Gandalf Vs. The Witch King [Archive] - Page 3 - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Mansun

10-05-2007, 12:13 PM

Gandalf was not Invincible. He did die once already you know!

I agree, he can & has died, in certain circumstances. Tolkein deliberately did not want to test whether this included the Witch King or not. Therefore we can only make a subjective judgement. Even still, the LOTR makes clear the fact that the Witch King also experiences great fear for his skin in some circumstances. Where does this fear come from if he is not vulnerable himself?

Also, what signs of fear Gandalf shows when concerned with the Witch King is crucial (I have mentioned this often before). He is only anxious of the Witch King, but is this caused by him alone, or by the sheer numbers of Mordor forces crushing on Minas Tirith, & Frodo going to Cirith Ungol etc? The pressure was enormous, & even Sauron in this situation would experience great anxiety, even nervousness (fear).

If I read Gandalf experiencing terror as the Black Captain approached at the gate in Minas Tirith, then I would happily admit the Witch King received a great enough power boost which could give him a good chance of breaking Gandalf. But this did not materialise in the slightest; what we read was a confident & majestic Gandalf who orders with authority the Captain of a 100,000 strong Mordor host behind him to leave at once.

"Old Fool! Old Fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!

This massively important quote also suggests the Witch King does not know the true nature of Gandalf. With Gandalf being old, this does not have much relevance to his ability to succeed in battle, as he proved in Moria. As for dying, only the mighty Balrog of Morgoth has managed to inflict this upon Gandalf the Grey in 3,000 odd years of his existence, & even then Gandalf killed it first. Was the siege of Gondor really the Witch King's hour? Did he forget the small matter of Rohan here, not to mention Gandalf & co.? Nor did he know for sure where the Ring was, or who had it in possession. Not a very wise Lord this Nazgul proved to be - he failed to learn the lessons of his near miss with Frodo at Weathertop, & Merry takes advantage of it. All of what the Witch King says here is actually totally to the contrary - the above quote describes exactly what was about to happen to himself, & this is a true bit of genius by Tolkein.

If the Witch King dies in this enhanced form, does the power of Sauron become significantly weaker?

Mansun

10-05-2007, 01:47 PM

I have prolonged this thread as long as possible, but I think I am ready to retire! I have posted one of the best posts in this enormous thread (see above). Gandalf would have won, but he may have died himself by breaking the rules of the Istari set by Eru.

obloquy

10-05-2007, 02:09 PM

Breaking the rules of the Istari does not result in death, and Gandalf had no need to fear the Witch-King even without compromising his integrity.

Mansun

10-05-2007, 03:49 PM

Breaking the rules of the Istari does not result in death, and Gandalf had no need to fear the Witch-King even without compromising his integrity.

"Thag you very buch."

Essex

10-07-2007, 05:59 PM

I have posted one of the best posts in this enormous thread (see above). And you're modest too!

PS - unfortunately one never retires from this thread. You'll be back again. That's why I asked the mods to close this thread a few weeks back - it's the only way to stop it! It's just too tempting to go back and repeat oneself every couple of months or so.

Mansun

10-09-2007, 10:41 AM

And you're modest too!

PS - unfortunately one never retires from this thread. You'll be back again. That's why I asked the mods to close this thread a few weeks back - it's the only way to stop it! It's just too tempting to go back and repeat oneself every couple of months or so.

I have been keen to hear other poster's thoughts on how the Balrog compares to the Witch King in stature, power & even rank in another thread (see the Books forum). This, I believe, is where the real answer lies in the Gandalf vs the Witch King debate.

As for closing this thread, I would think someone else would try & re-open it again later under a similar thread & start the whole thing alight again . . .

Mansun

10-09-2007, 03:24 PM

I have borrowed this from another thread:-

But just look at what Wikipedia has to say of Balrogs:-

A Balrog is a demon from J. R. R. Tolkien's Arda legendarium. A Balrog (Sindarin for "Demon of Might"; the Quenya form is Valarauko) is a tall, menacing being in the shape of a man, having control of both fire and shadow. One was noted to wield both a flaming sword and fiery whip of many thongs.

The Balrog induces great terror in friends and foes alike and can shroud itself in darkness and shadow. It can only be defeated by some person or thing of equal power, and amongst its own evil allies is rivalled only in its capacity for ferocity and destruction by the dragons, but the Balrogs are more powerful than dragons.[1]

According to The Silmarillion the Balrogs were originally Maiar, of the same order as Sauron, Saruman and Gandalf.

Can the enhanced Witch King match such a foe? It appears not, since he would need to be at least in equal power to Sauron, Saruman, Gandalf & the Balrog of Morgoth to be so. This ends the debate once & for all - Gandalf, Balrogs, Saurman, Sauron are all essentially closely matched, that we know. The Witch King, however powerful a sorcerer, cannot fall into this supernatural category & must therefore be deemed a weaker opponent.

Now I really cannot add more to this issue - all the evidence points to a likely victory for Gandalf, since the Witch King must be of at least equal power to kill a Maiar. So from the dark side, effectively, only Sauron or a Balrog (or the evil Saruman) could have potentially killed Gandalf.

Essex

10-10-2007, 06:46 AM

all the evidence points to a likely victory for Gandalf, since the Witch King must be of at least equal power to kill a Maiar.I diagree - because of this one line from ''The Istari' which I'll repeat again.

with the consent of Eru they sent members of their high order, but clad in bodies as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject of the fears and pain and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain.

This has been my argument all along. And no one has persuaded me against it yet.

Mansun

10-10-2007, 06:52 AM

I diagree - because of this one line from ''The Istari' which I'll repeat again.

with the consent of Eru they sent members of their high order, but clad in bodies as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject of the fears and pain and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain.

This has been my argument all along. And no one has persuaded me against it yet.

Nobody has ever answered how Sauron, in his weakest form, was able to significantly increase the Witch King's power. The Witch King, even in his greatest form with the Ring in Sauron's hand, failed to make a great impact in the second age. Yet we must believe a weaker Witch King can topple Gandalf in his greatest form?

Essex

10-10-2007, 11:16 AM

Mansun

10-10-2007, 02:30 PM

you don't have to believe me. It's just my point of view - Gandalf can be slain, Tolkien says so. I'm not going on about who is more powerful than the other - I'm just trying to explain that it's not always the greatest foe who wins a battle. Usually, yes - but not always.

If one says that so and so (Gandalf) is stronger than so and so (WK) then he must win in battle then this is very 1 dimensional thinking.

Gandalf is not just a vulnerable human being, otherwise his burns suffered against the Balrog would have killed him far earlier. Plus, his battle against the Balrog lasted 2 days at least, which no ordinary human body could cope with. Yes, Gandalf does eventually die as a result, but a normal human body would not have sustained the fire of a Balrog, & thus he would have died instantly. We cannot therefore assume Gandalf is as vulnerable as what the Silmarillion makes out with confidence. His Maiar powers obviously shield his body to a large extent, or at least allow him to heal very quickly.

In Middle Earth history, can you think of any examples whereby the weaker baddie defeats a so called mightier goodie?

Essex

10-11-2007, 02:32 AM

Gandalf is not just a vulnerable human being, otherwise his burns suffered against the Balrog would have killed him far earlier. Plus, his battle against the Balrog lasted 2 days at least, which no ordinary human body could cope with. Yes, Gandalf does eventually die as a result, but a normal human body would not have sustained the fire of a Balrog, & thus he would have died instantly. We cannot therefore assume Gandalf is as vulnerable as what the Silmarillion makes out with confidence. His Maiar powers obviously shield his body to a large extent, or at least allow him to heal very quickly.

In Middle Earth history, can you think of any examples whereby the weaker baddie defeats a so called mightier goodie?

And I'm happy with you ASSUMING that as you say - as long as you're not just categorically TELLING me, as others have, that Gandalf would have won against the WK with 100% certainty. I am using 'Canon' to explain my point - i.e. what Tolkien himself wrote about the Istari. Your point above, (and my views on whether the WK could have defeated Gandalf as well) are conjecture - what COULD have happened. I just can't agree with posters who say with the utmost certainty what WOULD have happened if they did actually fight.

As to your second question, I can turn it around to show the two biggest 'victories' of weaker goodies vs baddies in the books. A 'weak' hobbit helps defeat the Witch King himself (how ironic is that statement in this thread), and two 'weak' hobbits defeat Sauron.

Mansun

10-11-2007, 10:55 AM

As to your second question, I can turn it around to show the two biggest 'victories' of weaker goodies vs baddies in the books. A 'weak' hobbit helps defeat the Witch King himself (how ironic is that statement in this thread), and two 'weak' hobbits defeat Sauron.

Tolkein appears to have an obssession with the weaker goodie overcoming the mightier baddie. But not so, it appears, the other way round.

obloquy

10-11-2007, 11:28 AM

And I'm happy with you ASSUMING that as you say - as long as you're not just categorically TELLING me, as others have, that Gandalf would have won against the WK with 100% certainty. I am using 'Canon' to explain my point - i.e. what Tolkien himself wrote about the Istari. Your point above, (and my views on whether the WK could have defeated Gandalf as well) are conjecture - what COULD have happened. I just can't agree with posters who say with the utmost certainty what WOULD have happened if they did actually fight.

As to your second question, I can turn it around to show the two biggest 'victories' of weaker goodies vs baddies in the books. A 'weak' hobbit helps defeat the Witch King himself (how ironic is that statement in this thread), and two 'weak' hobbits defeat Sauron.

Gandalf would have slaughtered the Witch-King, no question.

I disagree with your examples, by the way. I don't see any of this underdog theme in Tolkien at all. I have no idea how Mansun can claim Tolkien is "obsessed" with the idea.

Mansun

10-11-2007, 12:54 PM

I disagree with your examples, by the way. I don't see any of this underdog theme in Tolkien at all. I have no idea how Mansun can claim Tolkien is "obsessed" with the idea.

The main theme of the LOTR is based on how a group of Hobbits step up & do great deeds against the odds to help defeat Sauron. Some other examples would be :-

Witch King vs Merry & Eowyn

The defeat of Morgoth

Pippin slays a troll

The attack at Weathertop - the Hobbits & Aragorn vs 5 Nazgul

Rocky Balboa vs Ivan Drago (the ultimate David vs Goliath!)

There are no examples in the history of Middle Earth where the mightier goodie has been defeated by a weaker baddie though. Which makes the case for a Gandalf victory virtually certain.

Groin Redbeard

11-09-2007, 04:09 PM

In the book the Witch King fled before Gandalf could do battle with him, and Pippen came to get Gandalf to save Faramir. In the end I think Gandalf would arise as the victor.

Ken_wilsonii

11-26-2007, 03:36 AM

Someone earlier referenced the how Tolkien earlier handled lines of power
with respect to beings. This also applies to places, objects, artifacts and it's own internal mythology.

Melkor --> Sauron (Maiar)-->
3 Rings for elven kings under the sky
7 for dwarf lords in their halls of stone
9 for mortal men doomed to die

While a lot of power was placed in those rings , none are enough to take on Gandalf.

Gandalf is a Maiar (see Sauron if we are tracking lines of power)

Sauron has more power than Gandalf only due to a more straight line to his master Melkor.

The Witchking is really a mere pawn
It would take all 9 nazgul to fight Gandalf The White (or Grey) and they would lose.

The whole scene was bad. That Staff is not getting shattered any day soon
and only by Sauron himself.

Several related weaker good guys beating stronger bad guys. With respect to the Hobbits,
their skills are underestimated and each time they are carrying artifacts that aid them in defeating the "stronger" bad guy.

Example...Shelob...Sting and the Phial of Galadriel

Eönwë

12-11-2007, 12:50 PM

By the way this is the opinion I gave in the other thread.
The Witch-king could never even get near beating Gandalf. Olorin (Gandalf) was a Maiar and the witch-king was a human (though I do think he was a "black numenorean" so he might have had some Maiar blood in him after all, but Gandalf is fully Maiar). A human, however powerful, could never kill, or even win a fight against a Maiar. And Olorin was chosen to help the peoples of middle earth, in the same that Eonwe was (not being as strong as the target but still being comparatively strong to them). Gandalf killed a Balrog, a Maiar, a being of divine descent, to get beaten by a man? The Balrog, by the way, was not even a servant of Sauron, but of Morgoth, not much weaker than Sauron, in fact. Gandalf was sent by Manwe, and even though he refused at first, Gandalf went for a reason (varda makes a sneaky comment that hints that he is stronger than Saruman (curumo in Valinor). Gandalf is an immortal, and could not properly be killed anyway. Also, the witch-king has neither the authority nor the power to break Gandalf's staff as he did during the movie.

PS. Morgoth is the lord of all the evil, the old master of Sauron
PPS. This time (with Gandalf) the target is Sauron (the target was Morgoth with Eonwe).
PPPS. Eonwe is actually Eönwë, Olorin is actually Olórin, Numenorean is actually Númenórean and Manwe is actually Manwë, if you want all the accents correctly placed

Eönwë

12-11-2007, 12:55 PM

Several related weaker good guys beating stronger bad guys. With respect to the Hobbits,
their skills are underestimated and each time they are carrying artifacts that aid them in defeating the "stronger" bad guy.

Example...Shelob...Sting and the Phial of Galadriel

Yes but that was sam and he is special (look at this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=14475))Also, he is actually a good fighter (or at least among hoobbits)< which they don't fully appreciate in the movies. I think Sam is underdone in the movies.

Hmmm... maybe I'll start a thread

LeDarkKnight

12-18-2007, 09:29 PM

you see, my friend and i were arguing about who would win in a battle: the WK or Gandalf. and i looked it up and found this thread and decided to join this forum, and i'm an avid lotr reader and of course i absolutely loved the movies.

but that scene really made no sense to me, knowing that gandalf was a mair and got his power from the valor itself. i mean come on he came back from the dead like jesus after kicking some *** and came back and kicked some more.

and the witch king got his power from a already very weak sauron, so gandalf obviously wins.

i dont know how anyone could put up a decent argument on the WK's side.

Groin Redbeard

01-02-2008, 10:26 AM

There's no question about it. The Witch King was a Wraith while Gandalf was a Miar. The nobody can kill a Mair unless you are a Mair yourself; or Valar.

Peter Jackson, I must admit, did a poor job at that scene. It would have been better if he would have stuck to the book with that sequence.

Lord Gothmog

01-02-2008, 11:43 AM

While I agree with the view that Jackson 'got it wrong' and the Witch-King most certainly could not have broken the staff of Gandalf, it is not at all certain that Gandalf would have won in a direct confrontation with the Lord of the Nazgul.

It is true that Gandalf was also Olorin the Maia but he was less powerful as Gandalf the Incarnate Istar. Gandalf the White was more powerful than Gandalf the Grey yet still he was Incarnate and Tolkien himself stated:-

Tolkien's Letters: 156 To Robert Murray, SJ. (draft)

By 'incarnate' I mean they were embodied in physical bodies capable of pain, and weariness, and of afflicting the spirit with physical fear, and of being 'killed', though supported by the angelic spirit they might endure long, and only show slowly the wearing of care and labour.

And of The Witch-King vs Gandalf Tolkien has Gandalf saying:-

Return of the King: The Siege of Gondor.
'Then, Mithrandir, you had a foe to match you,' said Denethor. 'For myself, I have long known who is the chief captain of the hosts of the Dark Tower. Is this all that you have returned to say? Or can it be that you have withdrawn because you are overmatched?'
Pippin trembled, fearing that Gandalf would be stung to sudden wrath, but his fear was needless. 'It might be so,' Gandalf answered softly. 'But our trial of strength is not yet come.

However, even this does not come anywhere near to the weakness that Jackson's Gandalf quite clearly displayed.

The Saucepan Man

01-02-2008, 04:57 PM

Sorry, but could someone please explain to me where in the films it is said that Gandalf was a Maia, or indeed that Maiar even existed?

obloquy

01-02-2008, 08:35 PM

I don't believe it is explicated. I have pointed out before (this thread or another, I dunno) that Gandalf's portrayal in the films may be inaccurate, but it's not incongruent with the mythos as adapted by the filmmakers.

Jonathan

01-15-2008, 07:16 AM

I think Gandalf was more powerful and I think he could drive off the witch king but killing the witch king would have been a tall order even for Gandalf. They were close to evenly matched. Especially since the Witch King had ring power on his side.

At any rate the extended edition scene with Gandalf and the witch king is bogus and "it never happened" See the enhanced version on Youtube instead.

Essex

01-16-2008, 09:28 AM

While I agree with the view that Jackson 'got it wrong' and the Witch-King most certainly could not have broken the staff of Gandalf, it is not at all certain that Gandalf would have won in a direct confrontation with the Lord of the Nazgul.

It is true that Gandalf was also Olorin the Maia but he was less powerful as Gandalf the Incarnate Istar. Gandalf the White was more powerful than Gandalf the Grey yet still he was Incarnate and Tolkien himself stated:-

Tolkien's Letters: 156 To Robert Murray, SJ. (draft)
By 'incarnate' I mean they were embodied in physical bodies capable of pain, and weariness, and of afflicting the spirit with physical fear, and of being 'killed', though supported by the angelic spirit they might endure long, and only show slowly the wearing of care and labour.

And of The Witch-King vs Gandalf Tolkien has Gandalf saying:-

Return of the King: The Siege of Gondor.
'Then, Mithrandir, you had a foe to match you,' said Denethor. 'For myself, I have long known who is the chief captain of the hosts of the Dark Tower. Is this all that you have returned to say? Or can it be that you have withdrawn because you are overmatched?'
Pippin trembled, fearing that Gandalf would be stung to sudden wrath, but his fear was needless. 'It might be so,' Gandalf answered softly. 'But our trial of strength is not yet come.

Well said. This is what I've been saying (or been trying to say!!!) over the past 3 YEARS this thread has been going. when will it ever end........????????!!!!!!!!

obloquy

01-16-2008, 11:05 AM

Well said. This is what I've been saying (or been trying to say!!!) over the past 3 YEARS this thread has been going. when will it ever end........????????!!!!!!!!

It's not that you were ignored, it's that this information does not reveal what you think it reveals.

Lord Gothmog

01-16-2008, 01:04 PM

It's not that you were ignored, it's that this information does not reveal what you think it reveals.

It reveals that the original characters on which the film characters were based were near equal in power. Gandalf was adapted to film as a much weaker character.

obloquy

01-16-2008, 04:25 PM

It reveals that the original characters on which the film characters were based were near equal in power. Gandalf was adapted to film as a much weaker character.

No, it does not.

Essex's position has been, if I remember correctly, that the Witch-King could have overcome Gandalf by virtue of the "upset" phenomenon. This position inherently recognizes Gandalf's superiority while also highlighting his vulnerability. I disagree with Essex, but that does not mean he is entirely wrong.

You, however, are wrong. There is no way for the Witch-King to be "near equal" to Gandalf, who was a peer of Sauron himself, modesty notwithstanding. I will not repeat my arguments for this, but it should be fairly clear to anyone who takes the time to read the sources I have referenced in other posts, scattered across several threads.

Here is a point I have not brought up before, however: And here in Rivendell there live still some of [Sauron's] chief foes: the Elven-wise, lords of the Eldar from beyond the furthest seas. They do not fear the Ringwraiths, for those who have dwelt in the Blessed Realm live at once in both worlds, and against both the Seen and the Unseen they have great power.

This fact that Gandalf reveals applies not just to the Eldar, but also to Gandalf himself.

Finally, in anticipation of its resurrection, I will say this of the claim that the Witch-King was literally enhanced for the last book: It is a dubious theory, the source text for which comes from a letter not intended as canonical history (or indeed even to be included in the corpus), nor was it in response to a curious reader, and it is uncorroborated by other canonical texts. Additionally the letter is clearly discussing the literary decisions of the author for purposes of evaluating an adaptation. These facts provide enough doubt that the event can not be taken for granted and thus remains speculative.

Lord Gothmog

01-21-2008, 08:24 AM

No, it does not.

You, however, are wrong. There is no way for the Witch-King to be "near equal" to Gandalf, who was a peer of Sauron himself, modesty notwithstanding. I will not repeat my arguments for this, but it should be fairly clear to anyone who takes the time to read the sources I have referenced in other posts, scattered across several threads.
It is true that we as readers of the books of Arda are well aware of the relative differences between the actual powers of Gandalf/Olorin and the Witch-king. We have the advantage of knowing who and what Gandalf really is. We know also that the Witch-king is only a somewhat enhanced Man. However, in this thread we are discussing the adaptation of the characters from the book Lord of the Rings to film.

