[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Lord Gothmog

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

No, it does not.

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

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

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

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

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

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