The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

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.

Perhaps, I misinterpreted your previous post, and all that writing was for naught

What do you think?

01-07-2005, 12:13 PM	#59
Habriz Guest Posts: n/a	reply to saucepan man 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. Perhaps, I misinterpreted your previous post, and all that writing was for naught What do you think?