In the book, Gandalf is not permitted to use his full power to combat the evil of Sauron or his minions. He is there to be a teacher and guide. True it is only by his own choice that he abides by these limits, but he has already shown that he would "die" rather than ignore them. Since the Witch-king cannot be near as powerful as Gandalf, it is Gandalf's choice to abide by the limits that lowers him to near the Witch-king. So we have a situation where Gandalf is confident that the Witch-king cannot overcome him, but is not certain that he can destroy the Witch-king while staying within these limits.

This gives us the position in the book where, from the point of view of the story, we have two characters of near equal power facing each other. Gandalf sitting astride Shadowfax confident that he can bar the way of the Witch-king with the Witch-king arrogantly certain that nothing can stand in his way.

Here is a point I have not brought up before, however:

This fact that Gandalf reveals applies not just to the Eldar, but also to Gandalf himself.
Yes they have Great Power against the Seen and the Unseen. They drive them off regularly (sometimes into a river) But have never been shown to cause serious harm.

I ask you to think back to the first time you read Lord of the Rings. Before you read all the other information on Middle-earth. Were you then so certain of how great was the difference of power between Gandalf and the Witch-king?

It is this appearance of Near Equal characters shown in the book that should have been adapted to the film.

Finally, in anticipation of its resurrection, I will say this of the claim that the Witch-King was literally enhanced for the last book: It is a dubious theory, the source text for which comes from a letter not intended as canonical history (or indeed even to be included in the corpus), nor was it in response to a curious reader, and it is uncorroborated by other canonical texts. Additionally the letter is clearly discussing the literary decisions of the author for purposes of evaluating an adaptation. These facts provide enough doubt that the event can not be taken for granted and thus remains speculative.
Actually, the comments in that letter show that Jackson and co's adaptation of the Witch-king was, over all, better than the one Tolkien was commenting on. Jackson did not raise the Witch-king to the stature of the third book until the time of the battle of Pelennor Fields and the Siege of Minas Tirith.

It was the adaptation of the character of Gandalf that failed.

Mansun

06-28-2008, 03:52 PM

Sorry, but could someone please explain to me where in the films it is said that Gandalf was a Maia, or indeed that Maiar even existed?

''I have been sent back until my task is done''.

Eönwë

06-29-2008, 02:28 PM

''I have been sent back until my task is done''.

That's more of a hint, though. It certainly sugggests something divine at work, but it doesn't actually say anything specific.

Mansun

06-29-2008, 02:34 PM

That's more of a hint, though. It certainly sugggests something divine at work, but it doesn't actually say anything specific.

Hint or not, that particular scene in the Two Towers was one which was used to show the supernatural higher order of power that Gandalf was.

Keyan

08-26-2009, 01:03 PM

I just found this thread today..and I'm sure it will open up more old wounds, but anyway, I felt I wanted to put in my 2 cents:

When I first saw this scene, I was shocked. I felt that its inclusion showed that PJ didn't truly understand Tolkien, or the characters, at all. There is some other evidence of this, or at least of just bad use of language (which is about as anti-Tolkien as you can get), but I digress...

After thinking about the scene more, I think the biggest problem is the complete and somewhat over the top fear that Gandalf displays. He would not be afraid, he had even "died" already, and knew if he died it would not be his true end, as he explains to Pippin with the "green land under a swift sunrise" line earlier.

In the appendices this scene is actually addressed, and IIRC (it's been a while) I think PJ even says he knew it would get a mixed reaction, but it was included to show that basically the age of the old powers was waning, and that Men alone would be able to save Middle earth. The arrival of the Rohirrim is designed to highlight that point. Given this context, the scene makes more sense...I still just don't like how it was played out.

As far as the "Aragorn beating him with some burning sticks" type comments, I feel that it's pretty well established that the Black Riders are less powerful than the fully equipped Nazgul that come later. To me, it seems that their power grows along with the power of their Master, as they are shadows of his power and are bound to it. As the Ring gets heavier, and Sauron's power and influence increase, so does the power of the Nine, which would explain their relative weakness earlier in the story vs their power near the end.

Anyway, it seems that there is a very intelligent and thoughtful group here, I hope to participate some in other areas.

alatar

08-26-2009, 07:38 PM

Tuor in Gondolin

08-26-2009, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Keyan
As far as the "Aragorn beating him with some burning sticks" type comments, I feel that it's pretty well established that the Black Riders are less powerful than the fully equipped Nazgul that come later. To me, it seems that their power grows along with the power of their Master, as they are shadows of his power and are bound to it. As the Ring gets heavier, and Sauron's power and influence increase, so does the power of the Nine, which would explain their relative weakness earlier in the story vs their power near the end.

And Aragorn (not movie Aragorn!) was already a powerful, self-assured
figure, head of the Dunedain, "greatest traveler of the age", and warrior of Rohan and Gondor, and so would be less affected by the chief weapon of the nazgul---fear.

Ibrîniðilpathânezel

08-27-2009, 08:11 AM

Shock didn't even begin to describe my reaction to that scene in Jackson's movie (I suppose it is very telling that 9 times out of 10, I accidentally type "Hackson" before correcting it. It IS an accident, at least consciously. But ah, I know my subconscious, and accidents like these are seldom really accidents...). What it confirmed to me was that he and his co-writers were intent on making LotR "their own," and they decided to change the story from a cooperative effort among many peoples to a focus on the rising "world of Men." Once we leave Lothlorien in their version of the story, other races are there to provide comic relief (Gimli) or spiffy extra-cool action (Legolas -- and I suspect that if the fan girls hadn't panted over Orlando Bloom, his role would have been downplayed). The point at which it became most painfully obvious to me that they didn't get it was the scene where Gandalf is supposedly comforting Pippin about death -- quoting Frodo's dream of Valinor, and equating it with the passage from life to the afterlife. Funny that Gandalf doesn't even recognize the description of the place he came from, and will go back to!

Oh, I shouldn't go on, my heartburn will never forgive me. But I will say that I'm not speaking as a lover of the books who despised the films from the start. I actually thought they made a reasonably good beginning in FotR (yes, I had some issues with it, but I did see promise in that film), which took a steep nosedive with (if not before) the warg-rider battle in TTT. At that point, it appeared to me that, the fan base for the movies having been established, Jackson and crew stopped making movies for the fans of Tolkien, and began making movies for fans of their own. Very sad. I hate it when something that begins well ends badly. And that bit with the Witch King and cowering Gandalf... cripes, you gave all the poor wizard's best lines to other people, couldn't you at least let him have his moment of glory standing fast at the gate...???

sigh

alatar

08-27-2009, 08:37 AM

And that bit with the Witch King and cowering Gandalf... cripes, you gave all the poor wizard's best lines to other people, couldn't you at least let him have his moment of glory standing fast at the gate...???
Note that I've already written everything that can be written about this topic thrice...and yet I have to say it once again. :p

If only PJ had put a grin on the prone Gandalf's face, the same wizard that went boot-to-toe with a balrog, all would have been forgiven and forgotten.

I still think that George Lucas is somewhere hiding in the shadows behind all of this...:D

Inziladun

08-27-2009, 08:48 AM

I still think that George Lucas is somewhere hiding in the shadows behind all of this...:D

A least PJ didn't show Gandalf's staff turning into a lightsaber, then G. slicing the WK's head off. He probably thought of it, though. :D

alatar

08-27-2009, 09:04 AM

A least PJ didn't show Gandalf's staff turning into a lightsaber, then G. slicing the WK's head off. He probably thought of it, though. :D
What made me think of Lucas was just reading a snarky review of RotS III, and also seeing it on TV last night. And Lucas, not producing a movie from a book source like Jackson, did not make his universe consistent/continuous with his earlier works, which many have noted. Did Jackson think that readers of Tolkien would be less forgiving?

Gandalf, even though he ended up losing the exchange, faced the Balrog on his feet. In TTT he foolishly leaps down a hill atop Shadowfax onto a group of Uruks holding shiny pieces of metal and wood pointed his way. In RotK Gandalf uses his wizardly flashlight to drive the Nazgul from the air, and he rallies the troops to the defense of Minas Tirith from the three battle trolls that come a'knocking.

And *then* he lies down on the job when the Witch King appears? :eek:

Why, even a Ranger that can be taken by surprise by a Elf could put up a better defense with a fiery piece of wood...

aelrliecn

09-13-2009, 03:21 PM

alatar

09-14-2009, 08:19 AM

The title says it all.

The Witch King of Angmar, as powerful as he is, is only an undead man. Gandalf, or Olorin, is an Ainur. He existed before the world existed. There is no doubt who would be the victor.

However, all that being said... There is a textual precedent for a being who is far more powerful acting fearful of a lesser being whom he could (and did) squash like a rat: Morgoth vs. Fingolfin. If you recall, at first, Morgoth cowered in Utumno in fear of Fingolfin's wrath. But then of course he came forth, got sliced in the achilles, screamed in pain, then promptly dispatched Fingolfin.
Well said, aelrliecn, and Welcome to the Downs!

Even if Gandalf was powering down and the Witch-King buying boots thrice his former size, I still think that PJ did those of us Gandalf fans a disservice by not putting at least a blank expression on the prone Gandalf's face. Even if he were afraid, we know that he would at least go down swinging.

Todorius

10-27-2009, 01:43 AM

Hi,
I am new to this forum and have read this topic with great interest.
I have to say that I also feel so disturbed by the scene Gandalf vs Witchking eversince I have seen it the first time 5 years ago. Honestly, I wanted to punch the monitor when I saw it. To me, this scene represents an outrageous break with the spirit of Tolkien. It is clear that Peter Jackson or his crew have not understood the meaning of the figure of Gandalf in any way. For me, they did an excellent job on the first movie, a good job on the second one, and even the beginning of the third one was good. Then everything falls apart and drifts towards cinematic nonsense.
Well, that's why I decided to do an edit of the scene Gandalf vs Witchking 3 years ago, I did my best, still it could be much better if someone had the necessary tools:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoFRnsYdP2Y

also, I enhanced Gandalfs power in to other scenes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REdVUTEs57M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KiN-4thC6U

Maybe you like it.
I know it will not fully restore the dignity of Gandalf the white, but at least it is a try towards that direction. It could be done much better.

Pitchwife

10-27-2009, 04:41 PM

Welcome to the Downs, Todorius, hope you'll enjoy being dead!
Good jobs on those edits - yep, that's much more like the Gandalf we know and love. I especially liked the part where he makes the broken gate close again, before Grond breaks through the second time, reminiscent of the shutting-spell he used in Moria (Chamber of Mazarbûl).
(A little bit of nitpicking, if you don't mind: the spell Gandalf tried at the west gate of Moria - "elvish gate, open for us" - isn't really appropriate here, as the gate wasn't elvish and he wanted it to stay closed, not open; but I realize you had to use something, and as long as one doesn't know what the words mean (most movie-goers probably didn't) it works nicely.)

Todorius

10-28-2009, 09:09 AM

Thanks a lot.
I really hope that someday in the future, someone will come along and do an even better edit, with better effects. There is still a lot of room for improvements.

Yeah, you are right with the spell, I took it from FOTR where Gandalf tries to open the gate of Moria. It matched so well to the lip movement at the gate scene, and sounded like an impressive spell in that context.

Pitchwife

10-28-2009, 10:57 AM

Thanks a lot.
I really hope that someday in the future, someone will come along and do an even better edit, with better effects.
Or better still, an entire better movie. Preferably with Tom Bombadil in it.

Morsul the Dark

10-28-2009, 09:34 PM

I agree this bit in the movie was odd the rest of the trilogy was great fun to watch and got me hooked on Middle-Earth Peter Jackson had to appeal to both Book Fans AND Movie Fans He He had to compromise with people and we have to compromise with him.... He had to add things lose things and even change things I'm sure we could pull off a 100% Perfect rendition of LOTR if we pooled our resources but who would watch it? answer not enough to make it profitable...though now that the idea is there it DOEs sound like fun...

Todorius

11-03-2009, 05:07 AM

Good idea.
Count me in. I would take the job as special effects supervisor, ha ha :)
Oh and maybe I would also like to play a small part in our new version of the movie, but only a really small part, let's say... maybe....Aragorn. lol.

Sarumian

12-04-2009, 11:06 AM

Hello everyone,

The problem I see with this scene is that it’s very difficult to explain what happens there and why, and such explanations usually don’t fit into the LoTR’s universe. It looks like PJ turned Gandalf into just a human skilled in magic. This fact wasn’t even clearly stated in the movie, but affects lots of things. The engine of Tolkien’s plot, as I see it, is the fight of the league of “earthly” and “heavenly” good spirits against evil ranks. Tolkien’s Gandalf, together with other Istari and the Eagles of Manwe, represents “heavenly” powers in ME, helping fight against the Dark Lord’s demonic power. But if Gandalf is something different, and ainur are not involved, how can we be sure that we may use the Tolkien’s universe to understand things happening? We have to narrow our comprehension to what is shown in the movie, but it’s obviously not enough. Where does evil originate and what is Sauron in this case? Why does the wizard say some abracadabra about fire of Anor in the scene with Balrog? Why he calls himself Olorin when Aragorn & K meet him in the forest? Etc. Assuming that the creation of a universe to support the storyline was Tolkien’s greatest achievement, what PJ offers instead?

But even if we let Gandalf remain some sort of “heavenly” envoy, the scene still causes inconveniences. How did WK manage to threaten Gandalf so ghastly, making him look totally reluctant to fight? Gandalf seemed to fear only two things: to get fallen (via claiming the One Ring) or to fail in his duty; he didn’t fear death, for him death means nothing but return to Valinor. Or WK convinced Gandalf that the world of men has already fallen? As it seems to me, he would have been capable of doing this only if Sauron had contacted Gandalf personally, for instance if at that very moment the Red Eye had caught Gandalf, like it used to happen to Frodo. Otherwise Gandalf was totally ready to fight with WK. On top of that Gandalf’s weakness should’ve gone very shortly – simply because Gandalf had quite a fightable enemy just in front of him and had nothing to loose. Moreover, how WK could strip the envoy of Vallar of all his magic powers? Many of them were just inherent. Yes, similar thing happened to Saruman, but Saruman had fallen - Gandalf hadn’t!

And whether Gandalf is a maia or not, there are some other issues. For instance, after his failure to keep WK out, Gandalf’s previous claim that he was the second mightiest being in ME makes him look silly and presumptuous. I wonder if that was the reason why WK was able to strip him of his magic powers so effortlessly.

Then, we know under which circumstances Gandalf the Grey was promoted to be the White, don’t we? He had to defeat Balrog and to die to achieve it. So what about WK? His upgrade just needs to be as spectacular as Gandalf’s encounter with Balrog! What sort of exceptional powers and magic devices the Wraith received? Well, Tolkien didn’t say much about that, but he also avoided showing actual fight – so the powers never measured each other directly. As soon as this happens in the movie, we need to understand the enemies’ potentials – to find what they achieved purely by their courage, high spirit, despair etc. Just for breaking the staff WK needed an enormous enhancement: I can think only about receiving the Rings of Power, all twelve remaining – ten for fingers, two for… well, should it be his toes? Ears? Nose? Or the Prince Albert’s piercing? Please underline and find out what could’ve been done with all this jewellery after WK’s sudden departure.

Finally, PJ amended the scene because he wanted to make it more dramatic and visually attractive. I can see his point because the moment comes as Nadir in the struggle against the Dark Lord; it is also the high time for Gandalf who must have been preparing to face it for all his life as an Istari. As for me it all came up extremely un-dramatic. The scene is just too short, not even two minutes as if it was a minor accident. Should I mention that the final talk to Saruman took five minutes and half.

PJ also says the idea was that the driving force passes into the hands of men. But this is what Tolkien says by HIS version of the event, and there was no need to force an open door. What can actually be more dramatic then a personal encounter of to mighty characters in an hour of doom? To be or not to be – a chance for a director; and PJ missed it that time, I’m afraid. However, he’s done a great job; Sir Ian’s performance is outstanding even in this scene; and, in the end, it’s too short – we can just forget it. Though I regret about what could have been done instead.

Mugwump

12-05-2009, 12:06 AM

The Witch King of Angmar, as powerful as he is, is only an undead man. Gandalf, or Olorin, is an Ainur. He existed before the world existed. There is no doubt who would be the victor.
Well... The Ainur came in varying degrees of greatness, and so did balrogs. "Mere" elves killed balrogs, who were Ainur, and Tuor, a man, killed five of them during the fall of Gondolin. Of course, these balrogs were much weaker than the great Balrog of Khazad-dum. I think in a pitched battle Gandalf would have beaten the Witch King, but that doesn't mean that the Witch King did not have resources. This guy was thousands of years old. He was a great king of old with lots of experience and wizardry at his command. He was imbued with unknown powers from Sauron as well. He was no longer a "mere man."

But even with that, I generally agree with you all. After all, Aragorn had quite handily beaten the Witch King and a few of his buddies up on Weathertop (which although it's in the text is, in a way, more puzzling to me than his great power later on in the film). So I don't understand either why Gandalf seemed to be so cowed by this guy. Perhaps the Witch King had some sort of spirit-killer at work especially effective against Maia, kind of like kryptonite against Superman. Or perhaps after all, in his new incarnation, Sauron was indeed able to imbue him with some part of his own strength, so that in a sense Gandalf was not facing merely the Witch King at that moment but Sauron himself.

But if that's not true, then I can't explain it either. Guess it's one of those unfortunate flaws in the movie. Hey, it could've been worse: originally Jackson was going to have Sauron take physical form and fight Aragorn at the gates of Mordor! (*shudder*)

Eönwë

12-05-2009, 02:30 PM

Aragorn had quite handily beaten the Witch King and a few of his buddies up on Weathertop

And didn't Gandalf himself hold them off on Weathertop too?

Mugwump

12-05-2009, 02:35 PM

And didn't Gandalf himself hold them off on Weathertop too?
Yeah, but the Witch King didn't have that wicked flying dinosaur mount at the time. Maybe it was that animal's breath that broke the staff and nearly made Gandalf pass out. :p

JoltFlame

12-13-2009, 04:05 PM

I believe the Lord of the Nazgûl equals Gandalf in strengh and stature.

obloquy

12-13-2009, 04:28 PM

I believe the Lord of the Nazgûl equals Gandalf in strengh and stature.

Me too!! I also believe that the earth is larger than Jupiter!

JoltFlame

12-13-2009, 04:35 PM

The staff of Gandalf is shattered and the wizard is cast down, before The Black Captain. What does that tell you?

Pitchwife

12-13-2009, 04:38 PM

You are aware, are you not, that none of this happened in the book? If not, go and read!

EDIT: And by the way, welcome to the Downs! You may not have been aware of this, but this thread is basically about how the presentation of this scene in the movie deviates from the letter and spirit of the book - hence my reaction above.

JoltFlame

12-13-2009, 04:51 PM

I am aware of it, yes, and I have read the books as well.

Morthoron

12-13-2009, 06:32 PM

The staff of Gandalf is shattered and the wizard is cast down, before The Black Captain. What does that tell you?

It tells me that the director was more interested in special effects than in intertextual integrity, and took absurd liberties with the original story and offered a plot point that the author in no way intended.

JoltFlame

12-14-2009, 02:17 PM

Would that not also be the case if Peter Jackson chose to end their confrontation in favour of Gandalf?

I believe the scene clearly describes the superiority of The Black Captain to Gandalf.

Inziladun

12-14-2009, 02:25 PM

Would that not also be the case if Peter Jackson chose to end their confrontation in favour of Gandalf?.

I don't think so. Though Tolkien did not depict a physical battle between Gandalf and the Morgul-lord, Gandalf was successful in preventing his entry into Minas Tirith, which appears to be Gandalf's purpose in blocking the gate. Therefore, it could be said that Gandalf had 'won', in that he accomplished his objective.

I believe the scene clearly describes the superiority of The Black Captain to Gandalf.

Perhaps PJ's imagining does, but I absolutely do not get that impression from the book.

Mugwump

12-14-2009, 02:47 PM

It tells me that the director was more interested in special effects than in intertextual integrity, and took absurd liberties with the original story and offered a plot point that the author in no way intended.
I don't think it was so much for special effects, but I did notice a significant departure (in the film) in this instance and others related to the same problem. In the third film Jackson opted to emphasize the leadership qualities of Aragorn at the expense of Gandalf. I think this was done for cinematic effect (in the story, not special effects) in order to make Aragorn seem more "kingly." In the book it was always Gandalf who knew the right thing to do, but in the third film all of a sudden Gandalf was unsure, almost despairing, and it was Aragorn who was saying no, we have to attack the Black Gate to give Frodo his chance. In the novel it was the other way around: it was Aragorn who ridiculed trying to attack Mordor with such a small force. He called it a farce, a joke. It was Gandalf who was the clear leader of all the allied forces at that point, dictating what had to be done, and Aragorn was like, "I sure hope you're right."

