SWORD that was BROKEN???

[greypilgrim]

Anyone notice Aragorn's sword after they all left Rivendell?
It doesn't look like...it is not Narsil, the sword that was re-forged.
Why? It should have been re-forged again in Rivendell. Why has Peter Jackson CHANGED the story like that? And in all the other ways he has altered it? He has changed this story too much, it is not the original.
At first, I was pumped about the movie.
After 4 times seeing it, I think is is a joke.
Not very funny, though.:(

[PRH]

He gets it later in the movie. Before the Paths of the Dead.

[Thorin]

And Arwen (of course! Who else deserves to give it to him, but the powerful, healing, spell-casting she-Elf) brings it to him and gets involved in Helm's Deep. I said that when Arwen got her steroid part, the door would be open for more of the same role. You don't think after distorting her character like PJ did to introduce her to the audience early, that she would just fade in the background? That would have been worse then had he made her like Tolkien's Arwen and made her fade into the background.

I always felt that the fabricated Boromir scene in Rivendell was useless especially since Anduril was not reforged and given to Aragorn in Rivendell. So much for Helm's Deep "Anduril for the Dunadan!" cry and the fear it inflicts in the elves. By the time Aragorn gets to the Paths of the Dead all the action is done.

[Snaga]

If you want to nit-pick (and you guys do!) Aragorn should carry Narsil with him at Bree, not have left it at Rivendell.

[greypilgrim]

The sword that was broken was forged again in Rivendell, before they all set out. He wouldn't have it in Bree, but would have it when Gandalf, Gimli, Legolas and he go together to Edoras.

[Harad]

As usual a NPW does not even know the story he is nit-picking about. From the "Strider" chapter at Bree:

- I did not know, - he answered. - But I am Aragorn, and those verses go with that name. - He drew out his sword, and they saw that the blade was indeed broken a foot below the hilt. - Not much use is it, Sam? - said Strider. - But the time is near when it shall be forged anew. Sam said nothing.

[greypilgrim]

actually, harad, I know full well what I am talking about.
The sword was forged in Rivendell, and was not whole in Bree.
maybe you misunderstood my last posts.
It doesn't even matter that much to me anyway, just another thing that Peter Jackson decided to ruin from the story.

[Harad]

Then you misunderstood V of K's comment.

By all means: nit-pick away. Thats what the forum is for.

[aragil]

Thorin and greypilgrim- if it makes you at all happy, PJ probably had the 'shrine' right:

FotR, p.324 '"For the Sword that was Broken is the Sword of Elendil that broke beneath him when he fell. It has been treasured by his heirs when all other heirlooms were lost; for it was spoken of old among us that it whould be made again when the Ring, Isildur's Bane, was found."'

RotK, p.401 'Arahael his son (Aranarth, 1st Ranger of the Dunedain's son) was fostered in Rivendell, and so were all the sons of the chieftains after him; and there also were kept the heirlooms of their house: the ring of Barahir, the shards of Narsil, the star of Elendil, and the sceptre of Annuminas'

greypilgrim- I'm glad that it only took you four viewings to realize that PJ's version was not worth your money. PJ is probably glad too. I'm not sure that I follow the logic that any change from the way Tolkien wrote the book is necessarily a change for the worse. Should the story be told exactly the same way every time? If Tolkien were to re-write the books, would he just make them a word-for-word copy? I think that it was Ged who pointed out that re-making 'Psycho'
as a scene-for-scene duplicate of the original was a waste of time. It added nothing to our understanding of the original. A re-making of The Lord of the Rings which was a word for word copy of the book would be long, and would not really add much to our 'Middle-Earth experience'. Personally, I got a lot out of the movie, and it has made me look at many of the parts from the book in a different (not the same as bad) way. Much of the changes were still in the spirit of the books- such as having the shards in a shrine in Rivendell, where the Appendix tells us that the heirs of Elendil are in the habit of keeping it. Having the Boromir scene shows us the lineage of the sword and reminds us how important it is in the mythology. Just because it is different from the books does not make it bad, just as Aragorn not having the reforged sword in Moria, Lorien, or Amon Hen is not necessarily bad. It strengthens the character of Aragorn- assuring us that he is worthy without the sword. New viewers will therefore be less likely to think that it is the sword which makes a man king, rather than anything about the man himself. Do you think this agrees with how Tolkien felt about Aragorn?

