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

Argonath

01-02-2005, 06:41 PM

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.

As an avid fan of Tolkien's works, this scene especially annoyed me for it portrays Gandalf as weak and inferior. Whereas, in the book, Gandalf presents himself to the Witch King as he strode through the gates of Minas Tirith alone.

If any of you saw the scene, I would like to hear your views. Did you like it? Hate it?

I am not against Peter Jackson, in contrast, I have nothing but utter respect for the man. However, this scene made me cringe with distaste, and I'm very glad it didn't make the theatrical cut.

elronds_daughter

01-02-2005, 07:10 PM

I myself am not sure whether to feel anger and hatred toward Peter Jackson about that scene, or only mild annoyance. My feelings are quite mixed.... I like the 'confrontation' element of the scene, but I dislike the fact that Gandalf is apparantly panicked by the Witch-King.

Boromir88

01-02-2005, 08:44 PM

I wouldn't say I'm angered by it, annoyed yes, but not like I'm a raving mad lunatic. I feel as if it would have been much more dramatic, and more suspenseful to see Gandalf standing before the WK, and the WK standing at the gates. Then hearing the horn call. It would have built up a lot more tension that way, intsead of having Gandalf thrown around like a rag doll.

I felt also, that since they did the scene that way, that the WK would have finished off Gandalf, or atleast tried to have finish him off. Instead of going off to the Rohirrim (after all PJ you did have Gothmog out there who you hyped up his role). Where in the books, the WK retreated at the horn call, but he didn't break Gandalf's staff, and he didn't make Gandalf practically bow to him, instead he retreated, possibly because he felt overmatched.

Captain of Despair

01-02-2005, 09:21 PM

I agree that Gandalf was done a horrible injustice in that scene. This is one of the wisest and most powerful beings in all of ME, but he is made short work of by the Witchking. That said, I don't hate the scene because I am a huge fan of the Witchking and would enjoy seeing him beat Gandalf, but Gandalf shouldn't be defeated so easily. Actually, my biggest problem with the scene is the way the WK enters so undramatically. They should have made a bigger deal out of his arrival if they were going to do the scene that way.

Gurthang

01-03-2005, 01:13 PM

What I disliked most about that scene was Gandalf's staff breaking. I mean, anybody can get thrown from a horse, and what horse wouldn't jump at the sight of the fell beast. But Gandalf's staff was just sad. Seriously, a staff is like a wizard's best friend, he uses it to do a lot of stuff. Although, Gandalf does not do near as much with his staff in the movies as in the books, but I digress...

Another thing about that scene is that it doesn't seem like a very direct confrontation. The WK comes down, and we see him facing Gandalf. Then he holds up his sword, lets it flare, but doesn't use it. Gandalf just lays there dumbfounded, until his staff shattters in his hands. That's it. The conflict just doesn't seem very defined, like they could have been miles away and still done it.

alatar

01-03-2005, 01:41 PM

Argonath

01-03-2005, 02:15 PM

Neithan

01-03-2005, 02:57 PM

Welcome to the Downs Argonath. Yes, that scene anoyed me quite a bit. Why break the staff? What did that add to the story? Also, I don't have my copy of RotK with me but I am pretty sure the Witch King didn't have a flaming sword. I mean, he was afraid of fire.

Captain of Despair

01-03-2005, 03:10 PM

Actually, I believe he did have such a sword, if I'm not mistaken

alatar

01-03-2005, 03:12 PM

Also, I don't have my copy of RotK with me but I am pretty sure the Witch King didn't have a flaming sword. .

Me either, but I think that it says something like the sword looked as if it were on fire.

Finwe-89

01-03-2005, 03:57 PM

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.

As an avid fan of Tolkien's works, this scene especially annoyed me for it portrays Gandalf as weak and inferior. Whereas, in the book, Gandalf presents himself to the Witch King as he strode through the gates of Minas Tirish alone.

If any of you saw the scene, I would like to hear your views. Did you like it? Hate it?

I am not against Peter Jackson, in contrast, I have nothing but utter respect for the man. However, this scene made me cringe with distaste, and I'm very glad it didn't make the theatrical cut.

I agree with you, but I don't hate it, but on the other side I didn't liked it. It really looked like Gandalf was a weakling. But real fans of Tolkien know he isn't ;)

Captain of Despair

01-03-2005, 04:00 PM

In regards to the Witchking's sword, I found this quote in the chapter "The Siege of Gondor": "And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade."

Argonath

01-03-2005, 04:19 PM

In regards to the Witchking's sword, I found this quote in the chapter "The Siege of Gondor": "And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade."

Excellent find!

I did recall a flaming sword, I just couldn't remember for the life of me whether or not it was in a metaphorical sense or not. This clears a lot up!

Essex

01-04-2005, 04:42 AM

I think the reasons behind the changes to this scene were to do with Jackson's (mildly annoying) continuning reference to the 'world of men'. The WK mentions that it's the end of Men in this scene doesn't he? Gandalf is on the floor and I admit he looks frightened (but who wouldn't be?) but not YET beat, waiting for the WK to land a blow. Then the Horns of the Rohirrim blow, and the "World of Men" save Gandalf (and assist in finishing off the WK later)

RE the WK leaving at once. As the book states:But it was no orc-chieftain or brigand that led the assault upon Gondor. The darkness was breaking too soon, before the date that his Master had set for it: fortune had betrayed him for the moment, and the world had turned against him; victory was slipping from his grasp even as he stretched out his hand to seize it. But his arm was long. He was still in command, wielding great powers. King, Ringwraith, Lord of the Nazgûl, he had many weapons. He left the Gate and vanished.This is why he left. He didn't have a second to spare and could get back to the Wizard later no doubt.......

PS I think we see Gandalf's staff being broken to show the power of the WK, and this heightens Merry's and Eowyn's bravery and their Deed a little later on in the film.

Turin

01-04-2005, 05:50 AM

PS I think we see Gandalf's staff being broken to show the power of the WK, and this heightens Merry's and Eowyn's bravery and their Deed a little later on in the film.

Yes, but to the belittlement of Gandalf's own power? Not a very well thought out thing to do. It makes a mockery out of Gandalf's previous confrontations with the Balrog and Saruman.

Imladris

01-04-2005, 06:01 AM

feel as if it would have been much more dramatic, and more suspenseful to see Gandalf standing before the WK, and the WK standing at the gates. Then hearing the horn call. It would have built up a lot more tension that way, intsead of having Gandalf thrown around like a rag doll.

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. ;)

narfforc

01-04-2005, 10:26 AM

The Confrontation between Gandalf and The Witch-King of Angmar was treated very badly by Jackson. What must be remembered here, is that Tolkien treats power very carefully. His sub-creations have only the power that is inherant within them. Power can be enhanced, veiled or even restricted, but it has to be there or come from somewhere. In the case of Gandalf the Grey, he is one of The Maiar, who has volunteered to come to Middle-Earth to contest the WILL of Sauron. So The Istari cannot in despair confront Sauron in open conflict, They have had their power restricted, by placing them in the bodies of lesser beings. Yet Gandalf the White had been sent back by the Valar, in Tolkiens own words, with enhanced sanctity. This is how he is able to break Sarumans staff, who previously, by some had been considered to be the more powerful of The Istari. The Witch-King of Angmar is in essence only a man, albeit a very powerful sorcerer in his day, the power that he could call on, was only from the power that was inherant of his kind. The Lord of the Nazgul could only call on the power that manifested itself in the form of pure terror that all the Nazgul had, yes he had the added advantage of the sorcery, but what evidence of actually how powerful that was, is never mentioned. Gandalf fights and destroys one of The Valaraukar, an immensely powerful being. The Lord of The Nazgul is in fact defeated by a woman, remember the propechy of Glorfindel after The Battle of Fornost, only says that he will not be killed by a man. The Nazgul along with The Witch-King were beaten back by Aragorn on Weathertop, and again by Glorfindel at The Fords, they were in fact not invincible to anyone who had strength of heart, And Gandalf the White had Narya. The whole scene of Gandalf grovelling on the floor is one of Jacksons biggest errors. If he had wanted to change it, then a few seconds of stand-off and a few different coloured thunderbolts meeting in mid-air, could have shown how close they were in power.

Essex

01-04-2005, 10:52 AM

I agree with the above somewhat, but as I said before, jackson uses this scene IMHO to show the 'world of men' saving the day.

As much as we may think how well Gandalf could have fought the witch king, we will never know. I definitely get a sense of the rohirrim saving gandalf here, even when I read the books, but not to the extent that jackson shows.

I personally don't see gandalf grovelling in this scene. I see a terrified man, yes, but why not? I admit I didn't like his staff breaking, but again I've given my opinion above why I think Jackson has done it.

The Saucepan Man

01-04-2005, 11:55 AM

While I find this scene rather spectacular as a set piece, I do share some of the reservations expressed.

First the positives. Given the timing of Grond's appearance and the breaking of the gates of Minas Tirith in the film, it would not have made sense to set this scene at the gates. The Trolls and Orcs had already broken through and Gandalf had ordered a retreat to the second level before his encounter with the Witch King takes place. (As an aside, I do wonder why the women and children had not been evacuated to a higher level earlier :rolleyes: .) In terms of the chronology used in the film, therefore, it makes sense for the encounter to take place while Gandalf and Pippin are en route to prevent Denethor's little family bonfire.

It also makes more sense than the book in one respect. It always struck me as rather strange that the Witch King would lead his army into battle on horseback when he had a Fell Beast at his disposal. It seems even more strange that, having confronted Gandalf on horseback, he would then exchange his horse for a Fell Beast halfway through the battle. In this regard, it makes more sense that the Witch King confronts Gandalf while mounted on his Fell Beast and then flies off to encounter Theoden, Eowyn et al on the same steed.

I do also think that, in film terms, it is more spectacular to have the Witch King slowly rise above the battlements for the encounter. The sight of him towering over Gandalf and Pippin on his Fell Beast looks good visually. I also love the shot in which his sword bursts into flames (mirroring, filmically, the text of the book). Although, I suppose this raises the question of why he swapped it for a huge mace/flail thingy in his encounter with Eowyn.

But now for the negatives. As others have said, it rather goes against the spirit of the books that the Witch King is able to get the better of Gandalf. But more problematic, for me, is the fact that it is inconsistent with Gandalf's portrayal elsewhere in the film. It has been pointed out that (while Gandalf the Grey) he was able to defeat a Balrog, and that (as Gandalf the White) he had the better of Saruman. These are the two central villains of the first and second films. Why should the Witch King (who, as has also been pointed out, was driven off by Aragorn in the first film) be able to get the better of him?

I appreciate that the Witch King was set up as the main "baddie" of the final film, and there is a suggestion that his power was enhanced when he assumed leadership of Sauron's Mordor armies (in the scene where he first appears, donning his armour, in Minas Morgul, accompanied by Gandalf's line to Pippin that Sauron had yet to reveal his greatest servant). In film terms, Gandalf's bettering by the Witch King increases the desperation of the battle (if even Gandalf cannot save them), and (as Essex has pointed out) enhances the accomplishment of Eowyn and Merry. But, to my mind, this doesn't get over the internal inconsistency in "power levels". Jackson could still have had the Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff (which is pretty spectacular, introduces a moment of tension and ties in with his line to Gothmog that he will "break" the wizard), but Gandalf should then have fought back. I would have preferred a "stand off" between them here, as in the book.

And this would also have made more sense of the Witch King's sudden departure with the arrival of the Rohirrim, since I agree that it seems tactically inept for him to forego finishing off his greatest foe if he has him at his mercy.

Lalaith

01-04-2005, 12:25 PM

I agree with those who have been disappointed with RotK EE...the first time I preferred the theatrical version. And Gandalf's Witch King confrontation was for me a dramatic disaster. I disliked it not so much because Gandalf should not have been literally floored by the Nazgul chief (although that is a totally valid point) but because it gilded the cinematic lily that was the arrival of Rohan.
I don't want to sound like a gushing fangirl, but I really do think that the first sound of the horn of Rohan in the theatrical version, and the sight of the Riders on the horizon, deserves to be in the top five movie moments of all time. I wept like a baby the first time I saw it. In the extended edition, the whole Gandalf/witchking thing just felt heavy-handed and silly, and spoilt that moment. So for that reason I agree, the low-point of the extended edition.

Habriz

01-04-2005, 01:58 PM

I'm pleased to see that there is a general feeling of dissapointment for the scene in the EE with Gandalf and the Lord of the Nazgul. On a continuum between basic annoyance for the scene to outright hatred, I would have to say that I truly hate the scene, for the way that it completely emasculates Gandalf's character. Clearly, Peter Jackson took liberties with the movies, (i.e. changing scenes, plot twists) but having the Witch King strike such utter and visible fear into Gandalf and then being able to destroy his staff is, to me, an egregious and unforgivable depiction of what Tolkien would have accepted in a such a scenario. We all are aware of Gandalf's superiority to the Witch King (Mair, and head of the Istari vs. undead man, and slave of Sauron). That scene destroyed the essence of Gandalf's character in Jackson's movies, and went against the gandalf's nature as a character, as defined by Tolkien. Also, it makes me call into question Jackson's judgement, especially when you consider the inconsistencies that the scene raises. Gandalf the Grey defeats a Balrog (who was a maiar, and after Sauron, was Morgoth's greatest servants), and Aragorn was able to fend off several Ring Wraiths, including the Witch KIng, with a sword and torch, but Gandalf the White is made to appear weak and shaken before the Witch King. And on top of it all, Jackson has the Witch King break Gandalf's staff!!! It makes me wonder if he even realizes the significance of a wizard's staff.

Ok, sorry for ranting...what does everyone else think?

Guinevere

01-04-2005, 02:54 PM

This is one of the dramatic scenes that I had been looking forward to see in the EE - but I was disappointed, not to say shocked by the way PJ altered it.

I think I agree in most points with what Saucepanman wrote!
I didn't mind the Witchking appearing on the fell beast instead of on horseback, it actually makes more sense. But Gandalf lying helpless on the ground and the witchking breaking his staff is totally wrong!
Anyway, in FotR Gandalf was "spot on", but in RotK he is in several scenes not plausible to me anymore.

obloquy

01-04-2005, 04:55 PM

Yeah, it sucks, but it had to be that way. Otherwise, how could Jackson have explained why Gandalf didn't just kick *** on the battlefield? We know that Gandalf limited his own participation because it was primarily the job of the Peoples of Middle-earth to fend off this evil, but that would've been a hard point to get across fairly in the movie. Gandalf is obviously the most powerful being on the good side, and since Sauron is naught but a giant eyeball hanging between two posts on the top of his tower, WK has to play the Most Powerful Bad Guy role. Additionally, Gandalf's pre-human (if I may) history was eschewed in favor of a Man with wizardly powers, and thus the battlefield is somewhat leveled between he and the Witch-King.

...who should have been Gandalf's BITCH-KING. LOL!!!!!

Boromir88

01-04-2005, 05:08 PM

I would say that if Gandalf had the chance, he would have beaten the WK. He did have a chance on Weathertop, but this was against all 9, and I can't see Gandalf doing anything except holding them off, and drawing some away like he did.

With that suspenseful scene at the Gate of Minas Tirith, if Rohan wouldn't have arrived then, and Gandalf and WK didn't just size eachother up and they fought, I would say Gandalf would have beaten the WK. However, this would go against the prophecy, so there for, the WK (maybe feeling overmatched) retreats to the battle, where he is slain by Eowyn, fulfilling the prophecy.

obloquy

01-04-2005, 05:28 PM

It would not have gone against any prophecy for Gandalf to kill the Witch-King. If Eowyn isn't included in "Men", neither is Gandalf.

Gandalf would not have had any problem with all Nine, had he been willing to 'reveal himself in power' or however the Istari line goes. Like I said, it was the chore of the Peoples to deal with this, and Gandalf respected that.

Boromir88

01-04-2005, 06:01 PM

I'll try to clear up what I mean obloquy because I think my last post was a bit jumbled.

What I meant was if Gandalf actually fought the WK, physically fought, I think Gandalf would have beat him. But this would go against the prophecy. Therefor, Gandalf never actually fights the WK. They square off at the Gate, but Rohan arrives, and the WK backs out. I meant if Gandalf and the WK actually fought at the front gate I think Gandalf would have beaten them, but since this would go against the prophecy they don't fight.

I'm being reminded of when Earnur challenged the Witch-king. The WK answers the challenge, and Earnur rides off, and turns up dead. Where here this scene at the gate, what I think is Gandalf and the WK are squaring off, or they are sizing eachother up. So, either the WK feels overmatched by Gandalf, or he thinks it's more important to command the armies against Rohan's charge, which is why he retreats.

I hope that cleared things up. Basically, I'm trying to say IF Gandalf ever fought the WK one on one, he would beat the WK. However, since the prophecy says no man would kill the WK," and that's why Gandalf and the WK never fight eachother. Because, if they did, Gandalf, I think, with his record would have won.

the phantom

01-04-2005, 06:04 PM

Here's how the Witch King's power was handled in the movie.

1) Aragorn chases him away by waving a branch around and yelling. Witch King's apparent power: low

2) Gandalf is thrown on the ground and has his staff broken and looks scared. Witch King's apparent power: very high

3) A hobbit cuts his leg and he kneels down for ten minutes and waits for Eowyn to stab him in the head. Witch King's apparent power: low

A bit inconsistent, eh?

The remedy....

1) Have the wraiths retreat more quickly when Aragorn comes, then have him explain to the hobbits that they figured their work was pretty much done since they had stabbed Frodo.

2) I didn't mind this scene too much. The WK had to be big and bad and this scene made him look it.

3) Explain that Merry's sword is the nastiest anti-Witch King blade in the world.

obloquy

01-04-2005, 07:04 PM

I would like to reiterate that Gandalf defeating the Witch-King would not run counter to the prophecy. If Eowyn doesn't count as a man, Gandalf doesn't either. Glorfindel's prophecy introduces a loophole that masks the true bane of the Witch-King. That obscurity could allow just about anybody but a male of the race of Men (with the possible but arguable inclusion of Hobbits) to slay the Witch-King.

King of the North

01-04-2005, 07:10 PM

The Saucepan Man

01-04-2005, 07:34 PM

Additionally, Gandalf's pre-human (if I may) history was eschewed in favor of a Man with wizardly powers ...A very good point, and one that had not previously occured to me. I had always imagined Gandalf in the films as he is presented to us in Tolkien's works as a whole, ie as one of the Istari - a Maia with limitations on his powers. But, save for the reference at the end to him having completed his work in Middle-earth, there is no indication of his origins, and certainly no explanation of his nature. So those who are not widely read in Tolkien's works (ie 99.99% of film audiences) will simply see him as a human Wizard who sails off west with Frodo and Bilbo to live out his days in peace. Viewed in this way, maybe it makes more sense that the Witch King is more of a match for Gandalf, especially if one takes into account the suggestion that his powers have been enhanced to lead Sauron's forces into war.

Then again, this scene is only in the Extended Edition, and aren't the EEs supposed to be for the Tolkien fans - ie those who know that Gandalf is an Istar ...? :confused:

Argonath

01-04-2005, 07:34 PM

1st off thank you Argonath for agreeing with me by having the utmost respect for PJ. I myself think that scene was quite weak, Gandalf is of the Istari and would not cower before a fell servant of Sauron such as the Witch King

No problem! How can anyone not have respect for the man? He took the most difficult trilogy in the world, and created what I thought was impossible, even with today's technology.

On another note, in the Extended Version of the Return of the King, I really enjoyed the additional "Voice of Saruman" scene. I thought it was very neat that the movie gives a little nod to the "Scouring of the Shire" in the way Saruman and Wormtongue die. Even though Saruman's fall was a tad bit brutal, I really thought this scene should have made the theatrical cut. Perhaps it would have made up for the lack of Tom Bombadil :p.

The Saucepan Man

01-04-2005, 07:36 PM

I really thought this scene should have made the theatrical cut.So did Christopher Lee. ;)

Essex

01-05-2005, 03:37 AM

regarding Saucepanman's point, I believe that the Book WK rode into Minas Tirith through the main gate as this had not been taken by an Enemy before? He could have easily flown in on his Nazgul, but wanted to be the first through the Gate so went on horseback. Maybe........

No one's mentioned Pippin in this scene. Having Gandalf on the floor we see Pippin's courage in trying to (but failing to) confront the Witch King.

Also, I know this can be seen as inconsistent, but I also think Jackson is showing that Gandalf is not all powerful or infallable. It shows that Gandalf himself seems unsure that he can beat him.

PS I agree with the point mentioned earlier on explaining the role of Merry's sword. That's one of the main reasons why I wanted the old forest / bombadil / barrow downs scenes in so he could get his Sword from Tom.

PPS Gandalf has grown since movie 1, so why not the Witch King?

PPPS Yes, Gandalf DID beat the Balrog but at what price? His Death.

PPPPS Saruman was a broken man already defeated, found out as a treasoner and therefore stripped of his powers as head of the Council before Gandalf broke his staff.

PPPPPS I'm only playing Devil's advocate here by the way....... ;)

narfforc

01-05-2005, 05:56 AM

I would like to add a few more points on this. Firstly on Weathertop Strider says "Sauron can put fire to evil uses, as he can all things, but these Riders do not love it, AND FEAR THOSE WHO WIELD IT. Gandalf upon the Bridge of Khazad-Dum says "I am a servent of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor", he wasnt talking about the latest fireworks, and we keep forgetting Narya The Ring of Fire. Secondly I would like to point out a popular misquote, Obluquy says that Sauron is naught but an eyeball, that is but the Eye of Sauron, as The Mouth is something else. How can Gollum who was born well after the destruction of Saurons body at the end of The Second Age, know that there are only four fingers on the black hand, in The Black Gate is Closed he says "Yes, He has only four fingers on The Black Hand", surely if he had been refering to popular myth he would have said "had" not "has", it is because he has seen the physical body of Sauron, also Denethor states "that Sauron will not come save only to triumph over me when all is won", that suspended eyeball is going have fun travelling without any legs or maybe it will sprout imaginary wings like the Balrogs (Sorry got carried away, I mean no offence). Thirdly I think the idea of Sauron giving The Witch-King more power could be a possibilty, but my inner feeling says no. This is not Sauron of The Second Age, This is a much reduced Sauron, remember he put much of his power into the One Ring and he hasnt got that. Also he has expended an awful amount of power rebuilding his power base and body, I just do not think there would be much left, and if there was any he would need it for control, read the last pages of Mount Doom to find out what happens when Saurons will is withdrawn from his minions.

obloquy

01-05-2005, 10:20 AM

Secondly I would like to point out a popular misquote, Obluquy says that Sauron is naught but an eyeball, that is but the Eye of Sauron, as The Mouth is something else.

In the movie, which is what we are talking about in this forum ("The Movies") and this thread, Sauron is just an eyeball. As for my personal feelings on this misconception, please see http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=2387 and http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=1878 .

Habriz

01-05-2005, 10:43 AM

Personally, I feel that PJ's motives with this scene (WK vs. Gf.) do not go beyond him attempting to portray Gandalf as a more compelling character by making him appear afraid and weak before the Witch King. Oftentimes, when a movie character is portrayed as basically infallable and all-powerful (which is how Gandalf the White was essentially portrayed in Tolkien's writing) it is thought to detract from the film, and the character is often seen as less interesting. In my opinion, Jackson's impetus in making Gandalf seem frightened and unsure, was to make his character, and the movie as a whole, a bit more interesting. In that vein, I can understand his desire to make Gandalf's character a bit more human and flawed. However, I feel that the vehicle he used to achieve that portrayal was far to extreme and inaccurate in regards to Gandalf as a Tolkien character.

elronds_daughter

01-05-2005, 11:27 AM

Welcome to the 'Downs, Habriz!

Hmm.... Everyone has very good points, and is putting my simple reasoning to shame!

What I disliked most about that scene was Gandalf's staff breaking
Yes, that bugged me. The Witch-King could have just tossed Gandalf's staff out of the way, and not broken it. <mutters> stick to the books, Mr. Director....

End of Rant

Essex

01-05-2005, 11:45 AM

Whenever Jackson goes on a tangent from the text of the book we have these debates. Yes, it would be better if Jackson stuck to the books and only dramatised what actually happened. The only problem is is that if we did that a lot of the scenes would be very staid (if that's the right word), and no fluidity to the scenes. For example the WK scene. If we copied it from the book, we would have:

In through the gate comes the WK on a horse
Gandalf sitting there on Shadowfax
Some dramatic speech
WK raises he Sword
Cock crows and the horns blow
WK leaves.

On paper this worked well, as we can put our own thoughts and imagination around it. (people screaming, running away, gandalf's expression and whether he is frightened, in contempt or whatever. We also do not get the tone of the voice from Gandalf from the text so we don't know how he feels).