Jackson turned that relationship around in the third firm. I had already noticed by the end of the second film (of the theatrical release) that Aragorn did not seem all that much of a leader at all. He was too reluctant a leader, certainly not kingly, and I was puzzled in the third film where all this kingly quality and wisdom came from all of a sudden, as Gandalf took second fiddle. It was a little better when the extended versions came out and a little more background for Aragorn and his motivations came forth, but in Return of the King Jackson still had to pull the old switcheroo, lessening Gandalf and magnifying Aragorn, to give his ascension to the throne the cinematic punch--and justification--it needed.

Morthoron

12-14-2009, 09:01 PM

...lessening Gandalf and magnifying Aragorn, to give his ascension to the throne the cinematic punch--and justification--it needed.

Perhaps if PJ had chosen to make Aragorn the Chieftain of the Dunedain as he was in the books, rather than an uncertain, friendless loser as in the movies, he would not have had to make such a daft change in the 3rd movie.

Would that not also be the case if Peter Jackson chose to end their confrontation in favour of Gandalf?

Why do either? It was unnecessary. It was a deliberate manipulation by the director, like many throughout the films, that was inelegant and presupposed that the audience was too stupid to actually comprehend a more sophisticated and subtle plot.

I believe the scene clearly describes the superiority of The Black Captain to Gandalf.

I hate to reiterate what already has been posted ad nauseam, but the text gives no such impression. By the time of the confrontation, Gandalf has chased off several Nazgul on Weathertop, defeated a Balrog, been ressurrected by the Valar and broken Saruman's staff. What had the WiKi done previously to garner any acclaim? Let's see, he ran from Glorfindel on two occasions, been stabbed at by a Hobbit on Weathertop, and was drowned in a river. WiKi went on to be destroyed ignobly by an untested woman and a wounded Hobbit. So much for superiority.

Morsul the Dark

12-15-2009, 07:52 AM

Why do either? It was unnecessary. It was a deliberate manipulation by the director, like many throughout the films, that was inelegant and presupposed that the audience was too stupid to actually comprehend a more sophisticated and subtle plot.

Just to give you an idea on this one, a person I know recently (I mean within the last few months) found out there were books.... More importantly she was sooo excited she screamed "They made a novelization of the movies, awesome!" until she started reading them... after which she said to me "JRR Tolkien butchered Peter Jackson's masterpiece" *FacePalm*

So I'll agree people can in fact be really stupid... especially in these modern times, where learning isn't important anymore... but That is a different discussion

Mugwump

12-15-2009, 09:59 AM

a person I know recently found out there were books.... she was sooo excited she screamed "They made a novelization of the movies, awesome!" until she started reading them... after which she said to me "JRR Tolkien butchered Peter Jackson's masterpiece" *FacePalm*
That story sounds apocryphal, but I like it. :)

So I'll agree people can in fact be really stupid... especially in these modern times, where learning isn't important anymore...
We have to keep them that way, or they might not vote correctly. But That is a different discussion ;)

Morsul the Dark

12-15-2009, 10:35 AM

That story sounds apocryphal, but I like it. :)

We have to keep them that way, or they might not vote correctly. But That is a different discussion ;)

Ok after grabbing a dictionary my assumption of the meaning of apocryphal is correct...
I know it sounds doubtful but if you knew this person you'd expect ANY idiocy... I'm talking Jessica Simpson "Chicken of the Sea" stupid... ok annnywho. as for voting depends which side you support... sh... chat skewerels.. do you hear them?

JoltFlame

12-15-2009, 11:01 AM

Morthoron

12-16-2009, 09:10 PM

He'd to do either because, eventually, Gandalf had to come across The Black Captain, in one way or another and as described in the novel, before Gandalf, the Lord of the Nazgûl lifted high his sword and fire sprang down the blade.

So...because the WiKi had a firey blade, that means...what? It sounds like WiKi is desperately trying to impress one of his betters. Gandalf was renowned for fireworks, he obviously didn't find showing off necessary. Why would he? In all the bar fights I've had (and there were quite a few back in my band days), it's the ones with the biggest mouths and overt displays of brawn that fall quickest, because they are not thinking of the next move. It's the quiet ones you've got to worry about.

As I stated earlier, WiKi's fancy blade was of little use in battle. And he tried to use the same bravado on the maiden Eowyn, and a fat lot of good it did him. As both a leader and a warrior he was a miserable failure in the War of the Ring.

Peter Jackson simply prolonged their meeting as opposed to their confrontation in the novel.

That was just PJ in his fan-fic mode. There is no evidence anywhere in the book that Gandalf was going to fall to the WiKi; as a matter of fact, Gandalf had already faced a greater foe in the Balrog, a Maia like himself.

Inziladun

12-16-2009, 09:21 PM

That was just PJ in his fan-fic mode. There is no evidence anywhere in the book that Gandalf was going to fall to the WiKi; as a matter of fact, Gandalf had already faced a greater foe in the Balrog, a Maia like himself.

And the Balrog had a flame-sword himself, and Gandalf wielding Glamdring made short work of it. The WK had his power of Terror going for him, and poisoned darts and such, but against a foe such as Glorfindel or Gandalf, who were unaffected by his aura of fear, he was relatively impotent.

Mugwump

12-17-2009, 05:39 AM

Yes, his power was to inspire fear. He had no magic or staff-destroying magic tricks.

JoltFlame

12-17-2009, 09:19 AM

It is true that he confronted a greater foe, and died.

Inziladun

12-17-2009, 09:24 AM

It is true that he confronted a greater foe, and died.

Who? Gandalf or the Witch-king?

JoltFlame

12-17-2009, 12:52 PM

Gandalf.

Inziladun

12-17-2009, 01:17 PM

If the Balrog was 'greater', why is it that Gandalf was the one who returned, after throwing his enemy down a mountain?
I really don't see the merits of an argument about the WK being superior to Gandalf. The Morgul-lord was a Man fundamentally. Physically and spiritually he had been altered drastically by Sauron, but those changes ultimately diminished him. Gandalf explains the effects of a Ring of Power on a mortal:

'A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness.'

Perhaps, through the WK's utter submission to the will of Sauron, he was able to 'borrow' some of Sauron's power occasionally, such as the words of 'power and terror' that helped break the Gates of Minas Tirith.
As Tolkien said in one of the Letters, the WK there had been given an added 'demonic force' by being placed in command by Sauron. But even with that additional power, he does not (in the books) rise to Gandalf's challenge, or attempt to ride past him into the City? Why not? Certainly, the Rohirrim had just arrived, and Sauron's forces had a new army to fight. All the same, if the Morgul-lord had gone into the City then, leading his forces, I think they could have taken Minas Tirith.
So why did the Witch-king not do so? He lacked the power. Instead, he runs away and, as Morthoron noted, gets offed by a woman half his size, and a Hobbit probably a quarter his size.

JoltFlame

12-17-2009, 02:08 PM

The Lord of the Nazgûl could not be defeated by the hand of a man, Éowyn would have been torn to pieces if it weren't for Merry.

Gandalf is a powerful wizard, yes, but he is still mortal whereas the Leader of the Nine is not.

Pitchwife

12-17-2009, 05:27 PM

The Lord of the Nazgûl could not be defeated by the hand of a man, Éowyn would have been torn to pieces if it weren't for Merry.
So you're saying Gandalf couldn't have defeated the Witch-King, and Éowyn couldn't have done it but for Merry. If we follow this to it's logical conclusion, we'll have to assume Merry is more powerful than Gandalf. Is that really what you're thinking?
Gandalf is a powerful wizard, yes, but he is still mortal
I'm not sure about that. He has come back from death (whatever that exactly means in his case), and I think he would have been very very hard to kill a second time, if it was possible at all. Remember what he told the Three Hunters (LotR Book III, The White Rider)?
Indeed my friends, none of you have any weapon that could hurt me.
And this included Andúril, which Isildur had used to cut the Ring from the hand of Sauron himself - so I take it this was more a statement about Gandalf himself, in his resurrected state, than about the quality of their weapons. Or do you think that little flames effect on the Witch-King's sword made that much of a difference?
whereas the Leader of the Nine is not.
No, he wasn't mortal any longer in the strict sense of the word - but neither had he gained the immortality he may have hoped for when he accepted the Ring from Sauron. Rather, he had renounced and forfeited both life and death (the Gift of Ilúvatar) for a mere undead shadow of both. So he couldn't die - but he could still be destroyed.

Morthoron

12-17-2009, 09:24 PM

It is true that he confronted a greater foe, and died.

He defeated the Balrog. His physical manifestation, the body that his spirit was cloaked in, died, but the Maia that was Gandalf did not. The Valar brought him back to finish his task. So do you think the Valar would actually allow him to fall to the WiKi when they did not against the Balrog? Sorry, that makes no sense.

The Lord of the Nazgûl could not be defeated by the hand of a man, Éowyn would have been torn to pieces if it weren't for Merry..

Gandalf is a powerful wizard, yes, but he is still mortal whereas the Leader of the Nine is not.

Was Gandalf 'mortal' after he was ressurrected by the Valar? Could he even be considered a 'man' or was he a different being altogether after being revivified by Valinor? "Gandalf? Yes... that was what they used to call me. Gandalf the Gray. That was my name. I am Gandalf the White." He was now an angelic messenger sent back at "the turning of the tide."

As far as the WitchKing, he fleed like a coward from Glorfindel, and was destroyed by a young maiden and a hobbit. Those are not bullet points to put on one's resume. In fact, there is not a single instance during the War of the Ring where he succeeded in direct confrontation. He wasn't even successful with other Ringwraiths surrounding him.

But really, this is all academic. JoltFlame, what proofs can you provide from the text to support your claim? I have yet to see anything direct and concrete from you regarding your stance, or at least anything that hasn't been discounted as cheap parlor tricks on the part of the WiKi.

Ibrîniðilpathânezel

12-17-2009, 10:12 PM

The Valar brought him back to finish his task.

Just to be perfectly accurate to Tolkien's concept, it was Eru (God) who sent Gandalf back, enhanced in power. I rather doubt that Eru would have bothered to send him back in a state that would be capable of being easily defeated by someone who was, when all is said and done, a thrall of Sauron's, bound to him and the world by a ring of Power. Referring to the resurrected Gandalf, Tolkien said (letter 156) that his wisdom and power were now much greater. If no physical weapon could harm him, as is the clear implication in his remark to Aragorn et al in Fangorn, then what weapon would the Witch King have? Fear? "Magic"? Since in Tolkien's world, magic is

(okay, let's finish what I was typing when the computer went bats...)

derived from the personal power and ability native in the being who wields it. Sauron used his own power in making the Ring powerful, and thus lessened his own strength without it. One can only presume that to some extent, Celebrimbor did the same thing. And it would explain why the Rings could only give power commensurate with the ability of its bearer. Which means that ultimately, the Witch King could never have had ability greater than Gandalf's, because he was natively human, while Gandalf was in reality a Maia, cloaked in a human but not mortal form. Destructible, yes. Mortal, as Men are mortal, no.

JoltFlame

12-18-2009, 08:24 AM

Mugwump

12-18-2009, 08:36 AM

In regard to the question stating if Gandalf was mortal, I have to say, that is foolish, even for a question. He returned enhanced and wiser but he was still mortal, of course, and a man only.
Utter nonsense, Jolt. While the Istari were clothed in the bodies of old men, and those bodies could feel and be affected by the same things as men's, there is absolutely no doubt that they were Ainur, the same type of being as the Valar and the Maia, with powers and defenses far, far greater than any possessed by a mortal man.

Just to be perfectly accurate to Tolkien's concept, it was Eru (God) who sent Gandalf back, enhanced in power. ... Referring to the resurrected Gandalf, Tolkien said (letter 156) that his wisdom and power were now much greater.
What part of Gandalf's power do you think comes from his staff in the first place, Ibrîn? Is it really a source of his power and sustenance, as your Latinate signature phrase implies (aside from its more mundane meaning), or is it merely used to focus Gandalf's inherent powers?

For whatever reason, Peter Jackson's Gandalf of Return of the King is a very different Gandalf from Tolkien's. Throughout the movie he lessens in favor of Aragorn, as though there were some insidious transference of power and wisdom from the former to the latter. Even the actor playing Gandalf, Ian McKellen, pitches in with the weakening of Gandalf, by making him cough while smoking in one scene, with Jackson's apparent acquiescence. (I heard McKellen admit that, in typical preachy liberal Hollywood fashion, he did it to add an anti-smoking message to the movie). By the end of the film there's no doubt in the mind of the audience that Aragorn could whip Gandalf's butt in a sword fight, for instance.

(By the way, you're missing a "u" in antiquum.)

JoltFlame

12-18-2009, 10:07 AM

I never claimed the Istari weren't Ainur, and since you find my previous post nonsense, I must assume that you believe Gandalf is not a man nor is he mortal.

Inziladun

12-18-2009, 11:07 AM

I never claimed the Istari weren't Ainur, and since you find my previous post nonsense, I must assume that you believe Gandalf is not a man nor is he mortal.

I don't quite see your point of contention. If you concede the Istari were of the Maiar, how could Gandalf be mortal?

Eönwë

12-18-2009, 11:39 AM

I think that everyone's arguing over different things. Are we talking about movie Gandalf, book Gandalf or Olórin?

Because they are all very different with very different strengths.

Obviously, book Gandalf would win as he comes back stronger than before, and even before he killed a Maia incarnated with its full power before dying himself, which is incomparable to a mere man.

Olórin is the even more obvious victor, as he never dies throughout (though Gandalf the Grey, the incarnation does, he himself doesn't as he's a Maia).

But I think the real question is about movie Gandalf.
As for him, I think that if he can kill a Balrog and break Saruman's staff (both of whom are shown as extremely powerful) he could probably beat the Witch-King. As well as this, the Ringwraiths don't seem to pose much of a threat to Rivendell, whereas in even Lothlorien, in which Galadriel seems more powerful than Elrond with her Mirror and such, they are filled with dread at the thought of a "Balrog of Morgoth".
Obviously, Peter Jackson wants us to think otherwise- that Gandalf and the Witch King are evenly matched, or that the Witch King is even more powerful than Gandalf. But I don't think it makes sense even from a purely "movies" perspective.

JoltFlame

12-18-2009, 11:57 AM

But the staff of Gandalf is shattered by The Black Captain, so I fail to see how you can put Gandalf above the Lord of the Nine, especially when discussing the movies.

As for Gandalf, it matters not if the Istari were of Maiar, they could still be slain as they were sent to encounter Sauron, as men.

Mugwump

12-18-2009, 12:04 PM

Yes, Jolt, I do believe that if Gandalf is (as you admit) Ainur, then since the Ainur are neither men nor mortals, but are in fact immortal, therefore Gandalf is neither a man, nor mortal. What is confusing to you about that conclusion? And incidentally, immortals can die, although they do not age. The true difference between a mortal and an immortal may be that a mortal knows that someday he must die. An immortal does not.

Obviously, Peter Jackson wants us to think otherwise- that Gandalf and the Witch King are evenly matched, or that the Witch King is even more powerful than Gandalf. But I don't think it makes sense even from a purely "movies" perspective.
It may not make sense if you are a Tolkien purist, but Jackson was always willing to deviate somewhat to make the cinematic release more effective. In this case he clearly made a conscious decision to give the climactic scenes of the War of the Ring more punch by magnifying Aragorn to be the clear "hero" so that when he became king, got the girl, etc. it would prove more emotionally satisfying by all the traditional cinematic storytelling criteria. So he did what he had to do to make it so.

The fact is, most of the moviegoing public are not Tolkien fanatics. Even I am willing to dismiss problems like wimpy-Gandalf from my mind in order to enjoy the movies, which I think are magnificent (all of them). Yes, the cinematic version is not exactly true to the book. You are correct, it is the movie Gandalf, and in order to appreciate the movie you just have to dismiss from your mind questions about why Gandalf suddenly became so much less powerful and less wise than he was before.

alatar

12-18-2009, 12:32 PM

Utter nonsense, Jolt. While the Istari were clothed in the bodies of old men, and those bodies could feel and be affected by the same things as men's, there is absolutely no doubt that they were Ainur, the same type of being as the Valar and the Maia, with powers and defenses far, far greater than any possessed by a mortal man.
Yet, at least as the Grey, his body was mortal in the sense that it could wear down, wear out, and be destroyed. If not, Gandalf could have leapt down on the wolves and goblins that had trapped him, Bilbo and the Dwarves in the tree (he was prepared to, but it seemed like it was going to be a sacrifice play).

Then again, he did survive the fall with the Balrog...

For whatever reason, Peter Jackson's Gandalf of Return of the King is a very different Gandalf from Tolkien's.It was Peter Jackson's take on the work, which was not only internally inconsistent, but a departure from the source.

The scenery was nice...:rolleyes::D

Mugwump

12-18-2009, 12:55 PM

But the staff of Gandalf is shattered by The Black Captain.
That's the point. That happened only in the movie. In the book, the Witch King threatened Gandalf and fire flickered along his sword, but Gandalf did not move, just sat there placidly on the great horse Shadowfax, with no fear, and neither did Shadowfax move or show any fear. Then the Witch King heard the singing of the approaching men of Rohan, and he retreated from Gandalf.

The point isn't whether the movie Gandalf was stronger than the movie Witch King at that time -- we all agree that the movie Gandalf seemed weaker. The whole point of this thread is that the movie Gandalf in that scene was inconsistent with the Gandalf of the novel. Tolkien's Gandalf would never have had his staff shattered by the Witch King.

Mugwump

12-18-2009, 01:01 PM

Yet, at least as the Grey, his body was mortal in the sense that it could wear down, wear out, and be destroyed. If not, Gandalf could have leapt down on the wolves and goblins that had trapped him, Bilbo and the Dwarves in the tree (he was prepared to, but it seemed like it was going to be a sacrifice play).
I've always thought that since The Hobbit was told as a children's story, it could be seen (at least I choose to see it) as a simplified story about the Third Age as told to children, and thus not necessarily a literal retelling of the events as they "actually occurred" in Tolkien's world.

alatar

12-18-2009, 01:33 PM

I've always thought that since The Hobbit was told as a children's story, it could be seen (at least I choose to see it) as a simplified story about the Third Age as told to children, and thus not necessarily a literal retelling of the events as they "actually occurred" in Tolkien's world.
True enough. Then how about Gandalf's discomforture during his imprisonment on the top of Orthanc? If his body was invulnerable to harm, he could have simply jumped off and made a run for it.

He also is anxious in the claws of the Eagle (if I remember correctly).

The whole point of this thread is that the movie Gandalf in that scene was inconsistent with the Gandalf of the novel
Agreed, though Peter Jackson's Gandalf is inconsistent within the movie as well. Check out the Scene-by-scene forum to see my whining and nitpicking about this issue. :)

Mugwump

12-18-2009, 01:38 PM

If his body was invulnerable to harm, he could have simply jumped off and made a run for it. He also is anxious in the claws of the Eagle (if I remember correctly).
Who said Gandalf's body was invulnerable to harm? Certainly not I, nor anyone else here, I think.

JoltFlame

12-18-2009, 01:41 PM

Actually, Gandalf according to the book, differs subtly from Gandalf according to the movie. In the movie, Gandalf is made inferior to the Witch-king whereas in the book, we must assume that Gandalf equals the Witch-king in power for no letter or confrontation tells otherwise.

Thus we must conclude that The Black Captain outmatches Gandalf in the movie, but they are equal in the book, and the overall trial of strength ends in favour of the Leader of the Nine.

alatar

12-18-2009, 01:48 PM

Who said Gandalf's body was invulnerable to harm? Certainly not I, nor anyone else here, I think.

Yes, Jolt, I do believe that if Gandalf is (as you admit) Ainur, then since the Ainur are neither men nor mortals, but are in fact immortal, therefore Gandalf is neither a man, nor mortal. What is confusing to you about that conclusion? And incidentally, immortals can die, although they do not age.Sorry; I took the above to mean that you think that Gandalf's body was not subject to nature.

Ibrîniðilpathânezel

12-18-2009, 03:42 PM

antiquum[/I].)

