Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[Captain of Despair]

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

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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]

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]

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]

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.

Originally Posted by Habriz

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.

Originally Posted by Habriz

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.

Originally Posted by obloquy

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.

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

Originally Posted by Captain of Despair

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.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

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]

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?

[Captain of Despair]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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.