[Snaga]

Aragil - Thank you for that. I agree entirely - very well put.

Grey - technically of course it is the Shards of Narsil that he shows to the hobbits at Bree, before Rivendell, but re-forged it becomes Anduril. Just thought I would throw that in, in the spirit of seeing who can pee the highest up a wall! I'm glad you enjoyed the first three viewings of the film enough to keep going back. Must be a good film...;)

[Bill the Pony]

A guy named moriarty who talked to PJ at a book signing claims ROTK starts with the reforging of Anduril. (see aintitcool (http://aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=11537)) Assuming Helm's deep is still in TT, that means Arwen does not bring it to him?? Is she there? Who's the sword-wielding elf in RW's pictures?
I guess we'll have to wait 10 months to find out. No need to get angry yet.

[ssgrif]

Not one to add to the Nit-picking, but V of K, I'm sure it was actually the Hilt of Narsil and not a handful of shards that Aragorn showed the Hobbits in Bree. Aragorn might have carried the ahards with him, but I dont recall him showing the Hobbits...

[Snaga]

SSGrif, I think by your actions you show that perhaps you ARE one to add to the nitpicking!:)

Anyway the book says He drew out his sword and they saw that the blade was indeed broken a foot below the hilt. So what you say sounds right.

But later at the Council of Elrond it says He cast his sword upon the table that stood before Elrond, and the blade was in two pieces.

So I'm guessing that if he had the hilt at Bree he must have had the rest of the blade too. Whether he showed them both halves, is left to your imagination. But the idea that its in lots of pieces is, therefore, another unconscionable desecration of the book by PJ. (Not!!);)

[greypilgrim]

Variag of K.,
You know what? I am nitpicking. I will admit it.
I will also admit that the movie BROUGHT TO LIFE (for me) the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. Like, it (the movie) made me read the same books since high school that I've read OVER and OVER again, OVER AND OVER again, and loving the story page by page, still.
But , yeah..... I'm nit-picking, as I shouldn't be.
Because I really REALLY liked the movie!
I want the story of the Ring as written to be represented in the fullest, just like all you people do, I'm sure.

Aragil, you made an excellent point about the man and not the sword.
I see that it takes alot more than being a fan of a book to actually portray it on screen. I know nothing about making movies.

I do feel (JUSTLY) robbed of seeing some of my favorite moments from the story
left out or altered in the movie, but I must stop complaining and just admit it.....
IT IS AN AWESOME MOVIE !!!

[Eol]

Sorry but Aragorn has no use for that sword in the movie. This is not the "I'm gonna be King", "Sieze my destiny", "I'm on a mission" guy like the book. He says himself he doesn't want to be king. He is Aragorn - the Underachiever. He just wants to shack up with Arwen somewhere. So why would he reforge that rusty old sword? What does he care of heirlooms or duty or pride in the Dunedain?

I understood what motivated Aragorn from the book. As for this guy, who knows.

Eol - the Dark Elf

[aragil]

Eol-
Is a person who never doubts himself somehow easier to understand? Do you understand what made Aragorn a king in the books? Was it a sword, or was it something about the man himself? Aragorn in the movie never says he doesn't want to be king- in fact, all of his actions in the movie display that he soon will be king and is deserving of it. His words to the dying Boromir and his rejection of the ring when Frodo offers it are two choice examples, one coming directly from the book, one being the invention of PJ. I'm afraid that PJ's Aragorn is no harder to understand than Tolkien's. He is going up against the Lord of Darkness, if he doubts he'll succeed then he's only human. However, this doesn't stop him from trying, and I'm sure that at the end of the third movie we'll be treated to King Elessar, the overachiever.
And oh yeah, if it's only a reforged sword that makes Aragorn a king, he'll have that as well.

