Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[Essex]

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]

Originally Posted by Essex

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 .) 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]

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.

[FarmerCotton]

Originally Posted by Imladris

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

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

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

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

[MCRmyGirl4eva]

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

[Mithalwen]

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

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by MCRmyGirl4eva

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

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

[alatar]

Originally Posted by MCRmyGirl4eva

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

Clearly, Staves 'R Us.

Think that the Eagles run the deliveries.

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

Or does accio staff work in Middle Earth?