Personally, I don't feel that any of an Istar's power comes from his staff, because Tolkien said that all magic in ME is a part of the native power of the being who is using it. (My sig -- sorry about the misspelling; it's been about 40 years since Latin Class -- is actually a personal reference. I'm getting up there, and these old bones and joints are creaking badly, these days. Perhaps I should go back to "Stulta vitarae non potes"....? :)) I hadn't realized that post actually made it through -- my computer freaked out on me while I was typing. Oops....

Morthoron

12-18-2009, 09:31 PM

It ought to be obvious that I was referring to the dagger which Merry possessed.

In regard to the question stating if Gandalf was mortal, I have to say, that is foolish, even for a question. He returned enhanced and wiser but he was still mortal, of course, and a man only.

Foolish? Let us do math, shall we? How are you at counting past 1000? How about past 2000? Are you using both fingers and toes yet? Gandalf had been in Middle-earth for over 2000 years at the time of the War of the Ring. Please, can you tell me what mortals live over two millenia? He obviously is not a 'mortal man' within the parameters set by Tolkien. The oldest known 'mortal man' was Elros Half-elven, who loved to be 500, but he was given special dispensation and chose the gift of mortality. On a side note, nowhere does it say the WitchKing could indeed not be killed by the hand of man. You misunderstand a prophecy given by Glorfindel, who said:

"Do not pursue him! He will not return to these lands. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall."

Just as you took the narrowest view of the quote, so did the WiKi. Glorfindel's prophesy was indeed fulfilled when Eowyn, a female, slew the WiKi, with the aid of a Hobbit (who was indeed an adult male, but technically not a 'man'), but this was only based on circumstance. Nowhere does it say that the WiKi could not be killed by a man. This is emphasized when the WiKi flees from Glorfindel, rather than face an Elf of Aman in his wrath. Why run if the WiKi could not be slain? Was it because Glorfindel was a male Elf but not a 'man'? If that is the case, then Gandalf, a Maia, was no more a 'man' than Glorfindel was a 'man'. Gandalf may have 'appeared' to be a man, but that is no more the case than Glorfindel or Meriadoc not being defined as 'men'.

Which brings us to your contention that the blade of Westernesse used by Meriadoc played a part in the WiKi's destruction. The text points to the blade and not the bearer as the reason for its effect on the Wiki; therefore, a Dunedain male, a mortal man and maker of the knife, would have had the same effect on the WiKi as a Hobbit. The Dunedain who crafted the baneful blades wrought the knives for one specific reason, to kill the WiKi. They didn't make them in fashionable designed colors and hand them out to the ladies of their court.

The Black Captain also gained strength before assaulting the White City, and his power increased as time passed, that is why he was able to outmatch The White Rider.

That is not mentioned in the movie, and there is not much emphasis on that point in the book. Funny you should believe something as truth when such a thing is never discussed in movie terms. As far as the movies, PJ was all over the place in regards to the liberties he took from the books, and his annoying inconsistencies were noted several times in this thread. In the books, the WiKi neither broke Gandalf's staff, nor seemed to intimidate him in the least. When facing the Balrog, Gandalf showed real concern. That just was not the case with the WiKi. The WiKi was not, as Tolkien stated, Gandalf's primary foe, Sauron was.

Please read the book again as many times as necessary. Use it like shampoo, wash, rinse, repeat.

alatar

12-19-2009, 07:13 PM

That is not mentioned in the movie, and there is not much emphasis on that point in the book. Funny you should believe something as truth when such a thing is never discussed in movie terms. As far as the movies, PJ was all over the place in regards to the liberties he took from the books, and his annoying inconsistencies were noted several times in this thread. In the books, the WiKi neither broke Gandalf's staff, nor seemed to intimidate him in the least. When facing the Balrog, Gandalf showed real concern. That just was not the case with the WiKi. The WiKi was not, as Tolkien stated, Gandalf's primary foe, Sauron was.
From the movie script (sic), which you can find here (http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Lord-of-the-Rings-Return-of-the-King.html):
CLOSE ON: PIPPIN ... desperately seeking reassurance.
PIPPIN
But we have the White Wizard. That's got to count for something.

GANDALF looks down at PIPPIN, he says nothing ...

PIPPIN (cont'd) (nervous) Gandalf?

GANDALF stares into the distance as if seeing something in his mind's eye.

INSERT IMAGE: A TOWERING, HOODED FIGURE, DRESSED in BLACK, is being dressed in ARMOUR by attendant ORCS ...

GANDALF V/0
Sauron has yet to reveal his deadliest servant. . . The one who will lead Mordor's armies in war, the one they say no living man can kill.

CLOSE ON: GANDALF still staring intently as if facing his enemy in .person.

GANDALF
The Witchking of Angmar . . .(he looks down at a startled PIPPIN) , .;
you've met him before . . .

ANGLE ON: PIPPIN looks up at GANDALF, afraid to ask . . .

GANDALF (cont'd) He stabbed Frodo on Weathertop.

INSERT IMAGE: FRODO screaming as the MORGUL BLADE is driven into his SHOULDER . . .

PIPPIN blanches at the MEMORY . . .

GANDALF ( cont'd ) He is the Lord of the Nazgul - the greatest of the nine . . .

EXT. MINAS MORGUL - NIGHT

GANDALF V/0
And Minas Morgul is his lair.Many view the scene above with the Witch King as his 'powering up' moment. Note that Peter Jackson doesn't have Gandalf fretting about Sauron recovering the Ring, but about the coming battle and the Black Captain.

Sarumian

12-19-2009, 07:44 PM

Dealing with Gandalf's mortality we are touching a delicate subject. Tolkien is a Christian and the idea of God embodied in a person, who saves humanity, sharing his destiny with humans is a central point of Christianity. Tolkien as a creator doesn't dare to compete with Bible, but works out a different storyline, where not the Creator (Eru) himself, but rather some angelic beings experience something like this. Gandlf is one of them and while he suffers like a human, he knows what lies beyond death and he originally belongs to the world beyond Middle Earth.

This means his "death" is a sort of voluntary act rather then an inevitable end of being as it is the case for a human being. Even if his body had been tired and broken he could have staying alive until he decides 'that's it, I cant endure this anymore'. So, as I have already written, he couldn't be afraid of death, because death for him means return to Valinor.

I don't think we should underestimate WiKi. He was a serious chalenge for Gandalf. I believe Sauron could have made an idea of Gandalf the White's power after their personal encounter in the TT, when reserected wizard diverted the Dark Lord's attention from Frodo to himself, while he "sat in a high place and strove with the Dark Tower". So Sauron could prepare his best servant to fight against the White Wizard and supply him with a perilous enchanted weapon. What Wiki was showing to Gandalf was that he was no more afraid of fire, Gandalf's magic tool, ut was ready to use it himself. However, it couldn't be an easy task to get rid of Gandaf. I belive that the power and high spirit of Wiki's army made him stronger, as he belived, he could make an incredible pressure on Gandalf's state of mind, allowing others to kill the wizard. Well it didn't mean as well tht Gandalf was an easy tagert.

Morthoron

12-19-2009, 07:53 PM

Many view the scene above with the Witch King as his 'powering up' moment. Note that Peter Jackson doesn't have Gandalf fretting about Sauron recovering the Ring, but about the coming battle and the Black Captain.

Yes, I saw that scene multiple times. Gandalf doesn't say anything that we already don't know:

'Sauron has yet to reveal his deadliest servant' -- Yes, I believe we are all quite aware that the WiKi is Sauron's deadliest servant, particularly since Balrogs never seemed to take orders well from anyone except Morgoth.

'The one who will lead Mordor's armies in war' -- *Quickly scans WiKi's resume* Ah yes, Mr. WitchKing -- may I call you WiKi? -- it says here you led Sauron's ground forces out of Angmar and destroyed the Dunedain kingdoms of Eriador. Quite impressive! But WiKi, I have a note here regarding your lack of support for Sauron during the Numenorean invasion. You seem quite absent in the whole affair. I believe the note says 'up and ran away'. There are also several botched jobs more recently, like on Weathertop, at Bree, and at the Ford of Bruinen. I am afraid we'll have to start you off in janitorial services, as managerial positions are filled at present. You handle a mace quite well, how are you at a mop and bucket?

'the one they say no living man can kill' -- "They' being Glorfindel, of course, and Peter Jackson obviously did not read the Glorfindel quote thoroughly. It's what happens when one quickly scans a book while laying on a sofa eating a burrito.

'He is the Lord of the Nazgul - the greatest of the nine' -- Yes, I believe that was established early on in both the books and the movie. Nothing new to report.

'He stabbed Frodo on Weathertop' -- Again, PJ's attention to detail is staggering. I suppose that had to be reiterated for anyone who did not see the first movie. Please note also that in the fray Frodo came dangerously close to terminating WiKi with his Westernesse blade (not mentioned in the movie). And Aragorn chased the Nazgul off with a flaming fagot. And no, I am not referring to Legolas, but a fire brand or a bunch of sticks. :D

'He is the Lord of the Nazgul - the greatest of the nine' -- When in doubt, repeat for added emphasis and heightened...ummm...something or other.

Now -- strictly from the movie, mind you -- where does it say that the WiKi has been taking anabolic steroids and has become greater than a Maia, particularly since 1) Aragorn merely shrugs them off with a burning brand, 2) they get drowned by an Elf-maid who sounds like she has some throat congestion (or has been taking male hormones), 3) is chased off by Gandalf while rescuing Faramir, 4) eventually dies to a shield-maiden and a weak stab to the leg by an injured Hobbit (with no explanation of the efficacy of the blade he wields).

I am merely pointing out inconsistencies here. Y'all can believe what you wish. :p

alatar

12-19-2009, 08:17 PM

Now -- strictly from the movie, mind you -- where does it say that the WiKi has been taking anabolic steroids and has become greater than a Maia
Strictly from the movie, what's a Maia? :D

particularly since 1) Aragorn merely shrugs them off with a burning brand, 2) they get drowned by an Elf-maid who sounds like she has some throat congestion (or has been taking male hormones), 3) is chased off by Gandalf while rescuing Faramir, 4) eventually dies to a shield-maiden and a weak stab to the leg by an injured Hobbit (with no explanation of the efficacy of the blade he wields).But the Witch King did have a shiny new helmet, and that's gotta count for something. And the scene that I mentioned, did we read that Gandalf tells Pip that the deadliest servant, "Ain't no big thang..."?

Morthoron

12-19-2009, 08:56 PM

Strictly from the movie, what's a Maia? :D

Aint tha' loike them Aztecs, 'cept from Peru? I mispoke, Al. Nowhere is Maia or Maiar mentioned in the movie. But it is interesting that in The Two Towers during the flashback sequence in the 'White Rider' scene there are specific mentions of a supernatural occurence:

'Through fire and water.'

(Flashback: Gandalf is battling the Balrog on a peak)

'From the lowest dungeon to the highest peak, I fought him, the Balrog of Morgoth.'

(Gandalf holds up Glamdring and a flash of lightning strikes it before he plunges the sword into the Balrog. With a final cry, the Balrog falls from the peak and lands, smoking, onto the icy rocks below)

'Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.'

(On top of the mountain, Gandalf crawls a little ways and then collapses)

'Darkness took me. And I strayed out of thought and time.'

(The camera zooms in Gandalf’s eye and enters an amorphous realm of stars and whirling galaxies, ending in a blinding white light)

'Stars wheeled overhead and every day was as long as a life-age of the earth. But it was not the end. I felt life in me again.'

(The camera zooms out from Gandalf’s eye; he is lying, naked and very still, in the snow. His hair has turned white and his wounds are completely healed. He suddenly shudders with a deep gasp as life returns to him)

'I've been sent back until my task is done.'

Who completely healed Gandalf of his wounds (he looked quite beat up before his transformation)? He's been sent back by whom? Even if one discounts the lack of background information regarding Eru/Valar/Maiar, one has to get the implication that God himself sent Gandalf back to finish his task. Otherwise, what can you assume the script is referring to? Again, with such an implication, how then can we go from Gandalf defeating a Balrog 'of Morgorth' (who is this Morgoth, by the way?), being ressurrected and completely healed, breaking Saruman's staff and chasing away Nazgul on the Pelennor, to having his staff shattered, being unhorsed and cowering in fear to the WitchKing? It is bogus and utterly inconsistent. Silly even.

But the Witch King did have a shiny new helmet, and that's gotta count for something. And the scene that I mentioned, did we read that Gandalf tells Pip that the deadliest servant, "Ain't no big thang..."?

I don't believe I ever said in this entire conversation that Gandalf treated his confrontation with the WitchKing lightly. But in the movie Gandalf did have a Hobbit with him. So, based on Eowyn and Merry defeating the WitchKing, I believe that Gandalf having Pippin by his side would certainly tip the scales in his favor.

Have I mentioned I have, once again, drank far too much coffee today?

Ibrîniðilpathânezel

12-19-2009, 10:34 PM

It's funny, but apparently Jackson had originally intended to mention the fact that the wizards were Maiar. In one of the various books that were published about the making of the films, one of those for FotR is "embellished" with quotes from the film broken out into boxes. One is a quote from Saruman, speaking to Gandalf, in which he says (as I remember it; the book is in storage somewhere), "Are we not both Maiar, members of a most excellent order...?" I don't recall the entire quote, but I do recall that the word is mentioned, and it is a line that never appears anywhere in LotR the book. It plainly came from the script as it stood at the time the book was laid out, and was either never filmed or was deleted.

Inziladun

12-19-2009, 10:52 PM

Ibrîniðilpathânezel

12-19-2009, 11:22 PM

Definitely a problem. For a long time, I've felt that in Jackson's permutation of Tolkien's world, it would've made more sense to leave Gandalf dead than to bring him back and really serve no purpose to the remaining plot. Since Jackson and his co-writers found ways to put nearly all of Gandalf's important lines (and deeds) from the second and third books into the mouths and actions of other characters (or utterly discard them), permanent death would have been a more dignified treatment of his character. Aragorn's "kinglyness" should not have relied on any of the other characters being diminished, nor should the Witch King's apparent power have needed the lessening of Gandalf, or anyone else. These things were not required in the book. That they apparently were required in the movie seems, to me, to indicate flaws in the way Jackson and his co-writers "reimagined" it. IMHO, of course.

Mugwump

12-20-2009, 01:25 PM

From the movie script (sic), which you can find here (http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Lord-of-the-Rings-Return-of-the-King.html): ...
I remember the scene a bit differently, although I admit this may not be exactly accurate...

CLOSE UP: PIPPIN ... desperately seeking reassurance.
PIPPIN
But we have the White Wizard. That's got to count for something.

GANDALF looks down at PIPPIN, he says nothing. He takes a puff from his pipe and starts coughing ...

PIPPIN (cont'd) (nervous) Gandalf?

GANDALF stares into the distance as if seeing something in his mind's eye. (*Cough, cough... wheeze...*)

GANDALF V/0
Sauron has yet (*cough, cough*) to reveal his deadliest (*cough, hack*) servant... Big Tobacco! (*Cough, hack, wheeze*)

;)

alatar

12-20-2009, 09:02 PM

Definitely a problem. For a long time, I've felt that in Jackson's permutation of Tolkien's world, it would've made more sense to leave Gandalf dead than to bring him back and really serve no purpose to the remaining plot.
That makes so much sense.

I guess we have to realize that the writers were limited in that they could not find a way that they thought the audience would 'get' where Aragorn becomes more kingish and yet Gandalf remains a step above. :rolleyes:

Who completely healed Gandalf of his wounds (he looked quite beat up before his transformation)?
Who healed cliff-diving Aragorn? Brego?

He's been sent back by whom? Even if one discounts the lack of background information regarding Eru/Valar/Maiar, one has to get the implication that God himself sent Gandalf back to finish his task.Conjecture. I use my sister as the penultimate example of the average viewer (as she has never read the books). She would have never guessed that it was a god that sent Gandalf back, but that he, being a wizard, had pulled it off somehow on his own.

Otherwise, what can you assume the script is referring to?The local wizards guild?

Again, with such an implication, how then can we go from Gandalf defeating a Balrog 'of Morgorth' (who is this Morgoth, by the way?),Exactly.

being ressurrected and completely healed, breaking Saruman's staff and chasing away Nazgul on the Pelennor, to having his staff shattered, being unhorsed and cowering in fear to the WitchKing? It is bogus and utterly inconsistent. Silly even.Which is exactly the problem. Even if the Witch King was powered up to the level of Sauron with the Ring, it did not seem so in the film, and so even my sister couldn't figure out why Gandalf could kill a balrog but get proned by the Black Flyer. :rolleyes:

Have I mentioned I have, once again, drank far too much coffee today?I would have guessed that you were chewing the beans...:D

Sarumian

12-21-2009, 12:05 PM

Aragorn's "kinglyness" should not have relied on any of the other characters being diminished, nor should the Witch King's apparent power have needed the lessening of Gandalf, or anyone else.

The power of WiKi is shown in the book by breaking the Gates of Minas Tirith. The growing power of Aragorn is shown in liberating of South Gondor and leading its men to the battle. It looks like they started altering the storry and couldn't stop.

As it was said many times in this thread, one of the reasons why the scene was altered, was to make it mens' (not wizard's) viktory. But this doesn't work as the final blow to Morgul Host comes from the Dead, and PJ was accused in robbing men of their victory here http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=15272

Ibrîniðilpathânezel

12-23-2009, 11:40 AM

It looks like they started altering the storry and couldn't stop.

That's really the problem, isn't it? I've adapted short stories and novellas for stage performance (most of which required some degree of special effects that needed to be somehow translated to the different presentation), and there's a terrible temptation to want to "make it your own," somehow. To some degree or another, change is necessary because some things just don't work as well in a visual medium as they do in print. Once you start making changes, you have to take care, or you wind up changing much more than is needed, and it becomes a snowball effect. One change triggers another, and another, and soon, the changes that you thought were necessary for adaptation aren't that at all: they're changes needed to support something you altered that either wasn't necessary or wasn't particularly well thought out. In my opinion, a lot of the problems in Jackson's version of LotR hinge on the decision to weaken Aragorn's character in regards to his leadership and desire to be a king. That is really what ultimately led to the change in the confrontation between Gandalf and the WK. If Aragorn of the movies had behaved more like Aragorn of the book from the start -- a man who is striving to be king not for glory, but for the love of Arwen and of his people -- then there would not have been a need for other "stronger" characters to be diminished so that he could step in and take command.

I could go on at some length about this, but I don't think this is the proper topic for it. Suffice it to say that in my opinion, Jackson et al made some questionable decisions early in the scriptwriting process, which led to more and more poor decisions as the process continued. The confrontation between Gandalf and the WK was just another part of that snowball that appears to have gotten badly out of control.

All just my opinion, as ever.

Dakêsîntrah

12-30-2009, 04:05 PM

This thread was very interesting to read. Of course I could not read all of it. But it was very entertaining, so as to keep me up all night. :D

I do believe it makes logical sense to simply conclude that if the Witch-king and Gandalf ever did engage in a duel, it would be a stalemate.

One thing that Tolkien replicates is Biblical pneumatology or more closely the nature of angelology.

In Gandalf he seems to replicate to a degree the nature of Jesus Christ in the flesh, or even the angels that intervened in the flesh.

If you agree with my theology, and perhaps even Tolkien's, then we may throw a contrast of sorts into the mix between the natures of Gandalf and the WK, and between the natures of Jesus and Satan.

It seems Gandalf was incarnated in the flesh as Gandalf the Grey, and then *reincarnated later as the White. Much like Christ, in that I see Gandalf the Grey much like Jesus before his death. I see the clothing in white as symbolic of resurrection.

Tolkien would probably agree with me as to the nature of the Deity of Christ, in that Jesus was 100% divine yet 100% in the flesh of men. Same as Gandalf. Furthermore, it is true Gandalf always had the potential to use fully his divine powers. It is not that he was limited or restricted to the use of them while in bodily form. I believe the Valar did not really restrict him to the use of all things divine, just as God had not restricted Jesus during his lifetime. But in terms of both of their missions, their purpose were altogether different than showing off their divinity. If they were to suffer bodily on earth, then it would follow that if they were allowed to transcend the limitations of said physical body, it would have been violated and breached according to the natural laws of the said universe. They were not limited to no divine miracles, they certainly both did many, but they were all in the guise, under the manifestation of what the natural universe allowed.