[Snaga]

I think Eol is right. very good point Eol, I wish I'd thought of that. Oh, and welcome to the Forum!:)

The point is Aragil, that Aragorn in the book is not in any way conflicted about his heritage and destiny. He carries Narsil, wanting to claim the kingship.

In the film Aragorn has specifically REFUSED his heritage, according to Elrond. He fears that he will have the same fate as Isildur - he is very clear about that at least in his Arwen scene, and so backs away from declaring his lineage. He therefore wouldn't carry the sword. But that doesn't make him more or less human, more or less brave per se. Just different.

Its not that the sword maketh the man, but its a powerful symbol of his right to the thrones of Gondor and Arnor.

[Harad]

Sorry VoK but I disagree.

In the book, Aragorn has "chosen exile" every bit as much as in the movie. Only the finding of the Ring results in his return to Gondor to fight the War of the Ring. If he wins that War, then he gains the opportunity to become King.

Without finding the Ring, Aragorn would have continued being the Chieftain of the Rangers of the North, as he had for 67 years after Elrond told him of his heritage. He would have left alone the stable 1000 year-old government of the Stewards in Gondor.

There are differences between the two Aragorns. But they are less than meets the eye.

[aragil]

I agree with Harad here (it must be that week)- Elrond's statement in the movie could be a reference to Aragorn's time in Gondor. Aragorn in the movie is not an underachiever. He never says that he doesn't want to be king. He has doubts about himself. We don't really know what Aragorn is thinking in the books- the majority of the narrative is through the Hobbit's POV. For all we know the book Aragorn doubted himself as well. The movie Aragorn does not achieve less than the book Aragorn, so I fail to see in what way Eol is correct by saying that movie Aragorn is only looking to shack up with Arwen.

[Eol]

Not exactly. There was a lot foretold about Aragorn. Not that he would be King, but he had a chance to be. Elrond himself tells him after he first meets Arwen some 50-70 years before the movie time that the only way he will permit the marriage is if he becomes King of both Gondor and Arnor. So I think they knew there was something special about this guy. Also you might want to do some reading about Thorongil. That was Aragorn under an assumed name when he was an advisor and champion for Denethor's father. He left Gondor when Denethor took power.

So yes, there are differences, and they are glaring. In the book he is definately working to renew the Kingship in order to renew the kingdoms, the power of the Dunedain, and to win the woman he loves. If he fails, he loses everything. That is why he is so cautious about entering Minas Tirith after the battle. He doesn't want any contention. If for some reason he alienates some faction who later opposes his coronation, then no Arwen. And that can happen, read about the kin-strife in Gondor, also about Arvedui and his claim.

Eol - The Dark Elf

[Harad]

I know all about his errantry in Rohan and Gondor and it consistent with my point that he would not return to Gondor without the War of the Ring. That would have been his one and, perhaps only, contribution to one of the lands of his ancestors.

I am sorry you havent see all the threads that discuss these issues so I will try to acquaint you with the timeline. Aragorn was 87 years old before the Ring was identified. He had been betrothed to Arwen for 39 years. Since the average age that his 14 forefathers served as Chieftain of the North was 60 years, it is absurd to believe that Aragorn was planning at age 87 to return to Gondor to become King.

No, Aragorn would have stayed as Chieftain of the North. That was his duty and he was a noble man. He would not abandon his duty to wrest the Kingship of Gondor. He would continue as his ancestors did for 800 years. He would not disrput needlessly the 1000-yr stable government of Gondor. Either his love for Arwen would be unrequited or they would wed despite Elrond.

This all changed with the finding of the Ring and the War of the Ring. Even then, Aragorn would not wrest the Kingship of Gondor. He would win it by deeds. In the absence of the War, in the absence of those deeds, the noble Aragorn would never have become King of Gondor.

[greypilgrim]

Aragorn loved that Sword. He used the name "Anduril" as a war cry, he would not permit any man to touch it in Edoras. The sword was a token of his lineage, a license to the throne of Gondor, which he also treasured the thought of, ending his exile and winning Arwen.

