Yeah, but the Witch King didn't have that wicked flying dinosaur mount at the time. Maybe it was that animal's breath that broke the staff and nearly made Gandalf pass out. :p

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who? Gandalf or the Witch-king?

Gandalf.

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

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

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

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

So you're saying Gandalf couldn't have defeated the Witch-King, and Éowyn couldn't have done it but for Merry. If we follow this to it's logical conclusion, we'll have to assume Merry is more powerful than Gandalf. Is that really what you're thinking?
I'm not sure about that. He has come back from death (whatever that exactly means in his case), and I think he would have been very very hard to kill a second time, if it was possible at all. Remember what he told the Three Hunters (LotR Book III, The White Rider)?
And this included Andúril, which Isildur had used to cut the Ring from the hand of Sauron himself - so I take it this was more a statement about Gandalf himself, in his resurrected state, than about the quality of their weapons. Or do you think that little flames effect on the Witch-King's sword made that much of a difference?
No, he wasn't mortal any longer in the strict sense of the word - but neither had he gained the immortality he may have hoped for when he accepted the Ring from Sauron. Rather, he had renounced and forfeited both life and death (the Gift of Ilúvatar) for a mere undead shadow of both. So he couldn't die - but he could still be destroyed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Utter nonsense, Jolt. While the Istari were clothed in the bodies of old men, and those bodies could feel and be affected by the same things as men's, there is absolutely no doubt that they were Ainur, the same type of being as the Valar and the Maia, with powers and defenses far, far greater than any possessed by a mortal man.

What part of Gandalf's power do you think comes from his staff in the first place, Ibrîn? Is it really a source of his power and sustenance, as your Latinate signature phrase implies (aside from its more mundane meaning), or is it merely used to focus Gandalf's inherent powers?

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

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

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

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

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

Because they are all very different with very different strengths.

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

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


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

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

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

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

It may not make sense if you are a Tolkien purist, but Jackson was always willing to deviate somewhat to make the cinematic release more effective. In this case he clearly made a conscious decision to give the climactic scenes of the War of the Ring more punch by magnifying Aragorn to be the clear "hero" so that when he became king, got the girl, etc. it would prove more emotionally satisfying by all the traditional cinematic storytelling criteria. So he did what he had to do to make it so.

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

Yet, at least as the Grey, his body was mortal in the sense that it could wear down, wear out, and be destroyed. If not, Gandalf could have leapt down on the wolves and goblins that had trapped him, Bilbo and the Dwarves in the tree (he was prepared to, but it seemed like it was going to be a sacrifice play).

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

It was Peter Jackson's take on the work, which was not only internally inconsistent, but a departure from the source.

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

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

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

I've always thought that since The Hobbit was told as a children's story, it could be seen (at least I choose to see it) as a simplified story about the Third Age as told to children, and thus not necessarily a literal retelling of the events as they "actually occurred" in Tolkien's world.

True enough. Then how about Gandalf's discomforture during his imprisonment on the top of Orthanc? If his body was invulnerable to harm, he could have simply jumped off and made a run for it.

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

Agreed, though Peter Jackson's Gandalf is inconsistent within the movie as well. Check out the Scene-by-scene forum to see my whining and nitpicking about this issue. :)

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

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

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

Sorry; I took the above to mean that you think that Gandalf's body was not subject to nature.