Now we have the Witch-king, who Tolkien alludes had been demonically enhanced by Sauron. The Witch-king indeed was the Christian equivalent of the Anti-Christ, whom Satan also enhances, rather possesses (depends on how you view theology).

it is certainly correct to portray Gandalf as perhaps temporarily fearful of the Witch-king's presence. I would think Gandalf was more fearful of losing his body in a time where there was a dire need for his bodily presence during the siege of Minas Tirith. I think the WK certainly could have slain Gandalf's bodily form, but there is certainly no way the WK could have defeated Olorin, the Maia Spirit. If Jesus could be tempted, Gandalf could be fearful.

Conversely, I think that in terms of sorcery, Gandalf was stronger; but I doubt Gandalf as a Maia had any chance to really dispose of any Undead Nazgûl. They are neither living nor dead. So who can judge the living spirits, or for the Nazgûl specifically, neither living nor dead? Is it for the Valar to decide, or must that fall on Eru, Mandos? Are they stuck in some kind of limbo, some Abyss?

Someone pointed out why the WK would pull out a flaming sword against Gandalf. I think the WK stood no chance against Gandalf in terms of sorcery, but in terms of melee, the WK would actually stand a chance. But we can all imagine how this magically enhanced sword of the WK might be immune to such deflection or paralyzing spells of Gandalf. We know what happened to Aragorn's sword in Fangorn Forest. I think via melee, WK was confident he could overpower Gandalf in that surprise encounter.

I recall how the WK said he would 'break' Gandalf. I would presume breaking his fleshly body. I think the WK suspected that it was impossible to destroy Gandalf's actual spirit. Surely the WK isn't that stupid to confront Gandalf without the knowledge that he is a Maia. It is Sauron who probably informed the WK of this knowledge, and then possessed it, so it would be emboldened. Without the WK's direct possession via Sauron, you see him flee in the face of Gandalf, Glorfindel, and possibly Aragorn. The WK acting without the direct will of Sauron is just a Man stuck in limbo, whose only real weapon was fear of the unknown, something every man fears in real life, and I am sure was prevalent in Tolkien's own lifetime.

We know that Sauron at the time didn't physically 'possess' the Ring, but he did certainly always possess it spiritually. We say his will was poured into it, but when we speak of will, we speak of Spirit, for they are one and the same. This is Tolkien, who poured his will into the narratives, a will of his that was entrenched in orthodox theology.

To be honest, my Tolkien knowledge pales in comparison to all you folks on here. But I am well versed in Christian theology, and I can already see clearly where Tolkien may be coming from.

Now back to the hypothetical duel between the WK/Sauron and Gandalf: I really do see this as paralleling a hypothetical Jesus versus the Anti-Christ/Satan. You can think back to the temptation of Jesus by Satan. You ask: Why did not Jesus just destroy Satan right there and then while in the body? Well, that was not the Will of God. In like manner, Eru did not will Gandalf to destroy the WK - as I think it is not possible to "kill" a spirit, synonymous to the nature of a Spirit in Biblical Theology. Tolkien does not make mention any possible way for Eru or the Valar or the Maiar to vanquish spirits into nothingness. You ask why God cannot or will not destroy Satan to nothingness, yet his judgment is to be in chains for eternity. You ask why Melkor was not totally vanquished to nothingness, yet he was put in chains into the Void by the Valar. These spirits will always exist, but will be imprisoned in a Realm far outside the Divine or human realms that they cannot interfere.

Now to the breaking of the staff and the prostration of Gandalf in the movie: Yes, it strays from the book, but I see no problem here, considering what I have just said.

I see it quite feasible that the WK should break Gandalf's staff. It's all a symbolic act.
The Staff symbolises Gandalf's stewardship of Middle Earth - not so much a physical conduit to enhance his divine powers. I see the Staff as merely a physical item from that universe that served as a conduit for manifesting divine miracles via the guise of natural law. Much like the cloak of Christ served to act as a physical means whereby one could be healed.

It is a physical manifestation of Gandalf's title, and the WK knows via Sauron that the eradication of anything physically symbolic of his titular power granted while on ME AND Valinor, is worth more than just the physical body. Much like the 'breaking of Jesus' on the cross. A physical 'breaking' that was supposed to show what a failure he is to humanity, and that his mission was also a waste spiritually. And of course, a physically dead Gandalf would be of no immediate use in the siege of Minas Tirith. Hence, I think it is feasible that the WK breaks his staff first, as the body of Gandalf will wait as it is of second importance.

Now, probably Tolkien is turning in his grave at the change submitted by PJ and Co., but Tolkien was not inspired by God to write Middle Earth, so I have no fear to say some changes in the movie are fine, or may be even better.

The Nordic, Finnish or Anglo Saxon et cetera poems are timeless, and many of them like the Kalavala are classic canon material. Yet I find Tolkien replicating them and making changes for his fantasy story. Peter Jackson has his own interpretation, and is in its own right movie canon.

Best Regards

Inziladun

12-30-2009, 06:00 PM

Well met, Dakêsîntrah, and interesting thoughts.
Just a few quick thoughts of my own.

I do believe it makes logical sense to simply conclude that if the Witch-king and Gandalf ever did engage in a duel, it would be a stalemate.

Conversely, I think that in terms of sorcery, Gandalf was stronger; but I doubt Gandalf as a Maia had any chance to really dispose of any Undead Nazgûl.

The Witch-king's vulnerablity to destruction is clear: he was rendered impotent by two mortals. Merry had his Barrow-blade, which had Númenórean spells upon it that apparently enhanced the damage done by it, but Éowyn had nothing but an ordinary sword.
The way I see it, Gandalf had ample power to do away with the WK, or any of the Nazgûl. Think of the manner in which he rescued Faramir from them:

But now the dark swooping shadows were aware of [Gandalf]. One wheeled towards him; but it seemed to Pippin that he raised his hand, and from it a shaft of white light stabbed upwards. The Nazgûl gave a long wailing cry and swerved away.. ROTK The Siege of Gondor

Gandalf was the self-described 'servant of the Secret Fire', and 'wielder of the flame of Anor'. The Nazgûl were said to specially fear fire, and Gandalf's fire would seem to be the worst they could imagine- divine fire from the West.

If mortals could bring about the WK's vanquishment, and Gandalf obviously possessed a power feared and avoided by the Nazgûl, it doesn't seem a question of could Gandalf have destroyed him, but why he failed to do so.

Throughout the books, Gandalf is bound to primarily using persuasion and his own intelligence to accomplish his goals, resorting to 'magic' only in direst need. Even in emergencies, he unleashes only the bare minimum of power necessary to get the job done. Gandalf, and the other Istari, were in Middle-earth not to fight Sauron and his forces militarily, but to direct resistance against him, military and otherwise. They were not allowed cavalier displays of raw power for no reason: that would have lead to their being followed out of fear, not wisdom; and that was the path of a Sauron. Gandalf knew the Men of Gondor and Rohan were still capable of fighting the immediate threat, and kept his power mostly veiled. We see brief flashes of it when he saves Faramir (twice), and earlier when he overthrows Saruman at Orthanc. When the Witch-king threatened to enter Minas Tirith itself, Gandalf blocked the gate, but no more.
What he would have done, had the Witch-king tried to press into the City, could still be debated, I suppose. But my feeling is that under no circumstances would he have allowed the Witch-king to enter, and we would have seen another flash of the White.

Pitchwife

12-30-2009, 06:22 PM

Wow, Dakêsîntrah, that's an epic first post! I don't quite feel up to digging into the theological aspects you discussed so extensively, but I'd like to make a few minor comments:
I think via melee, WK was confident he could overpower Gandalf in that surprise encounter.
He certainly was, but does that tell us something about Gandalf or about the WK's ignorance of who he was up against? He may have had a notion of who or what Gandalf the Grey was, but the contemptuous tone in which he adressed Gandalf doesn't sound to me as if he had any idea how his opponent had been changed and enhanced by being resurrected.
On a similar note, I agree Gandalf felt - maybe not exactly fearful, but certainly apprehensive of confronting the WK; but again, does that tell us something about the balance of power between them or rather about Gandalf's natural humility?
I recall how the WK said he would 'break' Gandalf.
That must have been in the movie. In the book he said nothing of the sort.
The Staff symbolises Gandalf's stewardship of Middle Earth
That's an interpretation of the staff I find both quite possible and quite attractive (and never mind that it doesn't play the least part in the movie). But if that was so, it's rather a strong argument against the WK's ability to break it. Breaking Gandalf's staff would be tantamount to symbolically (and in a mythological context, symbolically equals factually in my book) revoking his stewardship - just like Gandalf revoked Saruman's leadership of the Heren Istarion by breaking his staff in Isengard - , and the WK was in no position to do this; no one in Middle-earth was. Power isn't crucial here, authority is - or rather, authority is the only power that matters. Just like Gandalf could only break Saruman's staff after he'd been sent back and empowered as the new White Wizard, only those that had invested him with stewardship could have broken his own staff and revoked it.
Finally (and now I'm digging into the theology after all), I think you're actually weakening your own case by stressing the parallels between Gandalf and Jesus. Gandalf resurrected being killed a second time by the WK would be much like Jesus dying on the cross a second time after his resurrection. As Eliza Doolittle would say, Not bloody likely.
That is not to belittle the WK - he certainly was a formidable opponent and would certainly have made short shrift of any mortal (and most Elves) unaided by Númenórean blades and prophecy, but I just don't see any chance of him prevailing against Gandalf the White.
To be honest, my Tolkien knowledge pales in comparison to all you folks on here.
Hey, no false modesty, please, or I'll think you're fishing for compliments!;)

P.S. x-ed with Zil, who is quite right, of course. Here we go again...:rolleyes::D

Inziladun

12-30-2009, 09:30 PM

P.S. x-ed with Zil, who is quite right, of course. Here we go again...:rolleyes::D

I know, I'm sorry.
But the idea that the WK, whose power was derived from Sauron (himself a diminished Maia) could be superior, or even on a level playing field with Gandalf, has on me the effect that saying Balrogs had wings would have on some others here. :D

I don't see much in the way of parallels between Gandalf's return and the Resurrection. I'm wary of delving too deeply into comparisions with Christianity here, but the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ were planned events, the purpose of which was to redeem mankind from sin.
Gandalf's sacrifice was, I think, incidental. He happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and was guiding and guarding the Ring-bearer, whose success was the key to the fulfillment of Gandalf's greater quest, the fall of Sauron. As far as Gandalf knew at that moment, he was the sole person present capable of facing the Balrog, and giving his companions an opportunity to escape. He then accepted the challenge, with the knowledge that the Balrog might well destroy his physical body. When that body did die, his selflessness and dedication to the cause for which he had been sent was duly noted by the Authority in the West, and he was allowed to return for a brief time to finish his task.

Dakêsîntrah

12-30-2009, 09:42 PM

The Witch-king's vulnerablity to destruction is clear: he was rendered impotent by two mortals.

So you're inferring the Westernesse blade is able to 'kill' something neither living or dead? How does that work? I think Tolkien may have created for himself a little paradox.

I just don't think it would be in the nature of a sword, no matter what kind of magic enhances it. A sword is made to ultimately kill even in Tolkien's universe, but a physical weapon terminating a spiritual being is not logical.

Gandalf had Glamdring, but that apparently would not have any real effect on the WK.

So the Witch-king would temporarily stun Gandalf and mow him down with the flaming sword.

He may have had a notion of who or what Gandalf the Grey was, but the contemptuous tone in which he adressed Gandalf doesn't sound to me as if he had any idea how his opponent had been changed and enhanced by being resurrected.

Rather it seems to me that regardless whether WK went up against Gandalf the Grey or Gandalf the White, he would still have a chance at beating him with the enchanted sword. I think he could care less who Gandalf was bodily; but I don't think he was stupid enough not to realize Gandalf's innate divinity had risen in his Spirit. What the Witch-king could do however is wrench Gandalf's bodily authority or reputation away from him. And again, render Gandalf useless without bodily form.

But if that was so, it's rather a strong argument against the WK's ability to break it.

I don't see that at all. If we want to say one of Gandalf's sticks were fashioned in Lothlórien, why would something wrought from nature be impossible for WK to break?
I think it's impossible, yes, for WK to wrench Olorin's authority away as a Maia, but in the weak, flawed, flesh of Man it is possible.

On a side note, I really don't believe the Istari came into Middle Earth for the first time wielding staves. Their power was innate.

Just like Gandalf could only break Saruman's staff after he'd been sent back and empowered as the new White Wizard,

I think the Istari always had potential to usurp authority from themselves, so in the case of their wills to break another's staff, for example, it would not be possible unless one of them transgressed the purpose and responsibility of the Valar and ultimately of Eru. Saruman transgressed divine fiat and was judged accordingly.

Saruman could have easily broken Gandalf's staff at Orthanc. But Saruman is more cunning than to declare himself as having turned to the dark side. Rather he has convinced himself that evil, even Sauron, is really not evil, but a maligned interpretation of good that people have created and are thus ignorant of. And so, maybe his digressions with Gandalf can be negotiated to reach a compromise. Gandalf of course refuses, and so Saruman tortures and tempts his mind by imprisoning him on top of Orthanc.

To the Witch-king, a mere stick wrought from that world would be no trouble to break. It doesn't have any special magic enhancements that could resist him, that I am aware of. If a physical body can be broken, so can a physical object from that same universe. If the WK is neither living or dead, why should he fear breaching natural (physical) authority by breaking its physical product or symbol?

That must have been in the movie. In the book he said nothing of the sort.

Yeah, I was referencing the movie. :D

Gandalf resurrected being killed a second time by the WK would be much like Jesus dying on the cross a second time after his resurrection.

In all respect, I did say that to some degree there are obvious parallels. The nature of both figures are more parallel than the events that surrounded them.
And of course, it depends on your theology, but some Gnostics, or I should rather say, Pneumatic sects, called by their ancient name-- did in fact believe Jesus would die and resurrect a second time. But that's beside the point, I think ;)

but I just don't see any chance of him prevailing against Gandalf the White.

Not prevailing in what sense? Gandalf's innate divinity had risen, which I think was a separate thing in regards to the incarnation of his second body. It was the same body essentially, just the hair color changed and he was dressed in white with a new walking stick, presumably carved from the Elves? I don't see anything drastically different *physically. if you can point me to a text, I will be obliged to concur.

So not to hold forth any false modesty, it really is true that I am less knowledgeable and more hazy on the books than the movies. The movies I have down to a tee, having watched them for the umpteenth time, plus every little nook and cranny of the EE. :D

Thanks for responding to my rambling.

Best Regards

Estelyn Telcontar

12-31-2009, 06:12 AM

I would like to address the theological comparison of Gandalf with Jesus Christ briefly. We do need the Silmarillion for this, since there is no reference to the nature of Eru, Valar, and Maiar in LotR.

In Christianity, Jesus is clearly said to be God himself, come to earth in human form, as one of the Trinity. He is not a created being, but was in existence for eternity. In Arda, there is no Trinity - there is only Eru, who is the sole god. He created the Ainur, of whom some are Valar and Maiar. These may be called "gods" by the Children, but they are clearly intended to be angelic creatures. Gandalf is one of the Maiar.

There may be some parallels between Gandalf and Christ - after all, this is a fantasy world, and things are different there. However, the fact that Gandalf is a created being is enough to refute any direct comparison. He is not even one of the higher group of Ainur, the Valar, but is a servant to them.

The Bible tells incidents of angels who came to earth in human form to fulfil tasks there - bringing messages, for the most part. Their becoming flesh is necessary so that their appearance will not put fear into the hearts of their human listeners. This parallels Gandalf's incarnation.

The resurrection aspect of Gandalf's life can be compared to that of human persons in the Bible who were resurrected by God to fulfil their purpose in life. Resurrection is not theologically limited to God Himself, though it can only be achieved by his power.

Morthoron

12-31-2009, 06:21 AM

Not prevailing in what sense? Gandalf's innate divinity had risen, which I think was a separate thing in regards to the incarnation of his second body. It was the same body essentially, just the hair color changed and he was dressed in white with a new walking stick, presumably carved from the Elves? I don't see anything drastically different *physically. if you can point me to a text, I will be obliged to concur.

"Indeed my friends, none of you has any weapon that could hurt me." This is what Gandalf tells Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli when they first meet him as Gandalf the White in Fangorn. Of course, their weapons are rendered absolutely useless.

When Gwahir the Windlord picks up Gandalf from the mountain, he tells the wizard, "A burden you have been...but not so now. Light as a swan's feather in my claw you are. The sun shines through you."

So no, he is not housed in essentially the same body; on the contrary, this presents a fundamental change, not just a hair tint and a romp through Galadriel's closet. Gandalf's physical manifestation has been divinely altered, so much so that he must drape himself again in his gray rags to hide his luminescence. As he stated, he was sent back "for a brief time, until my task was done."

Mugwump

12-31-2009, 10:27 AM

Gandalf's physical manifestation has been divinely altered, so much so that he must drape himself again in his gray rags to hide his luminescence. As he stated, he was sent back "for a brief time, until my task was done."
Perhaps Tolkien gave us only an abbreviated version of what Gandalf said. Perhaps he actually said that he was sent back "for a brief time, until my task was done, at which time -- about the middle of the third movie, I expect -- I will diminish, becoming much less wise and powerful in order to make the future King of Gondor seem more heroic in comparison." ;)

Dakêsîntrah

12-31-2009, 01:51 PM

So no, he is not housed in essentially the same body; on the contrary, this presents a fundamental change, not just a hair tint and a romp through Galadriel's closet. Gandalf's physical manifestation has been divinely altered, so much so that he must drape himself again in his gray rags to hide his luminescence.

I concede that is the case from the text now. However, the physical *form of Man was not altered dramatically. Of course he was light "as a feather," and of course against his new and divinely incarnated sorcery skills, the Fellowship's Middle Earth weapons would be useless.

This still does not mean a spirit neither living or dead can be hindered with an enchanted sword versus Gandalf - still in the fleshly form of Man.

I agree with you, but I see Tolkien's Gandalf differently than you, perhaps because I am so entrenched in Christian theology.

In Christianity, Jesus is clearly said to be God himself, come to earth in human form, as one of the Trinity. He is not a created being, but was in existence for eternity. In Arda, there is no Trinity - there is only Eru, who is the sole god. He created the Ainur, of whom some are Valar and Maiar. These may be called "gods" by the Children, but they are clearly intended to be angelic creatures. Gandalf is one of the Maiar.

Of course there are various sects of Christianity, and I am sure Tolkien was aware of Gnosticism - a form of Christianity that went all the way back to the time of the apostles or beyond. I know I am probably going on a rabbit trail here, but whether or not Tolkien intended it, some of his Middle Earth "theology" has its roots in his Catholic orthodoxy, and then I see other concepts which have root in Christian Gnosticism. I'm surprised nobody has dealt with Tolkien's Gnostic parallels before, as far as I am aware of. Gnosticism was Roman Catholicism's ancient foe, and I am sure Tolkien came across these watershed traditions during his medieval studies - it is a thing that pervades not only church history, but secular as well.

So, in some Gnostic theology, Jesus is not God, and the Trinity is not really a Trinity, rather manifestations of the Godhead Himself. Much like the Eldar who seemed to emanate from Eru. And of course, as Jesus was an emanation, he was also a created being who came to earth in the guise of a man, as a Messenger. He was not the only Messenger to bring the Light in a Dark World. There were notably four other sages.

The one true God of the ancient Pneumatics was the Sumerian Anu - a close resemblance to the name Eru. Anu and Eru are able to manifest themselves through emanations - so I believe (all conjecture) that Olórin was some sort of manifestation of Eru Himself. Once again, nobody seems to talk about Tolkien and his parallels to even Sumerian myth, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out he knew quite a deal of it.

Gandalf's sacrifice was, I think, incidental. He happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time

If Olórin is an emanation of Eru, I cannot agree with "he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time." I see God's Will as all Sovereign. Whatever happens, whether tragedy or evil triumphs, it is still the Will of the God.

Best Regards

Inziladun

12-31-2009, 02:49 PM

This still does not mean a spirit neither living or dead can be hindered with an enchanted sword versus Gandalf - still in the fleshly form of Man.

There is an interesting quote from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien concerning the 'real' power of the Nazgûl:

[The Nazgûl's] peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts)....They have no great physical power against the fearless. Letter #210 (bolding added)

I don't think the same could be said of Gandalf.

If Olórin is an emanation of Eru, I cannot agree with "he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time." I see God's Will as all Sovereign. Whatever happens, whether tragedy or evil triumphs, it is still the Will of the God.

The event was apparently not forseen by Gandalf, making his sacrifice distinct from that of Christ.