Movie Aragorn doubted his strength, his lineage was "weak" in his mind, from Isildur. He never said he didn't want the kingship, he only doubted himself as worthy of it.

Book Aragorn never doubted his lineage, seemed proud of it, awaited the day when the Sword would be "re-forged".

The sword is a metaphor, I think, of the belief of men in the power of the line of Isildur to defeat the Dark Lord. That belief gives the SWORD a special power (of sorts) in the minds of those who believe (seemingly everybody).
Aragorn wielding the Sword, being the heir of Isildur, became more fierce than Strider with a blade. His kingship was in his hands, and the power of the Sword brought death to the hardest enemies.
Therefore,the Sword and the King are one, I think. And that is what my gripe was about. Aragorn is still Strider the Ranger when he left Rivendel (in the movie), not "Aragorn son of Arathorn going to war upon the marches of Mordor."

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
No, Aragorn would have stayed as Chieftain of the North. That was his duty and he was a noble man. He would not abandon his duty to wrest the Kingship of Gondor. He would continue as his ancestors did for 800 years. He would not disrput needlessly the 1000-yr stable government of Gondor. Either his love for Arwen would be unrequited or they would wed despite Elrond.

This all changed with the finding of the Ring and the War of the Ring. Even then, Aragorn would not wrest the Kingship of Gondor. He would win it by deeds. In the absence of the War, in the absence of those deeds, the noble Aragorn would never have become King of Gondor.

I don't doubt that Aragorn had any burning desire at first to overtake the throne of Gondor. He had enough time to do that. The ring obviously rushed him along and opened doors that were previously closed, as well as made the need for the king more urgent....However, the movie makes him almost doubt himself and coupled along with Elrond's disdain for man and him giving the overall impression of feeling that Aragorn was unworthy of his daughter unless he took the throne really turns it all into some sort of soap opera type plot....i don't feel that Aragorn doubted himself in the least, or didn't know what he was after from the start. The movie potrayed the whole "kingship" thing poorly.

[Harad]

Another thing you missed in the movie:

When Aragorn tells Frodo "You have my sword," Elrond exchanges a glance of approval with Gandalf. Given the limitations of a 3 hour movie, PJ did an excellent job with the Kingship thread.

[PRH]

PJ gave Aragorn more of a character arc.

Tolkien's version of Aragorn's arc is that he started out as a ranger who wanted the kingship and then he worked and got it. All deeds.

PJ's version of Aragorn's arc is that he starts out as a ranger who isn't sure he can live up to his destiny. Through the encouragement of Arwen, the moving words of Boromir, and probably his compassion for the halflings he owns up to this responsibility and (presumably) will achieve it through deeds. This character arc is not all deeds but has some internal, emotional evolution.

There is a little of Frodo in the movie Aragorn, not sure of himself in the beginning. I kind of like it, sure it's not precisely Tolkien, but I like it. It makes sense that no matter how proud the decendents of the line of Isildur were, after so very many years they may begin to doubt their worth and abilities as kings. It might be hard to own up to your ancestry when the time comes. The important thing is that he does do it, and for the same reasons as the book - the love of Arwen, the glory of Gondor/Numenor and the compassion of the free peoples of Middle Earth.

[Snaga]

In the book (appendix A) Arwen forsees that Aragorn will become king, but he can't forsee it. He says something like her hope will have to be his hope. Elrond tells him he can't marry Arwen unless he reclaims the thrones of Arnor and Gondor, because he won't lose her for anything less than the renewal of mankind.

Aragorn has never rejected his heritage. All his recent ancestors have been Chieftains of the Dunedain of the North: they have not tried to reclaim the kingship, because the time is not right.

In the film, Gandalf says 'there is one who could claim the kingship' (as though he just has to knock on Denethor's door with a birth certificate and character reference!) and Elrond says 'He turned from that path long ago'. This is followed by an Aragorn Angst scene with Arwen trying to encourage the poor mite.