On screen, Gandalf just sitting there WOULD NOT HAVE WORKED. Jackson had to show SOME RESPONSE from Gandalf. And yes, to many extents he went too far. But it is Jackson's & co's reasoning that Gandalf is AFRAID of the WK and that the Rohirrim save the day. THIS IS WHAT I ALSO GET FROM THE BOOKS. It is their take on what happens to Gandalf really being the centre of controversy in this scene. Even if the WK didn't break his staff, I'm sure we'd still have a lot of dissagreements from people on this scene. The staff breaking is just something to hone in on.

Regarding the staff breaking: As I've stated on another thread, I think Jackson HAD to get rid of Gandalf's staff as he's shown the Wizard is very powerful with it, and therefore could easily have dealt with Denethor in the next scene. As it is, in the EE and the theatrical versions, Gandalf does not have his staff in Rath Dinen and therefore himself, Shadowfax and Pippin had to 'fight' with Denethor. Otherwise, in the movie version, it would have been too simple for Gandalf to get Denethor out of the way, and we would no doubt have a lot of people complaining that he HADN'T used his staff on Denethor!

narfforc

01-05-2005, 02:21 PM

I stand corrected, somewhat, and offer apologies to Obluquy. However I must point out that Jackson is wrong to portray Sauron as "Just an eyeball", and furthermore for the sake of those people who have only seen the films, I wished to draw attention to the fact, and not be involved in perpetuating the myth, sorry to be a pain, I have no doubt you know the difference, but it was just how it read.

obloquy

01-05-2005, 02:42 PM

Well, no offense was taken, and I share your feelings on the matter. It's a silly modification, and I imagine it was to prevent such questions as "why didn't Sauron just go out and own them all?" It goes along with my point earlier about Gandalf: the whys are too difficult to explain in a visual setting, and would likely require a good bit more from the audience than is wise for a movie that is not intended to be "art" or even particularly thought-provoking.

Besides, if the movie explained everything, we wouldn't be able to use our superior knowledge of Tolkien to woo the ladies.

Boromir88

01-05-2005, 05:10 PM

In FOTR I didn't mind the eyeball, it just goes to show the all-knowing/all-seeing side of Sauron. I don't have a big problem with the way they showed it in FOTR.

But, when you start giving it human qualities (the eye blink) and equip it with a spotlight, it's taking it way down cheese lane.

narfforc

01-06-2005, 10:58 AM

Boromir88 is spot on (or is that spotlight on) when he says the eye is cheesy, hell they even have the damn thing talking at the end. To Obluquy, I take your point on wooing the ladies, great. Going back to The Witch-King vs Gandalf. There has been some point made to Gandalf being scared, what of? The most that can happen to him is that his physical body would be destroyed, well that has already happened at least once. As one of the Ainur he cannot die. If he failed in his task, then The Valar could have sent more aid. The only thing that mattered was the destruction of the ring, that was already on course, if Gandalf had died it would not have meant the end of his task anyway, he had already (almost) succeeded by moving all the pieces into place by the time of his confrontation with Angmar. The main problems here are that Jackson doesnt fully explain the origins of Sauron, Saruman and Gandalf ie Maiar, this could have been one of the extended parts of one of the films, if they could invent that pathetic piece where Eowyn and her stew dribble over Aragorn, whilst explaining he is of The Dunedain, then I am sure that a few lines could have done the same for the others. Going back to Gandalf being scared, I again mention Narya, this Ring had the power to strengthen hearts, and Gandalf was far from being a mere mortal. Another thing, Angmar had led troops to the defeat Amon Sul and Fornost, he had also been beaten at Fornost by Earnur. This same king later accepts the challenge of The Big Bad Witch-King, who is sooo powerful he has to betray him into defeat, the King is captured and never heard of again. Where am I leading to, well can anyone tell me who The Witch-King of Angmar had personnally killed all by his himself. There seems to be lots of running away from the bogeyman stuff, which is in keeping with one of his other names The Captain of Despair. So that is why he isnt called Lord of The Mighty Sword Arm or King of The Warrior Wraiths then. Which brings me back to the confrontation. In through the gates came Angmar, Gandalf sat upon Shadowfax (The horse by the way endures the terror) tells The Witch-King he cannot enter, it is the Witch-king who halts (Why? what is he scared of). The Witch-King then taunts Gandalf, who doesnt move. If anyone should be scared it would be Angmar, for in defeat his doom is very dark. Now can anyone explain to me how Jackson could get this one scene so wrong.

obloquy

01-06-2005, 11:02 AM

Whooooooooo boy. I like you, but you called the Witch-King "Angmar". Did some old forum Wight send you a PM telling you how to push my buttons?? :P:P:P

Edit: I do agree with you, though, as you can see from my posts above, and my generally enormous regard for Gandalf.

The Saucepan Man

01-06-2005, 11:12 AM

Narfforc, you make some good points. But I don't see the logic of interpreting film events by reference to book history that does not feature in the films. The films are adaptations only - they tell a different story to the book.

narfforc

01-06-2005, 12:08 PM

I only wrote Angmar because it is quicker and I am a lazy orc, I shall write out a thousand times The Lord of the Nazgul was known as The Witch-King of Angmar in Angmar, sorry but in my defence (getting all filmy) Gandalf does call him that in the film, so I thought I would get away with it. To Saucepanman, Hi. My very few moans about the film are where Jackson goes too far, he has done marvelous things with these films, I even noticed the walls glittering beneath Helms Deep. The costumes, the places, the visualisation I dont have many problems with, it is when things are changed beyond reason, that my blood boils. Remember this may be a film now, but when the books that have been read by millions, are still being read by millions, people will still be discussing how wrong Jackson character adaptations are/were. I first read Tolkien in the sixties (The Hobbit) and went on to read LotR in the seventies, I feel people like ourselves on this site have a duty to uphold the vision of Tolkien, not Jackson. I remember when the radio series came on air, there was lots of moaning then about missing bits. I can understand leaving things out, but who do they think they are putting bits in that they have blatantly made up. Many people have read Tolkien and have a very personnal relationship with his works, and I say to you my friend, to treat Gandalf this way was wrong. I also do not like how the very solemn and respectable race of dwarves are portrayed, Balin would be spinning in his tomb.

NOMOREIHERE (SILLY ELVEN FOR FAREWELL)

The Saucepan Man

01-06-2005, 12:15 PM

I have a great deal of sympathy for your views. I too read LotR first in the 70s. But, if people want to read the books, they can (and a great many have been encouraged by the films to do so). If they do, they will understand the differences. If not, well that's their choice.

Captain of Despair

01-06-2005, 12:30 PM

Narfforc, I understand your criticism of the Witchking, but I don't think he should be regarded as such a minor threat. Sure, we never actually see him fight anyone, but he is without a doubt Sauron's most powerful servant and I believe very few could defeat him in single combat (one would need great power and a magically endowed blade, as well). It didn't seem to me that he was scared of Gandalf at the gates of Minas Tirith, and he surely would have entered had the Rohirrim not shown up.

narfforc

01-06-2005, 12:30 PM

You make a good point about those people coming to the books through the films, and my wish would be that they all would, my pity goes to those who do not and will never see the full extent of the glorious vision that Tolkien has given us. For years I have wished to go down to the pub and say to my workmates, "Did you know that Gandalf isnt just some old bloke", well I live in hope, normally the conversation descends into The Black Speech of Mordor.

NOMOREIHERE

narfforc

01-06-2005, 12:59 PM

To The Captain of Despair, Hi. It is Gandalf who halts The Lord of the Nazgul by saying "You cannot enter here", why did he not just keep riding forward until he heard the horns of the North and then halt. As for having to be mighty to defeat him, Aragorn chased him off with a bit of wood and he was killed by a woman in armed conflict. The argument that Merry helped Eowyn is weak, and how magical was her sword. I think that the greatest weapon Sauron had was fear, and the greatest of those that wielded such power were The Nazgul. If you have ever felt gut wrenching fear, it paralyzes people, Tolkien saw that in The First World War. I spent 24 years in The Army, and have seen it too often to ignore it. I think in normal circumstances, a man confronting a Nazgul would run and hide. What made Eowyn stand and fight, Love of kin, Tolkien knew that love (of comrades) is mightier than fear, people will do the most courageous things for love, some say it weakens the head and strengthens the heart HA-HA.

NOMOREIHERE

Essex

01-06-2005, 01:32 PM

NarfforcAs for having to be mighty to defeat him, Aragorn chased him off with a bit of wood and he was killed by a woman in armed conflict. The argument that Merry helped Eowyn is weak, and how magical was her sword.

1/ The Nazgul at the dell near Weathertop were not only beaten back by Fire (which was the state the 'bit of wood' was in) but by Frodo's utterance of the line 'O Elbereth! Gilthoniel!'
As Aragorn himself says of the WKMore deadly to him was the name of Elbereth

2/ What's wrong in being killed by a Woman?

3/ The argument of Merry's sword is ANYTHING but weak. It is one of the most important central actions in the whole Trilogy. Eowyn's sword did not need to be magical.So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dúnedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.'nuff said.

obloquy

01-06-2005, 01:56 PM

Gandalf was Sauron's equal (yeah, argue all you want--I'm right), and Sauron's most powerful servant was not nearly on par with Sauron himself.

The Witch-King was a blind servant. He did what he was commanded to do because his actions were controlled by Sauron, not because he had reason to believe he was unstoppable. In the movie he's quite impressed with himself, and thinks that this prophecy makes him impervious to all, including Gandalf, who was not a Man, and therefore could have slaughtered the Witch-King without proving Glorfindel a phony. Whether WK knew this in the book is up for debate, but he was at least given pause by someone who did not fear him. In the movie, even Gandalf buys into the Witch-King hype.

The worst scene in the movie is when Gandalf gets all dire and says "the one they say no man can kill" or something like that.

narfforc

01-06-2005, 02:45 PM

Captain of Despair

01-06-2005, 06:38 PM

It is Gandalf who halts The Lord of the Nazgul by saying "You cannot enter here", why did he not just keep riding forward until he heard the horns of the North and then halt.

It doesn't seem to me that Gandalf's words were the reason that the Witchking halted. It seemed more like the Witchking was confronting Gandalf as the warriors of old did before battling. The Witchking threw back his hood, countered Gandalf's words with a few of his own, and proceded to raise his flaming sword as if ready to attack.

In response to obloquy: I don't believe the Witchking to be on par with Gandalf, but I also don't believe Gandalf to be equal to Sauron.

Another comment I would like to make (to no person in particular) is about the infamous prophecy. People always use it to justify why a person could or could not defeat the Witchking, but this is one of my pet peeves. All the prophecy meant is that the Witchking would be defeated by Eowyn and Merry. It did not mean that, in theory, a man could not defeat him or any non-man could.

obloquy

01-06-2005, 06:55 PM

It doesn't seem to me that Gandalf's words were the reason that the Witchking halted. It seemed more like the Witchking was confronting Gandalf as the warriors of old did before battling. The Witchking threw back his hood, countered Gandalf's words with a few of his own, and proceded to raise his flaming sword as if ready to attack.

He halted because Gandalf was in his way. He couldn't continue. And not only was Gandalf unafraid (which WK was unaccustomed to), he was capable of squashing him out of hand.

In response to obloquy: I don't believe the Witchking to be on par with Gandalf, but I also don't believe Gandalf to be equal to Sauron.

I anticipated this response and retorted preemptively in my post above. I've written a lot on it here on the Downs and provided plenty of evidence to support my contention. Your turn.

Another comment I would like to make (to no person in particular) is about the infamous prophecy. People always use it to justify why a person could or could not defeat the Witchking, but this is one of my pet peeves. All the prophecy meant is that the Witchking would be defeated by Eowyn and Merry. It did not mean that, in theory, a man could not defeat him or any non-man could.

But if a male Man had killed the Witch-King (which he could have), Glorfindel would've been proven wrong, and we are all familiar enough with Tolkien to know that Glorfindel would not have been proven wrong. That's the point. "In real life," yeah, a male Man had just as much shot as anyone at killing the WK, but really, once the prophecy had been uttered, it was then "impossible" for any male Man to do the deed.

Captain of Despair

01-06-2005, 08:15 PM

I anticipated this response and retorted preemptively in my post above. I've written a lot on it here on the Downs and provided plenty of evidence to support my contention. Your turn.

Well, I have neither the desire nor the knowledge to try and defend my claim agianst someone so well versed in Tolkien's works. It is more of a personal view that I have developed over time. But I would love to read what you have written if you could provide me with the links.

But if a male Man had killed the Witch-King (which he could have), Glorfindel would've been proven wrong, and we are all familiar enough with Tolkien to know that Glorfindel would not have been proven wrong. That's the point. "In real life," yeah, a male Man had just as much shot as anyone at killing the WK, but really, once the prophecy had been uttered, it was then "impossible" for any male Man to do the deed.

My point is that you can't really use the prophecy when discussing whether or not so-and-so could theoretically defeat the Witchking.

narfforc

01-07-2005, 03:05 AM

To Obluquy and The Captain of Despair, Hi. Just a few things to add to this marvelous ongoing discussion. Firstly, Tolkien does use Prophecy as Doom, once uttered it is carved in stone, in his world no other thing will happen but The Prophecy. Secondly concerning Gandalf and Sauron. There are a number of things to think of here. Why did Manwe want Olorin to go so badly, why did Varda and Cirdan perceive him to be greater than Saruman. What we also must remember is that this is not Sauron of The First or Second Age, this is a much weakened Sauron, Gandalf the Grey would have struggled, maybe Gandalf the White wouldnt. However in saying all this, I personally think that the reason Gandalf was sent was for his inner qualities, his ability to move mens hearts, to defy the darkness, in this he was a match for Sauron, he matched hope against despair and won. I dont think it was Gandalf`s part to fight openly against Sauron, in fact the Istari had been forbidden to, so we will never know.

NOMOREIHERE

Essex

01-07-2005, 03:41 AM

To Essex Hi. What you are implying in a round about sort of way, is that the hobbit Merry and his magic sword killed The Lord of The Nazgul, was it Merry or was it Eowyn, or should the prophecy have said "He will not be killed by any ONE man" or maybe "He will not be killed by one man alone , but by a woman also"Hi, no, what I was saying was your point in the next quote was incorrectThe argument that Merry helped Eowyn is weak, and how magical was her swordMerry was instrumental in the success of defeating the WK and, therefore, Sauron. His blow with the Sword was the IMPORTANT one. Eowyn finally 'killed off' the WK as his powers were nullified by Merry's stroke.

Your next point: Also please dont get all politically correct on me, women in battle are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. You can quote all incidents you want, but you wont convince a man who has carried 50pounds on his back into battle, that a woman can endure as long as a man, sorry but there it is. You counter this argument with your next sentence. However I do know that this is fantasyIf we believe in a Ring that can make someone invisible, wizards, balrogs etc, why can't we envisage a Woman being of more use in battle than a chocolate fireguard? It's a Fantasy as you say.
Eowyn had a sword and a shield, who cares if she can or cannot carry a 50lb backpack around with her?

....and so that a prophecy can be fulfilled, Tolkien endows a woman with fighting skills beyond the norm, however as I said before it is not the fighting skills that are important here, it is Eowyns love for her kin that stops her running for cover, and it is also for love, which makes Merry do a thing of great courage. I agree with Love being an important factor, but I didn't argue this point.

The only thing I will say is that Gandalf the Grey (not yet enhanced to White) held off a number of The Nazgul on Weathertop all night, I do not think that Gandalf the White would have had been that scared of their Captain. Fine, and I think he WAS. Just as he was scared of facing the Balrog. Fear is what keeps people alive. You as an ex soldier will no doubt understand that....

The Saucepan Man

01-07-2005, 03:42 AM

Based primarily on what Tolkien says in his Letters, I would agree with obloquy that Gandalf was Sauron's equal. Although I would rule such evidence as inadmissible, or at best of little persuasive value, in interpreting the films as the "book" facts relevant to this are not part of the film story.

Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that, in the films, Gandalf is portrayed as more powerful as the Witch King. But does this really mean that it is ludicrous to have Angmar ( ;) ) seemingly better Gandalf, and to have Gandalf show fear, in this scene? After some consideration, I don't think that it does. There are numerous examples in Tolkien's works, many of which are carried over into the films, of characters defeating those who are clearly superior in power. I would class Eowyn and Merry combined as less powerful than the Witch King, yet they defeated him. And Wormtongue (in both book and EE) was able to kill Saruman. Circumstances count for much. Perhaps, given all that was going on in his mind (directing the defence of Minas Tirth, riding to the aid of Faramir, not to mention thoughts of Frodo's desperate journey), Gandalf's mind was momentarily distracted and the Witch King was able to seize the initiative. Gandalf's fear is also justifiable. If it was possible for the Witch King to defeat him (and, given the precedents noted, I believe that it was), there was much at stake. If Gandalf fell, Minas Tirith could fall. And that could well bode darkly for Frodo's Quest and the fate of Middle-earth itself. A fear of failure in these circumstances is understandable. Moreover, since Gandalf is not portrayed as a Maia in the films, it is plausible that he was subject to the Witch King's main weapon - fear - even if less so than "ordinary" Men.

Finally, who is to say that, in the film, Gandalf would not have rallied his powers and defeated the Witch King, or at least driven him off, had the Rohirrim not arrived? Perhaps the Witch King feared this, which is why he did not finish Gandalf off when he had the chance. We cannot be sure, just as we cannot be sure what the outcome of the encounter would have been at the Gate in the book, but for the arrival of Theoden's Riders.

Now I doubt that any of this went through the film-makers' minds. My only point is that this scene can be explained and justified, in film terms. It is not inherently ludicrous (in the same way, for example, as having Denethor run all the way from Rath Dinen to the front of the Citadel and fall off the edge while on fire).

As to Glorfindel's prophecy, I agree that there is a difference, in theory at least, between prophesising that someone will not die at the hands of a Man and saying that they cannot die in this way. Glorfindel's prophecy in the book is of the former category, but the prophecy in the film falls into the latter category. Gandalf says that there are those who say that no man can kill the Witch King. The suggestion in the film, therefore, is that he is impervious to attacks by Men. Assuming that, in the films, Gandalf is a Man, this gives Gandalf even more reason to fear him.

Habriz

01-07-2005, 12:13 PM

Hi saucepan man,
I am going to respectfully disagree with you on two points that you made in your last post.
First, I feel that we need to assume that Gandalf is a maiar in the movie, and thus is endowed with the extroardinary powers of an istari, even though Jackson never explicitly explains gandalf's origin or nature in the movie. I feel that there are numerous occasions where Gandalf displays powers that far transcend that of even "extra ordinary men", (kills balrog after surviving endless fall, is sent back after death, uses power from staff to stave off nazgul on fell beasts) and in addition, Tolkien himself had characters and places in his books that were not explained, except in the apendices, or the silmarillion. Thus, I do not feel that Jackson can be let off the hook for his besmurchment of Gandalf's character by concluding that he wasnt treating gandalf's character as though he were a maiar.
Secondly, I think you are correct in asserting that it is not so terrible to simply portray Gandalf as being frightened and unsure in the face of the Witch King. Although I did not like it, that's likely only because I simply love gandalf as a tolkien character so much, and I hated to see him depicted so weakly. However, I feel that having the Witch King destroy Gandalf's staff is a scene that was completely unforgivable. As others have mentioned, the staff might be thought of as an extension of the istari, and I feel it is a representation of their power and senioirity within the order of the istari.....and I feel that others were correct in assuming that it acts as focusing device for a wizards power. Thus, I feel that having the Witch King destroy Gandalf's staff is the same as saying that the Witch King of Angmar is greater and has more raw power that Gandalf, clearly a completely propsterous statement. I could have lived with the witch king knocking Gandalf off his horse, and maybe even with him getting lucky and besting gandalf in a quick one one one battle. However, I think that having him outright destroy gandalf's staff was WAY too much off a statement. When you see the importance of the wizard's staff in the movies (Gandalf and Saruman fighting with them, and then Gandalf finally losing the fight when saruman get's his from him, to gandfalf seeming to need his staff to extract Saruman from Theoden, and gandalf destroying saruman's staff as a symbol of Saruman's expulsion from the order of the istari, and of Gandalf usurping saruman as leader of the order), the natural conclusion that one must draw from the the witch king having the ABILITY to destroy gandalf's staff is that the witch king was a more poweful entity than Gandalf....and just writing that tears me up in side because it's such b.s. :mad:

Perhaps, I misinterpreted your previous post, and all that writing was for naught ;)
What do you think?

narfforc

01-07-2005, 12:18 PM

Hi Essex, Yes I agree Gandalf would have been scared of failure, but not petrified of The Witch-King himself. As for the killing of The Witch-King neither Eowyn or Merry could have done it on their own. The damage done by Merry could have been rectified by the odd bandage spell, if not and the pin prick from his Numenorean Dagger had totally unravelled the spells that kept The Witch-Kings body together, then even the least mighty could defeat him. If Merry had not started the ball rolling, then Eowyn could have bashed away at hearts content, but to no avail, so who killed The Witch-King?. If all it take`s is someone who is not of the race of Man, who is mighty, and has a magical sword, then let me put forward Gandalf the White armed with Glamdring, the sword that had already despatched an equally if not greater spirit to utter destruction. However in saying all this, they were never destined to fight physically. Gandalf had already defeated The witch-King, How?, Gandalf was the mover of all things and always one step ahead. Great tacticians do not always fight themselves. One by one Gandalf blocked and destroyed Saurons pieces, The Witch-King was not important to Gandalf, Sauron was. The quest of Erebor, Smaug Destroyed. The Mines of Moria, Balrog Destroyed. If Sauron could have gained an alliance with either of these two, then Sauron`s forces would have been devastating. The alliance with Isengard in tatters. One of the final pieces to block was The Witch-King. How fortunate that Theoden turned up just at the right time, or was it. Remember the state he was in before Gandalf release`s him from Saruman`s` spell. One step ahead, and all the time the most important piece was coming in through the back door. If Gandalf could not have out-fought Sauron, Then he certainly out-thought him.

NOMOREIHERE

obloquy

01-07-2005, 01:29 PM

Staff-breaking is the ultimate. The scene was too much. When Saruman's staff was blown apart by Gandalf, it signified utter defeat and we all knew it. Gandalf was far from "broken", even in the movie, so his staff should've remained intact.

alatar

01-07-2005, 02:45 PM

However, I feel that having the Witch King destroy Gandalf's staff is a scene that was completely unforgivable.

Totally agree. Completely took me out of the movies. And if Gandalf got his staff back at the end of the movie, where did he get it from and so why couldn't he get/make another during the Gondor battle?

I wasn't really big on his staff changing when he went from grey to white (think that it cracked on the Bridge) - he was able to keep Glamdring...

Captain of Despair

01-07-2005, 03:51 PM

I love this thread. All of you, no matter what your stances, have some very good points.

Gandalf says that there are those who say that no man can kill the Witch King. The suggestion in the film, therefore, is that he is impervious to attacks by Men.

But in the book, the Witchking says: "Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!" This suggests that even in the book the Witchking believed himself to be invulnerable to harm from men. So the prophecy could have very well been in the same context in both the film and the book, despite what Gandalf said.

Boromir88

01-07-2005, 03:57 PM

But in the book, the Witchking says: "Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!" This suggests that even in the book the Witchking believed himself to be invulnerable to harm from men. So the prophecy could have very well been in the same context in both the film and the book, despite what Gandalf said.

A lot of times you have to ask yourself, when reading, whether ther person speaking is reliable or not. In this case you must ask yourself who is more reliable, The Witch King or Glorfindel? Tolkien does this a lot, adds a lot of biased opinions from people, that aren't necessarily true (Boromir, as well as men in general come to mind). I find Gandalf to be a more reliable witness to history then Boromir.

In this case, I find Glorfindel to be more reliable. The Witch-king here, just sounds arrogant. Obviously knowing about the prophecy, he thinks he's indestructable, probably taking it as "no one can slay me," obviously not thinking about a possibility of a woman being in the army. If he even realizes he can be defeated at all.

Glorfindel, in his death, and reincarnation learned a lot. Also, a noldor that slew a balrog, I just find him more reliable then the WK. However, that's me ;)

Boromir88

01-07-2005, 04:04 PM

But I don't see the logic of interpreting film events by reference to book history that does not feature in the films. The films are adaptations only - they tell a different story to the book.
SpM, it's not that it's different from the book, that gets me irked. Just that when looking at it from a film judging perspective, it doesn't hold unity, that Gandalf can fight off 5 Nazgul (although they were weaker), and defeat a Balrog. Come back stronger (if not physically then mentally), after slaying the Balrog, then get owned by the Witch-king.