For all [Gandalf] could know at that moment he was the only person who could direct the resistance to Sauron successfully, and all his mission was vain. He was handing over to the Authority that ordained the Rules, and giving up personal hope of success. Letter #156 (bolding added)

Whether the fall of Gandalf was arranged by a Higher Authority is another matter. But Gandalf himself believed at the time that he had failed.
When Christ looked up and said 'It is finished', did He think his task had been unsuccessful?

Mugwump

12-31-2009, 06:53 PM

Toklien clearly said that LofR was NOT intended to reflect Christian theology in any way or to be analogous to any part of it, and the only similarities lie in those elements that exist in all religions and all world myth.

Pitchwife

01-02-2010, 04:06 PM

So, in some Gnostic theology, Jesus is not God, and the Trinity is not really a Trinity, rather manifestations of the Godhead Himself. Much like the Eldar who seemed to emanate from Eru. And of course, as Jesus was an emanation, he was also a created being who came to earth in the guise of a man, as a Messenger.
I can't claim to be an expert in Catholic, let alone Gnostic, theology, but I was raised a Catholic, and in the faith I was taught, there's a big difference between an emanation/manifestation and a created being - see the Nicene Creed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm), which stresses that Jesus was
God of God, light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father(emphasis mine).
I won't deny that Tolkien may have been aware of the Gnostic tradition - after all, he was a man of considerable erudition; but it's a far cry from there to assuming he endorsed its beliefs to such a point that he'd have modeled the metaphysics of Middle-earth on them. As you said yourself, Gnosticism was Roman Catholicism's ancient foe, and the Prof was a devout Catholic.

But we're straying a bit off-topic here. Back to the parallels between Jesus and Gandalf.
The nature of both figures are more parallel than the events that surrounded them.
Quite the contrary, I'd say. Their nature was quite different - one an angelic spirit (that is, a created being, although of the highest order), the other the Godhead itself made flesh. What's parallel is precisely the events: both made the ultimate sacrifice by offering up their lives in order to overcome evil (although on vastly different scales, and as Zil observes it was rather incidental in Gandalf's case); and in both cases the Father/Authority accepted and vindicated their sacrifice by bringing them back from death in a form that still preserved their human nature (Christ's wounds could still be touched by Thomas, Gandalf still ate, drank and smoked;)), but was transfigured into something that death and evil couldn't touch in the same way as before.
Which is the point I was trying to make when I said earlier that you were doing your case no favour by stressing the parallels between them. Agreed, Jesus during his earthly life could be tempted by Satan and experienced fear of death to the point of sweating blood; but Christ Resurrected? Satan wouldn't have touched him with a long pole. And Gandalf the Grey might have had reason to fear the WK with his power newly boosted by Sauron, but Gandalf the White? Not with any shiny enchanted Sword of Hellish Flames in Middle-earth.
As for Olórin (or the Eldar, for that matter) being an emanation of Eru himself, I'm really curious what in all of Tolkien's works (apart from Sumerian mythology, which he may or may not have been familiar with) you base this on.

By the way, thanks for adding some intellectual challenge to this discussion of a rather embarassing movie scene. This is fun!:)

Morthoron

01-02-2010, 08:44 PM

I concede that is the case from the text now. However, the physical *form of Man was not altered dramatically. Of course he was light "as a feather," and of course against his new and divinely incarnated sorcery skills, the Fellowship's Middle Earth weapons would be useless.

This still does not mean a spirit neither living or dead can be hindered with an enchanted sword versus Gandalf - still in the fleshly form of Man.

Was the WitchKing's sword enchanted? I don't believe that is stated anywhere. It seemed no more than a flashy parlor trick to me. Which leads me to believe that the WiKi really wasn't aware who he was up against. If anything, pyrotechnics would not be much of a concern to Gandalf, who is obviously a master of fire, what with being 'servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor', the old flaming pinecone trick, zapping Orcs in caves with lightning and blasting Nazgul with excorciating beams, not to mentioning wrestling for hours with a burning balrog and surviving long enough to kill it.

Besides, who is to say that Glamdring would not have its own efficacy against the WitchKing? It sliced through a Balrog, and was feared by Orcs many thousands of years after it was last used. It, too, had pyrotechnic ability and 'shone with a pale light' when enemies were about, and blazed 'bright as blue flame' when Gandalf trepanned the Great Goblin.

Eönwë

01-04-2010, 02:44 PM

It seemed no more than a flashy parlor trick to me.

So we can take him to be "some conjurer of cheap tricks!" ;)

Morthoron

01-04-2010, 08:50 PM

So we can take him to be "some conjurer of cheap tricks!" ;)

Actually, yes, when it comes to it. Think about any direct combat between the Nazgul and any foe that showed no fear: the WiKi/Nazgul fled from Glorfindel on two occasions, five Nazgul ran from Aragorn on Weathertop when the Ring was in their grasp, several more Nazgul were driven off by Gandalf at Weathertop and again in Gondor. Their primary weapon is fear. When faced by a foe who is fearless, the Nazgul flee, even when outnumbering their opponent. In the book, The WitchKing at the Gate of Minas Tirith tried to instill fear in Gandalf, but it did not work. Not even Shadowfax was fearful.

As I referred to previously, the WiKi's stunt with the flaming sword was the Middle-earth equivalent of a bully flexing his muscles. I've faced opponents like that and beat the snot out of them. Gandalf remains still and calm, watching for the opponent's next move, which is what one is taught to do in aikido, jiu-jitsu and other martial arts.

Sarumian

01-05-2010, 01:26 PM

Dakêsîntrah,
I’m afraid you overestimate the potential of
a spirit neither living nor dead
who appears almost invulnerable in your version. But it seems to me that the shadowy being as it is couldn’t be very much more potent than some bodiless spirit like Sauron himself after his Ring was destroyed. In Dante’s Divina Comedia sinners’ souls are given some quasi-body – they are ‘shadows’. Shadow is incapable of making any physical impact on anything else, but can remember things and suffer from a physical torture. The spirit of Witch King is tied to his invisible flesh by Sauron’s spell, bound to a Ring of Power. Witch King exercises magic power according to his spiritual potency, most of which is provided by his Master. It is basically some amount of Sauron’s own power that keeps Witch King “alive”, active and powerful and protects him from many perils, until the bound is broken by the counter-spell of Mery’s blade.
Unlike to Witch King Gandalf has a human body which is not protected from suffering, but the crucial thing is that Gandalf can stay alive by his own will. Let me stress this, it is HE who decides whether he should carry on or pass. So his life depends on his own spiritual power and however wounded he was he would die only if all this power had been spent. Due to this, I believe, there was no total separation between
Gandalf's bodily authority
and
Olorin's authority as a Maia
but the former was rather based on the latter, which was, however, unknown to most people of Middle Earth. As a man with Maia’s immortal spirit, Gandalf didn’t have any reason to be afraid of death. He also didn’t fear suffering and pain as his combat with Balrog had shown. But in the scene we are talking about Gandalf’s will appears to be totally paralised. Does this make sense?
And now let’s make some calculation. Sauron took some capable men, made them dreadful and kept them alive for ages. Morgoth took some initially immortal Maiar, much more powerful then mortals, and turned them into dreadful Balrogs. Gandalf’s spirit was powerful enough to endure a long combat with such an enemy, but when Witch King approached him in the movie, he lost completely and in one moment. We know as well, that almost all Witch King’s power comes from Sauron. So can we estimate how much of Sauron’s power should’ve been invested into Witch King to suppress the spirit of the other powerful Maia? I can’t measure it in per cents but I’m sure it is the amount that Sauron would never have dared to hand out to any creature, especially after his disastrous experiment with the Ring. It seems to me that Nazgul can be useful for Sauron only if they don’t have power to clame the Ring, otherwise they'd become very dangerous servants.
This is why I think that Witch King couldn’t posess such a power to break Gandalf’s will and the movie scene doesn’t fit into Tolkien’s universe. However I’d like to thank

Dakêsîntrah

for introducing some interesting points.

Sarumian

01-07-2010, 05:05 PM

It is basically some amount of Sauron’s own power that keeps Witch King “alive”, active and powerful and protects him from many perils

After some consideration I have to correct this point: it was the ring of Power which was responible for 'runing' a wraith, so there was not only Sauron's power, but also power of elf-smiths involved.

However neither of them could create someone comparable to a maia without loosing too much of thir own essence, I believe.

aldredheron

02-21-2010, 11:41 PM

alatar

02-22-2010, 09:32 AM

aldredheron, Welcome to the Downs!

The fact that Gandalf loses to the Witch-King shows how heroic Eowyn was in standing up to him.
That would be true if Eowyn was shown to be heroic. Sure, she takes out the Witch-King, the biggest baddest Boss in this level.

Then what happens? She runs, limps away from the Gimpy Gothmog, a mere Orc, and is saved only by the action of another (Aragorn's). :eek:

So is she the bomb or what? My issue is that I wish PJ would make up his mind. :rolleyes: :)

Sarumian

03-09-2010, 05:42 AM

Hello aldredheron,

That's a good point, and though it has been discussed somewhere in the thread, I like the way you formulate it. Let me repeat shortly what I tried to say in my previous posts.

The fact Eowyn withstands Witch King makes her undoubtedly heroic, as she is a human and is not supposed to bear such a terror, so Gandalf doesn't need to loose in order to stress this. But Gandalf's failure makes her some sort of Hollywood superhero who wins whenever it is scheduled in the script regardless how silly it could look. If she was able to dispatch such an enemy, why not to deal with Sauron in the same way?

Let me bring here this quote from the other forum:

http://www.sffworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12663

vgunn

A bit more is mentioned by Tolkien in his letters. Here is something from #156.

Quote:

"He [Gandalf] is still under the obligation of concealing his power and of teaching rather than forcing or dominating wills, but where the physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good will of the opposers to be effective he can act in emergency as an 'angel'. ..... He [Gandalf] alone is left to forbid the entrance of the Lord of Nazgul to Minas Tirith, when the City has been overthrown and its Gates destroyed – and yet so powerful is the whole train of human resistance, that he himself has kindled and organized, that in fact no battle between the two occurs: it passes to other mortal hands."

Moreover, without making Eowyn more heroic, PJ makes Gandalf look completely ridiculous, after the latter describes himself in The Two Towers as the most dangerous creature in ME save for Sauron. Having said that Gandalf is not able to withstand Witch King. Very silly.

On top of that the scene makes a great confusion about the course of events in ME. We know that the power of Witch King is provided by Sauron. In order to switch off another maia, Sauron needed to invest most of his remaining power into the Black Captain; as someone wrote in other forum, he, in fact, had to inhabit Witch King's body. In this case Witch King's preliminary end would have been as disastrous for Sauron as the loss of the Ring. He would definitely have lost the ability to keep his numerous armies in obedience and probably his shadowy embodiment as well. Nothing like this happens neither in the book nor in the movie.

There was also an idea that PJ made Gandalf a lesser being than an angelic spirit of maia, so he didn't supersede Witch King in power. However, Gandalf says in The Two Towers that his name was Olorin and in The Felowship he courteously introduces himself to Balrog as a wielder of the flame of Anor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Fire

I am referring to PJ's movies, not to books only. If Gandalf is not an embodiment of maia Olorin, we can't say who Sauron is etc, the whole Tolkien's universe will not work and it's going to be a different fiction.

CSteefel

04-26-2010, 10:01 PM

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and argue a position I don't agree with with.That position is PJ is right to weaken Gandalf because by doing so he increases the heroism of the humans (Aragorn and Eowyn). The fact that Gandalf loses to the Witch-King shows how heroic Eowyn was in standing up to him. The fact Gandalf is hesitant gives Aragorn a chance to assume the role of leader. Now I could almost live with this position if it wasn't for the fact that Aragorn then turns around and tries to confront Sauron with the palantir and ends up running from the orb like a coward.
I think PJ tries to humanize everyone too much and they come off looking weak a great deal. The human element in LotR has, for me, always been the hobbits. Heck, by the end of RotK in the book Aragorn is only ever called Elassar (sp?) and seems much more removed. But it is the hobbits that symbolize the reader in the book, they are normally the ones that you can most relate to in the books.
But Tolkien accomplishes this without making Gandalf look weak, and more importantly, with out destroying much of the meaning behind Gandalf's return as the White Rider, as PJ was able to do...

By using the device that the Witch King leaves when he hears of the arrival of the Rohirrim (was this an excuse?) AND the disappearance of Gandalf so as to save Faramir, Tolkien is able to turn the final showdown with the Witch King over to the mortals...

Ibrîniðilpathânezel

04-27-2010, 03:48 PM

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and argue a position I don't agree with with.That position is PJ is right to weaken Gandalf because by doing so he increases the heroism of the humans (Aragorn and Eowyn).

Which wouldn't have been necessary if he hadn't... er... wussified Aragorn in the first place. If he thought it was necessary to make so many egregious changes to the source material to make it filmable, he should've either started with a different source or written an entirely new story. Nice to know you don't agree with your own argument. :D

Nogrod

04-27-2010, 06:23 PM

We know that the power of Witch King is provided by Sauron. In order to switch off another maia, Sauron needed to invest most of his remaining power into the Black Captain; as someone wrote in other forum, he, in fact, had to inhabit Witch King's body. In this case Witch King's preliminary end would have been as disastrous for Sauron as the loss of the Ring. He would definitely have lost the ability to keep his numerous armies in obedience and probably his shadowy embodiment as well. Nothing like this happens neither in the book nor in the movie.I'm no Tolkien scholar myself and I admit seeing the idea of Sauron needing to inhabit the Witch King's body as quite far fetched, but I can see you are making a tough question - and a justified one. So how come the loss of the Witch King didn't affect Sauron more than it did - or did it? I mean whatever the connection was, there surely was one - and thus losing it would have an effect (think about the talk of the elven Rings losing power).

Sure one can entertain the idea that after the death of the Witch King the battle at the Pelennor Fields was over (like it was in a sense) and that Sauron could muster the heavy forces to go against the "goodies" only as it was at the gates of Mordor, near enough for him to personally rally his troops...

But if the loss of the Witch King was a big deal enough, so how strong/weak he was?

Heh, was that possible weakness of Sauron after losing his first magic general actually the thing that got Gandalf to agree with the plan of going and challenging Mordor head on? If Sauron would have been in full power he could have both taken care of the rag-tag army of the goodies and watch out for any surprises? I had never thought of the death of the Witch King as a reason why Sauron was too weak to catch Frodo in time... Interesting.

I am referring to PJ's movies, not to books only. If Gandalf is not an embodiment of maia Olorin, we can't say who Sauron is etc, the whole Tolkien's universe will not work and it's going to be a different fiction.I'm not sure if I get you right here but to me it's fairly simple. What PJ did concerns the films only. He has no authorship over the universe Tolkien created. He can make his own interpretations like everyone of us can (PJ's imaginations sure have more effect than the fabulations of you or me!), but it is, like you say, a different fiction then.

Gandalf was a maia (whatever name or embodiment you call him with) as Sauron was, and the Lord of the Rings tells about the fight between these two left to fight it together as the other higher powers receded from the ME - with all the side characters like Frodo, Aragorn, Gollum, the Witch King etc. (Okay, let's fill in Saruman as the third real player.)

And surely Eru was back there pulling the strings and thus in the last instance making all the efforts of both (all) parties insignificant; but on the personal level where they were being able to look oneself from the mirror, or not. :confused:

Confused indeed.

Inziladun

04-27-2010, 07:56 PM

So how come the loss of the Witch King didn't affect Sauron more than it did - or did it? I mean whatever the connection was, there surely was one - and thus losing it would have an effect (think about the talk of the elven Rings losing power).

I don't see the destruction of the WK as something Sauron would have felt personally.
The Nazgûl were connected to Sauron, true, but the reverse was not the case. Gandalf said of the Ringwraiths:

'The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him.' FOTR The Ring Goes South

Sauron's power held the Nazgûl to the earth and held sway over their wills, so his fall would be theirs. But he would not have been diminished by their passing. How could he be? He was losing nothing but servants, when it came down to it.

Sure one can entertain the idea that after the death of the Witch King the battle at the Pelennor Fields was over (like it was in a sense) and that Sauron could muster the heavy forces to go against the "goodies" only as it was at the gates of Mordor, near enough for him to personally rally his troops...

While the loss of his most powerful field commander would have been a heavy blow from a military standpoint, I don't think that in itself had any crippling effect on Sauron or his army. It was demoralising for the rank-and-file-troops, no doubt, but I think the totem of Sauron in the minds of his slaves was enough to overcome that. Certainly you would have seen no cowardice or questioning of orders in Sauron's armies on the battlefield, though the odd Orc or two might voice some displeasure. And Sauron had the sheer numbers to overwhelm the West.
Gandalf did not think Sauron incapable of taking the offensive again after the battle of the Pelannor.

'Hardly has our strength sufficed to beat off the first great assault. The next will be greater.' ROTK The Last Debate

Gandalf saw no loss in Sauron's war-making ability due to the WK being done in. As Gandalf put it, he would have been capable either of besieging and capturing Minas Tirith, or destroying militarily any army attacking him in Mordor. The point of Gandalf advising the assault on Mordor was not that they would have an easier time of it now that the WK was dead, but that Sauron would hopefully assume Aragorn had the Ring and turn all his attention his way.

needfiction

05-02-2010, 08:14 PM

Can I just tell everyone here that it's nothing short of incredible to find a thread via Google that started FIVE YEARS AGO and is still going?!

The debate will never be answered, but I visit so many forums where discussion breaks down in less than an hour to name calling.

Its even more incredible because I guess the original poster is not even active here anymore? It's like dropping a pebble in the ocean, and you walk away, not seeing the tidal wave you created on the other side of the planet somehow. :D

I found this thread while rewatching the EE again, and I've always hated that scene. It just doesn't fit. So Google brought me here. I can't add to five years of debate, but just wanted to give a nod to you all.

Well done to all who debated this so well!!!

alatar

05-03-2010, 05:27 AM

Welcome to the discussion, needfiction! This is the scene that brought me here as well, many years back.

Galadriel

05-07-2010, 11:56 PM

Gandalf vs. The Witch King? I would have to say Gandalf, since he is a Maia and the Witch King is just a shadow. Sure, he's strong, but he's no match for Mithrandir! PJ made Gandalf look ludicrously weak. I cringed when I saw the way Gandalf fell off his horse and gave The Witch King that helpless look, as if he were saying 'Well. This is the end of me." He was resurrected by Iluvatar himself and he shakes at the sight of a Ringwraith?
And I agree with one of the above comments. In the movie, Eowyn makes Gandalf look like a pansy. Not that she isn't strong, but if she is NOT as strong as a demi-god, then they shouldn't make it seem like that.
I think Gandalf refused to show a good amount of his power. What he demonstrated in the books was like the tip of an iceberg. Maybe even less. After all, he DOES mention in The Two Towers that he is so powerful that practically no one could match him, except 'the one who sits in the Dark Tower'.
This is one of those areas that Tolkien has left very vague. It's another 'Tom Bombadil' scenario where one just doesn't know what to think. One is sure of something, but the rest is just plagued in a cloud, if you take my meaning. :confused:

Rhino

06-02-2010, 11:19 AM

you all seem to forget that Gandalf alluded to the fact that the WK was more powerful then him when he was talking to Pippin before the battle of Osgiliath
his facial expression alone would be enough to tell that he is terrifed of WK, not only this but his hesitance or thought process before telling Pippin about the WK is another allusion to this.

Secondly, the scene was one of huge drama and tension, WKs' ability to destroy Gandalfs staff and deseat him from shadowfax is PJs' interpretation of the shear, raw power of WK, the fact that you are irked by a minor injustice done to Gandalf, is in itself an injustice to Peter Jackson.

Thirdly, Aragorns ability to defeat WK in the first film is clearly a foreshadowing of his true abilities/power which is revealed later in not only that film but throughout the trilogy.

One other thing, from my interpretation Gandalf is not the most powerful being in ME, that place being reseverved for Sauron (you can take that as you want, but I am simply alluding to the fact that Sauron was able to create such a device of evil and destruction in the form of the One Ring, and then "Come Back from the Dead" though I do not have words to truely give that a justifiyable explianation)
though Gandalf in clearly the wisest being in ME.

thats just a few things that irk me about most of your arguements,
I am not trying to belittle your opinions just present my veiw on the scene

Inziladun

06-02-2010, 01:09 PM

Rhino

06-02-2010, 01:17 PM

How, exactly, is questioning a film director's handling of a scene (which featured a misrepresentation of one of the most recognisable and beloved characters in the original work) an "injustice"

I just feel that he handled the scene well, and that so many seem to have negitive feelings towards it is unfair....injustice was the wrong word and I apologize for my mistake.

