Time to fix Gandalf versus the Witchking

[CSteefel]

You misunderstand and misrepresent Tolkien.

Others have mentioned as well the letter in which Tolkien says that the WK was invested with new power shortly by Sauron shortly before the last battle on the Pelennor. Not sure if you are denying this point, or objecting to the use of the phrase "transferring power". Perhaps the better phrase would be that Sauron gave the WK new power...

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by CSteefel

Others have mentioned as well the letter in which Tolkien says that the WK was invested with new power shortly by Sauron shortly before the last battle on the Pelennor. Not sure if you are denying this point, or objecting to the use of the phrase "transferring power". Perhaps the better phrase would be that Sauron gave the WK new power...

Tolkien nowhere states that Sauron gave the Witch-King more power. I know the letter you're referring to, but you misunderstand it.

As I mentioned in passing and others mentioned more specifically, PJ takes virtually verbatim the scene from Tolkien in which Gandalf is resurrected. How does a resurrection, following as I say the script written by Tolkien, jive with a cranky old wizard. This is clearly either a resurrected Maia, or another higher order being (like Glorfindel). And if this was not enough, the scene in which Gandalf (now the White Wizard) shows himself to Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas is a clear statement that a higher order being (again a Maia in fact) has returned, because it is stated he is now "Saruman as he should have been". And if this is not enough, we later see Gandalf reinforce this point by breaking Saruman's staff. Hardly your typical cranky wizard.

In fact, the original point was that PJ has no coherent and consistent representation of Gandalf, particularly after he returned. You cannot borrow entire scenes from Tolkien implying clearly the return of a Maia, and then drop it suddenly in front of the Gates of Minas Tirith...

The film resurrection of Gandalf implies only a resurrection; his return as The White, perhaps, an enhancement. Neither reveals Gandalf's true nature as a primeval demigod of Sauron's peerage, and therefore Gandalf remains only what the filmmakers want him to be. Since they define him for the films, his enhancement is not incongruous with his defeat by the WK. The scene simply implies a new power in the WK that Gandalf was not expecting, and also that Gandalf's enhancement was only to some tier of potency above his incarnation as The Grey and below the new-and-improved WK's.

[CSteefel]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Tolkien nowhere states that Sauron gave the Witch-King more power. I know the letter you're referring to, but you misunderstand it.



The film resurrection of Gandalf implies only a resurrection; his return as The White, perhaps, an enhancement. Neither reveals Gandalf's true nature as a primeval demigod of Sauron's peerage, and therefore Gandalf remains only what the filmmakers want him to be. Since they define him for the films, his enhancement is not incongruous with his defeat by the WK. The scene simply implies a new power in the WK that Gandalf was not expecting, and also that Gandalf's enhancement was only to some tier of potency above his incarnation as The Grey and below the new-and-improved WK's.

Well, at the risk of repeating myself, the fact that PJ takes the resurrection scene virtually verbatim from Tolkien implies that he has adopted Tolkien's view of things. Same for the first appearance of the reborn White Wizard, and the breaking of Saruman's staff. While one might interpret the sort of hallucinatory scenes in which Gandalf is reborn as just the rebirth of this or that being (ignoring for the moment that the scene is taken from Tolkien), it would not make sense then to continue to adopt scenes from Tolkien that imply that Gandalf is not now a returned Maia with a stature greater than Saruman. In fact, the film doesn't really go into the whole Maia business at all, so from your point of view, you could argue of course anything you want. But a consistent approach by PJ would not have him borrowing whole episodes from Tolkien, who for most of the movie is understood to have provided the basis of the story.

As for the investment of power in the WK (real or not), if you have the exact quote and can comment on how you interpret it, that would help. Otherwise, this point was to actually support your point of view (assuming that we needed anything from Tolkien here). Otherwise, you are left with a vague statement in the movies about not having revealed his most deadly servant, which does not really imply clearly an enhancement of power. So one is left with simply the fact that the WK did break Gandalf's staff, so as I said earlier, PJ simply changes the equation with no warning here. If that is consistent film making, give me another director...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by obloquy

The film resurrection of Gandalf implies only a resurrection; his return as The White, perhaps, an enhancement. Neither reveals Gandalf's true nature as a primeval demigod of Sauron's peerage, and therefore Gandalf remains only what the filmmakers want him to be. Since they define him for the films, his enhancement is not incongruous with his defeat by the WK. The scene simply implies a new power in the WK that Gandalf was not expecting, and also that Gandalf's enhancement was only to some tier of potency above his incarnation as The Grey and below the new-and-improved WK's.

obloquoy, you are downplaying a significant aspect of the movie, and in effect proving the inconsistency of Peter Jackson's scripting. PJ went out of his way to show Gandalf's efficacy against the towering balrog inferno, of his ethereal resurrection (with the caveat that he was brought back specifically to finish his mission), his crushing defeat of Saruman and the assumption of his role at Orthanc, even his driving away of the Nazgul while rescuing Faramir; in contrast, the movie Nazgul are never shown to be invested with such power. They are driven off by a brand-waving Aragorn on Weathertop, they are drowned by an Elvish maid (Arwen, wishy-washy throughout most of the movies, is seemingly invested with the power to drown them -- nowhere is Elrond credited with the deed), a flying Nazgul is easily driven off by a few arrows at Osgiliath, and then Gandalf magically drives them off in front of Minas Tirith. Nowhere does PJ intimate that the WiKi has such power, but suddenly Gandalf's power is trivialized in a single action by a suddenly omnipotent opponent. Then, just as incongruously (in the movie anyway), Eowyn destroys the invincible WiKi with a jab of a sword.

The incongruity is in the scripting. Somehow part-time shield maiden Eowyn is more powerful than the balrog-smoting Gandalf? That's what the addled inference is. Inconsistency -- picking and choosing jumbled aspects of the story in order to glorify special effects -- this is the infuriating aspect of the films.