Captain of Despair

01-07-2005, 04:09 PM

A lot of times you have to ask yourself, when reading, whether ther person speaking is reliable or not. In this case you must ask yourself who is more reliable, The Witch King or Glorfindel? Tolkien does this a lot, adds a lot of biased opinions from people, that aren't necessarily true (Boromir, as well as men in general come to mind). I find Gandalf to be a more reliable witness to history then Boromir.

In this case, I find Glorfindel to be more reliable. The Witch-king here, just sounds arrogant. Obviously knowing about the prophecy, he thinks he's indestructable, probably taking it as "no one can slay me," obviously not thinking about a possibility of a woman being in the army. If he even realizes he can be defeated at all.

You are actually proving my point, Boromir. Just because Gandalf, in the film, says that some people claim that the Witchking cannot be killed by man does not mean that this is actually the case.

Lalaith

01-07-2005, 05:23 PM

My point about disliking this scene was not about the book at all - it was purely cinematic. The scene detracted from the drama of the city falling and Rohan coming to save it. You were suddenly drawn into a personal conflict between two protagonists and away from concerns about this brave city about to fall to the invaders. It was done so brilliantly in the cinematic version.
I swear, that EE annoys me so much I'm going to have to commit an act of apostasy and buy the original theatrical dvd...

obloquy

01-07-2005, 05:52 PM

I don't think the Witch-King knew about Glorfindel's prophecy. I think he was just arrogant. He says "no living Man may hinder me," which might've been true, but he didn't count on being "hindered" by a Man of Westernesse. HAH

The Saucepan Man

01-08-2005, 12:01 PM

Hmm. A lot to reply to.

First let me say that I am not a great fan of this scene, at least from the moment that the Witch King breaks Gandalf's staff. In my previous post, I was simply arguing that it can be explained in film terms. It does not introduce a logical impossibility.

First, I feel that we need to assume that Gandalf is a maiar in the movie, and thus is endowed with the extroardinary powers of an istari, even though Jackson never explicitly explains gandalf's origin or nature in the movie.99.99% of film-goers will never even have heard of the terms "Maiar" and "Istari", let alone know what they refer to. I agree that, in the films, Gandalf is portrayed as an extraordinarily powerful being and as more powerful than the Witch King. But it does not follow that the Witch King could not have defeated him.

However, I feel that having the Witch King destroy Gandalf's staff is a scene that was completely unforgivable. As others have mentioned, the staff might be thought of as an extension of the istari, and I feel it is a representation of their power and senioirity within the order of the istari.....and I feel that others were correct in assuming that it acts as focusing device for a wizards power.I have some sympathy with your view since, as you say, the films do portray a Wizard's staff as the focus of his power. But, if the power which it focusses is distracted (as I posited in my previous post), it is possible that a lesser sorceror could take the initative and break it.

When Saruman's staff was blown apart by Gandalf, it signified utter defeat and we all knew it.Well, in a way, that was the film-makers' intentions. They wanted to heighten the tension and suggest that Gandalf alone could not save the White City. But who is to say that Gandalf the White, even without his staff, would not have been sufficiently powerful to defeat the Witch King? As I recall, he doesn't have his staff at the final battle before the Black Gate.

And if Gandalf got his staff back at the end of the movie, where did he get it from and so why couldn't he get/make another during the Gondor battle?Well, he did get a new staff (in both the book and the films) when he came back after his battle with the Balrog. It has been speculated that Galadriel fashioned it for him. So it is quite feasible that he would have one again by the end of the film. But there is no way that there was anyone in Gondor with sufficient skill to fashion one for him, particularly during the battle itself.

But in the book, the Witchking says: "Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!" This suggests that even in the book the Witchking believed himself to be invulnerable to harm from men. I agree. It does. The Witch King either misinterpreted Glorfindel's prophecy or, as obloquy suggests, he was not aware of it and was simply displaying his arrogance. But Gandalf's description of the prophecy (in the film) clearly characterises it as cannot rather than will not, and, like Boromir88, I tend to trust Gandalf in such matters.

My point about disliking this scene was not about the book at all - it was purely cinematic. The scene detracted from the drama of the city falling and Rohan coming to save it. For me, this is the most compelling criticism of the scene. I felt much the same when I first watched it. But this is, I think, a result of clumsy editing. It could have been done better, for example by cutting back to the battle and then the Riders' arrival, then cutting back to the Witch King flying off in response.

obloquy

01-08-2005, 12:16 PM

Well, in a way, that was the film-makers' intentions. They wanted to heighten the tension and suggest that Gandalf alone could not save the White City. But who is to say that Gandalf the White, even without his staff, would not have been sufficiently powerful to defeat the Witch King? As I recall, he doesn't have his staff at the final battle before the Black Gate.

Which is inconsistent, right?

The Saucepan Man

01-08-2005, 12:37 PM

Which is inconsistent, right?Not really. It introduces tension and doubt without providing a definitive answer. The suggestion is that the Witch King had prevailed, but we do not know for certain that this would have been the case had he remained.

Captain of Despair

01-08-2005, 01:57 PM

I agree. It does. The Witch King either misinterpreted Glorfindel's prophecy or, as obloquy suggests, he was not aware of it and was simply displaying his arrogance. But Gandalf's description of the prophecy (in the film) clearly characterises it as cannot rather than will not, and, like Boromir88, I tend to trust Gandalf in such matters.

Oh, I would definitely trust Gandalf as well, but he is not the one claiming that the Witchking cannot be killed by a man, rather he is restating what some other anonymous people have said

As far as the staffs are concerned, I also saw them as being a large part of the wizards power in the movies. Thus, of course, I did not like the fact that Gandalf's was broken.

obloquy

01-08-2005, 03:59 PM

Not really. It introduces tension and doubt without providing a definitive answer. The suggestion is that the Witch King had prevailed, but we do not know for certain that this would have been the case had he remained.

But doesn't it conflict with Saruman's defeat-by-staff-exploding? If that was the ultimate act of domination in Saruman's case, and afterwards he was totally defeated, why does the staff (or the destruction of it) symbolize something else in Gandalf's case?

The Saucepan Man

01-08-2005, 07:49 PM

But doesn't it conflict with Saruman's defeat-by-staff-exploding? Sorry, I misunderstood. Well, one might take the breaking of the staff as symbolically suggesting defeat (thus heghtening tension etc), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the staffless Wizard is without power. Saruman in the films may still have had power, but we never find out as he takes a dive off the edge of Orthanc, courtesy of Grima.

Essex

01-10-2005, 05:07 AM

All G & WK Scene Haters. You're going to have to live with it. This is the FILM ADAPTATION not the book.

I've stated my main points earlier as to why Gandalf's staff was destroyed. (1/ Gandalf + staff = no problem dealing with Denethor 2/ The 'world of men' saves the day)

Here's one more.

In this film Gandalf has not had a real 'baddie' to confront, as (thankfully) Sauron does not exist in physical form in this movie. Therefore Jackson has given him decent oposition to fight.

The Rohirrim DID help save the day. Jackson has just heightened this by seemingly having Gandalf ready to take a pasting, and then the horns blow and the WK leaves realising his plans may have gone wrong. I'll say again, IMO in the book as in the film, the Rohirrim saved Gandalf. I feel uncomfortable that Gandalf's staff is broken, yes, but I put up with it.

Now if you think this is bad, thank your lucky stars two other things didn't make the final cut of the films as discussed in the rotk DVD EE appendicies.

1/ Sauron appears in physical form to fight Aragorn. (funnily enough the very first time I saw Aragorn fighting the Troll at the black gates I thougt they had airbrushed Sauron out of this fight scene)

2/ Frodo pushes Gollum over the edge (this was the version until the last day of woods/serkins pickup filming)

Just imagine one of those (or both) appearing in the film. We would be discussing nothing else!!!

PS On another point, we do not actually see Gandalf use his staff to destory Saruman's do we? As SPM points out, a wizard without a staff still has power (albeit no doubt lessened)

Habriz

01-10-2005, 12:07 PM

Hola Essex,
Respectfully, I am not losing sleep over the Witch King vs. Gandalf situation in Return of the King, but considering that this thread is devoted to expressing views regarding that scene, I will be happy to continue to use this forum as a vehicle to share my points, and hear other points. ;) :)

Also, I am not quite clear on the significance of Gandalf's having to confront Denethor, and thus needing to be devoid of his staff.

Essex

01-10-2005, 12:21 PM

Movie wise, with his staff Gandalf could have 'zapped' him from the gate as he rode in. Unfortunately he didn't have his staff so Denethor could start the flames which lead to his death before Gandalf could grab the 'pike' from the guard and confront him. With the staff Gandalf could have overcome him quickly without the need to ride up and knock him down, etc.

that's one of the reason's why I believe he staff was broken, along with the others I've posted.PS Habriz, no worries debating the scene, I just feel sorry for the people who feel so strongly about it and it 'ruins' the film for them, so much so that one of us if thinking of scrapping watching the EE and buying the theatrical release instead! How sad.........

Boromir88

01-10-2005, 02:20 PM

All G & WK Scene Haters. You're going to have to live with it. This is the FILM ADAPTATION not the book.
I have a lot of respect for you Essex, in defending these movies. However, we have a right to find faults in the movies. If someone creates/writes a book/movie they have to accept that it's going to be criticized, no matter how good, or appealing it is to us. Tolkien was criticized a countless amount of times, the characters lack depth, I don't care for the plot, it sounds too biblical...etc. Some people are just attracted to other things then others, I don't agree with those critics, but they pick what they don't like and they show examples to back it up. You, or I, or SpM, or anyone on here, may not agree with those complaints, but if someone tells us why they have a problem with that scene (and I see some reasonable explanations) then I don't see any problem with having complaints about that scene, or any other part in that movie. I do agree that the excuse "it's different from the books," is weak, but there have been other reasons given, why this scene doesn't work.

Essex

01-11-2005, 07:39 AM

I hear what you're saying, Boromir.

What I'm doing is making up for the time I also spent a few years back slagging off the first movie because it wasn't the same as the book, or that some things shouldn't happen. (this was on another Forum site that seems to have bit the dust before I came along this one....)

I use to moan frequently and LOUDLY. I then watched the EE version, along with the commentaries and appendicies, and I finally saw the light on how these movies are made.

I still have quite a fair few issues with a lot of the movies, but it seems to me that there aren't too many of us who point out why certain changes have to me made by the movie makers, and therefore back up the Director and scriptwriters. (For example, I have to Live with the Faramir/osgiliath change, and the EE has made it a bit more palatable)

Now most of us are glad the movies are made, I just HONESTLY feel sorry for people who felt let down by the last movie (there seems to be a lot of them). ROTK was beyond my wildest dreams how good it was. I spent days and weeks beforehand fretting on how they could and would muck up the last film. So I really do feel sorry for people who didn't thoroughly enjoy the film..........

Back to the Staff. Yes, I can see people's anger over this, and I admit I winced when I saw it explode. But as I've said, we have to live with the changes in the films and try not to get too bothered by them. I've learnt to do this, and I wish other people could do this too. I can almost TASTE the anger in some of these posts. I am not saying you cannot be angry, it is just my wish that we could 'Live with it' as I stated before.

Ah well, wish over, and back to real life......

The Saucepan Man

01-11-2005, 08:23 AM

I can almost TASTE the anger in some of these posts. I am not saying you cannot be angry, it is just my wish that we could 'Live with it' as I stated before.Why all the anger? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=9334&page=1&pp=40)

Elessar907

01-11-2005, 11:39 PM

At Last! A forum with a thread that I can comment on in detail! I absolutely hated the EE scene of Gandalf and the Witch-king. :mad: But alas, I really cannot add to what all you marvelous fans have already nailed it on the head.
First of all, there is no way in Middle-Earth that the Witch-king could have defeated Gandalf so easily. There is a very, very slight possibility that he could have beaten him, but not effortlessly. It is an impossible for the White Wizard, a Miear (sp) spirit to be defeated by a corrupt sprit of a Man. I love the Witch-king as much as the next person, but that was just going overboard. This scene has got to be the worst scene out of the entire movie series. And it really hurts, because PJ and his team worked so tirelessly to bring u an extremely well scripted adaptation of our beloved books, but they just threw this scene away completely. I realize that they added/subtracted/altered certain things in the movies to make things more clear and fluid without losing the overall message of the books. But all this scene did was take away! Us fans really don't have a lot to pain over, becuase we know Gandalf's true strength. But what about countless fans who are only fans of the movie. They will go the rest of their lives thinking of Gandalf (the White, no less) as a weak old man. :( They should have just cut it out completely even in the EE, if it was going to turn out the way it did. All it does is make Gandalf extremely weak and helpless, and make the Witch-king far too powerful (and foolish, because he could have finished off his greatest adivisary right then and there) . Actually, I thought that throught ROTK, Gandalf seemed less powerful, less assertive, and less determined then he ought to have, but that scene was just the worst and most rediculous. It almost ruinded the entire move experience, and not just for ROTK. It almost shows how careless they were in some of these scenes. In fact what made me stop myself from hating the movies that I have come to love, were all the things that they did get right. But a slip-up of this caliber is almost unforgivable. Actually I really wouldn't have minded the breaking of the staff if Gandalf had actually tried to do something about it. What would have salvaged the scene was if Gandalf had gotten up off the ground, instead of flailing there like a beaten old man, and start to glow a pale white and unsheath Glamdring. Or they could have made it exactly like they did in the book where they just face each other with the utmost tension. Now that I have gotten it all out of my system, I beleive I shall do what Essex said, and live with it. From what I've read from the comments on this thread, there are a few exceptional and beleivable explanations about this scene. But this severe lapse in film-making judgement does make the Witch-king's death a little sweeter, and I almost completely forgot about the whole Gandalf/Witch-king scene when Aragorn and Gimli kill Gothmog. :D

Guinevere

01-12-2005, 09:09 AM

Can it be that the staff-breaking could have affected Movie-Gandalf's state of mind ?
Because in the "Last debate" scene afterwards, he acts totally out of character.

Gandalf: "Frodo has passed beyond my sight. The darkness is deepening."
Aragorn: "If Sauron had the Ring, we would know it."
Gandalf: "It's only a matter of time. (.........)
(.........)
Gandalf: " (.....) I've sent him (Frodo) to his death"

I could hardly believe my ears!! What's happened to Gandalf, the kindler of hope, whose credo used to be "Despair is only for those who know the end beyond all doubt - we do not." ? Gandalf may be afraid, yes, but never hopeless and despairing!
Why did they have to change the person of this central character so much ? Perhaps to make a contrast for Aragorns sudden hopefulness and resolution ? In this movie scene, the "diversion" is Aragorn's idea and Gandalf doesn't even believe it'll work!
I really don't mind obliterations and changes that are "in character" (like many in FotR) but this is too much! :(

Essex

01-12-2005, 09:40 AM

This is very much like Aragorn taking Theoden's idea to ride out and face the Orcs in one last stand at Helm's Deep.

I think Jackson is giving as much of the decision making to Aragorn as he can. I'm not sure why, and I don't agree with this.

Just another thought as I posted. This change in Gandalf is more believable movie-wise as Saruman has spread the seeds of doubt into his mind at the begining of the EE. This also gives some credence to Gandalf's question of whether Frodo was alive to Aragorn in Edoras.

alatar

01-12-2005, 11:06 AM

Throughout the trilogy PJ lessened the role of Gandalf. The Grey Pilgrim starts as the prime motivator behind the forces of good and ends up just some kindly old man who carries a big stick - until *that* exploded.

In FOTR, Gandalf gets the Ring moving towards destruction, escapes from the clutches of the most powerful wizard in Middle Earth and takes on a Balrog. (I painfully accepted the change in regards to whose idea it was to go through Moria, among others).

In TTT, after surviving the Balrog fight and supposedly becoming more powerful (as witnessed when he meets the three hunters in Fangorn), he's now an exorcist and an errand rider.

In ROTK, after 'firing' Saruman, Gandalf loses his nerve and has to be reassured about the plan. He can't get the Rohirrim to fight unless there's some watch fire thing message comes from Gondor. Pippin lights the same while Gandalf acts as a distraction.

After using his staff to chase away the Nazgul, Gandalf's in the back of the formation that greets the three trolls that come knocking at the gates and are dressed to kill. Why didn't he use the staff then?

He loses to the Witch-King, then has to find another stick to whack another king in the head. I assume that *he* spurs Shadowfax at Denethor, which is odd in that he spent some time talking with Frodo about 'needlessly dealing out death,' which could and accidentally did happen. Didn't see a lot of pity there. And I realize that Pippin needed something to do, but what does Gandalf really do in the Houses of the Dead?

After the big battle he is again concerned about the plan, but luckily Aragorn has a good idea. During the battle at the Black Gate he seems (to me) to be just another sword, or captain. He does, however, guide the eagles to Mount Doom.

Seeing what PJ had done to Gandalf, I'm glad that the Scouring of the Shire wasn't filmed. We'd have Gandalf crying after hearing 'sauce' from Ted Sandyman*...

*Yes, I know that that didn't happen, but we're talking PJ's world here.

Snorri Swifthammer

01-12-2005, 12:02 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.

alatar

01-12-2005, 12:11 PM

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.

I agree; however, one of the many issues I then have is that if W-K was so terribly powerful, why does Eowyn have to be chased by Gothmog after killing W-K? Wasn't that enough, like in the books? She kills the 'boss,' then has to run from the Gimp. Ouch!

What does finally put her in a death-like state, PJ version?

Guinevere

01-12-2005, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Snorri Swifthammer

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 Elessar 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.
I agree very much with that!
It seems PJ et al think that movie watchers today would not accept heroes that are "superhuman" :nobler and wiser and less flawed than we are. But by changing these characters they take away something essential.

shire guy

01-12-2005, 03:35 PM

I must say, this has been a fascinating discussion. I think the only unforgivable moment was the shattering of Gandalf's Staff. Otherwise, I think the scene was well done.

1. Gandalf could not have defeated the Witch King. He knew this. The best he could hope for was to dismiss him, only to have him re-emerge again. And that would have taken a monumental battle, which very possibly could have taken Gandalf's life. He was weary, and knew the battle was not for him to win, but must be won by men. Some argued that he fought the Ringwraiths on weathertop... but if you revisit that section, Gandalf did not win. He managed to escape after a long battle and was pursued by 4 wraiths, while the remaining went on after the ring. In the scene, Gandalf looks apprehensive, maybe even fearful... And rightly so.. but I also think he was steadying himself for battle. At this point, the Witch King had the advantage, but left Gandalf to deal with the more immediate threat of the Rohirrim, knowing a direct confrontation with Gandalf would have taken time. He knew he had (supposedly) time to come back and take the city.

I also believe the Witch King was stronger in closer proximity to Mordor, and the will of his master.

2. Some have argued that Aragorn defeated or drove off the Witch King at Weathertop. This is also not true. After the Witch King stabbed Frodo with the Morgul Blade, Frodo cried out "Elbereth" which caused the Witch King to cry out. When Aragorn came with the flaming brands, the Nazgul withdrew rather than fight, believing their work was done. They merely had to wait for the blade to do it's work and send Frodo into the realm of shadows and under Sauron's power.

3. The whole argument of the Witch King not being able to be killed by any living man, I believe, is also a bit bogus. I don't think the Witch King could have been harmed by ANYONE until Merry stabbed him with the blade he got from Tom Bombadill, which had been made for the war against the Witch-king of Angmar by the Men of Westernesse. Only this sword (or the sword which Pippen had also!), could have broken the spell which bound the Witch Kings sinews together, thus rendering him vulnerable to attack. Eowyn just happened to be the closest, and the immediate benefactor of the Merry's attack. Eowyn's attack did fulfill Glorfindel's prophecy, but once the spell was broken, I think anyone could have killed the Witch King.

All in all, we have to remember that the Witch King was Sauron's greatest servant and a powerful being. Gandalf may have been more powerful, and may have been able to drive off the Nazgul Lord, but very possibly would have been killed in the effort himself. I'm sure Gandalf did not look forward to this battle, and knew he was needed to bolster the morale and re-enforce the wills of the men of Gondor, not to mention stopping Denother from burning Faromir alive. I have to say though, other than for the shear dramatic factor, I'm at a loss to explain Peter Jackson's rationale for breaking Gandalf's staff, and that's really the only part that made me cringe....

Anyway, that's my two and a half cents worth....

Essex

01-12-2005, 06:12 PM

Welcome to the Downs Shire Guy, and very well posted!

Have a look at a few earlier posts on the main reasons I think PJ got rid of Gandalf's staff. I haven't listened to all of the commentaries or appendicies on the EE yet, so maybe something will come from them.

Argonath

01-12-2005, 09:04 PM

Wow! Thank you everyone for all of your positive feedback! Starting this thread, I never expected to arouse the intellect of so many people.

Many points were raised that have never crossed my mind, I think it's time I re-read Tolkien's works ;) .

Everyone here is so well mannered and thoughtful and I am looking forward to a long stay in this community. Thanks again for the kind input!

P.S. - Just curious, how many times have all of you read the books? I have read The Hobbit three times, The Lord of the Rings twice, Tree and Leaf once, Letters From Father Christmas once, Farmer Giles of Ham once, Smith of Wootton Major once, and the Silmarillion half-way. (I put it on hold to Terry Brooks' Shannara series which I recommend to all of you.)

alatar

01-13-2005, 02:15 PM

P.S. - Just curious, how many times have all of you read the books? I have read The Hobbit three times, The Lord of the Rings twice

Not sure where this puts me on the fan scale of things, but I've read LOTR 25+ times, and the Hobbit maybe half that. Less than ten on the Silmarillion. Have the unabridged LOTR on CD for long commutes, and have the dramatized Hobbit and LOTR, but the latter is on cassette, which is now next to useless.

Some people find comfort in other things, but every now and then I take a vacation to Middle Earth.

Anyway, in regards to Gandalf and the W-K, I think that Gandalf's purpose is inspire others, not to do everything himself. Note that he holds off the Nazgul while Faramir et al retreat over the fields. It would seem that Gandalf makes sure that there is a level 'playing' field, and only gets involved when a bigger baddy tries to throw the game (Balrog, Saruman, Sauron).

Yes, he fights in Moria, but mainly against the Balrog (book world). And he burns some wargs, but they aren't wolves. In TTT he helps the Rohirrim reform under Erkenbrand, de-staffs Saruman. In ROTK he keeps the Nazgul at bay, reduces the effect of their fear, saves Faramir repeatedly and helps Frodo during the last day of Sauron.

So Tolkien never had him as a Samurai.

Gurthang

01-13-2005, 05:25 PM

I agree alatar. Gandalf's primary mission in ME was to help it's people face the onslaught of Sauron. He was not there to assasinate the Dark Lord. He was not there to marshal all of the West under his command to face Mordor. He was simply there to prod and guide the leaders of Middle Earth so that they would have a chance of defeating Sauron.

He did make sure that the main players stayed alive, and also took on any immediate threat that would have spelled doom for the whole thing. (Such as the Balrog, or forcing Frodo to start his journey.) Basically, he always seemed to take a counselor's approach (on the sidelines) to the war, until things started to get ugly. Then he would rush in at the last minute and save the day. Very dramatic. :D

Captain of Despair

01-13-2005, 06:10 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.

It also doesn't help increase "the heroism of the humans" when the army of the dead finishes up the battle of the pelennor fields (but that's a little off topic).

Essex

01-14-2005, 03:17 AM

actually they WERE humans (albeit 'dead') who redeemed themselves by fighting with Aragorn (yes, I know they fought against the corsairs only, but this change in the movie was understandable)

the phantom

01-14-2005, 02:35 PM

I think PJ tries to humanize everyone too much and they come off looking weak a great deal.
It seems PJ et al think that movie watchers today would not accept heroes that are "superhuman" :nobler and wiser and less flawed than we are. But by changing these characters they take away something essential.
Both of you are 100% correct. Check out davem's New movie article- anyone agree? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11076).

Captain of Despair

01-14-2005, 10:33 PM

actually they WERE humans (albeit 'dead') who redeemed themselves by fighting with Aragorn (yes, I know they fought against the corsairs only, but this change in the movie was understandable)

Yes, the change was understandable (if only to wrap up the battle more quickly) but I definitely could have done without it.

St. Povis

01-16-2005, 12:30 AM

narfforc

01-16-2005, 07:07 PM

Well there it is in a nut shell. Thank you St Povis. So it is up to you, are you in the Witch-King does a number on Gandalf ala (Jacksons lets take as many liberties as we can film) camp or have are you in the ones who have actually read the written word of Tolkien (not just LotR). The choice is yours readers, the two versions are incomparable. In fact I might just go and write a book called The Lord of the Rings, based on the blockbuster movie, it is certainly a story I have never read

St. Povis

01-17-2005, 06:47 AM

I'll probably burn in Hell for the title, but...