Morthoron

06-03-2010, 07:36 PM

I just feel that he handled the scene well, and that so many seem to have negitive feelings towards it is unfair....

Well, that would be your opinion, to which you are certainly entitled. However, my opinion differs drastically from yours, and your points neither move me nor do I feel it necessary to further quantify the opposing view, as I gave up redundancy for the New Year. That and liver.

Nerwen

06-03-2010, 09:31 PM

Hey, stop picking on the newbie, you two.:rolleyes:

JoltFlame

07-03-2010, 06:52 PM

I hope for the closing of this long thread and the conclusion that the Black Rider indeed is superior to Gandalf, so is the tale told.

Morthoron

07-03-2010, 07:28 PM

I hope for the closing of this long thread and the conclusion that the Black Rider indeed is superior to Gandalf, so is the tale told.

Repeating yourself doesn't make you right, particularly since you have lost the debate. I only mention that because it is one of those life lessons one must learn.

Pitchwife

07-03-2010, 08:09 PM

Oh Morth, stop being so condescending and flaunting your old age wisdom, please. Even though you're right.:)
I hope for the closing of this long thread and the conclusion that the Black Rider indeed is superior to Gandalf, so is the tale told.
By Jackson, yes. By Tolkien, no.
Seriously, listen to this:
'You cannot enter here', said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. 'Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!'
Does he sound like he's dreading to be outmatched by a superior power? Does he sound like he's just making bold words and whistling in the dark? Or does he sound like he knows he's in for a confrontation that will demand all his strength but is confident that he will prevail?
At any rate he certainly doesn't sound like the pathetic excuse for an Istar PJ chose to show us.:rolleyes:

Inziladun

07-03-2010, 08:27 PM

In the books, Gandalf overthrew one of Morgoth's Balrogs, though his physical body died in the process.

In the books, the Witch-king was wounded by a Hobbit with a Barrow-blade, and finished off by a woman with an ordinary sword.

That was after Gandalf fought off all nine of the Nazgûl at once at Weathertop.

Now, PJ had things quite a bit different is his mind, but in Tolkien's world, it's Gandalf hands down.

Galadriel

07-03-2010, 11:20 PM

alatar

07-07-2010, 10:51 AM

But like I've been told a billion times, PJ's adaptation is not exactly Tolkien's world. My problem, however, since that fateful day with the extended version of RotK came out, is that, even at first blush, PJ's world did not appear to be internally consistent.

In the books, Gandalf overthrew one of Morgoth's Balrogs, though his physical body died in the process.
Note that it the movie it's just 'a Balrog,' though not just more than man-high. You'd think that taking down this creature, as we see in TTT, it'd count for something to Gandalf's credit.

In the books, the Witch-king was wounded by a Hobbit with a Barrow-blade, and finished off by a woman with an ordinary sword. Note that in the movie, Merry's blade is not magical or extraordinary in any way, yet can still pierce the unseen sinews of the Witch-King.

That was after Gandalf fought off all nine of the Nazgûl at once at Weathertop.Note that Aragorn chased five - FIVE - of them away (one of which was the Witch-King) from Weathertop using a non-Anduril sword and some fiery pieces of wood.

Now, PJ had things quite a bit different is his mind, but in Tolkien's world, it's Gandalf hands down.But this is the movie section. ;) :D

Dakêsîntrah

07-07-2010, 03:05 PM

Let me add that I will give credit to Peter in at least trying to avoid the cliché depiction of the all mighty good guy wizard who fears nothing!

I mean, c'mon, since Tolkien's day, this has been portrayed at least a dozen times in other fantasy works and movies.

It would be about as interesting as Superman taking on the world minus the kryptonite!

This is why Batman's so much more immensely popular: Since his mortal flaws are sometimes exposed, it makes for an interesting showdown with the villains.

The old man is merely a suit of Olorin, the real being, and I could care less if the mortal body might be seen quailing.

To me, it's not a matter of who's superior, it's really an analysis on the nature of Olorin's body/spirit.

alatar

07-08-2010, 08:32 AM

Let me add that I will give credit to Peter in at least trying to avoid the cliché depiction of the all mighty good guy wizard who fears nothing!
That might have been a good idea had we not seen this same wizard fight a Balrog while falling through the earth. :D

I mean, c'mon, since Tolkien's day, this has been portrayed at least a dozen times in other fantasy works and movies.Agreed, though I have two issues with that: (1) you *expect* a wizardly bearded figure to be the one to 'save the day,' (or at least I would say current culture might) and (2) this wizard is *Gandalf*, meaning that it's just not some generic wizard but one we know all about.

It would be about as interesting as Superman taking on the world minus the kryptonite!Cool analogy! Have you ever seen the movie 'Superman II?' Regardless, Superman's weakness in that movie isn't kryptonite, but his feelings for the lowly humans that infest the planet. The three bad superbeings use Superman's attachment to Lois Lane to get at him.

Could anyone think of a way where we would avoid the wizard cliche, have Gandalf portrayed as powerfully as he is in the books *and* yet allow for his character not to overshine the story in this kryptoniteless world?

This is why Batman's so much more immensely popular: Since his mortal flaws are sometimes exposed, it makes for an interesting showdown with the villains.That part was played by 'take off his head' Aragorn...;)

The old man is merely a suit of Olorin, the real being, and I could care less if the mortal body might be seen quailing.But what about all of the 'drivel' he spouted to Pippin? About 'this' not being the end?

ANGLE ON: GANDALF and PIPPIN sit on stone steps . . . Both covered in sweat and grime, bone-weary from fighting, spirits and hearts bruised . . .
PIPPIN looks towards the WOODEN GATES at which a NUMBER of SOLDIERS continue to build a BARRICADE . . .

PIPPIN
(quiet) I didn't think it would end this way . . .

GANDALF looks at the SMALL HOBBIT a beat.

GANDALF
(gently) End? No, the journey doesn't end here.

PIPPIN looks up at GANDALF, questioningly . . . .

GANDALF (cont'd)
Death is just another path, one that we all must take.

ANGLE ON: GANDALF looks down to see PIPPIN looking up at him with fear in his eyes . . .

GANDALF (cont'd)
(remembering) The grey rain curtain of this world rolls back and all turns to silver glass . . .
(to himself) and then you see it . . .

ANGLE ON: GANDALF breaks off, lost in reverie . . .

PIPPIN
What, Gandalf? See what?

GANDALF
White shores ... And beyond . . . A far green country under a swift sunrise.

PIPPIN stares up at the OLD WIZARD'S FACE, softened, quiet and full of peace . . .

PIPPIN
(quiet) Well, that isn't so bad.

GANDALF
(gently) No . . . No, it isn't.

BOOM!

ANGLE ON: GANDALF and PIPPIN'S faces turn as the WOODEN DOORS shudder under another BLOW.Again, to me it's a matter of consistency. Either Gandalf believes what he said, and so would be at peace, or not.

Ondoher420

07-08-2010, 08:38 AM

Gandalf was made to look ridiculously weak in front of the WK!!! What has Gandalf the White have to fear from the WK as he defeated the balrog in his grey form!! Surely Gandalf is very much powerful than the nazgul

alatar

07-09-2010, 09:03 AM

And what of Dumbledore? I've not read the books, but I get the impression from the Harry Potter movies that, at any time, the wizard Dumbledore could step in and prevail in any situation that Harry or Hogwarts finds itself in.

And yet there always seems to be more than enough for Harry and friends to do.

Dakêsîntrah

08-07-2010, 10:46 PM

Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh on the Witch-king's reaction to Gandalf in the Extended Edition audio commentary:

Boyens: ["In the book it works on a different level...]

Walsh: ["There's something disempowering about a character who arrives and threatens to do something and then flies away again...Having not actually - well, he broke Gandalf's staff, but - there was just this sense...it made him less frightening..and less potent as a character. It's like an event written to happen, but then didn't. And we really felt it in the pacing of the film."]

Peter Jackson adds: ["We just wanted to make it more exciting and cinematic."]

So the idea of Jackson and Co. is to make the Witch-king more menacing. Give them credit; they tried to add something to the very little screentime the Witch-king was granted.

If they would have filmed the confrontation as it happened in the book, then it would have been a nearly wasteful bit of scenes. As a film director, why would you have one or two scenes of a book rendition of WK vs. Gandalf, building up even more tension than what was actually filmed, and then ending it with the two going separate ways with no actual outcome? Well, that's essentially how it happened in the book, but it certainly wouldn't carry any merit to advancing plot in a movie!

Eomer of the Rohirrim

08-11-2010, 01:23 AM

If they would have filmed the confrontation as it happened in the book, then it would have been a nearly wasteful bit of scenes. As a film director, why would you have one or two scenes of a book rendition of WK vs. Gandalf, building up even more tension than what was actually filmed, and then ending it with the two going separate ways with no actual outcome? Well, that's essentially how it happened in the book, but it certainly wouldn't carry any merit to advancing plot in a movie!

You have the two commanders of the opposing armies set up against each other; but there's no need to have them fight each other one-on-one if it didn't happen in the book - and it didn't.

The plot doesn't lose anything if no blow is struck between them.

It's this type of thinking that had the director seriously considering wheeling out Sauron himself to fight Aragorn at the Black Gate.

alatar

09-05-2010, 07:17 PM

If only I had stuck with the theater version!

Morthoron

09-05-2010, 08:46 PM

If only I had stuck with the theater version!

I believe this thread to be a bewitched thing,
For it will not die a natural death;
Like Angmar's wraith crown-ed the cold Witch King,
Who for an age drew not a live man's breath.

Doeth!

cfwmac007

11-19-2010, 06:26 AM

i believe the movie had a more accurate then people want to give. it is true both sauron and gandalf are maiar and so are balrogs and good ol' tom. sauron is far from the strongest of the maiar, but is the powerful in speech craft. the balrogs were the stronges of the maiar that came under the control of melkor. when sauron had the rings made tainted all but the 3 for the elves. sauron put is will and power into the ring so that his will would extend to the others that wore the other rings. 1000 years after sauron's defeat by last army of elves and men, the istari came to middle earth. the istari are 5 maiar sent by the valar to stop the coming great darkness. The istari are different than the other maiar that came to middle earth. The istari were limited to form of men and the powers that be found within the mortal world (talk about a handicap). Sauron does not have this limitation. The witch king was the most powerful of the witches even before given one of the nine. The ring would farther augment his ablities. to me in the books when gandalf tells pippen about the prophecy that he, in his heavily handicapped form, he did not seem to sure himself if he could defeat the witch-king. this comes from bestiary that david day put together, and it has an index to where to go in tolkiens works to find the information. i ready the lord of the rings more the twenty times (jurassic park i read almost 40 times). gandalf in middle earth is far from invincible and his body is still mortal. he did die after the fight with the belrog and in his words " he was sent back", this is also why he is a little confused when he is first called gandalf upon his return... you know like moving from one house to a bigger one, you still have everything (one hopes) you just got to find it again.

my biggest complaint was the lack of sam using the ring in the movies. in the book he uses the ring directly under sauron's nose, and sauron is none the wiser.

skip spence

11-19-2010, 08:24 AM

Words well spoken, Morth!

And welcome to the downs, cfwmac007!

I believe you are mistaken though. Gandalf the Gray took down a Balrog single-handedly and when he was sent back his powers were enhanced. The Witch-King and four of his lieutenants couldn't even handle a midget and one dude with a stick.

elronds_daughter

11-19-2010, 01:10 PM

Bravo, Morth! (Also, well said, skip.)

It's disconcerting at best to come back after a long absence from our beloved 'Downs and find a thread I opinionated in years ago still going. (Perhaps it makes me feel old, more than anything else.)

But, on topic, I don't think Jackson & Co. very properly represented Gandalf -- or the Witch King, for that matter. True, he was rather a menace, but how much of a threat was he, really, pitted against a Maia? The Witch King, evil and menacing though he was, was only a man. Faded to wraith or no, he was still not much more than human. True, he had one of the Nine, but Gandalf had one of the Three. The odds were pretty stacked against the poor WK. Scary as he was, he was just not as inherently powerful as PJ wanted to make him out to be.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Again. :p

[Edit: It's also a little disconcerting to find that some of the original posters no longer exist on the 'Downs...]

cfwmac007

11-20-2010, 05:22 AM

this is taken directectly from david day's bestiary

" the most terrible o th the maiar spirits who became servants of melkor, the dark enemy, were those who were transformed into demons. in the high elven tongue they were named the valaraukar, but in middle-earth were called balrogs."

gandalf does not have an easy fight for they fight from the deepest parts of moria to the peak of Zirakzigil.

Taken from appendix b at the back of the return of the king,
"23 gandalf pursues the balrog to the peak of zirakzigil.
25 he cast down the balrog, and passes away. his body lies on the peak.

february
14 the mirror of galadriel. gandalf returns to life and lies in a trance."

also in appendix b

"the istari... were messengers sent to contest the power of sauron, and to unite all those who had the will to resit him: but they were forbidden to match his power with power, or to seek to dominate elves or men by force and fear."

even after being sent back he is still heavily restricted. they don't want to replace one tyrant with another, remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Morthoron

11-20-2010, 07:03 AM

this is taken directectly from david day's bestiary

Sorry Mac, but David Day is about as reliable as a drunken, one-eyed night watchman...in the fog.

Eomer of the Rohirrim

11-20-2010, 05:37 PM

Sorry Mac, but David Day is about as reliable as a drunken, one-eyed night watchman...in the fog.

But only when said watchman has an eye-infection?

First time I've heard this guy mentioned, actually. Who is he?

Pitchwife

11-20-2010, 07:17 PM

But only when said watchman has an eye-infection?

First time I've heard this guy mentioned, actually. Who is he?
In the unlikely, but not entirely impossible case that you're not kidding, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Day_%28Canadian_writer%29).

To be fair, the quote cfwmac007* gave is not that terribly off the mark, but in general, I think Morth has described Day's reliability very well. I guess the success of his books is largely due to Day's undeniable talent for recruiting good illustrators.
I still own a copy of his Bestiary - in German translation to boot, which was obviously made by someone who hadn't read Tolkien's original books - , and while the pictures are mostly gorgeous, the text suffers from a curious mix of simplification and personal speculation passed off as fact.

*Welcome to the Downs, by the way! With a name like that, I first took you for one of the spambots who have been haunting this place in ever-increasing flocks recently. Glad to see I was mistaken; enjoy being dead!:)

Eomer of the Rohirrim

11-21-2010, 05:54 AM

Thanks Pitch. Can't imagine how I enjoyed Tolkien without this guy to help me. ;)

cfwmac007

11-21-2010, 09:23 AM

lol i get that often. so of the quites i used come directly out of the appendex of the lord of the rings at end of the return of the king. i cant find my simerilian for additional quotes. the ones that sent the istari wanted to avoid making another sauron and is why they were restricted in abilites. had gandalf had full use of his power he could mop the floor with WK and he would not even have to blink, but gandalf is basically fighting with two arms and a leg tied behind his back with a bad toe fungus on the remaining foot. its a shame the oh j r r is not here himself... or even chris

narfforc

11-22-2010, 01:45 PM

But only when said watchman has an eye-infection?

First time I've heard this guy mentioned, actually. Who is he?

I actually met him at Oxomoot many years ago, mad as a march hare. He was asked to leave after annoying everybody with his latest attempts at latching on to the works of Tolkien. He was adamant that some kind of Bible Code could done with numbers in Tolkiens books...ie:- one ....nine.....seven.....three are the rings....what year did Tolkien die?....1973...there was lots more, I've never seen any news of his book since.

Pitchwife

11-22-2010, 04:17 PM

He was adamant that some kind of Bible Code could done with numbers in Tolkiens books...ie:- one ....nine.....seven.....three are the rings....what year did Tolkien die?....1973
*jawdrop*
Gosh, he's right! I never noticed that!:eek:
Moreover, the numbers of the rings add up to 20, and most of LoTR was written at 20 Northmoor Road. It all makes sense now...

elronds_daughter

11-22-2010, 04:23 PM

It all makes sense now...

If things keep going this direction, this might need to be moved to Mirth... :p

Galadriel

01-11-2011, 01:19 AM

I actually met him at Oxomoot many years ago, mad as a march hare. He was asked to leave after annoying everybody with his latest attempts at latching on to the works of Tolkien. He was adamant that some kind of Bible Code could done with numbers in Tolkiens books...ie:- one ....nine.....seven.....three are the rings....what year did Tolkien die?....1973...there was lots more, I've never seen any news of his book since.

Oh wow O.O I never noticed that!

Sarumian

03-14-2011, 06:19 AM

i believe the movie had a more accurate then people want to give. it is true both sauron and gandalf are maiar and so are balrogs and good ol' tom. sauron is far from the strongest of the maiar, but is the powerful in speech craft.

As I remember, in Silmarion Sauron is named the most powerful and dreadful servant of Melkor. Cant provide a quote, so may be I am wrong...

The istari are different than the other maiar that came to middle earth. The istari were limited to form of men and the powers that be found within the mortal world (talk about a handicap). Sauron does not have this limitation.

It doesn't look they were limited to that extent. They looked like men and they suffered like men; they were, however, so vigorous that could survive conditions that no man was able to, their life span looked unlimited. They could be killed, but this is the case for everyone in mortal lands. Like High Elves, they could see what happens in both worlds, I'm sure. In the end, it looks, they were not deprived of their inherent magic powers, but were strictly recommended not to use them unless they needed to save the day or themselves. Let me remind you Gandalf's fireworks at Weathertop and in Hollin, where he fighted against the Nazgul and wargs respectively. Another case is Gandalf's struggle with the Balrog in the Chamber of Mazarbul. That was perhaps the only direct encounter of two magic powers described in LOTR (though it doesn't happen in the movie); Gandalf described it with the words 'I have met my match' - even before he had learned it was the Balrog. And can you mention other man slaying a Balrog?

Istari were also advised not to attempt encountering the Enemy in person or becoming Lords to peoples of ME. I tend to think that apart from their bodily hardships all other restrictions Istari carried out themselves; for that reason they were capable of violating these limitations. In other words, Istari were not stripped of their inherent Mayar powers.

The witch king was the most powerful of the witches even before given one of the nine.

Was he? I thought he was the most powerful of kings and became a witch under the power of his ring.

The ring would farther augment his ablities. to me in the books when gandalf tells pippen about the prophecy that he, in his heavily handicapped form, he did not seem to sure himself if he could defeat the witch-king.

This is correct, but let's look at possible reasons. First of all, Gandalf would have never said 'I will win' before the battle was over. Simply because he was a wise one. Secondly, in accord with the limitations, imposed on Istari, he preferred to keep public unaware of his real abilities. Who would have taken seriously and watched closely strange activities of a nosy old man, the Master of Fireworks? His humility proved to be a perfect disguise; it helped, for instance, against the Balrog, who otherwise could have postponed a direct attack and would have probably tried to exhaust Gandalf by means of magic or used orcs' aid.

Thirdly, Witch King was a very difficult opponent not just because he wielded great powers, but because he was invincible for ordinary arms. Merry's sword was the only blade on Pelenor Fields which was able to undo the spell sealed in a ring (one of The Nine). I wonder if Pippin had a similar dagger but Gandalf couldn't have known anyway. That doesn't mean Gandalf was incapable of dealing with the sorcery. Four of The Seven were destroyed in dragons' fire; one of The Nine could have been destroyed similarly and I think, Gandalf was able to generate the heat he needed to penetrate the protection, even at the price of self-exhaustion. May be he would have found some other way, but not an easy one.

Things were even more ghastly at the moment of the encounter for two reasons. Gandalf definitely didn't wish to set Minas Tirith ablaze. Also Witch King was leading a huge army and could have easily find some aid, while Gandalf was alone and couldn't expect an honest single combat.

All this means Witch King was a perilous opponent for Gandalf. The actual fight, nevertheless, didn't occur in the book, and Gandalf prevailed by the means of counsel and encouraging. Neither does the fight happen in the film. Instead WK needs just one flash to throw Gandalf the White from his stead and break his staff - an efficiency that requires a power of Vallar if not Eru.

my biggest complaint was the lack of sam using the ring in the movies. in the book he uses the ring directly under sauron's nose, and sauron is none the wiser.

That's a good point.

Cirdan

03-14-2011, 08:58 PM

The Witch King, evil and menacing though he was, was only a man. Faded to wraith or no, he was still not much more than human. True, he had one of the Nine, but Gandalf had one of the Three. The odds were pretty stacked against the poor WK.