[obloquy]

The revelation of the WK's heretofore hidden potential is the encounter with Gandalf. The scene establishes the "oh goodness, what are we going to do now?" feeling that is appropriate for the battle on the Pelennor. Eowyn's victory over the WK is no more shocking in the film than it was (and was intended to be) in the book.

The hierarchy that the film sets up is roughly as follows:
Sauron
WK
Gandalf the White
Saruman
Gandalf the Grey
The Balrog
Aragorn
Ringwraiths

I am not saying that it is good Tolkien, only that it is internally consistent since there are no disclosures of spiritual nature in the films. Viewers (Tolkien illiterates) take this revelation (and others like it) at face value: instead of resisting it because they know Gandalf is more powerful than the WK (which they don't), they allow the film to readjust their perceptions of the characters. They reconcile what's on screen by reasoning that, although Gandalf was once able to drive the Ringwraiths off, the WK is clearly much more formidable than he used to be. We can apply this logic to every encounter: all that is revealed by Gandalf's defeat of the Balrog, for example, is that the Balrog, overblown as he was, fell somewhere beneath Gandalf and RotK-level WK on the totem pole.

But a consistent approach by PJ would not have him borrowing whole episodes from Tolkien, who for most of the movie is understood to have provided the basis of the story.

Are you suggesting that if, in the course of adapting books to film, the adapter decides that one element requires far too much explication and makes things too complex, and may also not provide the most dramatically pleasing scenarios, then that adapter is obligated to remove his adaptation from the world created by the author?

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The incongruity is in the scripting. Somehow part-time shield maiden Eowyn is more powerful than the balrog-smoting Gandalf? That's what the addled inference is. Inconsistency -- picking and choosing jumbled aspects of the story in order to glorify special effects -- this is the infuriating aspect of the films.

Your complaint here is with Tolkien. He is the one who gives Eowyn the honor of ruining the WK, and it is deliberately shocking and unexpected. Only when one reads extra-LotR materials does one realize that the WK was nowhere near Gandalf's power level. As newbies we assume that Eowyn did something that even Gandalf could not do simply because Gandalf had not yet done it, and should have if he had been able--this even though we do not have exactly the same encounter at the gate in the book. In fact, this point of whether Gandalf could defeat the WK in a duel has been hotly debated in the Books forum.

Originally Posted by CSteefel

As for the investment of power in the WK (real or not), if you have the exact quote and can comment on how you interpret it, that would help. Otherwise, this point was to actually support your point of view (assuming that we needed anything from Tolkien here). Otherwise, you are left with a vague statement in the movies about not having revealed his most deadly servant, which does not really imply clearly an enhancement of power. So one is left with simply the fact that the WK did break Gandalf's staff, so as I said earlier, PJ simply changes the equation with no warning here. If that is consistent film making, give me another director...

My analysis of the letter is in a couple of different threads, but if you were to look it up and read it I am sure you would be able to figure out why it does not apply.

[CSteefel]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Are you suggesting that if, in the course of adapting books to film, the adapter decides that one element requires far too much explication and makes things too complex, and may also not provide the most dramatically pleasing scenarios, then that adapter is obligated to remove his adaptation from the world created by the author?

This has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the film maker following the story line of a book, accepting it the interpretation of events from the book and then showing them explicitly (we see considerable detail in the resurrection sequence, and also again in Gandalf's encounter with Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas). The implication is that the film maker here is accepting Tolkien's view of things, otherwise why not just make up your own scene altogether. Again, I agree it is legitimate for the film maker to change material from the book, but it strikes one as inconsistent when PJ hews so closely to the Tolkien interpretation early in the film and then suddenly changes things over in the final encounter between Gandalf and the WiKi (there were numerous earlier encounters where Gandalf had no problem dealing with him). If PJ had contributed a reasonable explanation for the reversal of things, then there would be no problem...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Your complaint here is with Tolkien.

Ummm...no, it isn't. The WitchKing is not Gandalf's adversary, Sauron is. Jackson brings in the inconsistency with the WitchKing bringing Gandalf to his knees with little or no effort, which is absurd from a canonical standpoint, and conflicting with the context of the movie itself (as I've already pointed out in previous posts). Eowyn is a mortal woman (and jibes with the WiKi prophecy), and the baneful blade of Westernesse Merry uses was crafted by mortal Dunedain (which is not mentioned in the movie, and is another aspect that makes no sense from a movie viewpoint). The WitchKing was meant to fall to a mortal, but Jackson does not explain how a simple Hobbit can wound a Nazgul, but how that same Nazgul can so easily overpower a resurrected wizard (fresh from defeating a balrog and another wizard) without a scratch.

Again, inconsistent even within the context of the movie.

P.S. To point out the inconsistencies further, if you recall PJ intended to have Sauron himself fight Aragorn at the Black Gates. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed and Sauron was hastily edited over and replaced by a troll. The movies are littered with such over-the-top and silly peaens to cheap thrills. Arwen/Xena the warrior princess is another. My point is, there really is no inner consistency to the movies, merely departure points from one special effects sequence to the next.

[CSteefel]

Originally Posted by obloquy

My analysis of the letter is in a couple of different threads, but if you were to look it up and read it I am sure you would be able to figure out why it does not apply.

OK, after some searching, I found one of your posts with a quote from the letter:

There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force.

Although you go on to discount that there is any real enhancement here, it seems like a clearcut statement from Tolkien to me. Hard to make clearer English than this. I could not follow your arguments as to why we should not take this statement seriously...

Otherwise, it doesn't really matter, since dropping this "added demonic force" only makes the portrayal of the WiKi-Gandalf encounter harder to understand...