I've read everything that's accessible/available. Hobbit, LOTR Trilogy, Silm, and all of the currently published Lost Tales. If there are others pertinent to this particular scene, I am unaware of them.

There are people who would argue, especially here, that I am in the wrong for thinking as I do, but, lets face it, Gandalf would not have had it that rough with that damnable ****candle.

alatar

01-17-2005, 09:52 AM

St. Povis

I'm with you.

What kills me is that Jackson put this scene in for the Tolkien fans, but left it out of the theatrical cut as so...what...not to confuse my illiterate sister who had a hard time keeping up with the story anyway?

I'm going to let go now.

Essex

01-17-2005, 02:01 PM

I've finally realised why Jackson (and Boyens) made Gandalf's Staff break.

They realised what a storm this would cause if they did this, especially in the EE DVD. They decided to make this change and then secretly visit all the major Tolkien Forum sites and have a good giggle at the vast majority of people blowing their tops at the Sacriligeous Change they made.

Just imagine the scene:

Jackson: I know we can't do this to the cinematic edition, 'cos a whole load of people would be so disgusted they wouldn't buy either version on DVD and we'll be WELL out of pocket. Let's put it on the EE and it'll be too late!!!!

Boyens: Yeah! It'll serve them right for having a go at me for the ohter Changes. Faramir taking the hobbits to Osgillaith!!! HA, that's nothing compared to this! I knew I'd have the final laugh. Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!

Walsh: Yeah, but you can look smug explaining 'Book to Script' on the Appendicies when I have to stay in the background. NOT FAIR! Hey, but what the heck, it'll really annoy the nerds out there.

Jackson: Yeah, and if they're THAT annoyed all they have to do is buy a DVD Recorder with a hard disk (well, I can afford one), remove the few seconds of Sacriligeous Content and make their own copy. Problem solved!

:p

St. Povis

01-17-2005, 07:17 PM

Yeah, I should probably let go, too. I can't help but wonder whether or not there's yet another DVD forthcoming along those very same lines. (Knowing that the nerds/fanatics/whatever, like myself, will RUSH out to buy it to quench the flame they put inside of that camp of thinkers for one last payroll check.) If that were the case, the sickest thing about it is that I would actually feel compelled to thank him for giving me this disease, just so the cure could be so relieving. I just can't believe that the production and direction staff let that slip at the very end of the series, unless they are SERIOUSLY twisted, or passive agressive individuals hoping to send the message that they are absolutely-never-to-pick-up-the-torch-ever-again-done making tolkein films.

It really is a puzzling piece of work that way.

I don't know. I'm not going to let it ruin my life or anything, but it is REALLY perplexing to me, and seems like a loose end.

shire guy

01-19-2005, 04:47 PM

Neurion

01-19-2005, 04:58 PM

The Only Real Estel

01-19-2005, 07:03 PM

Allright. Forgive me for being blunt, crass, or otherwise untoward.

What in the world was Peter Jackson thinking? I understand that there are budget limitations, union people, and other pains in the rear end to contend with, but yes, that scene was the pinnacle of irritation for me, the ultimate and most horrible bastardization to feed the masses I have ever seen. Now, keep in mind that I realize I am a raving fanatic, and that I have been a fan of the series since grade school. Now, in essence and bearing in mind that I have actually read the books and the Silmarillion, people will forgive me if I think that they have no right to be upset or not upset if they haven;t read the world's most contemporary masterpieces that set the foundation for this series of films.

I realize that it makes me sound like a pompous *** or a total looser to some and others. I don't care. That scene really just lights my fuse at both ends. I mean, lets face it, Gandalf as a character has practically taken on a life of his own. His overall demeanor with most potent creatures is laconic until provoked.

In spite of some of the other somewhat less irritating flukes in the movie (No Tom Bombadil, Haldir's Death, Saruman's heinously discarded character, and a few others), I liked, no LOVED these movies. I think Peter Jackson is a Genius, and I give him credit for even trying to undertake something that most directors would not (surely, until now, when Hollywood re-hashes it, sooner or later) have DARED to pick up, likely knowing that it could have made or broken their career, however (un)established they may or may not have been. Tolkeins work commands respect for any of a host of reasons.

But this Gandalf vs. the Witch King scene?! We waited YEARS for this last installment, and, to me (forgive my vulgarity, don't read any further if you can't handle the analogy), its like finding a big piece of petrified cat crap at the center of what I thought was a tootsie roll pop! DAMN IT! DAMN IT DAMN IT! Peter Jackson, if you are reading this, I really really have to know: What were you thinking?! Sir Ian: What were YOU thinking? How could you have let this happen? Didn;t you come to own the character to some degree on stage? I'm sure you're nowhere near as arrogant as some of the other accomplished (or grossly less accomplished) actors of this day and age, but...WHY?!

Forgive me for being the second in a row to quote this rather longish post, but I've got to add something here.

Although I agree that it was worthless to add Gandalf's staff being broken (the book version of the confrontation would've worked better in each & every faze of the scene, I'll acknowledge that), I think that there has been some gross over-reacting of late. The scene is bothersome, but if you are not going to complain--no, rant, rather--about every other deviation from the books than you really should be lightening the mood of your posts. Of course I'm all for discussion & I understand that this is a forum devoted to debatings, but surely this topic can be talked over without any blood pressure-raising bellowings in the room.

I mean, if you do not have a problem with other big changes (Bombadil, Faramir, etc.) because you 'understand it's a part of the movie', or because you 'try to keep the book & movie seperate' than you should consider this scene the same way--a matter for discussion & debate, but not a matter of sacrilege that deserves such ranting.

I don't see why this change is so horrible that it has been lifted up above all the others as the single-largest mistake/change in the whole trilogy...

St. Povis

01-19-2005, 08:48 PM

You are entirely right, of course. It is futile to get upset about it. Its almost as silly to get upset about the people who get upset in the first place. Truth in my eyes: Its just what it is. Gandalf, for a lot of people I think is almost like grandfather figure. Certain types of people grow to love him in the books because of his bravery. His mere presence bolsters morale. Some people focus more on other characters. For instance, The Witch King. Some people have an admiration for the Dark threads of Sauron. Some people think its just plain stupid to invest so much of one's self into a story. Who cares? It takes all kinds, doesn't it? I don't expect that everyone here will agree with me, anymore than I expect people to expect me to agree with them. I can see your point, but, in truth, my blood pressure didn't sail through the roof, and, so far I can tell, I'm in no danger of a heart attack or stroke as a result of having witnessed this movie. Haldir's death is irritating to me for no other reason than that it deviates from the book.

Tom Bombadil: Well, can't say that his character touched me much when I read about him the first time around. In fact, I think the first time I read it, I must have drifted off into other thoughts while reading about it, because when I picked it up for the second time, I had no memory of him at all. None. It was like a totally new character which put a whole new spin on the book. I read the books in 5th and 6th grade (thereby dooming me to my nerd-dom, if there's anything to 'formative years' theories). But re-reading and then discovering his charater added a totally new dimension to the experience. I can almost equate with some of the reasons I imagine Jackson to not want to 'go there', so it doesn;t frustrate me all that much.

Now, the other scenes just don't hit people like myself (Remember, even being one in a million still means there are at least 61/2 thousand out there exactly like you) with the same strength. Its like watching your grandpa get his *** kicked in a subway or something. Maybe not as traumatizing, but still an unpleasant experience for those with the emotional investment in his character. I'm sure Gandalf isn;t the only one with fanatics.

Face it, Tolkein's work touches people in ways that most contemporary pieces of literature do not. I don't expect you to understand, or even to want to understand. IT just irked a lot of us because of all the things that Big G stands for to them.

Well, sorry if its too long a read, I usually can't help but to be verbose, especially when I'm trying to give someone a quality answer, and one that they asked for.

The Only Real Estel

01-19-2005, 09:48 PM

You are entirely right, of course

Bah. I am never entirely right. I only hope to occasionaly make sense & maybe hit somewhere close to the X that marks 'right'.

It is futile to get upset about it. Its almost as silly to get upset about the people who get upset in the first place

Ah, if that is how I came across you have my sincerest apologies. I was neither upset at you, nor even particularly upset at any of your post, just a bit puzzled as to the considerable emotion behind it.

I can see your point, but, in truth, my blood pressure didn't sail through the roof, and, so far I can tell, I'm in no danger of a heart attack or stroke as a result of having witnessed this movie

Good, good. I was only using it as a figure of speech. Still, I remember a year ago or so when I was posting on TTT Movie Faramir; I don't think I could quite swear my blood pressure was at normal levels all the time ;).

Its like watching your grandpa get his *** kicked in a subway or something. Maybe not as traumatizing, but still an unpleasant experience for those with the emotional investment in his character

I don't expect you to understand, or even to want to understand. IT just irked a lot of us because of all the things that Big G stands for to them

That explains it to me better, thank you :). And I also do understand, at least to a point, your emotions & your frustration with Jackson here. I'm sure I felt much the same thing at a different time--when Frodo sent Sam away. Different parts of the movie touch/irk different people in many different ways, that is certainly a fact of life.

I suppose what I've been trying to say in the last two posts is this in a nutshell:

Everyone has characters that he or she might feel more attached to than others, & everyone will be more upset at times than others. Thank God we are not all carbon-copies of eachother, life would be so boring! But I learned through my old Faramir posts that it is much better (IMO) to discuss dissatisfaction with characters & subplots in a cooler manner, no matter how annoying or personal the change might be.

St. Povis

01-20-2005, 02:17 AM

Well I sincerely hope I didn't sound like a snot or anything, its tough to nail down who you're speaking to in a forum. If I came off as 'sassy' or nasty to you, I ask your pardon. I'm told I can be testy at times, and my sense of humor tends to walk the shadows into darker territory. I really do apologize if I came off as sounding off at you. :o In any case, that's my two cents, in a nutshell.

P.S. Amen to your 'carbon copy' sentiment! :smokin:

St. Povis

01-20-2005, 02:30 AM

Just curious... has anyone found or read an interview with Peter Jackson explaining his reasoning behind this scene?? I haven't been able to find anything, though I've looked quite a bit. He never really seems to comment on it anywhere on the DVDs that I could find. So if you've seen an interview, clip, article, etc. please post it!!

The DVD EE had a lot of commentary. I haven't heard it all, but I did listen to the one with the writers and Jackson. It seems that they are aware of the fact that they took liberties with that scene. Other than that, I haven't read or heard anything about him answering questions about that scene. Anyone else out there have any clues?

alatar

01-20-2005, 10:52 AM

I mean, if you do not have a problem with other big changes (Bombadil, Faramir, etc.) because you 'understand it's a part of the movie', or because you 'try to keep the book & movie seperate' than you should consider this scene the same way--a matter for discussion & debate, but not a matter of sacrilege that deserves such ranting.

I don't see why this change is so horrible that it has been lifted up above all the others as the single-largest mistake/change in the whole trilogy...

To add my two cents:

First, note that I will lobotomize myself and pretend to never have read the books. My argument will be based on what I saw in the EE DVDs and on various websites.

Missing Bombadil and Scouring of the Shire etc? Who and what? And I read somewhere that these scenes, whatever they were, weren't filmed. Hard to get torqued up over something I never saw.

Ents and Faramir? A bit odd, as the creatures and the person do some mental flips. One minute, the Ents take hours to say "good morning" and seemingly days to decide on a course of action and then wham! They see a few hacked up tree stumps and it's off to war with a bellows from that Treebeard guy (and aren't these things supposed to be tree shepherds? Not keeping too close an eye on the flock, I guess).

And that Faramir guy decides to bring to the ring to his king dad, then sees a flying Nazgul, hears a speech from Samwise and suddenly changes his decision, placing his life and his father's acceptance in jeopardy. Whatever.

Maybe there's more to the stories but I'm not really emotionally invested in either the Ents (the Ents were too CG) or Faramir, and so let these inconsistencies pass.

Then there's that Gandalf guy. See much of him in FOTR. I like him. Wise, kind, a bit more emotional than that Strider guy - I see Gandalf as a real hero as he sacrifices himself to save his friends from that Balrog thing. Thought that he died, but as we never see the body, and he's in the TTT trailer, I'm assured that he's resurrected. Seems to be the kind of guy that you'd want around, as he'd have your back.

He returns in TTT and ROTK. As posted previously, he now is bigger and badder. Those three running guys can't hurt him in Fangorn. He is now more powerful than that other wizard, not only surviving a fireball blast but also breaking that wizard's staff. Gandalf uses his staff to chase away the flying Nazgul, and he's at the Gates when Grond does its work. Still in the thick of things, and leading from the front. It may look dark, but as I see him on the screen, I know that the good guys are far from being done in.

Then, for some reason he loses his staff to the W-K, who I guess is twice bigger and badder as he now wears a helmet. Okay. But Gandalf on the ground looking fearful? This doesn't make sense, as he beat the Balrog and the Wizard and some trolls and assorted orcs. And with the exception of the helmet, isn't this the same W-K that couldn't catch four hobbits in the Shire, and ran away from a sword- and flame-wielding Aragorn? And Gandalf chased him away with some light from the same staff?

And Pippin, who was the least brave of any of the characters in the films, at least makes an attempt to stand up to the W-K (he did attempt to fight five Nazgul at Weathertop, and so maybe this explains it) and the flying thing. And though he's small, he's at least standing, making him for once 'taller' than Gandalf.

And later the W-K is taken out by a hobbit and Eowyn, both of which, as far as I know, have little fighting experience. So why was Gandalf so afraid? Where was the wise, kind heroic guy that I admired those past ~9 hours?

So that's a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that the scene/character was not internally consistent, opened huge plot holes and I really like Gandalf.

The Saucepan Man

01-20-2005, 01:15 PM

Gandalf, for a lot of people I think is almost like grandfather figure. Certain types of people grow to love him in the books because of his bravery. His mere presence bolsters morale. Last time I checked Gandalf was still there in the book, just the same as he always has been. ;)

So that's a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that the scene/character was not internally consistent, opened huge plot holes and I really like Gandalf.I take your point. The scene does, on the the surface, give rise to internal inconsistency issues. But it can be explained, and I attempted to give an explanation earlier in this thread. To summarise, the actual power of a character is not the only relevant factor to consider in determining the credibility of another character getting the better of him or her. Greater power does not automatically equal victory (just ask Sauron ;) ).

Otherwise, we might as well say that the book was full of inconsistencies in that Merry and Eowyn were able to defeat the Witch King, Pippin was able to kill one of the Olog-Hai and Wormtongue was able to kill Saruman.

alatar

01-20-2005, 04:10 PM

I take your point. The scene does, on the the surface, give rise to internal inconsistency issues. But it can be explained, and I attempted to give an explanation earlier in this thread. To summarise, the actual power of a character is not the only relevant factor to consider in determining the credibility of another character getting the better of him or her. Greater power does not automatically equal victory (just ask Sauron ;) ).

Totally agree. However (and you know that there would be a 'however'), up to that point in the movie/trilogy I liked PJ's use of the Gandalf character, with all of the flaws, warts, changes from the book, etc. Afterwards I was like, "what happened?!?"

I assume that I'm an average 'read-the-books' movie viewer, and, as this thread has shown, many like me were bothered by the scene, so I would say that PJ didn't do something right.

Am I wimping out and saying that the scene was 'just wrong?' Probably. Could I give a pretzel-like defense of the scene from any faction (book, movie, etc) you'd choose? Easily. And as posted earlier I would have *enjoyed* the scene if only Gandalf had just smiled before the horns blew.

Thanks for your comments and analysis and apologies if my text causes eye hemorrhages.

St. Povis

01-20-2005, 09:51 PM

Last time I checked Gandalf was still there in the book, just the same as he always has been. ;)
.

True Enough, TSM. Its like the tootsie pop analogy. I felt like a little kid who was given this great tasting treat, and right at the end of the experience, the sweet experience of the tootsie roll I expected was replaced with the nauseating experience mentioned earlier. As many others (among those who would admit it, anyway), I am, indeed, selfishly disappointed by not having the scene fit the vision I had for it, or come even close to what I expected.

Disappointing, but...meh. M-E-H.

Essex

01-31-2005, 06:13 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...................

Guinevere

01-31-2005, 01:19 PM

alatar

01-31-2005, 02:02 PM

... and for the umpteenth time, it is not only the breaking of the staff that seems "wrong" but the general helpless and hopeless, too human behaviour of Gandalf that bothers me. What about : "But we have the White Wizard. That's got to count for something." It doesn't count so much, apparently... :(

Guinevere, thanks for bringing the thread back to the real issue.

Just think - what if the Witch-King took the extra two seconds needed to slay the helplessly prone Gandalf before the Rohirrim blew their horns (It's well known that Nazgul, like Pavlov's dogs, just *have* to go and see what's up when they hear horns blowing...)? We'd have BBQed Faramir, meaning that PJ could cut the Houses of Healing scene entirely (Eowyn who?), making room for yet another cameo and/or more Legolas-Gimli slapstick. Aragorn doesn't need the White Wizard in the 'Last Debate' nor at the Black Gate. And just what does Gandalf accomplish in the scene with the Mouth of Sauron? Wouldn't that scene have been better if the MoS came out, talked threateningly awhile, and, in Indiana Jones fashion, Aragorn just takes him out? Then Gimli could say something funny...

Gandalf doesn't do much afterwards anyway in ROTK except for helping Aragorn put his crown on correctly ("Do the feathery-looking things go in the front or the back?") and helping Frodo board the Last Ship ("Hi, I'm Gandalf, your ship's Steward...").

I'm surprised PJ kept him around as long as he did. ;)

Essex

01-31-2005, 02:34 PM

Gandalf was not powerless. he was afraid, yes, and on the floor. He was a Wizard with powers without his staff. I know that as a reader of the books.

But I ask again, WHY DID TOLKIEN WRITE THE SCENE THE WAY HE DID? BECAUSE THE ROHIRRIM SAVE THE DAY AND SAVE GANDALF FROM A CONFLICT THAT HE MIGHT NOT HAVE WON.

Gandalf was on the floor, yes. But do you think this scene would have worked dramatically in a film if the two of them stood there and no action happened between them, and then the WK just leaves? Film goers would have been asking the quesiton, what on earth was that all for? Why did they have that scene? They're about to fight and then the WK leaves. What was the point of it? PJ had to add some dramatic tension into the film with Gandalf in a prone position to have a REASON for the scene. The Rohirrim saved Gandalf. Along with this, they also aided Gandalf in saving the life of Faramir as he was able to go to his aid instead of battling the WK.

As for his staff breaking (which is the main starting point for people's anger on this thread, Alatar), I've explained my reasoning behind it not being that great a deal in the Gandalf's staff thread in the books section.

I can honestly say when I read the books, I feel that the Witch King has the upper hand. The film has not changed my feelings on this. The Rohirrim saved the day. Yes, Jackson upped the anti somewhat in this scene by using Gandalf's prone position and his staff breaking. For us book lovers, it would have been perfect for it to follow the scene in the book word for word. But to the average movie goer IT WOULD NOT HAVE WORKED.

Jackson did not write the movies just for us Book readers. He ALSO wrote it for the general movie going public who pay the vast majority of his and his crew's wages. I am grateful for his adaptation and admire his work and dedication greatly. I have learnt over the past 3 years not to let scenes I disagree with cloud the movie for me.

Snorri Swifthammer

01-31-2005, 02:54 PM

Gandalf was on the floor, yes. But do you think this scene would have worked dramatically in a film if the two of them stood there and no action happened between them, and then the WK just leaves?

Almost every Western I've ever seen suggests a scene like this would work. The WK and Gandalf staring each other down is pretty much equivalent to the scene in every Western were the two gunfighters stare each other down across the main road and the tumbleweed rolls between them.

The scene PJ cut out where the WK reveals himself is equivalent to the part in the gunfight where the gunfighters pull back their coats and show what guns they are packing.

The dramatic tension in such scenes is incredible. The viewer is left wondering when the guns will be drawn and who will be left standing.

In this case, however, the tension is cut when the horns sound and the WK leaves the duel without a gun being fired (or a spell being flung).

alatar

01-31-2005, 03:27 PM

Gandalf was on the floor, yes. But do you think this scene would have worked dramatically in a film if the two of them stood there and no action happened between them, and then the WK just leaves? Film goers would have been asking the quesiton, what on earth was that all for? Why did they have that scene? They're about to fight and then the WK leaves. What was the point of it? PJ had to add some dramatic tension into the film with Gandalf in a prone position to have a REASON for the scene. The Rohirrim saved Gandalf. Along with this, they also aided Gandalf in saving the life of Faramir as he was able to go to his aid instead of battling the WK.

Your assumption is that there are two possibilities for this scene, the one that we saw and another where Gandalf and the Witch-King stare at each other in a 'harsh' manner. I see many other possibilities - my personal favorite (as stated earlier) has Gandalf smiling right before the Rohirrim appear. One could think of many others. The Witch-King could shoot fire from his fiery sword and Gandalf could duck, hide, whatever (sans Staff) or block the same with Staff. Shadowfax could threaten the Fell Beast and Gandalf could try to menace the WK with Glamdring from the flank. What if Gandalf with Staff on Shadowfax have a brief stand-off with the WK, the WK looks like he's going to do something bad, and Gandalf decides to rush him anyway, yet has to withdraw in order to shield Pippin, who got bumped off and was hiding around the corner? Anyway, whatever could have been filmed is a moot point, as you know I'm just not happy with what was filmed (it's my one note I keep tooting ;)).

As for his staff breaking (which is the main starting point for people's anger on this thread, Alatar), I've explained my reasoning behind it not being that great a deal in the Gandalf's staff thread in the books section.

Went there - nice post regarding Gandalf's staff. I posted regarding the same. And note that I equate 'staff-breaking' with 'making Gandalf look weak.' Sorry.

I can honestly say when I read the books, I feel that the Witch King has the upper hand. The film has not changed my feelings on this. The Rohirrim saved the day. Yes, Jackson upped the anti somewhat in this scene by using Gandalf's prone position and his staff breaking. For us book lovers, it would have been perfect for it to follow the scene in the book word for word. But to the average movie goer IT WOULD NOT HAVE WORKED.

I always felt that it was Gandalf (and he alone) that prevented any of Sauron's Army (WK included) from entering the city. IMO, it was the WK that blinked and went after the Rohirrim as he saw an enemy that he could handle/hamper. Opinions differ.

And wasn't it Pippin that kept Gandalf from riding after the WK? Not that this has anything to do with the scene in the movie.

And it's been my assumption that the EE DVDs have been for the fans, not for the average movie-goers.

Jackson did not write the movies just for us Book readers. He ALSO wrote it for the general movie going public who pay the vast majority of his and his crew's wages. I am grateful for his adaptation and admire his work and dedication greatly. I have learnt over the past 3 years not to let scenes I disagree with cloud the movie for me.

Agreed. But as I stated earlier, if it weren't for gripes about the movies, we wouldn't be reading anything here, and though I really appreciate the work that PJ et al have done, this does not mean that I need don my chearleader outfit and rah-rah every individual frame.

Note that I appreciate your comments.

Snorri Swifthammer

01-31-2005, 03:33 PM

Agreed. But as I stated earlier, if it weren't for gripes about the movies, we wouldn't be reading anything here, and though I really appreciate the work that PJ et al have done, this does not mean that I need don my chearleader outfit and rah-rah every individual frame.

Rah! Rah!

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/realhappy/jump.gif

The Only Real Estel

01-31-2005, 06:58 PM

And wasn't it Pippin that kept Gandalf from riding after the WK? Not that this has anything to do with the scene in the movie

Yes & agreed. Yes, Pippin 'kept' Gandalf from riding out by informing him of Faramir's peril, & I agree, it probably doesn't have a lot to do with the movies.

St. Povis

02-01-2005, 12:04 AM

But I ask again, WHY DID TOLKIEN WRITE THE SCENE THE WAY HE DID? BECAUSE THE ROHIRRIM SAVE THE DAY AND SAVE GANDALF FROM A CONFLICT THAT HE MIGHT NOT HAVE WON.

I can honestly say when I read the books, I feel that the Witch King has the upper hand. The film has not changed my feelings on this. The Rohirrim saved the day. Yes, Jackson upped the anti somewhat in this scene by using Gandalf's prone position and his staff breaking. For us book lovers, it would have been perfect for it to follow the scene in the book word for word. But to the average movie goer IT WOULD NOT HAVE WORKED.

