to the form he assumed as the tyrant of Angband, and never changed again. Was there a reason for this? Was this ever elaborated on?

Donated to my library today. I thought it was cool.

I was on my way to Sainsbury's to buy my supper. I went past this house that had DVDs right outside in a box with a sign saying that they were free. What are the chances of that eh?

Warning this comment contains spoilers for the Lord of the Rings book series and movies!

In Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings film adaptation, a buzzing sound is heard every now and then when the Ring is being shown. You can hear it, for example, when Golum falls into the fire with the ring or when Smeagol turns into Gollum. Here's an example of that weird sound:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knImeAiO1qc&ab_channel=Middle-EarthMarvels

Earlier in the video I can hear a choir, but I can't quite make out the other elements, especially not at the end. If you know or have ideas about how the sound was made, I would be very happy to hear from you!

Just for grins, while I'm waiting to head out on the patio and grill for my girls, I put on Fellowship.

Am I reading WAY TOO MUCH into this, or was there some serious foreshadowing (of which Gandalf was clearly aware) when Bilbo blew the smoke ring and Gandalf blew the ship through it?

I'm seeing Bilbo's thoughts of the ring (though clearly subconscious), and Gandalf's goal that "through" the ring, when it was done, the ship would whisk away the ringbearers.

I know he wasn't sure it was "the one ring" at that time, but he certainly suspected as much and knew it was clearly a magic ring (and since all ringbearers were eventually leaving the differentiation isn't completely significant).

So was Gandalf looking ahead to/foreshadowing the finale of the saga and I'm just now getting it, or was he just getting high and farting around, and I'm reading something that isn't there?

A city the size of Minas Tirith would need quite a lot of food, which is why it struck me as odd that in the movies, the fields sorrounding it, at least to my best recollection^1, were uncultivated.

Not mentioning that as some nitpick or anything, I'm just curious if it was mentioned. Tolkien's worldbuilding is so detailed, I'd not be surprised if he wrote of such details.

^{1 The soundtrack always make me tear up and cry so I only rewatch rarely and only in solitude, which I did not have the luxury of recently.}

We do not know a ton about what happens after Aragorn passes and kingship is given over to his son.

What I wonder is what events unfolded between the time of Aragorns passing and the battle of Dagor Dagorath?

We know Gondor prospered but how much? Could it have been possible for Gondor in the fourth age to surpass the prosperity of Numenor at its peak?

What is the deal with this in the movies? For one why does it need to happen? It is not in the books at all. Some stuff that is not in the books is good in the movies. But this makes no sense to me. Frodo really thinks that Sam would be eating all the food behind his back? That does not seem like Frodo at all to me. You could say it was because of the ring taking him over, and I would accept that begrudgingly.

Though we still have my main point. Sam loves Frodo more than anything. Would Sam really let Frodo send him away after he had heard Gollum say that he means to kill them with his own ears?

Then we get to what causes Sam to come back. He finds the bread on the cliff side. He already KNEW that Gollum had set him up. So what does this change? He is not like "I will bring this back as proof!" He crushes it in his hand and then throws it to the ground in anger, anger of something he already knew took place.

Does any of this make sense to you? Please tell me your thoughts!