I don't have much to add to this subject (which appears to have been flogged to death and beyond) but this is a good point. Though the Elven rings were not weapons, Narya's ability to grant courage is directly counter to the Nazgul's chief weapon -fear ...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... their two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Their *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to Sauron.... Their *four*...no... *Amongst* their weapons.... Amongst their weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

NOBODY expects the Nazgul! Amongst their weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to Sauron, and nice black uniforms - Oh damn!

aiea

05-15-2011, 04:26 AM

Just to let you know, I've added a post to the Book section, Gandalf's staff, to put forward my point that the WK breaking Gandalf's staff can be seen as not that big a problem for the Wizard. Again, for the umpteenth time, I'm not condoning PJ doing this to the scene, I'm just stating that a Wizard's staff isn't the be all and end all of his powers. Take a look at the Gandalf's Staff thread if you're interested in my views at all...................

I had read just till here, but wish give my 2 cents too.

In the movie G the white is more differentiated from the grey than in the book.
Now we know that Gandalf etymology means a man (elf) with a stuff.
But gandalf the grey is dead at moria.
When G talk with Aragorn he remembered that his OLD name was Gandalf.
When he went Edoras he ask (winkling) to not separate a OLD man from his support...
Then he meet Saruman and Orthanc and break his staff (not a magic trick, but the simple truth of the will of the Valar.
Now G become really Saruman the white for what this means.
In the movie he used the staff to scare the nazgul-
Now why the With King is able to break the staff of G the White in the movie ? ( i find it to help to give resistance to the weariness of changes in movie;) )
Because G non need it anymore ! Because the Old wizard is dead and lives just the Light. And if some Old in G still lives (as in us watcher that wish he put down the Witch King with one of his fire/tricks) that has to be broken.
What we believe fear in G eyes is just the understanding of this truth. And that the evil has to bring it is one another truth.
And it is no case, but again providence that Rohan come now.
This is the reason why we not see a Witch King stroke Gandalf
... because there are Bigger Powers at Work and W. King is just a mean too...
You (and me) not like that the time of elves has to end and come the time of men (or Orcs as very well spoke Gothmog)
but that is written in Iluvatar theme...
The Witch King has to be defeated by a NEW man (this means Glorfindel prophecy) that has his value in Love etc.
This is what convince Faramir ,the truth of the Sam Gangee words.
So I believe Tolkien could forgive Peter J also if he betrayed him 3 times !:D

alatar

05-17-2011, 06:59 PM

aiea, interesting take on the movie, and Welcome to the Downs!

Now why the With King is able to break the staff of G the White in the movie ? ( i find it to help to give resistance to the weariness of changes in movie;) )
Because G non need it anymore ! Because the Old wizard is dead and lives just the Light. And if some Old in G still lives (as in us watcher that wish he put down the Witch King with one of his fire/tricks) that has to be broken.
I think that your interpretation of the 'Gandalf vs Witch King' scene would be more believable if Gandalf, lying on the ground, did not look so fearful.

Aragrax

08-03-2011, 08:34 PM

I had read just till here, but wish give my 2 cents too.
Now why the With King is able to break the staff of G the White in the movie ? ( i find it to help to give resistance to the weariness of changes in movie;) )
Because G non need it anymore ! Because the Old wizard is dead and lives just the Light. And if some Old in G still lives (as in us watcher that wish he put down the Witch King with one of his fire/tricks) that has to be broken.
What we believe fear in G eyes is just the understanding of this truth. And that the evil has to bring it is one another truth.
And it is no case, but again providence that Rohan come now.
This is the reason why we not see a Witch King stroke Gandalf
... because there are Bigger Powers at Work and W. King is just a mean too...
!:D

A wizard w/o his staff is less than a wizard. A wizard whose staff is broken is less than a man. Breaking Gandalf's staff would have pretty much ended Gandalf, even with him having Narya (the source of his fire skills, most likely, as well as courage and firey temper); he would have had naught but his own skills, that of a philologist (hmmm).

Gandalf would not simply have "not needed" the staff, as it was repeatedly implied that their staff was the only way an Istar (but not all Maiar: witness Melian and her "Girdle" [ring]) could excercise power, as that power **WAS NOT THEIRS**. Istari *served* the Secret Fire; they could fan it, but they did not own it. A wizard's (linear) staff was probably a projection of that radiated power of creation *which comes from above* like rays from the sun, as opposed to rings, which represent the binding of things that are already created. This was not symbolic, as JRRT hated allegory, but would have been literal.

Without the staff as a link back home, a wizard was implied to only have that strength which was their own (in the mortal forms they had been clothed in) and, like Prospero found when he released Ariel, this wasn't much. Remember that Saruman turned against the light, so was already fallen and powerless, reliant on *science* (a thing clearly un-favored by JRRT) for his progress, *even before his staff was broken*. He summoned no storms over Caradhras in the book (that was either the mountain itself, or the Balrog), had no "Matrix" telekinetic battles w/Gandalf (it is implied that orcs took G to the top of Isengard), and used only eugenics (if breeding orcs can be considered EUgenics), bombs, and verbal manipulation/propaganda within our literary sight. These skills are not the true power, but rather the "New Way" of "accursed" science, as shown by "Saruman of Many Colours"; when the white light was broken (refracted) Gandalf said that "it is not wisdom to break a thing to see how it works". The original, natural, source light was preferred by Gandalf to the refracted differentiation of the prying mind; "I liked white better" he said. This was a KEY moral lesson of JRRT, and pretty much nowhere to be found in the (tech-driven/special-effects-laden) movies. Thus Saruman's staff was broken, and he was, in the end, a dark wisp of nothing on the wind.

*************

@cfwmac007

Tom Bombadil was almost certainly not a Maiar, as he was FAR, FAR older than pretty much everything else in Arda. Likely he was an Ainur or, perhaps, he might even have been Iluvatar himself, dwelling (in an intentionally limited scope) in his creation for a bit, tho JRRT claimed otherwise (JRRT said Tom wasn't God, at any rate).

***************

@ Sarumian

Glorfindel dropped a 'Rog too. And died for it, just like G. And just like G (tho it was due to JRRT realizing he had Glor alive in LotR after he had him dying in TS) he was brought back to continue to serve.

****************

@ any here who posted in the past wondering why the WK did not fly over the wall in the books, and criticizing JRRT's reasoning (!?!?). . . Last I read LotR, Fell Beasts were clearly *not indestructable*, so a fell beast with a flight of arrows in its breast would become a FELLED beast, and the Nazgul atop it would be sent "winging" back to Mordor *without* a mount to provide those wings. Overflights of a wall topped with 1000 archers would do naught but to leave the ringwraith in need of a renewed form after a 100 ft fall. PJ simply misrepresented the evil "winged taxis" as armored fighter-bombers in the films, thus created a logical inconsistancy all by himself; JRRT never had any illogic here.

****************

AFAIC, dramatic tension could have been adequately served by focusing a lot of sound and fury into the scene. Shouting and waving of arms goes a long way *with the right direction*! Words of Power and Terror, and all that. Besides, is it not far more British to understate things? Just a tad?

****************

JRRT repeatedly took great pains to make these things clear, but PJ regularly ignored JRRT in toto, hearing the cacophanous shouting of his own subcreation in his head, and thus drowning out JRRT's quiet wisdom set silently upon the page. One might say the radiated creation of the books was obscured by the ringing shadow and twisted dark fire of PJ's rewrites.

Not exactly a fan of the films, as you can see, tho I liked some things that were done, and even have RotK on DVD (as it seemed the most faithful in the theatrical release, and was well paced).

Not sure if I find the Sauron vs. Aragorn fight worse than the Gandalf staff break, but both deserved to be left in that Dead Marsh called the Cutting Room Floor.

Nerwen

08-04-2011, 12:20 AM

Welcome to the Downs, Aragrax!

Truly, you have chosen a thread of epic grandeur in which to make your first post!:cool:

sassyfriend

09-04-2011, 05:38 PM

I liked it cause it showed Gandalf truely cared for Pippin

Inziladun

09-04-2011, 06:32 PM

I liked it cause it showed Gandalf truely cared for Pippin

How so?

To me it just showed an unnecessary alteration in Gandalf's fundamental nature as depicted in the books.

Morthoron

09-05-2011, 09:27 AM

How so?

To me it just showed an unnecessary alteration in Gandalf's fundamental nature as depicted in the books.

Inzil, you might as well be replying to a spambot for all the stimulating conversation you can expect. :rolleyes:

Inziladun

09-05-2011, 11:11 AM

Discussions with the bots can be entertaining. ;)

Anyway, I'm genuinely curious to know the reasoning behind sassyfriend's rationale.

alatar

09-05-2011, 05:59 PM

On this topic, I'll have a discussion with a bot. ;)

sassyfriend

09-06-2011, 09:16 AM

Because when Gandalf and Pippin fall off Shadowfax the first time it seems to me that Gandalf is more worried for Pippin then the witch King at that moment. I could be wrong though.

Galadriel55

09-06-2011, 01:38 PM

Because when Gandalf and Pippin fall off Shadowfax the first time it seems to me that Gandalf is more worried for Pippin then the witch King at that moment. I could be wrong though.

Don't see how falling off a horse proves that you care for someone...

My own opinion about the scene: it is but one of all the countless deviations from the original. 'Nuff said.

sassyfriend

09-06-2011, 05:44 PM

Just curious dosen't Gandalf try to hide Pippin when they fall off?

Sarumian

09-24-2011, 05:21 PM

Sarumian

09-24-2011, 05:25 PM

@ Sarumian

Glorfindel dropped a 'Rog too. And died for it, just like G. And just like G (tho it was due to JRRT realizing he had Glor alive in LotR after he had him dying in TS) he was brought back to continue to serve.

And Glorfindel was not a man but a High Elf, wasn't he. High Elves were able to withstand the fear of Nazgul. Even of nine of them together.

sassyfriend

09-29-2011, 02:44 PM

What is the fear of the Nazgul exactly i don't really understand that part at all

Galadriel55

09-29-2011, 03:09 PM

What is the fear of the Nazgul exactly i don't really understand that part at all

Well, it's just that. ;) The Nazgul made people shake in their shoes with horror and dread. Especially when they cried their cries. Even animals felt it.

sassyfriend

09-29-2011, 03:16 PM

Ok thank you for explaining that to me. I felt dumb having to ask but sometimes I just have to ask stupid questions. :(

Inziladun

09-29-2011, 04:23 PM

What the books and movies failed to elaborate on is the reason for the extreme fear generated by the Nazgûl. They themselves were afraid of water, and as a consequence, hadn't bathed in over two thousand years. :eek:

The Elves could withstand them because the noses of the Eldar were for ornamentation only. :p

Aragrax

10-29-2012, 11:00 PM

And Glorfindel was not a man but a High Elf, wasn't he. High Elves were able to withstand the fear of Nazgul. Even of nine of them together.

No one loved elves like T. Not even Gygax, later.

"Oh God! Not another ******* Elf!"

Strider09

10-30-2012, 10:21 PM

I never noticed. Well, I haven't read the Return of the King yet.

Isilmo

12-26-2012, 06:17 PM

In my personal opinion and im a real Tolkien fan (read all books Hobbit, Sillmarillion, unfinished tales 1 and 2 Trilogy the children of Hurin and all the quenta sillmarillion and ive watched alll the movies from the fellowship to the hobbit an unexpected journey) and although i tend to strongly support canon although i like peter jacksons adaptayions they dont show all the facts and he has tweaked the story for effect i do really like the witch-king and the nazgul my favorite character being the Witch-King of Angmar ithink Gandalf could have put up a bit more of a fight(But not won of course;) )and the witch-king should have had a more spectacular entrance and really he could have killed gandalf off quickly and then flown off to King Theoden.Also this is my first post on the Forum and i hope i contributed.:D

Gandalf_UK

01-05-2013, 05:31 AM

Upon the completion of the Return of the King Special Extended Edition, one scene stuck out like a sore thumb to me. That scene being the dramatic confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch King.

To summarize for those who have not seen it:
The siege of Gondor is well underway; Grond has already taken down the Gates of Minas Tirith. Gandalf and Pippin, atop Shadowfax, are racing through the city to reach Faramir. Suddenly the Witch King appears seated on a fell beast. Gandalf and Pippin are thrown down, and the Nazgul raises his fiery sword; shattering Gandalf's staff. The horn of the Rohirrim is heard, and the Nazgul flies off.

I could not agree more. I think this was one of two scenes that I was really looking forward to from my interpretation on the book.

I feel that PJ really made Gandalf look weak in this scene, As noted in the original post i read it that they were both about to have an almighty battle and were squaring up to one another when the horn or Rohan was heard and then the Witch King flies off.

When Gandalf comes back as a White Wizard I thought that he would be more powerful, and an even match for the witch king. Unfortuantely he was portrayed a lot weaker than my interpretation of the character.

Gandalf uses more of his Power against the Balrog and in the 1st Hobbit film!!!!!!

alatar

01-07-2013, 10:03 AM

FarmerCotton

05-28-2013, 11:23 AM

I would like to (polemically) point out that people would call that inconceivably lame -- Tolkien fans among them (I do not mean to cause offense when I say this). Tension and no climax? *shakes head* On the other hand, PJ is screwed either way because he has to please both fans and non-fans while still yet doing justice to Tolkien's work. He also has to deal with the conflicting views.

And it would have been difficult if not impossible to do it the way Essex quoted. One of the drawbacks of movie making I'm afraid.

So he compromises. And we all know that a compromise is when everybody looses. ;)

I'm confused by your post... You seem to be calling the events of the book lame. The whole rivalry between Gandalf and the Witchking is tension and no climax... It's kind of the point. It's the biggest ----- in the history of fiction, yes. But it also allows for wide speculation and interpretation; it allows discussions like this to happen :)

MCRmyGirl4eva

05-30-2013, 01:49 PM

Okay, in the Extended version, the Witchking destroys Gandalf's staff. Later, he's seen with it intact. Explanation? It was definitely the same staff...

Mithalwen

05-30-2013, 02:11 PM

Maybe he got an extra one like whan you find a really good pir of shoes or when a small child gets ultra attached io a soft toy...

Inziladun

05-30-2013, 02:31 PM

Okay, in the Extended version, the Witchking destroys Gandalf's staff. Later, he's seen with it intact. Explanation? It was definitely the same staff...

It had to reappear, to support the weight of Peter Jackson's ego. ;)

William Cloud Hicklin

06-01-2013, 04:52 PM

What is the fear of the Nazgul exactly i don't really understand that part at all

Precisely: PJ NEVER understood the fact that the Nazgul are ALL about fear. It's what they ARE. Clueless overage little boy. Watch his stupid children's films without knowing the book, one would never even get an inkling of it.

alatar

06-02-2013, 08:27 AM

Okay, in the Extended version, the Witchking destroys Gandalf's staff. Later, he's seen with it intact. Explanation? It was definitely the same staff...
Clearly, Staves 'R Us.

Think that the Eagles run the deliveries.

How else can you explain Gandalf having a staff in Rivendell after leaving his behind at Orthanc?

Or does accio staff work in Middle Earth?

Burroughs

09-10-2013, 01:01 AM

Mornorngûr

09-10-2013, 05:51 AM

The Witch-king was probably more powerful than Gandalf. Sauron was becoming stronger and stronger and the Nazgul were fed by Sauron's power. At the beginning of the FotR Aragorn could drive them off with fire and at that time Sauron was weaker, however by the time of the battle of the Pelennor fields the witch king was considerably more powerful and I have no doubt that he could have beaten Gandalf as he was second to Sauron only.

Sorry to say this mate, but what the hell are you talking about?
Can you explain exactly how you come to the conclusion that the Witch-King is more powerful than Gandalf? or rather how is a mortal man that has been turned into a Wraith, stronger than Olorin the Maia sent by the Valar?

alatar

09-10-2013, 11:01 AM

Burroughs and Mornorngûr, Welcome to the Downs! (and my favorite topic). :D

Burroughs - Why do you think Sauron was becoming more powerful as the movies proceeded?

Mornorngûr - Is there any indication in Peter Jackson's movies that Gandalf is really "Olorin the Maia sent by the Valar"?

Inziladun

09-10-2013, 05:10 PM

Is there any indication in Peter Jackson's movies that Gandalf is really "Olorin the Maia sent by the Valar"?

Is there any indication that Peter Jackson's movies have any fealty toward the books? :p

I think the answer here is that in the published LOTR the Witch-king is not on the same level as Gandalf. Yes, he, along with the other Nazgûl, do borrow some of Sauron's power (at the cost of losing their own identities forever). However, Tolkien said in Letters # 246 that Gandalf had a real chance of defeating Sauron one-on-one in a contest to determine the master of the One, if Gandalf had claimed it. If Gandalf could stand up to Sauron himself, the WK had no hope.

On the other hand, as alatar notes, the casual movie-watcher to whom the books are unknown, sees Gandalf as only a "wizard", and the Witch-king as at least an equal. Gandalf is less, and he is more in PJ's world. The movie standards are very fluid, as far as character personalities and "powers" are represented, and you might as well say that Arwen could defeat the Nazgûl all by herself. ;)

alatar

09-10-2013, 08:16 PM

Just saying, you can't hold someone accountable for what's in the Books when all he or she knows are the Movies.

My question is, 'Did Peter Jackson convincingly make the case that Gandalf was inferior to the Witch-King?' Seems that when the two met, it was the White Wizard that got powned...;)

And Arwen faced down the Nine! Makes you realize whey Sauron built that big wall. :D

Belegorn

09-10-2013, 10:18 PM

Although, "There are few even in Rivendell that can ride openly against the Nine;" [FotR, p. 256] I doubt Arwen was one of these. :) However, in the movie she was the Glorfindel substitute.

Zigûr

09-10-2013, 10:41 PM

Just imagine how chilling it could have been to see that moment when the Gates are sundered. There is a stillness, and then "In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl."

But no, the gate falls to let in marauding video-game trolls and the Witch-King swoops down on Gandalf from above (which apparently he could have done any time), gets out his 3rd Edition Player's Handbook, picks the "Blow up staff" spell and then flies away again.

One of the things I think is so effective in The Lord of the Rings is that we never really known who would triumph in these personal encounters of good vs evil because they so rarely happen. There is a greater anxiety, a sense of things hanging in the balance. The films are very reluctant to pursue this.

Belegorn

09-11-2013, 01:47 AM

Speaking of the rarity of these encounters, let's take Melkor who was "the mightiest of the the dwellers in Eä" [Sil, p. 78] and yet he was clearly outclassed by Tulkas in their encounter just before he was imprisoned by the Valar. I believe, in an earlier blow by blow of the Powers, Tulkas is not even in the top bunch which included just 9 of the Valar, they were known as the Aratar, "the High Ones of Arda" [Sil, p. 23]

Sarumian

09-11-2013, 04:49 AM

I think I can understand now what exactly irritates me in this scene. It is very much about the integrity of the whole story, but it is not even about measuring powers. That would be a 'sauronish' take on the events.

In the book this scene is (in my opinion) about conviction. At that moment Minas Tirith is de-facto lost, the stronghold is broken, its defenders ran away. Whether Gandalf is more powerful than the Witch King or not, he has no hope to keep Sauron's army out for long, it's too huge. And yet he is going to hold his ground. Why?

Because he believes that it makes sense against the odds. He believes, Eru had not sent him back in vain. He believes, Eru shall not allow his dignity to be crushed in the dust as it is now Eru's dignity as well. Gandalf is there because, having already died and resurrected, he knows why one needs to keep hope when there is no hope. And why power is not everything.

The movie, on the other hand, tells the story of how old power is going, and new power is coming. Lord Aragorn is here to replace the Dark Lord Sauron. Age of men begins and all other powers, dwarves, elves and even Ainur should fade and be gone from the shores of Middle Earth. That is very much how Sauron saw his own errand - with the amendment that it is not him but men of the West will rule from now on. Aragorn is shown as if he obtained and mastered the Ring and Gandalf is around just for his former services to the new King.

This is, actually, why Jackson completely misunderstood Gandalf's other best disciple, Faramir. Thanks to Gandalf's training, he is able to understand WHAT the Ring is, and this is why he's able to reject it very much like Galadriel.

And thus Gandalf-the-Seepish in the shadow of the old or the new King is not only a far cry from Gandalf-the-White with his vigorous Maia spirit, with his elven Ring that helps to keep spirit strong and with his special bound with Eru. The whole story becomes different: Tolkien tries to convince us that there is something more than power over other beings in the world, and that is the real Power; Peter Jackson tells us a tale about game of thrones and change of powers...