Jackson did not write the movies just for us Book readers. He ALSO wrote it for the general movie going public who pay the vast majority of his and his crew's wages. I am grateful for his adaptation and admire his work and dedication greatly. I have learnt over the past 3 years not to let scenes I disagree with cloud the movie for me.

Now what about the fact that the Witch Kings death was foretold? Just because the 'prophecy states that the witch king will not be slain by man' seems to give him a great deal of arrogance, since he seems to believe that no man 'CAN' kill him. Its a load, if you ask me. I think anyone who has read the books, including the Silmarillion, must know that the Maiar are well and above elfin propehcy, shaping destiny in accordance with their Valar's restrictions. I'm not clear on how people feel about it, but I'm pretty sure a Balrog would waste the Witch King. Not the other way around...separate point, but something to chew on...This says nothing about the fact that Gandalf is not really a 'man' per se, but a semi/demi/quasi divine being sent to middle earth with an agenda of 'minimal interference' to reach the end result.

Now, prophecy means {to myself, among others} that the event of The Witch King's death was 'witnessed' by Glorfindel as an event in time. I sincerely doubt, that, with respect to what Gandalf was, as opposed to what the Witch King was, that prophecy held any real water with Gandalf, who might very well have *chosen* the 'nobler' deed of dying, rather than meddle too deeply in the affairs of men or elves so as to break a great tradition of prophecy in which man and elf alike placed token faith. For the Witch King to sit there and brag that no man can kill him would certainly have provoked an inner laughter, if not a flat out guffaw in the Withered Old Husk's faceless, (and crownless, in the movie) helmet! I've no doubt that Gandalf the Grey might have had some trouble with all nine ringwraiths, but Gandalf the White certainly would not have any trouble dealing with the Witch King and his posturing. Staff or no staff, I don't think that GTW would not have so much as flinched at his presence, much less fallen cowering to the floor, and probably would have laughed IF the staff broke, making some offhand remark about the Tolkein equivalent of Karma getting him back for having broken Saruman's staff. If he were forced to, he would fight the Witch king to a stalemate rather than kill him (which he surely could have done in a blink.) until the *moment* of prophecy, {which many believe he was well aware of}, came to pass. I think that what makes it disappointing is that, given a good once over of Gandalf as Olorin, and his The Hobbit/FOTR personality as a generally care free happy go lucky wizard in the Grey Robes, its just too much for people to let their imaginations create the reality that Gandalf is, for all intents and purposes, an obfuscator of many great secrets. His entire character, as written from Olorin to Gandalf the Grey, to Gandalf the White suggests that he knows an IMMENSE deal more than he lets on to the others "(Yes, it certainly has the 'Ring; of truth to it, etc)", and that, given his personality as Olorin, it probably breaks his heart to have so many solemn duties awaiting him and the people he loves. Almost as if he wants to disbelieve the fortunes he so clearly sees as they draw nearer and nearer.

That's one of the most irritating aspects of filmmaking: The slaughter of a good tale to reach the moonstruck to whom a great many subtleties are lost upon. Its one of the reasons I don't entirely blame Jackson (or the others) for his liberties. Certain things should be left alone, though. I agree with you to some degree, but certainly not in totality. I may very well be entirely wrong.

If that don't bugger all! I got myself wrapped up in this thread again! Curse you Shelob!

Essex

02-01-2005, 03:55 AM

Alatar,IMO, it was the WK that blinked and went after the Rohirrim as he saw an enemy that he could handle/hamper. Opinions differ.Here, IMO, we have textual fact that shows this is not the case.But it was no orc-chieftain or brigand that led the assault upon Gondor. The darkness was breaking too soon, before the date that his Master had set for it: fortune had betrayed him for the moment, and the world had turned against him; victory was slipping from his grasp even as he stretched out his hand to seize it. But his arm was long. He was still in command, wielding great powers. King, Ringwraith, Lord of the Nazgûl, he had many weapons. He left the Gate and vanished.He saw victory slipping from his grasp as Tolkien says. Gandalf could wait.And it's been my assumption that the EE DVDs have been for the fans, not for the average movie-goers.fair point, they should be more for the book fans as PJ has stated, but just to make them so only rabid fans like us would buy them would be unprofitable.....this does not mean that I need don my chearleader outfit and rah-rah every individual frame.I do not do this either. I just take a stand point to defend the films where I see they CAN be defended. Because there needs to be a few of us out there on this website so the vast majority can have someone to argue with. Otherwisse there wouldn't be any point of this movie forum if everyone agreed how bad (or good) the PJ films were all the time.

Snorri, re your point on the standoff I said wouldn't work Almost every Western I've ever seen suggests a scene like this would work. The WK and Gandalf staring each other down is pretty much equivalent to the scene in every Western were the two gunfighters stare each other down across the main road and the tumbleweed rolls between them. Yes, but this usually ends up with one killing the other to give the scene some point, doesn't it? ;)

St. Povis. Fair point on Gandalf's origins, but wasn't he sent to Middle-earth in the guise of a man with all his frailities?

PS A lot of posts state the basics of Gandalf is stronger than so and so, so he would have defeated him. This is not always the case. This WHOLE STORY is about the 'weak' beating the 'strong', isn't it? Just because you are stronger doesn't mean you will win every fight. Yes, you'd be favourite, yes, but not certain to win.

St. Povis

02-01-2005, 09:14 AM

Yes indeed. But I think that having the sort of mortality he had did not exactly qualify him as frail. None of the Istari were frail, after all. They were given remarkable vigor for their seeming age, which, after all, was much older than they appeared as men. Speculation, of course, but I don;t think that the Istari were 'men' at face value. They were Maiar with the visage of men. True enough about 'strength', and certainly the stress of having to muster the will of the panicked Gondor armies would have taxed an ordinary man, but...Seriously now, how much fear do you think a man who has already crossed death can actually have for another one, easpecially given that he isn't really going to 'die' exdept as a mortal (though exceptioanlly long lived) being? Sauron may very well have been the Maiar equivalent of Morgoth in potency/strength when stood against the other Maiar, but I don't think that could make up for the fact that the Witch King was a man, however influenced, for however long by one of the Nine. Its a tricky exploit, at best, but I think a solid argument.

Again, I see your point from a devil's advocate frame of reference when it comes down to 'strength' in the purest sense of the word. Two equally matched boxers might be able to max out to the same weight equivalent in the bench press, but one might simply have more stamina...tough call as to whose going to win. People compare Gandalf against Saruman, too when thinking this whole issue through, sometimes saying that Saruman gave up too easily. We don;t really know what Gandalf's instructions were, if any, when he was sent back as Gandalf the White. Still it seems fair to say that Saruman/Curumir was a traitor to the Valar and their 'cosmic laws' having fallen in with a cronie of Morgoth, the ultimate traitor to creation; a Tolkein-esque Satanic equivalent. (Not that I want to bring religion into the debate). Who knows what Saruman lost when he and Gandalf had their second confrontation? Even in the books, Saruman was given a sort of open ended death; one which seemd to imply that he could return as the next Adversary, if the cycle of events were to continue as they had since the First Age.

While Morgoth was known to some as the mightiest of the Valar, then I think it is also fair, from the perspective of Strength not neccessarily equalling victory, that it would then be possible for Gandalf to take down Morgoth, something I do not believe to be possible, at least not in a direct confrontation. My all too homo sapien need to order things in any given universe according to an hierarchal structure becomes painfully evident in my argumentative, here, but, I truly believe that Morgoth would have wiped the floor with Gandalf. Even so, I don;t think Gandalf would have cowered before him.

Essex

02-07-2005, 09:08 AM

I've just noticed this in the book, when Gandalf has his chat with Denthor:'Yet now under the Lord of Barad-dûr the most fell of all his captains is already master of your outer walls,' said Gandalf. 'King of Angmar long ago, Sorcerer, Ringwraith, Lord of the Nazgûl, a spear of terror in the hand of Sauron, shadow of despair.'
'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. Seems like Denethor thinks the WK is Gandalf's match, and Gandalf doesn't argue!

alatar

02-07-2005, 11:41 AM

Seems like Denethor thinks the WK is Gandalf's match, and Gandalf doesn't argue!

Apologies for not having my book, but if Essex would be so kind as to continue the quote, one would see (IMO) that Gandalf was being polite to Denethor, as Gandalf knows that Denethor is losing his mind. Doesn't Gandalf continue saying something like 'mayhap is, mayhap ain't' (or was that Mother Abigail? :)) in regards to being overmatched by the Witch-King?

And why should we 'trust' Denethor's opinion anyway? His city is under seige, yet what is he doing? Is he acting like the wise and shrewd leader that we know that he was formerly, or is he succumbing to despair? Does he fight the noble fight like Theoden, ala 'the Charge of the Light Brigade' or is he planning on taking the easy way out by killing himself and his son, forsaking honor, office and responsibilities?

Gandalf returns, not because he was overmatched, but because he wanted to save the wounded that still had a chance. If logic (and my memory) holds, if Gandalf returned because he was overmatched yet Faramir remained behind on the field, then a Steward's son (yes, of Numenorean blood) is the Witch-King's match yet a Maia is not.

It just gets so confusing, but would make a great card game ("My Steward's son trumps your Witch-King..." ;)).

The Saucepan Man

02-07-2005, 11:46 AM

It just gets so confusing, but would make a great card game ("My Steward's son trumps your Witch-King..." ).I take it that you haven't seen the Return of the King Top Trumps deck, then?

Essex

02-07-2005, 11:52 AM

ah, so it's ok for posters to speculate on the strengths of certain characters from their knowledge of Middle-earth (which is no doubt impressive), but when I actually take evidence from LOTR itself, it's not good enough? ;)Apologies for not having my book, but if Essex would be so kind as to continue the quote, one would see (IMO) that Gandalf was being polite to Denethor, as Gandalf knows that Denethor is losing his mind. Doesn't Gandalf continue saying something like 'mayhap is, mayhap ain't' (or was that Mother Abigail? ) in regards to being overmatched by the Witch-King?Nope, I continue the quote here: 'But our trial of strength is not yet come. And if words spoken of old be true, not by the hand of man shall he fall, and hidden from the Wise is the doom that awaits him. However that may be, the Captain of Despair does not press forward, yet. He rules rather according to the wisdom that you have just spoken, from the rear, driving his slaves in madness on before.Gandalf returns, not because he was overmatched, but because he wanted to save the wounded that still had a chance.That is correct.Nay, I came rather to guard the hurt men that can yet be healed; for the Rammas is breached far and wide, and soon the host of Morgul will enter in at many points. And I came chiefly to say this. Soon there will be battle on the fieldsI am not saying Gandalf has done a runner from the WK, I am merely pointing out a discussion between two wise men on the strengths of the WK v Gandalf, which is pertinent to this thread.

alatar

02-07-2005, 11:57 AM

I take it that you haven't seen the Return of the King Top Trumps deck, then?

You mean that people would make card games regarding this stuff? Amazing! Next thing, they'll start making video games... :p

Note that EA Games ROTK, while providing yet another version of the movie, is killing me - where's Pong when I need it?

Essex

02-07-2005, 11:59 AM

Alatar, where are you stuck on the EA ROTK game? At least I might be able to help you out on that....... :D (I admit the Black gate can be a pain, is that where you're stuck?)

alatar

02-07-2005, 12:25 PM

ah, so it's ok for posters to speculate on the strengths of certain characters from their knowledge of Middle-earth (which is no doubt impressive), but when I actually take evidence from LOTR itself, it's not good enough? ;)

But of course not! Surely you don't think that I'm going to allow evidence to get in the way of my vaunted opinion? And just when are Books going to edited to catch up with my reality, that's what I want to know!?! ;)

Again apologies as I want to reference the evidence (Essex, you wouldn't want to post the entire LOTR, would you? :)), but as I can't, my arguments are more thin than I desire and y'all deserve.

Anyway, in regards to the wise men's conversation: When Denethor accuses Gandalf of being overmatched, this is not a statement based on data but just a taunt/insult as the WK and Gandalf the White have not yet met - as Denethor may well know. So this (to me) would not support either case.

Thanks Essex. Regarding EA ROTK, I'm too embarassed to say. My main problems are lack of time and finger agility. I've read a bunch of walkthroughs but they haven't helped as I 'know' what to do but just can't get there. Cheats codes (just so I could see every level and all of the movies) are available as soon as I finish the game, so they're no help.

St. Povis

02-07-2005, 04:55 PM

Right.

I can believe that there are fans of the Witch King, I can even believe that a servant of the {speculated to be} strongest of the Maiar, who was in turn the servant of the strongest Valar, might give Gandalf a run for his money, I just don't have it in me to see that the Witch King would walk out victorious, or even corporeal.

As for Denethor...I mean, come on. He was a power hungry lunatic who {seemingly} resented the return of the true heir and was under tremendous stress for any number of reasons. If not common sense, then common decency would point out that he was just trying to jibe the Gandalf. Egotistical rulers have a tendency to do that. Watch Judge Judy shoot her big fat mouth off at people sometimes. Damned if she doesn;t think she is God behid that bench. (Probably one of the reasons the old hag couldn't hack the real justice system. Still, after dealing with the day to day BS of people's idiotic squabbles, and having to balance your life and sense of human decency with the law, its understandable that she can be such a wench.) As it seems to me, more than a handful of kings from the realm of men would have felt happier without the name of Gandalf whispering in their ears, and there's no doubt that Denethor was one of them. I'm almost positive that if Gandalf were lying dead on the field, Denethor would have done a victory dance, and propbably tinkled on the corpse. (Before a bolt of lightning hit him from above, of course).

Surely, I have no answers. Surely I have a healthy dose of favoritism for Gandalf and a bit of distaste for people like Denethor. Surely, I have been raised on Good vs Evil=Good will always win. I guess the best way to do find out what's what would be to exhume the author's corpse and summon in a few necromancers to ask him what's what...Of course, then you;d have to deal with the necromancers personal agendas, and there'd probably be a lot of conflicting stories as to what was actually said, followed by the inevitable specualtion regarding sematics and othersuch.

Bah! If you ask me, there's just no way that the Witch King would triumph. None, nada, no way, no how, unless he was directly aided by Sauron or Morgoth, which, of course, can not be confirmed or denied. Peter Jackson! You have forsaken me!!!!!!!!

alatar

02-08-2005, 11:40 AM

As for Denethor...I mean, come on. He was a power hungry lunatic who {seemingly} resented the return of the true heir and was under tremendous stress for any number of reasons. If not common sense, then common decency would point out that he was just trying to jibe the Gandalf.

From Denethor's POV, Gandalf shows up with some little short guy just after Boromir is found to be dead. Gandalf and Pippin are alive, but Denethor's beloved son is whale food. As far as Denethor may know, Gandalf used Boromir then threw him away when he wasn't part of Gandalf's plan anymore.

Now Gandalf seeks to 'save' Gondor because he has some scheme with Isildur's apparent heir, and so may 'Boromir' Denethor. Plus these two have a big disagreement regarding the Ring's use; Gandalf sends it off to the Nameless One's Magic Mountain via more short guys whereas Denethor would have kept it around for safe-keeping. Note that not all at the Council of Elrond thought that the Frodo option was a great idea.

Denethor, having a bad year, sees Gandalf not on the front line with Faramir (just what is a White Wizard good for anyway?) but in front of him giving him the Witch-King 411 as if Denethor were just some rag tag. So one might expect Denethor to be a bit discourteous.

Surely I have a healthy dose of favoritism for Gandalf and a bit of distaste for people like Denethor.

Really?!? I didn't notice... ;) You might have noticed that I'm a big fan myself, and so see all things through 'grey-colored' glasses.

Surely, I have been raised on Good vs Evil=Good will always win.

Not to get too philosophical, but in the short run Good can and does lose in Tolkien's world. Gandalf 'loses' on the Bridge, etc. Can't remember where it is exactly but I think that Tolkien has a character say something like, 'I can turn even Evil into Good not intended' or something - the whole quote by Iluvatar is a bit long and aren't I off topic enough already?

Anyway, Gandalf could have lost (in theory) to the Witch-King if in so doing he helped another character 'grow' (i.e. he could have taken the Ring to Mount Doom himself, but the 'plan' was to inspire the free peoples of ME to kick in.)

Snorri Swifthammer

02-08-2005, 11:57 AM

Gandalf and Pippin are alive, but Denethor's beloved son is whale food.

Most whales don't eat meat... :D

Not to get too philosophical, but in the short run Good can and does lose in Tolkien's world.

I'd agrue that good loses alot in Middle Earth.

I mean the whole thing starts with Melkor marring the song.

Then after things are set up nice, Melkor takes the elves and corrupts them. He destroys the lamps and then after the Valar set up the nice little trees, Melkor craps all over them with a spider and takes the elves shiny gems.

Elves come over and in a long process more or less lose the War of the Simirals until the Valar finally take pity on them. Gondolin (sp?) one of the brightest cities falls during the war.

Then after all that when finally Melkor is locked up and things look better, Sauron comes along and gets the nice, friendly humans to try and challenge the throne of the Valar and they are destroyed.

We then end up in the Third Age where the most powerful magic items have been corrupted by Sauron and the nine strongest human kings are all Saurons gophers.

Only in the end, on a longshot, does good finally triumph and that only happens because some uppity twisted hobbit doesn't realize he is standing on a ledge over a big pool of lava.

Overall, I think Middle Earth is the story of Good scrapping by despite the fact that the odds are stacked against them.

alatar

02-08-2005, 12:34 PM

Most whales don't eat meat... :D

It's well known that ME whales, precursors to the modern Orcas, were on the Atkin's diet during the end of the Third Age. ;)

I'd agrue that good loses alot in Middle Earth.

Overall, I think Middle Earth is the story of Good scrapping by despite the fact that the odds are stacked against them.

True - it's the long defeat leading up to the final battle where all is set aright; however, it's the good done along the way in spite of a stacked deck which is the cool thing. Gandalf was sent to inspire the MEers not to become like the Witch-King - succumbing to temptation, desiring power, riches, servants, slaves, etc yet remaining unsated and empty.

Gandalf sacrifices himself (the many journeys, the Bridge, hanging out with ragtag, etc) for the benefit of others. The W-K (in a cool scene left out of the movies) rides uncaring over both slave and foe alike. Gandalf would give you a choice whereas the Witch-King's choice was to submit or die.

Anyway, to get back to the thread (somewhat), I would like to see the scene from the book where Gandalf faces the W-K at the gate. After the W-K says his lines, I would love to hear Gandalf say, "Come get some..."

Snorri Swifthammer

02-08-2005, 12:47 PM

After the W-K says his lines, I would love to hear Gandalf say, "Come get some..."

I can see the scene now for ROTK:EEE (Extended Extended Version)

*Witch King stares Gandalf down after revealing himself at the gate*

Gandalf: Come get some....

*Cue epic battle music ala Duel of the Fates or that music from the Matrix*

*Witch King holds Flaming Sword O' Doom and BFM (Bif Friggin Mace) in battle stance*

*Gandalf begins whirling staff windmill style until it is just a blur. He then launches off the ground Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon style and comes down on the Witch King with a two handed strike that WK barely deflects*

Witch King: You weak pathetic fool! No man of a woman born can defeat me!

Gandalf: Duh!!! I wasn't born of anything, I a freaking Maiar!!!

Witch King: Oh Sh...

*Gandalf lights WK up with an uber-fireball and swings his staff baseball style launching the Flaming WK through the air where he flies out to the battle field and lands atop Gothmog*

Gimil: That still only counts as two....

------------------------

Yeah, I need help! :D :D :D

St. Povis

02-08-2005, 05:24 PM

:smokin:

Yes, I'd taken much of that into account, but I still can't change my viewpoint. To me, it is simply that simple...Maiar Istari outranks mortal undead human in all terms. Potential, Wisdom, Memories, Foresight, or just about anything else.

I can pity Denethor to some degree, but not enough to think that he's in the right. In truth, if there's anyone to blame, from my viewpoint, its not Denethor for being disrespectful, but the Valar and Illuvatar for slacking and contriving all sorts of weird rules for their agents when visiting Middle earth. Of course, there'd be a lot less to think about, and consequently, a possible hive mind would develop from having no mysteries to explore, but...

Anyway, that's my half cent's worth of input. From all of the facts I've seen (and I'm not saying I couldn't have overlooked or misunderstood some of them), it seems grossly unlikely that the WK would pose any real threat to the WW. I've written enough about this topic though, and I am realizing that I am developing an unhealthy obsession with this thread, and so its time for me to stop.

narfforc

02-14-2005, 10:08 AM

St Povis is correct in my view, A maia in any form is stronger than an undead human, even if it is enhanced by one of their own kind. The only enhancement a Nazgul has, is a ring, given by Sauron, Ok The Lord of The Nazgul has a few more tricks up his sleeve, but when all is said and done, his inherent power is that of The Engwar, whilst although subdued Gandalf was an Ainu.

narfforc

02-17-2005, 05:21 AM

"Dangerous!" cried Gandalf. "And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than ANYTHING you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord.

I must say that at this point Gimli wasnt going to The Undying Lands, so Gandalf must have meant ANYTHING in Middle-Earth.

alatar

02-17-2005, 11:18 AM

I must say that at this point Gimli wasnt going to The Undying Lands, so Gandalf must have meant ANYTHING in Middle-Earth.

I assume that the counterargument will be that though Gandalf may be one shade less dangerous than Sauron, this does not mean that he was invincible to all things 'below' him.

Note that a Singing She-Elf and her Ringbearing Boyfriend took down (momentarily) the First among the Valar.

The Saucepan Man

02-17-2005, 11:59 AM

... and a lowly (and wretched) man took out a (fallen) Istar.

narfforc

02-17-2005, 01:01 PM

To Alatar, yes you could say that, for who or what was invincible in Middle-Earth. Even the mightiest have a weakness.

alatar

02-17-2005, 01:13 PM

To Alatar, yes you could say that, for who or what was invincible in Middle-Earth. Even the mightiest have a weakness.

Agreed. Except for Iluvatar, all had a weak point that could be exploited. If not, would not Valinor be lit by Two Trees?

I used to argue the other side, but now I've jumped ship.

Gondor Girl

02-17-2005, 01:30 PM

I totally know what you're talking about. It's crazy how gandalf would be "afraid" of the witch king. I mean come on he even breaks his staff!! I think it's all crazy and Gandalf should not be afraid of him, even if no man has ever killed him. It bothered me, too.
:mad:

alatar

02-17-2005, 02:12 PM

It bothered me, too.

Welcome. And that scene is what got me started ranting here. :mad:

alatar

03-06-2005, 10:34 PM

So I was watching ROTK EE yet again, and a new question arose: How many Gondorians did Gandalf kill?

From the books, we have the noncombatants already out the city. When Gandalf meets the Witch-King at the main gate, they exchange some words and then the WK leaves (whether because of Gandalf or the Rohirrim - we've covered that already). The enemy does not enter the city, and Gandalf goes off in pursuit of presumably the WK. Pippin tells him about the Faramir BBQ, and so Gandalf goes to help.

In PJ's world, Gandalf meets the three uber-trolls who come through the gate (just where are those kids from Gryffindor when you really need them?). He coordinates the resistance, slowing the advance of the enemy, but it's like holding back nighfall. There are many noncombatants running around the first level, who I assume where there looking to sell T-shirts ("Battle of the Pelennor Fields, 3019") to pay for therapy for their Steward...

Anyway, Gandalf yells out some really smart advice ("Fight for your lives!" Duh!) then hears Pippin calling. Next scene Ganadalf and Pippin are on Shadowfax up near/at the seventh circle of the city. After losing his staff, honor, seat to the WK, horns blow, the WK leaves and Gandalf proceeds with Pippin to save Faramir.

Next scene, Gandalf and Pippin await the enemy high up in Minas Tirith.

So, my point is that Gandalf should have sacrificed the life of Faramir as (1) he could then have retained his staff, which could have been put to some use, (2) he could have saved many Gondorian soldiers and noncombatants in their flight from the first to the fifth/sixth/seventh circle (or wherever he sits to chat with Pippin) and (3) except for hanging out later with Eowyn for a few minutes, just what does Faramir do anyway, especially in terms of the current battle? If Gandalf were in need of dead/near dead bodies, I think that he needn't have looked very far.

Many commoners died because Gandalf thought it more important to save the Steward's son. ;)

Essex

03-07-2005, 03:56 AM

Pity about the Gondorians, but there's a thing called the domino affect. If Gandalf HAD gone after the Witch King, then we may have had a totally different order of events. If Gandalf did catch up with the WK and fought him on the fields, this may have totally changed the fact that Merry and Eowyn confronted him. The WK may have survived an ordeal with Gandalf, gotton away. This could have led to a defeat at Minas Tirith if the army of Sauron still had his leiutenant alive, and most importantly of all, the two Orc hunters that argue about the WK's death in earshot of Frodo and Sam would have no doubt picked up the hobbits trail if this had not happened and consequently they were not trying to kill each other.