I agree with PRH - this is more of an arc. Excellent job? Yes. But not an exact replica of the book. This isn't a problem to me - the various elements do all work together. It does explain why Narsil stays at Rivendell in the film.

[Harad]

I agree with PRH and VoK, mostly. But I (of course) have a different interpretation of the "what if."

Aragorn in the book was willing to be King but needed a confluence of events to attempt that goal. Had the Ring not been found, and the Watchful Waiting continued, both in Gondor and in the North, then Aragorn would have been disappointed in that goal. Whether he would have married Arwen nevertheless is moot.

How much is preordained, how much is left to chance? When Elrond made his fiat to Arwen & Aragorn did he "know" that the War of the Ring was coming to a climax?

An interesting difference between the Aragorn's is the sound bite, "I am Isildur's heir, not Isildur himself." In the book Aragorn says this to Boromir indicating that he has not yet lived "up" to Isildur. In the movie Arwen says this to Aragorn, indicating that he need not fear living "down" to Isildur.

Different and fascinating sides of the same coin, because when you think of it, Isildur was both to be admired and to be criticized.

[greypilgrim]

Aragorn had a tough life, Arwen was a hottie, Elrond was c***-blocking, Boromir was a player-hater. The Drama never ends.

Seriously though, the sword Narsil is important, I think, because of the belief in many of it's power to defeat the Dark lord, then and now. Elsewise, it's just a "broken heirloom", right?

[Ged]

Thorin,
With respect, I think your criticisms of the movie are beginning to cause you to misquote the book you profess to love.

You said:

I don't doubt that Aragorn had any burning desire at first to overtake the throne of Gondor. He had enough time to do that. The ring obviously rushed him along and opened doors that were previously closed, as well as made the need for the king more urgent....However, the movie makes him almost doubt himself and coupled along with Elrond's disdain for man and him giving the overall impression of feeling that Aragorn was unworthy of his daughter unless he took the throne really turns it all into some sort of soap opera type plot....i don't feel that Aragorn doubted himself in the least, or didn't know what he was after from the start. The movie potrayed the whole "kingship" thing poorly.

Elrond in the book is explicitly stated as saying that Aragorn can only marry Arwen if he becomes the rightful King of a re-united kingdom of Gondor and Arnor. I don't know where you get the phrase "overall impression".

I believe Harad to be perfectly correct. If the ring had not been discovered Aragorn would have continued as a Ranger of the north - he would NOT have tried to claim the throne of Gondor. He didn't as Thorongil. He didn't even tell Denethor and his Father who he really was. (Don't forget this was just before he met Arwen.) Are you really suggesting that he was so weak that he would have changed his mind, and deviated from all the traditions of his immediate ancestors JUST to marry Arwen? He was nobler than that.

[Rangerdave]

Lets face it.
The whole arc is so Mr Jackson can put the "hottie" she-elf in the second movie. Cardinal rule of Hollywood, must have two hot chicks in every action movie. So, while I personally abhor what he has done to this part of the story, I can at least understnd it.

BTW who is playing the Lady of Rohan?

Smile
RD

[rabbit pitas]

Originally posted by greypilgrim
Anyone notice Aragorn's sword after they all left Rivendell?
It doesn't look like...it is not Narsil, the sword that was re-forged.
Why? It should have been re-forged again in Rivendell. Why has Peter Jackson CHANGED the story like that? And in all the other ways he has altered it? He has changed this story too much, it is not the original.
At first, I was pumped about the movie.
After 4 times seeing it, I think is is a joke.
Not very funny, though.:(


This is what I am talking about. This is just plain b*tching. The sword does not influence Frodo and the Fellowship's quest to bring the ring to Orodruin. Infact it doesn't matter much anyway. It's a minor detail to the story, or atleast to the first book.

Oh, and after seeing any movie for four times in a short period of time it becomes a joke.

Just apprectiate PJ's version and be thankful it wasn't some money grubber who squashed it all into one movie. God forbid someone leaves Narsil out, what would you do is someone left out all of Moria or Lothlorien?