Captured Frodo, captured Ring, end of Middle Earth as we know it.

Therefore, Gandalf not going after the WK servers many purposes in the story. It shows what a tight and well conceived plot Tolkien pieced together. Take out small (and sometimes seemingly trivial) parts, and the story will totally change.

So a few gondorians got it. Yeah, but Middle-earth was saved.

alatar

03-07-2005, 08:55 AM

Essex, I think that you missed my point. In the movie, Gandalf did not have a chance to go after the WK - Shadowfax can't fly, and accepting PJ's version of ME, I'm not sure that that's a battle that Gandalf would have sought out. If we take it at 'screen' value, Gandalf was in fear of the WK.

What I was trying to say that in PJ's world, Gandalf leaves the front line of battle (where he may have been of some effect) to go and save Faramir. To me that is silly as if all of Minas Tirith were to fall, what good would have Gandalf's act been?

Tolkien, as you state, made this all make sense.

Essex

03-07-2005, 11:17 AM

You need to explain what the difference is in Gandalf saving Faramir from the film to the book? I can see none. You say that movie Gandalf could not go after the Witch King. Why not, and what has that got to do with the price of fish anyway?

Please explain to me your reasoning behind it. You say Gandalf left the front line of battle in the film to save Faramir. He did so in the book as well.

PS The witch king got back on his winged beast again to confront theoden. He only got on his horse so he could go through the gates of Minas Tirith as it's first ever enemy to pass through.

alatar

03-07-2005, 11:44 AM

You need to explain what the difference is in Gandalf saving Faramir from the film to the book? I can see none. You say that movie Gandalf could not go after the Witch King. Why not, and what has that got to do with the price of fish anyway?

Thought that I did :) . In the book, Gandalf meets the WK at the main gate. In the movie, it's up somewhere near the seventh circle. In the book, no enemy enters the city. In the movie it's a deluge, and I think that they go up to at least the sixth circle. In the book the noncombatants have been evacuated. In the movie they are running for their lives just in front of (and sometimes not) the soldiers' retreat. In the books, Gandalf could exit the city to help the battle on the field, yet decides to go and save Faramir. In the movie Gandalf leaves the front of the battle (deserting soldiers and noncombatants to their fate) to go and save Faramir.

Hopefully that's more clear. In one version Gandalf has the choice to engage combat or save Faramir, in the other he has the choice to disengage and save.

And as you well know, I think that book-Gandalf would have chased the WK whereas the movie-Gandalf seemed to be in fear of the same - one might say more fearful than when confronting the Balrog - and so I don't see PJ's Gandalf pursuing the WK. First, how? It was tongue in cheek before, but who would Gandalf get o the field of battle now that the lower part of the city was overrun? Also, with staff gone he had no ranged attack.

Please explain to me your reasoning behind it. You say Gandalf left the front line of battle in the film to save Faramir. He did so in the book as well.

In think that the 'engagement' part is the difference.

PS The witch king got back on his winged beast again to confront theoden. He only got on his horse so he could go through the gates of Minas Tirith as it's first ever enemy to pass through.

Again I was referring to the movies. Still, I would have loved to have seen the WK riding through the gate as described.

Essex

03-07-2005, 04:47 PM

I can now see your point. A fair opinion, but here's my 2 cents:

Gandalf (in both film and book) knows that people will die because of his actions in leaving the witch king and going to try and save Faramir. Pippin: Can't you save Faramir?
Gandalf: Maybe I can, but if I do, then others will die, I fear. Well, I must come, since no other hhelp can reach him. But evil and sorrow will come of thisSo even, as you point out, Gandalf has not yet physically 'engaged', he still knows that by not engaging there and then, lives will be lost. In both book and film, Gandalf makes a sacrifice.

I think Tolkien has this happen for a number of reasons, one of them being the feeling it brings up (in me anyway) of why does he do this? why does he try to save one (or two) lives and sacrifice many more? Because this is what happens sometimes in the real world. many people may be sacrificed to save a more 'greater' or 'higher ' person. Most people on this site come from the usa maybe? therefore if a person in a security detail in the white house had to save either the President or a group of people, I put it to you that he would save the President. Faramir was technically the preson in charge of Minas Tirith and Gondor at this point because of Denethor's descent into Madness, so he was fairly high up.

PS The enemy had entered the City as soon as the WK rode through the gates ;)

alatar

03-07-2005, 10:04 PM

Gandalf (in both film and book) knows that people will die because of his actions in leaving the witch king and going to try and save Faramir. So even, as you point out, Gandalf has not yet physically 'engaged', he still knows that by not engaging there and then, lives will be lost. In both book and film, Gandalf makes a sacrifice.

Agreed, yet the sacrifice in the book is unknown until later. In the movie it's pretty visible who is going to feel the bite. Also, in PJ's world, Gandalf is of lesser stature than in the books, and so as I think that you may have stated in one of our many discussions that Gandalf acted like a good captain - he wasn't the leader of all of the free peoples as in the books. This captain had more than enough work right in front of him as the orcs and trolls were his match.

The book Gandalf sought bigger game.

I think Tolkien has this happen for a number of reasons, one of them being the feeling it brings up (in me anyway) of why does he do this? why does he try to save one (or two) lives and sacrifice many more? Because this is what happens sometimes in the real world. many people may be sacrificed to save a more 'greater' or 'higher ' person. Most people on this site come from the usa maybe? therefore if a person in a security detail in the white house had to save either the President or a group of people, I put it to you that he would save the President. Faramir was technically the preson in charge of Minas Tirith and Gondor at this point because of Denethor's descent into Madness, so he was fairly high up.

Understand your point, but Denethor was still in charge and Faramir was dead/dying and out of the battle, at least to movie-Gandalf's knowledge. Wasn't Faramir a bit nutty as he tried to commit suicide by orc?

So in the process of rescuing Faramir (one in the plus column), Gandalf abandons those in the lower levels to the orcs/trolls (a few in the minus). Then, for some reason PJ has Gandalf spur Shadowfax at Denethor, adding yet another to the minus list - and wouldn't that be fun to explain to Faramir?

And would not Gandalf sacrifice himself first, as he did on the bridge, to slow the advance? It's just the more I thought about it the more it seemed that Gandalf was 'running,' and you know how kindly I take to PJ disparaging my man Gandalf...

PS The enemy had entered the City as soon as the WK rode through the gates ;)

As usual, I will have to take your word on that until I get my books back. Cheers.

Essex

03-08-2005, 06:03 PM

Alatar, you need to go out and get another set of the books!

In rode the Lord of the Nazgul. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgul, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face.

The Saucepan Man

03-13-2005, 12:31 PM

I was reading Letter #210 in The Letters of JRR Tolkien, which is a lengthy (and highly critical) commentary dating from June 1958 on the script for a proposed film of LotR (which, in the event, went unmade). It is a highly entertaining read and gives a great insight into Tolkien's approach to the filmic treatment of his work (which is refreshingly realistic). Although the script in question appears to be far more at odds with the book than Jackson and co's script, it is nevertheless clear from this letter that there are a great many aspects of Jackson's films that he would have disliked.

But the following passage seems particulary relevant to this thread, especially with regard to the criticisms made of the apparent discrepancy between the film portrayal of the Witch-king's powers at Weathertop and his powers at the Pelennor. The passage follows on from Tolkien's expressed annoyance at the script for having Aragorn lead the Hobbits away from Bree at night, which he sees as entirely the opposite of what Aragorn would do in the circumstances:

[The Black Riders'] peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken.This would appear to support my theory that the Witch-king is given a "power-up" of sorts by Sauron prior to leading his armies into battle, and this is something that the film captures quite well, I think, in the scene in Minas Morgul when the Witch-king first rides out on his Fell Beast.

So, in both the book and the films, the Witch-king of Weathertop is a different proposition from the Witch-king at the Pelennor. Whether this will make his breaking of Gandalf's staff in the film any more credible to Tolkien fans is unlikely, but it addresses the apparent inconsistency between the portrayal of the W-K's powers in these two parts of the film trilogy.

narfforc

03-14-2005, 10:15 AM

The Saucepanman raises a good point, however Tolkien still does not say who is the mightier, and remember that Gandalf himself had also been enhanced. The two opponents would have been quite different from those that might have met on Weathertop.

alatar

03-14-2005, 10:35 AM

This would appear to support my theory that the Witch-king is given a "power-up" of sorts by Sauron prior to leading his armies into battle, and this is something that the film captures quite well, I think, in the scene in Minas Morgul when the Witch-king first rides out on his Fell Beast.

So, in both the book and the films, the Witch-king of Weathertop is a different proposition from the Witch-king at the Pelennor. Whether this will make his breaking of Gandalf's staff in the film any more credible to Tolkien fans is unlikely, but it addresses the apparent inconsistency between the portrayal of the W-K's powers in these two parts of the film trilogy.

I think that the books indicate clearly that the WK powered up for the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, but so had Gandalf when transforming from grey to white. In the movie these transformations/powering ups are also acknowledged, yet PJ has the WK go up more levels than I think is indicated, at least in comparision to Gandalf (heck, the WK didn't even change color! ;) )

In short, all of the characters (Aragorn, Gandalf, Frodo, Sam, WK, armies, etc) powered up as the story proceeded, but PJ was inconsistent/inconsiderate in regards to Gandalf.

The Saucepan Man

03-14-2005, 11:01 AM

In short, all of the characters (Aragorn, Gandalf, Frodo, Sam, WK, armies, etc) powered up as the story proceeded, but PJ was inconsistent/inconsiderate in regards to Gandalf.Yes, I agree. If there is any inconsistency in the portrayal of their respective "power levels" in the films, it is with regard to Gandalf the White rather than the Witch-king.

Tricky subject this though, as the extent of Gandalf the White's powers is not entirely clear from the book, by virtue of the restriction placed upon him as one of the Istari. He only uses his powers "offensively" in times of utmost need. While his true nature and limitations as one of the Istari are not addressed in the films, this will have had an effect on his film portrayal. And I agree with Essex that the book leaves open the question of who would have prevailed in a confrontation between him and the Witch-king at the time of the attack on Minas Tirith.

alatar

03-14-2005, 11:54 AM

Tricky subject this though, as the extent of Gandalf the White's powers is not entirely clear from the book, by virtue of the restriction placed upon him as one of the Istari. He only uses his powers "offensively" in times of utmost need. While his true nature and limitations as one of the Istari are not addressed in the films, this will have had an effect on his film portrayal.

Agreed. My opinion from reading the books is that Gandalf was permitted to use his powers only when needed to 'level the playing field,' and when in doing so he did not usurp another's chance to 'shine.' When Sauron and company start cheating at 'the game,' Gandalf jumps in. He can never force anyone to take action, but is permitted to persuade. Gandalf inspires hope and dispels fear so that characters can act as they'd want to. I've posted examples regarding this previously in this thread.

And I agree with Essex that the book leaves open the question of who would have prevailed in a confrontation between him and the Witch-king at the time of the attack on Minas Tirith.

As we have no data regarding the outcome, it then comes down to opinion. I leave you and Essex to your follies... :p

The Saucepan Man

03-14-2005, 12:32 PM

As we have no data regarding the outcome, it then comes down to opinion. I leave you and Essex to your follies...Ah, but I expressed no opinion. I simply noted that the question is left open. ;)

alatar

03-14-2005, 01:31 PM

Ah, but I expressed no opinion. I simply noted that the question is left open. ;)

To even raise the question assumes that there could be more than one possible outcome ;).

And though Eowyn and Merry would still 'do in' the Witch King, I think that had he not left when he did, he would ridden away from the gate smarting from (at the very least) a wizard-induced wedgie.

Essex

03-15-2005, 02:41 AM

I ask (again) why did Tolkien write the passage with the WK entering the city and confronting Gandalf? To show that the Rohirrim SAVED THE DAY. Not to show that Gandalf could have beaten the WK or vice versa.

In the movie, PJ just takes this a level or two higher (yes, I would have rathered Gandalf not looking so 'fearful', but this was PJ's way of showing that the 'world of men' has not failed, but were about to prevail).

This is EXACTLY what this scene is in the movie AND BOOK for. To highten the tension, to ratchet it up until we hear the horns of the rohirrim who save the day. This scene is not for us to see who would win in a battle between Gandalf and the WK. THAT IS IMMATERIAL TO THE STORY.

We all know that Gandalf WOULD not beat the WK because of the Prophecy. Note, this is not to say he COULD not have beaten, but WOULD not beat the WK. That is left to a hobbit and a woman.

So let's put this question into perspective. To me, it's at the same level of 'My dad's bigger than your dad' or 'Tom's older than Treebeard.' :)

davem

03-15-2005, 08:37 AM

We all know that Gandalf WOULD not beat the WK because of the Prophecy. Note, this is not to say he COULD not have beaten, but WOULD not beat the WK. That is left to a hobbit and a woman.

Just for the sake of having another argument with Essex :p - Its entirely possible that Gandalf could have defeated the WK - its even possible that that was one of the reasons he was 'sent back'. The prophecy spoke only of 'no living man'. As Gandalf was not a 'living man' but (to use Tolkien's term) 'an incarnate angel', its very likely that he could have brought down the WK. In fact that seems to have been exactly what he was in the process of doing when the Rohirrim turned up. I have to say that in my reading Gandalf seems pretty damn annoyed that he has to leave the WK to go rescue Faramir & says somewhat to the effect that others will suffer because he has been called away.

( I will use this as an excuse to link to another painting by my favourite Tolkien artist, S. Juchimov)
http://www.elvish.org/gwaith/ru_gandalf_nazguL_minas.jpg

Essex

03-15-2005, 12:11 PM

Just to carry on the argument with Davem :) its very likely that he could have brought down the WK. In fact that seems to have been exactly what he was in the process of doing when the Rohirrim turned up. Please explain where you get this reasoning from. He was facing up to the Witch King. Not, in fact, bringing him down.

andI have to say that in my reading Gandalf seems pretty damn annoyed that he has to leave the WK to go rescue FaramirAbsolutley. i stated that earlier. He had to possibly sacrifice the lives of many to save one. As he said - no one else could help Faramir, so he had to. Of COURSE Gandalf wanted to go after the WK. I'm not disputing that.

obloquy

03-15-2005, 01:38 PM

That's an amazing piece, davem.

davem

03-15-2005, 02:30 PM

Just to carry on the argument with Davem

its very likely that he could have brought down the WK. In fact that seems to have been exactly what he was in the process of doing when the Rohirrim turned up.

Please explain where you get this reasoning from. He was facing up to the Witch King. Not, in fact, bringing him down.

Well, as I said, its my reading of the text, but I think that it was Gandalf's intention to bring down the WK - & he surely knew the prophecy concerning him:

When the dark shadow at the Gate withdrew Gandalf still sat motionless. But Pippin rose to his feet, as if a great weight had been lifted from him; and he stood listening to the horns, and it seemed to him that they would break his heart with joy. And never in after years could he hear a horn blow in the distance without tears starting in his eyes. But now suddenly his errand returned to his memory, and he ran forward. At that moment Gandalf stirred and spoke to Shadowfax, and was about to ride through the Gate.
'Gandalf, Gandalf!' cried Pippin, and Shadowfax halted.
'What are you doing here?' said Gandalf. 'Is it not a law in the City that those who wear the black and silver must stay in the Citadel, unless their lord gives them leave?'
'He has,' said Pippin. 'He sent me away. But I am frightened. Something terrible may happen up there. The Lord is out of his mind, I think. I am afraid he will kill himself, and kill Faramir too. Can't you do something?'
Gandalf looked through the gaping Gate, and already on the fields he heard the gathering sound of battle. He clenched his hand. 'I must go,' he said. 'The Black Rider is abroad, and he will yet bring ruin on us. I have no time.
''But Faramir!' cried Pippin. 'He is not dead, and they will burn him alive, if someone does not stop them.'
'Burn him alive?' said Gandalf. 'What is this tale? Be quick!'
'Denethor has gone to the Tombs,' said Pippin, 'and he has taken Faramir, and he says we are all to burn, and he will not wait, and they are to make a pyre and burn him on it, and Faramir as well. And he has sent men to fetch wood and oil. And I have told Beregond, but I'm afraid he won't dare to leave his post: he is on guard. And what can he do anyway?' So Pippin poured out his tale, reaching up and touching Gandalf's knee with trembling hands. 'Can't you save Faramir?'
'Maybe I can,' said Gandalf; 'but if I do, then others will die, I fear. Well, I must come, since no other help can reach him. But evil and sorrow will come of this. Even in the heart of our stronghold the Enemy has power to strike us: for his will it is that is at work.'[/b]

Why must Gandalf go? Why does he have no time if he has no chance of defeating the WK? I still feel that Gandalf believed it was his task to defeat the WK, & that that was the only chance to avoid the deaths of 'others'. So, he clearly felt he was equal to the task...

That's an amazing piece davem

I take it you're referring to the painting. You can see all of the illustrations here:
http://www.elvish.org/gwaith/juchimov.htm

Essex

03-16-2005, 03:21 PM

gandalf MUST help him as he says himself Well, I must come, since no other help can reach him. But evil and sorrow will come of this. He 'had no time' until Pippin explained the situation fully and Gandalf realised clearly what was happening.

It's another example of Sacrifice that tolkien introduces. The first few times I read the book as a kid I fretted over his decision, but as I grew up, I finally came to terms with it. No one else could help Faramir, so Gandalf felt duty bound to do so.

I compare this (although loosely) with the view a get when I see trauma teams working in hospitals (via documentaries/films etc). You see literally dozens of people fighting to save one person's life. Now this person could be a low life, nasty, good for nothing wretch, but their DUTY is to save him. It brings a warm feeling to my heart to know we have such dedicated people in the real world.

This is how I feel towards Gandalf as he leaves the WK to his own devices, and turns to save the heir of the Steward. I no longer feel any nagging doubts towards Gandalf as he pursues this aim, and forgoes his battle with the WK. I admire his stance, even though, as he says, sorrow will come of it. - Perhaps he could have saved Thedoen if he followed the WK, but then again, perhaps not....

narfforc

03-25-2005, 10:36 AM

In Unfinished Tales (The Istari) I found the following sentences to be quite interesting: To the overthrow of Morgoth he (Manwe) sent his herald Eonwe. To the defeat of Sauron would he not send some lesser (but mighty) spirit of the angelic people, one coeval and equal, doubtless, with Sauron in their beginnings, but not more? Olorin was his name. But of Olorin we shall never know more than he revealed in Gandalf. Eonwe is considered to be mightier than Sauron, but his might is in arms. The Valar did not want another devasting war, so they sent back the Wise, So from the very beginning there was never going to be direct confrontation. Gandalf was sent to move peoples hearts and minds, that is exactly why the war was won, by outhinking Sauron.

We know that Gandalf was a Maia diminished, yet we are never told how much so. By clothing themselves (The Istari) in the flesh of Arda they are subject to the dimming of their knowledge and wisdom, and are confused by fears, cares and the weariness that come from that flesh. they are also told that they must forgo might. Yet in saying all this, Gandalf the Grey has been enhanced twice, firstly by the giving of Narya by Cirdan, and secondly by his elevation to Gandalf the White and being sent back with greater sanctity. Holding one of the Elven Rings of Power must account for something or it becomes a worthless piece of metal, and being sent back by The Valar with more power speaks for itself. So we come to Sauron, this incarnation (Third Age) is not the Sauron of old, he also is diminished by the fact that he passed a great deal of his power into The One Ring, something he no longer holds. This is why destroying it is so important, for if he recaims it, he also reclaims his lost power. We can only speculate as to the outcome of any meeting between these two Maia at the end of The Third Age, but I feel it would not be as one-sided as many think. First Age Sauron was deafeated by Luthien, a Half-Maia. So we are given the image of Gandalf the White as a very great power, how could the shade of a mortal hope to win that contest, it is not possible. The Witch-King is the High Nazgul, the Ringwraiths main weapons are fear (lets not think of The Spanish Inquisition), and the effect of that is lessened on those of strong heart and mind ala Gandalf and Aragorn on Weathertop. The thing that sets The Morgul Lord apart is that he is a sorcerer, yet this magic has its source in his being, and that was mortal, so it is of less power than even one of the Silvan Elves, had they have had the same knowledge.
We are told that Sauron had given The Lord of the Nazgul more power, yet this has to come from somewhere, if so then it came from Saurons already lessened being, therefore it cannot be as great has the power that The Valar has given back to Gandalf. So to have The Lord of the Nazgul break Gandalfs staff is ridiculous. The excuse that it was for the non-reading cinema public cannot be used, for it was not in the theatre version, it is only in the Extended version, I cannot believe that Jackson put this in for the benefit of us true fans, so what motivated him to think he could better the works of Tolkien.

NOOOOOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION.

Guinevere

03-25-2005, 01:30 PM

first posted by Nafforc:
I cannot believe that Jackson put this in for the benefit of us true fans, so what motivated him to think he could better the works of Tolkien.
I don't think PJ thought or even knew so much about all these things you all write about! He probably looked at it from quite a different point of view. After all he isn't a Tolkien scholar, but a moviemaker. Consider what he said at one place in the commentaries to RotK:
" my memory is just so muddy about all this stuff because I hadn't obviously picked up the book and actually read the book for years I only read little bits and pieces of it. Just reading sections of it, you loose the experience of the book as a whole..."

alatar

03-25-2005, 01:42 PM

Nice post, narfforc.

However, as Essex would say, there are examples throughout Tolkien's world where a being that is ontologically 'lower' defeats/hampers/fights a being that is higher in the scheme of things. Here are a few that I could easily cite:

- Morgoth vs Luthien/Beren
- Sauron vs Luthien
- Morgoth vs Fingolfin
- Glaurung vs Dwarves
- Smaug vs Bard
- Gothmog (Lord of Balrogs) vs Ecthelion of the Fountain
- Balrog vs Gandalf Diminished
- King Nazgul vs Eowyn
- Troll vs Pippin

Not that PJ cares... ;)

narfforc

03-26-2005, 03:16 AM

Point taken Alatar, But we din`t want to see Gandalf humiliated did we. And Guinivere, PJ made great claims as to being a fan of Tolkien, I think we now see that he meant that he had read LotR a couple of times.

Keeper of Dol Guldur

03-26-2005, 03:59 PM

We come to it at last ... my post on this topic.

Haha, that sounded vain.

Alright.

The mechanics of the confrontation weren't that bad. Yes, in the book, Gandalf stood atop Shadowfax while W-K waltzed in on his own black horse ... Gandalf told him to go back to abyss ... the W-K would have just waltzed in anyway, and fought Gandalf right there if the horns hadn't sounded. He may even have won ...

In the movie, Gandalf told him to go back to the abyss ... and he again lit his sword on fire, taunted Gandalf, and got ready to do his worst.

The difference is ... in the movies, the Nazgul had lost their horses in Fellowship, and in Two Towers got new rides. The whole film showed W-K on a fell beast, why suddenly swap in a horse just for riding through the front gate?

So, he landed on the second wall. That's a big change, but not a vastly important, OH NO THE MOVIE IS RUINED one.

Here's my problem.

First of all, it seemed rushed and not dramatic enough. Gandalf rode through the bastion of stone, and W-K just lands there ... then Gandalf just tells him to go back to the abyss.

There should have been a long standoff, silent, for like ... 20 seconds.

I wanted a "You shall not pass!" style yelling match. "GO BACK TO THE ABYSS". Loud, we know Gandalf can do it.

And they should have spent more time on the landing ... Gandalf is riding along, and the Witch-King spots him from the air and flies "On his tail", like he told Pippin he hoped wouldn't happen any time soon. Then Witch-King flies forward, and lands right in front of Gandalf, and Shadowfax rears up, throwing Pippin and Gandalf.

I did like how Shadowfax stood his ground there against a frigging dragon.

Anyway, the staff breaking thing ... seemed pointless, but whatever. The idea is when a wizard comes up against something that outpowers him enough to break his staff, they're screwed. PJ wanted the staffs to be an important part of wizardry.

Oh, and I think that the very first horn note of the Rohirrim was too subdued. They should have made it just a little louder. So everyone knew why Witch-King bailed.

But other than the fact that it was too brief, lacked a powerful intro, and Gandalf's lines were too succint ... I loved it. That sword on fire stuff rocked.

alatar

03-26-2005, 09:58 PM

Agree with Keeper of Dol Guldur that the scene was rushed. Have to make time for that drinking scene...(sigh).

On a slightly different tack, don't you think PJ could have spared one moment having someone in Gondor (1) acknowledge the Rohirrim's arrival and (2) cheer? Again, now that I've completed my therapy and have accepted Gandalf's staff-breaking, I'm on to complaining elsewhere. Would that have made sense regarding the sudden 'retreat' of the Witch-King? He could leave Gandalf's demise to another time (he took his staff - what else was there to do?), but he would want to put out the Rohirrim-inspired hope before that got out of hand.

Snorri Swifthammer

03-28-2005, 11:07 AM

While on a business trip I stumbled upon irrefutable proof that in the battle of Gandalf vs. the Witch King that Gandalf wins.

While playing with my Lord of the Rings playing cards I noticed the WK is lumped in with the other Ringwraiths as a Queen, while Gandalf is an Ace! Well, I think that more or less wraps up this discussion. :rolleyes:

Move along nothing to see here... :D

obloquy

03-28-2005, 02:13 PM

Valar

05-10-2005, 08:55 PM

All you have to do is read JRR Tolkien's book......Gandalf learns of Theodens death
It quotes: Shall we weep or be glad? Beyond hope the Captin of our foes has been destroyed, and you have heard the echo of his last despair. But he has not gone without woe or bitter loss. And that I might have averted but for the madness of Denethor.
Gandalf is an Marai exactly the same as Sauron himself but is not permited to use all of his power which was part of the bargin of the chossen wizards coming to middle earth.
He is without question more powerful than the witch king....But all would know this if they really read the book and not just take what they want from words within and creat their own meanings :mad:

Essex

05-11-2005, 06:36 AM

Ha Ha! The Movie page's most infamous thread has come back to haunt us.

Thank you, Valar, for resurrecting it, even though I disagree with the 'certainty' you state is shown in the book re Gandalf's power over the WK.

read your post again Valar. You will see a particular word highlighted here: And that I might have averted but for the madness of Denethor.Now if Gandalf was one thing, he definately wasn't modest. If he felt he could do something he would come right out and say it. But here we have him questioning himself re the possibility of defeating the WK, by the use of the word 'might'

PS your point But all would know this if they really read the book and not just take what they want from words within and creat their own meaningsThat is exactly why we have this forum for. You can have your own opinions on what Tolkien is saying. That is one of the reasons why the book is loved so much. For example, just one word taken a different way from Glorfindel's Prophecy re the Witch King sets up endless hours of conversation.

PPS Welcome to the Downs by the way

PPPS My eariler points on the WK being perhaps more Stronger in the film because this film needed a 'Baddie' to focus on. I feel vindicated because I've finally listened to the Directors' commentaries on the WK scenes, and they say pretty much what I implied. Because we don't see Sauron (after they made the wise decision to airbrush him out of the black gate fight scene) PJ and co decided they needed a 'baddie' to focus on, and the WK was next in line.

alatar

05-11-2005, 08:24 AM

It quotes: Shall we weep or be glad? Beyond hope the Captin of our foes has been destroyed, and you have heard the echo of his last despair. But he has not gone without woe or bitter loss. And that I might have averted but for the madness of Denethor.

My favorite thread is back!

Anyway, though the misguided souls thoroughly entrenched in the 'Witch-King is stronger' camp may disagree ;) , a fair reading of the entire quote would reveal that Gandalf is not talking about his encounter with the Witch-King, nor does the word might mean that he was in doubt as to the outcome of such a battle.

Gandalf is simply saying that the death of Theoden might have been averted. He may also be speaking about Eowyn, as if she were to die in the depths of the Black Breath, then that would be pretty bitter. The statement simply means that even if Gandalf fought the Witch-King to a 'tie' (as if!), the Witch-King might not then have had the time to make Snowmane kill Theoden.

Where the might comes in is that Gandalf does not know if Theoden would still have found his death on the battlefield, though by less interesting devices (stray arrow, stomped by a mumakil, impaled on a sharp stick after tripping over a prone Hobbit...).

And being a very wise wizard (aren't we all? ;) ), Gandalf already has an alibi in case a pack of ravishing lawyers from Rohan show up with a wrongful death lawsuit - he's pinned the blame on the dead Steward. Dead men don't argue very well, Pippin is the only 'objective' witness and if Aragorn ascends to the throne, he would be able to sweep the whole incident under the rug.

Essex

05-11-2005, 10:48 AM

Alatar, your point: Where the might comes in is that Gandalf does not know if Theoden would still have found his death on the battlefield, though by less interesting devices (stray arrow, stomped by a mumakil, impaled on a sharp stick after tripping over a prone Hobbit...)disagree, but again it comes down to how one reads the line and the character's traits.

As I said, Gandalf was not in the least Modest, and would state exactly what he meant and wanted whenever he could. Here, to me, he seems DOUBTFUL as to whether he could have stopped the WK's attack on Thedoen. Hopeful, yes, but not CERTAIN (and that is what I was trying to explain). And why would Gandalf state the obvious anyway? Of course Theoden could have been killed by arrow, etc, but that's War. It could have happened to anyone, and for Gandalf to say this would seem redundant.

And for the millionth time (but maybe the first for Valar), we are talking about what the Director and co had to do from a 'Movie' point of view. Having the WK ride in on a horse, speak a few words to Gandalf and then leave again would not have worked on film (as it DOES in the book). We needed a 'cliffhanger' , tension etc, and to show that the Rohirrim SAVED the DAY. This is how they chose to do it.

alatar

05-13-2005, 09:10 AM

As I said, Gandalf was not in the least Modest, and would state exactly what he meant and wanted whenever he could. Here, to me, he seems DOUBTFUL as to whether he could have stopped the WK's attack on Thedoen. Hopeful, yes, but not CERTAIN (and that is what I was trying to explain). And why would Gandalf state the obvious anyway? Of course Theoden could have been killed by arrow, etc, but that's War. It could have happened to anyone, and for Gandalf to say this would seem redundant.

Maybe Gandalf, like Galadriel, is aware of what could happen. He may have known that if he turned aside from the task of saving Faramir that a worse outcome would have resulted. And even knowing this, he still might have felt some guilt knowing that if he were at Thoeden's side that things may have turned out differently for Theoden and Eowyn. Can't be everywhere at once.

And for the millionth time (but maybe the first for Valar), we are talking about what the Director and co had to do from a 'Movie' point of view. Having the WK ride in on a horse, speak a few words to Gandalf and then leave again would not have worked on film (as it DOES in the book). We needed a 'cliffhanger' , tension etc, and to show that the Rohirrim SAVED the DAY. This is how they chose to do it.

Yep. In the movie there is no indication that Gandalf's presence on the battlefield would have made one whit of difference. Surely he is shown as a capable captain of men. After the staff-breaking he was reduced a leader who could wield a sword and do a few card tricks...

Note that I love the Rohirrim 'attack' scene - it's pretty emotional. PJ could have done something similar with Gandalf if he wanted to show him in a greater role - the gate scene wasn't as emotional.

Doesn't Gandalf 'down' one of the trolls? Have to review the scene again, but I think that he does. Note that though the Rohirrim save the day, they did not face any trolls. ;)

And regarding the Rohirrim (and maybe this is another thread), was it the best thing for Theoden to line up his forces and meet the mumakil charge head on? I would have split up a bit and try to flank them.

The Saucepan Man

05-13-2005, 09:44 AM

Gandalf is an Marai exactly the same as Sauron himself but is not permited to use all of his power which was part of the bargin of the chossen wizards coming to middle earth. He is without question more powerful than the witch king....But all would know this if they really read the book and not just take what they want from words within and creat their own meanings It is important to remember that the films do not portray the same story as that told in the book. Nor do they feature precisely the same characters. As far as I can recall, there is no reference in the films to Maiar, let alone any explanation of what they were.

There is little indication in the films that Gandalf is anything more than a Mannish wizard, albeit a very powerful one. Given the suggestion (for which there is book justification) that the Witch-king was "powered up" before the assault on Gondor and in light of what Essex points out concerning the film needing a major "baddie", I see no reason why, in the film, the Witch-king (after his "power up") should not be seen as equal in power to Gandalf. And, as I have said before, even if one were to view Gandalf as the stronger, there is no particular reason why he should not be bettered by a weaker opponent.

Mansun

05-22-2005, 04:16 AM

alatar

05-27-2005, 12:06 PM

The main reason for PJ to make the Witch King seem more superior to Gandalf was probably to make up for the fact that Sauron himself could not be used properly for battle in the film. Therefore, another character of great power had to be used as the main source of terror and invincibility, If Gandalf was to be potrayed as more powerful than the WK, it would have made a laughing stock of the WK as the main threat from Mordor. In the book, Gandalf appears a little anxious of the might of the WK, sensing that he is close to Gandalf's power, and while I don't think the WK would defeat him, I think he could still withstand Gandalf, so the real fear of resulted from the idea of who could destroy him?

Think that you've hit it on the head. What could PJ do with the 'Eye' that he'd constructed? Make it glare menacingly at Gondor? It was a bit ridiculous when the Eye (of which I'd had my own imaginings about from reading the books) become the 'searchlight of Mordor.'

Anyway, as you say, if Sauron could not come to Minas Tirith, then PJ would have to use the next best thing to scare the defenders and show to the audience that there existed a threat to not only the unnamed extras but also to the Big G himself.

I guess what didn't work for me is that (as we all have read me saying many times before) is that I can't see Gandalf getting owned, and also the Witch King wasn't that scary for me. I could see how the Balrog was going to be a problem, but the Witch King on wings wasn't shown to be as menacing as he was in the books.

Maybe if PJ had added a few scenes showing how terrible WK was, then maybe I'd buy into it a bit more.

By the by, welcome to the Downs Mansun.

Essex

05-27-2005, 12:54 PM

Think that you've hit it on the head. What could PJ do with the 'Eye' that he'd constructed? Make it glare menacingly at Gondor? It was a bit ridiculous when the Eye (of which I'd had my own imaginings about from reading the books) become the 'searchlight of Mordor.'

Anyway, as you say, if Sauron could not come to Minas Tirith, then PJ would have to use the next best thing to scare the defenders and show to the audience that there existed a threat to not only the unnamed extras but also to the Big G himself.Yes, that's what I've been saying for the past 5 months. see my earlier post: PPPS My eariler points on the WK being perhaps more Stronger in the film because this film needed a 'Baddie' to focus on. I feel vindicated because I've finally listened to the Directors' commentaries on the WK scenes, and they say pretty much what I implied. Because we don't see Sauron (after they made the wise decision to airbrush him out of the black gate fight scene) PJ and co decided they needed a 'baddie' to focus on, and the WK was next in line.Have a listen to the commentaries that the director et all pretty much say this during the witch king scenes (including the scene when we see his helmet placed on his head)

alatar

05-27-2005, 08:39 PM

Yes, that's what I've been saying for the past 5 months. see my earlier post: Have a listen to the commentaries that the director et all pretty much say this during the witch king scenes (including the scene when we see his helmet placed on his head)

I'm sure that you did, it's just that I can hardly remember yesterday; that and I think that I'm over the movies, and so may be more inclined to listen to reason ;).

Mansun

06-01-2005, 03:46 PM

Firstly, In the book, quite a separate debate from the film altogether, I think everyone can agree that Gandalf was the second most powerful opponent after Sauron in the Lord of the Rings, as he was quoted as being "more dangerous that anything else you would ever meet, unless you were brought before the seat of the Darklord". The WK could possibly be viewed as relatively minor when compared in terms of some of the powers that dwelt in the first and second age in ME. I wouldn't put it past Glorfindel and the alike to smite him in single combat, nevermind Gandalf, even if the WK tested them to the limits. His strongest weapon really was fear, and his strength of will over others, but they were of no use against these two.

Also, referring more to the film, just because there was a prophecy that no living man would kill the WK, that does not mean nobody had the power to destroy him. It was just a comment to add hype to his character, being as Sauron would play so little a part in LOTR. We are reminded that there exists other threats from Mordor to ME than just Sauron himself, so it worked well to make the WK a little like how Sauron was shown as being mighty in the beginning of the FOTR.

Mansun

07-03-2005, 06:03 PM

I think the WK was pretty scary in the book, and in the films (for his enemies that is). Though the balrog was clearly another proposition, more menacing, a larger opponent. If Gandalf could defeat the Balrog, he would be strong favourite against the WK.

We don't really see enough of Sauron in the film though, or the book. I am a big fan of him, and I could see him creating havoc in the ranks of Gondor, though he'd probably be too lazy to march so far to war, nor would there be any need for him 2 get off his thrown, unless he was forced to by the threat of Gondor, as in the last alliance battle. I'd love to see a film based on that part of ME history!!!

Anyone else agree?

Mansun

07-12-2005, 05:57 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boromir88
While reading an excellent post on another forum it posed the question of whether Gandalf saying that he was also a "steward" is more symbolic/metaphorical or if we can see Gandalf as actually being a "steward."

Tolkien establishes a difference between Denethor's definition of "Steward", and Gandalf's definition of "steward." Notice the use of capitilized, uncapitilized.

There can be two different meanings behind the word Steward. Denethor takes his "Stewardship" as he is the "Lord of Gondor," he is it's absolute ruler, and he throws this lackluster response at the end..."I remain in power! Ohhh...unless the king returns." Where another possible word for steward is "guardian." They look over, protect, land/property for it's master.

I think we can all see that throughout the book Gandalf fulfills this stewardship role, he is the caretaker of Middle-earth. But is this supposed to be taken more symbolically? Or is Gandalf the actual steward of Middle-earth? The "steward" of Eru? "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor." In that matter, could we also think that all the Istari were the "stewards of Middle-earth," just they strayed from their "stewardship" task?

The above post clearly implies that Gandalf was actually a much more powerful opponent than the WK, but was forbidden by Eru to reveal his true power against the enemy, as that was not the reason Eru sent the Istari to ME. Thats why Tolkein decided not to allow a direct battle between him and the WK. I think that the WK (and almost everybody in ME for tht matter) was not aware of the true nature of Gandalf, hence his abusive curses as the two confronted each other.

The WK could not have killed Gandalf, only a being of similar or greater stature, such as a Balrog, or Sauron, could have done so. Gandalf might have been anxious to face the WK, but that was probably because the WK was more than a match for anybody else in Gondor, and could sway the outcome of the fate of ME during the siege of Gondor, unless Gandalf confronted him, and also of the folly of Denethor. Gonder was vulnerable even with the aid of Rohan.

PJ did not work with this idea as it would not suffice in the film to draw the audience.

Essex

07-12-2005, 10:02 AM

The WK could not have killed Gandalf, only a being of similar or greater stature, such as a Balrog, or Sauron, could have done soAt the expense of repeating myself. WHY?

Did David beat Goliath?

Did a hobbit and a woman beat the Witch King?

Does a favourite win every horse race?

What a boring place the world would be if only the strongest won every battle.

obloquy

07-12-2005, 10:32 AM

Did David beat Goliath?

No, God beat Goliath.

Did a hobbit and a woman beat the Witch King?

No, the Dagger of Westernesse beat the Witch-King.

Does a favourite win every horse race?

The difference between one horse and another is nothing like the difference between a Man and one of the more powerful Maiar.

What a boring place the world would be if only the strongest won every battle.

We're not talking about our world, we're talking about a world where there are different tiers of spiritual puissance among physical beings. The Witch-King could only have defeated Gandalf if Gandalf had allowed it through a willful restraint of power, as he did in his duel with the Balrog.

Mansun

07-12-2005, 10:33 AM

Because Gandalf is not an ordinary creature like the others you mentioned, including the WK. He is an angelic spirit. Only a similar being could destroy him. There is no weapon, even that of the one used by Merry to defeat the WK, that could harm Gandalf.

Mansun

07-12-2005, 10:47 AM

Argonath must be pleased about how many posts and views his thread has had!

Essex

07-13-2005, 02:54 AM

All your points re gandalf definately being able to defeat the Witch King are based on one thing:

CONJECTURE

Was Sauron the greatest, strongest 'being' on Middle-earth - Perhaps. Was he beaten by a pair of Hobbits? Yes.

As has been metioned before on this thread, Gandalf was not 'allowed' to use his great power in the use force on Middle-earth. If he HAD been allowed to, why not storm the Tower himself?

I find it amusing that so many people have a 100% certainty that Gandalf would have beaten the Witch King in a fight. I am saying that it is NOT certain.

Show me proof that Gandalf would definately defeat the Witch King. You can't.

PS - the sword of westernesse WAS instrumental in defeating the Witch King, but it did not kill him alone. The fatal blow was delivered by Eowyn, after Merry had 'unknit' the spell holding the WK's sinews together. Don't detract from the hobbit and maiden's heroism by saying a sword alone killed the witch king.

Mansun

07-13-2005, 09:12 AM

Sauron was defeated because his major source of power in the One Ring was destroyed. The WK was defeated because his spell of immunity to ordinary weapons was broken. But these circumstances cannot be applied to Gandalf - there is no way he could be defeated unless there was somebody of the required power to break him and his staff (i.e. like how Saruman was stripped of his power and removed from the Order by Gandalf the White).

Who is there that could do that? Gandalf does not depend on a spell to protect him like the WK, nor the Ring as with Sauron. As with Balrogs, only a greater power is assured of victory against the Istari. They are therefore not as vulnerable as the enemy.

As for Gandalf storming the Dark Tower - Eru forbid the Istari to reveal their true power against the enemy, so he could not have done so. Eru intended to get them to reunite the free people of the world against Sauron, rather than ask them to have direct battle with the Darklord (which would take away any point writing LOTR the way it was at all). Even if Gandlaf had demanded a duel, as Sauron belonged to an even higher Mair order, he would most likely break him through possessing the greater power.

Essex

07-13-2005, 09:19 AM

As for Gandalf storming the Dark Tower - Eru forbid the Istari to reveal their true power against the enemy, so he could not have done so.that's exactly what I'm saying. he was forbidden to use his 'true' powers in force against the enemy.

So how could he have defeated the Witch King?

Mansun

07-13-2005, 09:25 AM

I did not say Gandalf would definately defeat the WK, even though he could if he was not restrained of his full power. I meant rather that the WK could not defeat Gandalf. The Wizard's role in the confrontation was to hold off the WK. Gandalf would have only revealed his true power if he had really been forced to and had no choice, as with his battle against a foe of his equal, the Balrog of Morgoth. Even against the Balrog, the Wizard tried to avoid a direct battle by breaking the bridge at the feet of his enemy. He tried instead to hold off the Balrog.

alatar

07-13-2005, 09:40 AM

Mansun

07-13-2005, 09:42 AM

I agree Altar to some extent. But Tolkein's world will always be compared to PJ's version of ME.

obloquy

07-13-2005, 09:46 AM

A bit harsh, obloquy, don't cha think?

And it amazes me that this horse, dead for some time now, still gets whipped. ;)

And to make a much repeated point, one must consider that (1) we are in the Movies part of the forum and so (2) we must restrict ourselves to Peter Jackson's Middle Earth and not that of Professor Tolkien.

Not that that ends the discussion.

Cheers.

I only know how to beat dead old hobby horses. If I'm not posting about Gandalf, I'm probably posting about Balrogs.

I did forget that we're in the forum for the movies, though.

Essex

07-13-2005, 10:09 AM

Obloquy.

let me explain the argument.

My argument is for posters who say that Gandalf could definatley defeat the Witch King need to show me proof that Gandalf could do this. They cannot, including your attempt on your last post to me. They can offer only conjecture, however well pointed out. And now I'm talking about the books, never mind the film.

All my points above are to show that The Lord of the Rings, if it shows anything, is to show that the weak/ the common man etc can defeat the Strong.

It's not a a case of my dad's bigger than you're dad so he can beat you up.

And therefore, I am stating that if a certain being is stronger than another being in the books, it does not give us certainty that that being will alwys win.

Do you understand my point now? If you don't, that's a pity, but one thing you have done is shown me your quality with your last reply to me. It's a pity we have comments like this on the forums.

Essex

07-13-2005, 10:29 AM

double posting here, but getting back to replying to someone (Mansun) who raises some good points and in a friendly manner.

I did not say Gandalf would definately defeat the WK, even though he could if he was not restrained of his full power.Then my comments above were not directed at you then, sorry. I meant rather that the WK could not defeat Gandalf. see my point below on the Istari from Unifinished tales. Why not? The Wizard's role in the confrontation was to hold off the WK. Gandalf would have only revealed his true power if he had really been forced to and had no choice, as with his battle against a foe of his equal, the Balrog of Morgoth.but would he be allowed? reading the unfinished tales, I would say he was not allowed to do this. If he was going to show his True power to defeat the sources of evil, why bother with the Witch King. Like I said above, why not just confront Sauron?
Even against the Balrog, the Wizard tried to avoid a direct battle by breaking the bridge at the feet of his enemy. He tried instead to hold off the Balrog.totally agree. again he could not use his 'latent' powers, but tried to indirectly win by breaking the bridge. And, (to start another flurry of posts!), I'm rereading LOTR for the umpteenth time, and Gandalf's just told me about the Balrog's death. How exactly DID he die? It's not made clear. 'I threw down my enemy, and he fell from the high palce and broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin'. Did the fall kill the balrog, or did Gandalf? Is this why Tolkien had them falling into water from the bridge, inasmuch to break their fall?
Sauron was defeated because his major source of power in the One Ring was destroyed. The WK was defeated because his spell of immunity to ordinary weapons was broken. But these circumstances cannot be applied to Gandalf - there is no way he could be defeated unless there was somebody of the required power to break him and his staff (i.e. like how Saruman was stripped of his power and removed from the Order by Gandalf the White). to answer the point I've highlighted in bold above, here is part of the text from the Unfinished Tales, the Istari For with the consent of Eru they sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies of as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain.Yes, he had his staff, (which we have had numerous posts on on this thread earlier on!) but, to me ata least, this seems to show that Gandalf COULD be slain by a weapon.

Mansun

07-13-2005, 10:33 AM

Gurthang

07-13-2005, 10:38 AM

Maybe this has been brought up before; I haven't had time to read it all, so tell me if I'm repeating someone.

Gandalf could have defeated the WK. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the prophecy not say that the Witch-King will not be killed by a living men. If that is so, then Gandalf could not have destroyed him, but he could have beaten him and driven him back. If Gandalf did that, I would count that as defeating the WK, if not for good.

But there is no way to tell that he would have defeated him. He is a Maia, but in physical form. Isildur beat Sauron while Sauron was physical. But was the Witch-King stronger than Isildur? He would have to be to defeat Gandalf, an incarnate Maia. Yet the WK was defeated by Eowyn and Merry. It's so confusing.

Basically, I'm saying he could have, not would have.

Essex, I really like what you said earlier about smaller, weaker people beating the bigger, stronger people. And I can easily see the examples thoughout Tolkien's works.

Bard beat Smaug.
Gandalf beat the Balrog. (Gandalf might not be weaker, but the Balrog is definitely bigger!)
Gondor/Rohan beat Mordor's army.
Sam beats Shelob.
Frodo (indirectly) beats Sauron.
Eowyn/Merry beat the Witch-King.

It's a very nice theme to have, and I'm glad you pointed it out. :D

Essex

07-13-2005, 11:17 AM

I showed you proof based on what Tolkien wrote, yet you choose to ignore it.read it, was interested by it, but it was explaining gandalf's fight with the balrog, and not the witch king. circumstantial evidence.

I actually like this point, and the point Mansun states about the balrog encounter. Gandalf decided not to fight the balrog there and then. it could be a case that he didn't want the other members of the fellowship dragged into the fight, (at least aragorn and boromir who stood by him), as they could well of got killed.

but your next point (and I did miss this first time around, and is what I've been saying for the past god knows how long since this thread started) is, and I quite you:allowed himself to be defeated by the Balrog, which, in turn, indicates that he had the latent power to defeat the Balrog decisively.YES HE PROBABLY DID HAVE THE LATENT POWER TO DEFEAT THE BALROG AND THE WITCH KING BUT HE WAS FORBIDDEN TO USE THIS POWER!!!!!!!

Therefore he was not certain to beat the Witch King, and could also have been defeated, as mentioned in the Istari section of Unfinished Tales I've quoted above.

Essex

07-13-2005, 11:29 AM

Sorry, double posting againI understand the saccharine, comforting ideal you impose upon Tolkien's work. So what do you take from tolkien's work? I take a bittersweet feeling, not a saccharine, alls well feeling. Many of the characters Lost a lot. I've already let my thoughts on this be known in other threads. But to say a view that the weak defeat the strong is saccharine?

alatar

07-13-2005, 11:34 AM

Gandalf beat the Balrog. (Gandalf might not be weaker, but the Balrog is definitely bigger!)

Wasn't the book Balrog (as opposed to everything PJ) just over "man-sized?" Would this make him at most a little taller than Gandalf?