[Thorin]

Oh my,

rabbit pitas, you're going to make Harad quite happy....You might even beat him....You're not even attacking the purists, but most of the Film Adaptation Defenders (other thread)....

That is very funny.

[PRH]

They are all minor details when you just think the story is about Frodo's quest. LOTR would not be anywhere near the great work it is without the other threads, most especially Aragorn's acension to the throne. The reforged sword is a very important symbol in this thread. I'm not complaining about it's exclusion. I'm content that Aragorn will get the sword later. This fits with his pushed-back plans to become king (as compared to the book).

On a related note, here's a picture of the prop replica which will be for sale soon. It's interesting that it's being called Narsil in the ad and not Anduril. I wonder if the name Anduril has been scrapped for the movie.

(click on the Arms of Valor sponsor link at the top of every page for the ad)

[aragil]

I still say that the best symbolic effect for the sword is at Aragorn and Arwen's wedding, replacing the sceptre of Annuminas. Sword reforged, realm re-kinged, Blood of Numenor renewed. What does the sceptre mean to anybody, anyway? Oh well, I guess there's a certain symmetry in the sword being used in the war which overthrows Sauron:
Last Alliance- Sword broken, Isildur fails to overthrow Sauron.
War of the Rings- Sword reforged, Isildur's heir helps to insure that Sauron is forever overthrown.

[PRH]

I agree that the scecptre is a minor symbol in movie terms. Replacing it with the sword would be okay except that I hate the idea of taking the weapon out of the sword. Aragorn's gotta use it in battle. It would be cool if they show his fighting abilities improve dramatically when he first takes up Anduril/Narsil.

[rabbit pitas]

Originally posted by Thorin
Oh my,

rabbit pitas, you're going to make Harad quite happy....You might even beat him....You're not even attacking the purists, but most of the Film Adaptation Defenders (other thread)....

That is very funny.

Actually, that was directed at the purist psychos. I agree with PRH that other plot threads influence the importance of LOTR, but I think it would be hard to include all of these without baffling those seeing the film who have not read the books.

There are people who haven't read them, you know.

[Harad]

Welcome RP,

Its always good to have another clear-thinker on the forum.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
Welcome RP,

Its always good to have another clear-thinker on the forum.

Yes, Harad, it is good to have clear-thinkers on this forum....It's also nice to have folks like rabbit and yourself as well....

[Ged]

[rabbit pitas]

Originally posted by Harad
Welcome RP,

Its always good to have another clear-thinker on the forum.

Thanks, Harad!

[PRH]

Very well put Ged - Good show!

(just try the delete button next time)

[greypilgrim]

The eagle eyed greypilgrim has done it again. I was mistaken, I think. The sword NARSIL that the movie first shows in rivendell has a black and silver handle. I think that you can see the same sword again later , twice. I saw it with my own eagle-eyes. I think we shall see aragorn in the next movie proclaim his heritage to eomer, drawing the sword. I may be wrong, I may be right.
I think i'm right.

[PRH]

I'm afraid you're wrong.

This (http://www.numenoreen.com/Images/HDRAragorn.jpg) is the sword Aragorn carries throughout FOTR and this (http://64.225.100.103/miva/graphics/00000001/Narsill.jpg) is Narsil. Compare the hilts.

PJ himself has even talked about Narsil being reforged later.

The Script Analyst (http://www.thescriptanalyst.com)

We ultimately changed the structure, too. Obviously, as you see in the movie, we have Aragorn a lot more hesitant about his future. Things may change, because this is an organic process, but for the moment we see the sword being reforged in the very, very beginning of the third movie.

I also attached a picture of Narsil on it's shrine (thanks RW).

[greypilgrim]

cool, thanks. now I know i hate peter jacko!

[Anamatar IV]

my turn. When the hobbits were attacked at wether top in the movie aragorn came leaping in with a flaming branch and a sword.
"Not much use is it Sam?"
It was plenty of use in the movie. IN rivendell the shards of narsil are "on display". Apparently (in the movie) aragorn didnt use narsil at all. INstead h eused this second class one to kill about 5000 orcs.