Of course it's well known that 'wings' always gives the appearance of greater stature...;)

narfforc

07-13-2005, 11:35 AM

My friends, I think in the end you will all have to agree to disagree, this argument is going round in circles, all sides will not give ground, and though there are good points on either side, they are not being accepted.

The Only Real Estel

07-13-2005, 11:44 AM

Wasn't the book Balrog (as opposed to everything PJ) just over "man-sized?" Would this make him at most a little taller than Gandalf?

From The Fellowship of the Ring:

"What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it...

The Balrog made no answer. The fire in it seemed to die, but the darknesss grew. It stepped forward slowly on to the bridge, and suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall; but still gandalf could be seen, glimmering in the gloom; he seemed small, and altogether alone: grey and bent, like a wizened tree before the onset of a storm"

Mansun

07-13-2005, 12:12 PM

The Istari could be slain, but most likely only if they were first broken, i.e. Saruman. Then they would just become as vulnerable as the WK was when his spell was broken. But it still remains very questionable as to whether the WK had it in him to break Gandalf the White. Even the Balrog didn't manage that. So its no wonder why this thread has attracted a lot of debate, as most of us are of the opinion that the WK would have been held off to retreat from Minas Tirith in the Siege of Gondor.

Mansun

07-13-2005, 12:50 PM

And as for why the WK would definately not beat Gandalf? The reason being, Gandalf would surely reveal enough of his true power to be able to withstand the WK and not be killed by an inferior, albeit mighty, opponent. I think Eru would have allowed him to have done so much as that.

Mansun

07-13-2005, 12:55 PM

Otherwise, Eru may as well have sent Gandalf as an old wisened man with no power what-so-ever, if he were unable to fully defend himself against Sauron's servants! Remember, Gandalf the Grey defeated the Balrog, and held off all the Nine ring wraiths at night. So an enhanced Gandalf the White is a frightening prospect to all, save Sauron.

Gurthang

07-13-2005, 04:57 PM

Mansun

07-13-2005, 05:02 PM

That's IT, Mansun! I think you've solved it!

Gandalf, while still the grey, was able to hold off all nine Ringwraiths on Weathertop. This would include the Witch-King. Meaning that not only could Gandalf defeat him, but he did defeat him. And surely Gandalf the White could take on a single Wraith much more easily.

True, but then again Aragorn also managed to hold off five of the Ringwraiths AT Weathertop, including the WK. These foes were not so powerful as fear made them, if you had the might to confront them.

Mansun

07-13-2005, 05:12 PM

Also, Aragorn would have almost certainly been slain by the Balrog had he come to square up to this foe on the Bridge in Moria. Yet he held off five of the Nazgul all at once.

Interesting.

Essex

07-14-2005, 03:05 AM

Two quotes from Tolkien in his letters book that seem to sum up this entire argument

On the Witch King:

They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force.

On Gandalf's elevated powers:

The 'wizards', as such, had failed; or if you like: the crisis had become too grave and needed an enhancement of power. So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was accepted, and enhanced, and returned. 'Yes, that was the name. I was Gandalf.' Of course he remains similar in personality and idiosyncrasy, but both his wisdom and power are much greater. When he speaks he commands attention; the old Gandalf could not have dealt so with Théoden, nor with Saruman. He 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' – no more violently than the release of St Peter from prison. He seldom does so, operating rather through others, but in one or two cases in the War (in Vol. III) he does reveal a sudden power: he twice rescues Faramir. He alone is left to forbid the entrance of the Lord of Nazgûl 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.So on one hand we have elveated, Demonic, powers for the Witch King, and on the other we have an elevated power for Gandalf, who can use his powers as an 'Angel' - but not in a violent way.

So in reading this, I think Mansun has hit the best answer (and the Middle Ground), by stating it could well be a stand off. Gandalf could not use his powers (usually witheld by order) to kill the Witch King, but could use these to protect the people of Minas Tirith. Therefore we would have a stalemate.

But as Tolkien himself points out, by Gandalf's organisation of the forces of Mankind, they have come to settle the score with Sauron's forces. Gandalf does not need to use his 'Angelic' powers to withstand the Demonic might of the Witch King. Mankind, in this case the Ride of the Rohirrim, saves the day. As Tolkien states at the begining of the Battle of Pellenor fields, once the Rohirrim turned up, Victory was slipping from the Witch King's grasp. Gandalf the General has won instead of Gandalf the Warrior. We have the same result in the Film as we have in the Book. Mankind, through the workings of Gandalf, has saved its own skin.

Anyway, for the last few pages this book has gone from a Movie thread to a book thread.

To take it back to a movie thread, listen to PJ's commentary on why the film makers, in their minds, 'upped ' the WK's power. they needed a real bad arsed baddie for the move goers to get their teeth into. A flaming eye wasn't good enough for them.

Mansun

07-14-2005, 06:29 AM

To take it back to a movie thread, listen to PJ's commentary on why the film makers, in their minds, 'upped ' the WK's power. they needed a real bad arsed baddie for the move goers to get their teeth into. A flaming eye wasn't good enough for them.

I have to ask why didn't then PJ use Sauron in his physical form? I don't think anybody would have been too disppointed to see the Darklord come before the gates of Minas Tirith to command a final assault on Gondor, and assure victory, as the WK alone it appears could not manage this.

Mansun

07-14-2005, 06:43 AM

Though at the emergence of Rohan, Sauron too would have to retreat back to Mordor, giving an even greater sensation that the Rohirrim saved the day, rather than relying on Gandalf all the time.

Essex

07-14-2005, 09:08 AM

I don't think anybody would have been too disppointed to see the Darklord come before the gates of Minas Tirith to command a final assault on Gondor, and assure victoryIf this had happened I don't think PJ would be around today, and I wouldn't have seen his trailer to King Kong at the cinema last night!!!!! :D

The Only Real Estel

07-14-2005, 09:43 AM

I don't think anybody would have been too disppointed to see the Darklord come before the gates of Minas Tirith to command a final assault on Gondor, and assure victory

At least no 'non-book readers' would be disappointed :eek:

PJ was tossing around the idea of bringing Sauron out in physical form for RotK, & I was throughly (ticked) about it.

If you don't believe me you can always look here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=9971), but beware, most of it is in the 'old format'. ;)

Mansun

07-14-2005, 10:06 AM

If this had happened I don't think PJ would be around today, and I wouldn't have seen his trailer to King Kong at the cinema last night!!!!! :D

So you would not like to see Sauron in physical form, and being forced back by the Rohirrim?! Each to his own, but it would have made one hell of a scene, rather than having Sauron as the watch tower of mordor!

The Only Real Estel

07-14-2005, 10:40 AM

Mansun

07-14-2005, 11:01 AM

Mansun: It would make a good scene, but come on - do you think Sauron would be held back by anyone? He would basically be like he was in the Prolouge (not quite, because he didn't have his Ring), not quite as powerful but no one would have the courage to really take him on. PJ had him beating the crap out of Aragorn if that tells you anything...:rolleyes:

I'd rather have Sauron beating the crap out of Aragorn than the WK doing the same to Gandalf the White! Anyway, Sauron would not have to be as devastating without the Ring as you make out.

Mansun

07-14-2005, 11:05 AM

The fact is, we just do not see enough of Sauron in the film. And I don't seem to remember to many people being keen to confront the WK either.

The Only Real Estel

07-14-2005, 11:10 AM

Posted by Mansun:
Anyway, Sauron would not have to be as devastating without the Ring as you make out.

As I said, Sauron wouldn't be quite as powerful (he wouldn't be flinging twenty people a hundred yards with one swing) strength-wise, but there's no telling what his apperance would've done mentally to the army.

They were outnumbered enough as it is, & then Sauron actually comes out!!?? Half the army would probably fall on their faces, and there would be no way you'd ever get the rest of the army to coordinate an attack, it'd be half the army on the ground and have the army staring in a state of shock. I don't see how they could best him if Sauron is still powerful enough to knock the best warrior there around (Aragorn).

And I don't seem to remember to many people being keen to confront the WK either

So you think they'd be more keen to confront the guy who orders the Witch-King around?

Fact is, we just don't see enough of Sauron in the films

Which is why PJ decided to hype up the Witch-King's role. So he wouldn't have to make something up on the fly & have Sauron appear.

Mansun

07-14-2005, 11:13 AM

Gurthang

07-14-2005, 11:15 AM

The Only Real Estel

07-14-2005, 11:16 AM

It could have been Sauron who confronted Gandalf, and broke his staff. At least we know Sauron would be capable of doing that, unlike the WK. PJ could have done this scene, if he was prepared to do other changes to the LOTR i.e. elves coming to Helm's Deep to aid the Rohirrim!

Damn it, I promised myself that I wouldn't jump back into this thread, but you've pulled me back in. Oh well. :p

As far as I know there is no clear cut decision yet as to wether the WK could've busted up the old man's staff or not. But I'm not going to get into that part of the argument. ;)

Why should we have a change like someone confronting Gandalf, & then compound that by adding another change like having Sauron appear in physical form?

And I think Gurthang made a good point, if you are going to trot Sauron out there then it had better be in Mordor, not all the way to Gondor. Sauron would've been to much of a coward to actually go all the way to Gondor anyway, except maybe to gloat if he had won the war.

Mansun

07-14-2005, 11:20 AM

Posted by Mansun:

As I said, Sauron wouldn't be quite as powerful (he wouldn't be flinging twenty people a hundred yards with one swing) strength-wise, but there's no telling what his apperance would've done mentally to the army.

They were outnumbered enough as it is, & then Sauron actually comes out!!?? Half the army would probably fall on their faces, and there would be no way you'd ever get the rest of the army to coordinate an attack, it'd be half the army on the ground and have the army staring in a state of shock. I don't see how they could best him if Sauron is still powerful enough to knock the best warrior there around (Aragorn).

So you think they'd be more keen to confront the guy who orders the Witch-King around?

Which is why PJ decided to hype up the Witch-King's role. So he wouldn't have to make something up on the fly & have Sauron appear.

I still think you are overplaying Sauron's strength. Most of his former power is locked in the One Ring. Yes, he would still be too much for anybody, but I wouldn't expect him to charge the ranks of Gondor. More likely, for most of the battle during the Siege of Gondor he would drive his servants and command the Nazgul before him. And when Rohan comes, he would be forced to retreat and rethink his battle plan. As mighty as he was, he couldn't withstand a hundred Rohirrim on horseback charging in his direction without the Ring.

Mansun

07-14-2005, 11:27 AM

I'm not sure that would have worked. If you take Sauron out of Mordor, then he probably takes all of his army with him. Meaning that the ending would be Frodo and Sam strolling across an empty plain towards Mt. Doom while Sauron's entire force crushes everyone else at Minas Tirith. Frodo and Sam destroy the Ring, defeating Sauron, but die in Mt. Doom, which doesn't matter because everyone else has died already anyway. Kind of a killer ending. :rolleyes: :D

I guess it's all down to imagination and opinion as to what could have worked and what could have not. But remember, there are some scene changes in the LOTR that PJ did that I would not have expected to see in my wildest dreams. On that front, having Sauron playing a greater part in the battles would not look so out of place that everybody would lose sleep over it!

The Only Real Estel

07-14-2005, 11:27 AM

I agree with the majority of that, Mansun. Sauron probably wouldn't attack & he certainly wouldn't just wade in and start trying to go far into their ranks. But I'm not 100% sure that the Rohirrim would have the guts to rush him.

As to his strength, I quote an earlier part of the movies:

Sauron has regained much of his former strength. He can not yet take physical form, but his spirit has lost none of it's potency.

But it looks as if we'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't want to fill up the next three pages with us talking about this. :p

Mansun

07-14-2005, 11:32 AM

I agree with the majority of that, Mansun. Sauron probably wouldn't attack & he certainly wouldn't just wade in and start trying to go far into their ranks. But I'm not 100% sure that the Rohirrim would have the guts to rush him.

As to his strength, I quote an earlier part of the movies:

But it looks as if we'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't want to fill up the next three pages with us talking about this. :p

Whether Rohan and their horses had the courage to rush Sauron is debatable. But what other choice would they have had? How fearful are the Rohirrim of Sauron? If they all charged in his general direction, I think Sauron would escape for a while pretty quick.

Mansun

07-14-2005, 11:36 AM

I agree with the majority of that, Mansun. Sauron probably wouldn't attack & he certainly wouldn't just wade in and start trying to go far into their ranks. But I'm not 100% sure that the Rohirrim would have the guts to rush him.

As to his strength, I quote an earlier part of the movies:

But it looks as if we'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't want to fill up the next three pages with us talking about this. :p

I agree for once, but the whole topic is moving and down to one's imagination and view of PJ's work of ME. The topic has been so thoroughly discussed that it has become exhausted.

Mansun

07-14-2005, 11:49 AM

As far as I know there is no clear cut decision yet as to wether the WK could've
And I think Gurthang made a good point, if you are going to trot Sauron out there then it had better be in Mordor, not all the way to Gondor. Sauron would've been to much of a coward to actually go all the way to Gondor anyway, except maybe to gloat if he had won the war.

I suppose Sauron could have become impatient and have gone to Minas Tirith in a bid to retreive his Ring that as he might well think is possibly in Gondor, before some unknown mighty one decides to wield it and use it against him. That was his greatest fear, I believe.

And now I will rest the case!

Mansun

07-22-2005, 09:02 AM

Not sure which thread to put this question to, but here goes.

If Gandalf the White broke the staff of Saurman of many colours as he called himself, does that make Gandalf more powerful as White than when Saurman was White? One would think Eru realised the crisis behind the treason of Isengard required the return of Gandalf as one more powerful even than Saruman in order to break him and to rectify the Istari Order, and re-address the balance against the enemy. If this were so, surely there would be no contest between Gandalf the White, being more powerful than when Saruman was White, and the WK?

Mansun

07-22-2005, 09:17 AM

That is to say, Eru allowed Gandalf the White to reveal even more of his true power against the enemy than when Saruman was White.

alatar

07-22-2005, 01:53 PM

Note that by the time Gandalf reckons with Saruman, the wizard of many colours is already broken. Gandalf even waits patiently while Saruman has one last go at it, in regards to the Rohirrim, Gimli, Theoden and even Gandalf himself. After Saruman shows that his power is lessened (due to the dissipation of that power in order to control his armies, the making of his ring, etc), then, and only then does Gandalf break his staff and boot him out of the Order.

This is technically okay for Gandalf to do as he is not using his powers against an unvanquished foe, the playing field is already leveled and mankind has done its part, meaning that Gandalf is not making the road to the Fourth Age any easier - no deus ex machina.

And note that I speaking about the books, not the PJ interpretation.

Mansun

07-23-2005, 02:05 AM

I wonder how old the WK was, his face in the FSOTR was that of a very old and venerable King. And yet he called Gandalf an Old Fool! Perhaps the WK is still relatively young inside even if he appears old. He would have to be old, even by Gandalf's reckoning.

davem

07-23-2005, 12:24 PM

Mansun

07-23-2005, 04:05 PM

I wonder who the WK has related to prior to meeting Sauron, and what happened to them?

Mansun

07-28-2005, 02:05 PM

I have to point out that the Nazgul and Gandalf don't actually meet at all in the films until the WK confronts him in a suprise attack. We cannot therefore assume that PJ even took into account the fact that Gandalf was even capable of holding off all the Nine Black Riders as in the FOTR.

narfforc

07-29-2005, 02:02 PM

As The One Ring wasnt forged until c1600 SA, and The Ringwraiths did not appear until 2251 SA, I think that Gandalf/Olorin the Maia, who was present at The Creation, might just be a bit older by the odd thousands of years.

DO NOT JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER.

Mansun

07-29-2005, 02:30 PM

Gurthang

07-30-2005, 11:18 PM

I think that narfforc is saying that Gandalf's appearance belies his real age. Gandalf appears maybe 60ish(never been good at guessing ages :rolleyes: ) in the movies, but is actually a few tens of thousands of years old, at the youngest.

staff_and_sword

12-10-2005, 07:46 AM

Watching the confrontation between the WK and Gandalf really spoiled the movies for me. It seems that in PJ's version Gandalf's role is lessened when compared to the books, and this scene is the worst of it.

After watching the scene, I watched it again with PJ's commentary, hoping to get some insight regarding 'why'. Nothing. I'm very disappointed with ROTK:EE.

And does Gandalf have a staff when he boards the ship at the end?

I think it is a really ruined part in this movie and that Gandalf The White is at least 4 times more powerful than the witch king. He the most powerful human in lord of the rings after sauron ( i think ) and with a lift of his staff should be able to chase the witch king and make him run for his life, as in the book the witch king himself feels overpowered and flees. It is terrible that they make him weak and pathetic like this.

Mansun

01-22-2006, 02:15 PM

I think it is a really ruined part in this movie and that Gandalf The White is at least 4 times more powerful than the witch king. He the most powerful human in lord of the rings after sauron ( i think ) and with a lift of his staff should be able to chase the witch king and make him run for his life, as in the book the witch king himself feels overpowered and flees. It is terrible that they make him weak and pathetic like this.

Don't forget that in the first film & book, Gandalf the Grey appears anxious of an encounter with the Balrog of Morgoth, even afraid. But after a titanic battle he defeats it & his superiority is highlighted against all save Sauron (& perhaps Saruman at the time).

I believe that a similar thing was about to happen when the Witch King confronted Gandalf the White. The Witch King inspired anxiety into Gandalf, but ultimately Gandalf would have been victorious if the two fought in battle. (I don't think the Witch King would have defeated the Balrog - more likely he would flee from it at the death of the battle. We never actually see any proof of how powerful the Witch King was in the book or the film, but we did with Gandalf).

Maybe PJ thought GANDALF vs WK would take away the focus of the film away from what it really was about - not a duel between two powerful individuals, but a battle between Aragorn for the free people of ME & Sauron for Mordor.

Mansun

01-24-2006, 10:44 AM

Don't forget that in the first film & book, Gandalf the Grey appears anxious of an encounter with the Balrog of Morgoth, even afraid. But after a titanic battle he defeats it & his superiority is highlighted against all save Sauron (& perhaps Saruman at the time).

I believe that a similar thing was about to happen when the Witch King confronted Gandalf the White. The Witch King inspired anxiety into Gandalf, but ultimately Gandalf would have been victorious if the two fought in battle. (I don't think the Witch King would have defeated the Balrog - more likely he would flee from it at the death of the battle. We never actually see any proof of how powerful the Witch King was in the book or the film, but we did with Gandalf).

Maybe PJ thought GANDALF vs WK would take away the focus of the film away from what it really was about - not a duel between two powerful individuals, but a battle between Aragorn for the free people of ME & Sauron for Mordor.

More close view of Gandalf's might :-

Gandalf holds off all nine Nazgul at Weathertop (book)

Gandalf defeats the Balrog (film & book)

Gandalf breaks the staff of Saruman (film & book)

More closer view of the WK:-

Held of by Aragorn & gandalf at weather top (film &/or book).

Defeats nobody major at all in the entire book but is later able to break the staff of Gandalf the White?? (film)

Is defeated by a hobbit & a woman (albeit with luck).

The point is, lets not forget that the WK is made to look inferior as an opponent also!!

Essex

01-24-2006, 05:13 PM

Defeats nobody major at all in the entire book but is later able to break the staff of Gandalf the White?? (film)

Is defeated by a hobbit & a woman (albeit with luck).

The point is, lets not forget that the WK is made to look inferior as an opponent also!!Oh dear, here we go again!!!! :D

In both Book and Film, the Witch King in his last form is far mightier and Superior to his 'former' self - Tolkien has mentioned this in his Letters, and Jackson mentions that they had to 'up' the power of the WK as they needed a 'baddie' to cocentrate on in this movie - either that or have Sauron appear at the Black Gate. Now THAT would have caused mass hysteria by a lot of Tolkien fans!

So therefore, Jackson was following Tolkien's lead in 'powering up' the WK.

I have explained here and in other threads, and I put it to you now that the Staff is a symbolic token that a Wizard carries, and at most a conduit of his power - Remember Gandalf broke Saurman's staff both in move and book with his Voice. Not a blast from his Staff. One of the only places in the book I can see Gandalf use his staff is to light a fire! (oh and to light the way in Moria!)

Merry and Eowyn. Luck???? No way! The Witch King was defeated by a blade of Weseternesse that was designed with possibly that exact purpose in mind, and wielded by the courageous hand of a halfling. Eowyn then gallantly killed the Witch King after the spell holding his sinews to his will were unknit by Merry.

But I do understand that the WK/Gandalf scene is different in that Gandalf's staff is broken, and thath he lies on the floor. But do we really know what would have happened if the two DID fight? Remember Gandalf was in a body that could be inflicted by wounds exactly as a normal man - he could die as easily as a man could. And (and I think I'm in the minority here) - from the very first time I read the book, I always wondered how much of a Bluff Gandalf's words to the WK were.............did he know himself whether he could defeat the WK or not?

But the end of this scene in both book and movie is exactly the same. Rohan have arrived in the nick of time to Save the Day. And Jackson ramps up the tension by having Gandalf on the floor to show the Movie world this.

Mansun

01-25-2006, 12:13 PM

Oh dear, here we go again!!!! :D

In both Book and Film, the Witch King in his last form is far mightier and Superior to his 'former' self - Tolkien has mentioned this in his Letters, and Jackson mentions that they had to 'up' the power of the WK as they needed a 'baddie' to cocentrate on in this movie - either that or have Sauron appear at the Black Gate. Now THAT would have caused mass hysteria by a lot of Tolkien fans!

So therefore, Jackson was following Tolkien's lead in 'powering up' the WK.

I have explained here and in other threads, and I put it to you now that the Staff is a symbolic token that a Wizard carries, and at most a conduit of his power - Remember Gandalf broke Saurman's staff both in move and book with his Voice. Not a blast from his Staff. One of the only places in the book I can see Gandalf use his staff is to light a fire! (oh and to light the way in Moria!)

Merry and Eowyn. Luck???? No way! The Witch King was defeated by a blade of Weseternesse that was designed with possibly that exact purpose in mind, and wielded by the courageous hand of a halfling. Eowyn then gallantly killed the Witch King after the spell holding his sinews to his will were unknit by Merry.

But I do understand that the WK/Gandalf scene is different in that Gandalf's staff is broken, and thath he lies on the floor. But do we really know what would have happened if the two DID fight? Remember Gandalf was in a body that could be inflicted by wounds exactly as a normal man - he could die as easily as a man could. And (and I think I'm in the minority here) - from the very first time I read the book, I always wondered how much of a Bluff Gandalf's words to the WK were.............did he know himself whether he could defeat the WK or not?

But the end of this scene in both book and movie is exactly the same. Rohan have arrived in the nick of time to Save the Day. And Jackson ramps up the tension by having Gandalf on the floor to show the Movie world this.

Don't forget that Gandalf the White was more powerful than when Grey! And while Grey he defeated the greatest foe that walked ME after Sauron in the form of the Balrog of Morgoth! This is evidence enough that Gandalf is a truly dangerous enemy when challenged to the death. Was the WK so upgraded in power that he was even on the same level as a Balrog?? I think not.

Gandalf also claimed that he was the most dangerous opponent after Sauron in the two towers. Aragorn also said that Gandalf was mightier than all the Nine Nazgul. Legolas said that the Balrog was the most dangerous foe after Sauron. All the evidence still points to the fact that Gandalf the White was the most powerful foe after Sauron.

Also, the finding of & usage of the enchanted blade which Merry used to defeat the WK was down to luck. Was it not for the magical blade, both Merry & Eowyn would have died instantly.

narfforc

02-01-2006, 10:24 AM

I think you may want to change the word luck for fate. Was it lucky that Bilbo found the Ring or was it fate, Gandalf seemed to think he was meant to find it, therefore it is no stretch of the imagination that the hobbits were meant to get lost on The Barrow-downs. If this is so, then fate ordained, that a blade of Westernesse would be present at the time of The Witch-kings demise.

Essex

02-01-2006, 01:39 PM

Don't forget that Gandalf the White was more powerful than when Grey! And while Grey he defeated the greatest foe that walked ME after Sauron in the form of the Balrog of Morgoth! This is evidence enough that Gandalf is a truly dangerous enemy when challenged to the death. Was the WK so upgraded in power that he was even on the same level as a Balrog?? I think not.
ah, and there's the rub. you said it yourself. I THINK not. You do not know. it is all circumstantial evidence.

Also, the finding of & usage of the enchanted blade which Merry used to defeat the WK was down to luck. Was it not for the magical blade, both Merry & Eowyn would have died instantly.as nafforc says, it was fate rather than luck. you could say the same, that it was luck that gollum Fell and therefore the Quest succeded? No. It was Frodo's compassion in not killing him the many chance he had. therefore, frodo, and middle-earth were saved.