Gandalf Vs. The Witch King - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Essex · 01-05-2005, 03:37 AM

regarding Saucepanman's point, I believe that the Book WK rode into Minas Tirith through the main gate as this had not been taken by an Enemy before? He could have easily flown in on his Nazgul, but wanted to be the first through the Gate so went on horseback. Maybe........

No one's mentioned Pippin in this scene. Having Gandalf on the floor we see Pippin's courage in trying to (but failing to) confront the Witch King.

Also, I know this can be seen as inconsistent, but I also think Jackson is showing that Gandalf is not all powerful or infallable. It shows that Gandalf himself seems unsure that he can beat him.

PS I agree with the point mentioned earlier on explaining the role of Merry's sword. That's one of the main reasons why I wanted the old forest / bombadil / barrow downs scenes in so he could get his Sword from Tom.

PPS Gandalf has grown since movie 1, so why not the Witch King?

PPPS Yes, Gandalf DID beat the Balrog but at what price? His Death.

PPPPS Saruman was a broken man already defeated, found out as a treasoner and therefore stripped of his powers as head of the Council before Gandalf broke his staff.

PPPPPS I'm only playing Devil's advocate here by the way.......

narfforc · 01-05-2005, 05:56 AM

I would like to add a few more points on this. Firstly on Weathertop Strider says "Sauron can put fire to evil uses, as he can all things, but these Riders do not love it, AND FEAR THOSE WHO WIELD IT. Gandalf upon the Bridge of Khazad-Dum says "I am a servent of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor", he wasnt talking about the latest fireworks, and we keep forgetting Narya The Ring of Fire. Secondly I would like to point out a popular misquote, Obluquy says that Sauron is naught but an eyeball, that is but the Eye of Sauron, as The Mouth is something else. How can Gollum who was born well after the destruction of Saurons body at the end of The Second Age, know that there are only four fingers on the black hand, in The Black Gate is Closed he says "Yes, He has only four fingers on The Black Hand", surely if he had been refering to popular myth he would have said "had" not "has", it is because he has seen the physical body of Sauron, also Denethor states "that Sauron will not come save only to triumph over me when all is won", that suspended eyeball is going have fun travelling without any legs or maybe it will sprout imaginary wings like the Balrogs (Sorry got carried away, I mean no offence). Thirdly I think the idea of Sauron giving The Witch-King more power could be a possibilty, but my inner feeling says no. This is not Sauron of The Second Age, This is a much reduced Sauron, remember he put much of his power into the One Ring and he hasnt got that. Also he has expended an awful amount of power rebuilding his power base and body, I just do not think there would be much left, and if there was any he would need it for control, read the last pages of Mount Doom to find out what happens when Saurons will is withdrawn from his minions.

obloquy · 01-05-2005, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Secondly I would like to point out a popular misquote, Obluquy says that Sauron is naught but an eyeball, that is but the Eye of Sauron, as The Mouth is something else.

In the movie, which is what we are talking about in this forum ("The Movies") and this thread, Sauron is just an eyeball. As for my personal feelings on this misconception, please see http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=2387 and http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=1878 .

01-05-2005, 10:43 AM

Personally, I feel that PJ's motives with this scene (WK vs. Gf.) do not go beyond him attempting to portray Gandalf as a more compelling character by making him appear afraid and weak before the Witch King. Oftentimes, when a movie character is portrayed as basically infallable and all-powerful (which is how Gandalf the White was essentially portrayed in Tolkien's writing) it is thought to detract from the film, and the character is often seen as less interesting. In my opinion, Jackson's impetus in making Gandalf seem frightened and unsure, was to make his character, and the movie as a whole, a bit more interesting. In that vein, I can understand his desire to make Gandalf's character a bit more human and flawed. However, I feel that the vehicle he used to achieve that portrayal was far to extreme and inaccurate in regards to Gandalf as a Tolkien character.

elronds_daughter · 01-05-2005, 11:27 AM

Welcome to the 'Downs, Habriz!

Hmm.... Everyone has very good points, and is putting my simple reasoning to shame!

Quote:

What I disliked most about that scene was Gandalf's staff breaking

Yes, that bugged me. The Witch-King could have just tossed Gandalf's staff out of the way, and not broken it. <mutters> stick to the books, Mr. Director....

End of Rant

Essex · 01-05-2005, 11:45 AM

Whenever Jackson goes on a tangent from the text of the book we have these debates. Yes, it would be better if Jackson stuck to the books and only dramatised what actually happened. The only problem is is that if we did that a lot of the scenes would be very staid (if that's the right word), and no fluidity to the scenes. For example the WK scene. If we copied it from the book, we would have:

In through the gate comes the WK on a horse
Gandalf sitting there on Shadowfax
Some dramatic speech
WK raises he Sword
Cock crows and the horns blow
WK leaves.

On paper this worked well, as we can put our own thoughts and imagination around it. (people screaming, running away, gandalf's expression and whether he is frightened, in contempt or whatever. We also do not get the tone of the voice from Gandalf from the text so we don't know how he feels).

On screen, Gandalf just sitting there WOULD NOT HAVE WORKED. Jackson had to show SOME RESPONSE from Gandalf. And yes, to many extents he went too far. But it is Jackson's & co's reasoning that Gandalf is AFRAID of the WK and that the Rohirrim save the day. THIS IS WHAT I ALSO GET FROM THE BOOKS. It is their take on what happens to Gandalf really being the centre of controversy in this scene. Even if the WK didn't break his staff, I'm sure we'd still have a lot of dissagreements from people on this scene. The staff breaking is just something to hone in on.

Regarding the staff breaking: As I've stated on another thread, I think Jackson HAD to get rid of Gandalf's staff as he's shown the Wizard is very powerful with it, and therefore could easily have dealt with Denethor in the next scene. As it is, in the EE and the theatrical versions, Gandalf does not have his staff in Rath Dinen and therefore himself, Shadowfax and Pippin had to 'fight' with Denethor. Otherwise, in the movie version, it would have been too simple for Gandalf to get Denethor out of the way, and we would no doubt have a lot of people complaining that he HADN'T used his staff on Denethor!

narfforc · 01-05-2005, 02:21 PM

I stand corrected, somewhat, and offer apologies to Obluquy. However I must point out that Jackson is wrong to portray Sauron as "Just an eyeball", and furthermore for the sake of those people who have only seen the films, I wished to draw attention to the fact, and not be involved in perpetuating the myth, sorry to be a pain, I have no doubt you know the difference, but it was just how it read.

01-05-2005, 10:43 AM	#4
Habriz Guest Posts: n/a	More about witch King vs. Gandalf Personally, I feel that PJ's motives with this scene (WK vs. Gf.) do not go beyond him attempting to portray Gandalf as a more compelling character by making him appear afraid and weak before the Witch King. Oftentimes, when a movie character is portrayed as basically infallable and all-powerful (which is how Gandalf the White was essentially portrayed in Tolkien's writing) it is thought to detract from the film, and the character is often seen as less interesting. In my opinion, Jackson's impetus in making Gandalf seem frightened and unsure, was to make his character, and the movie as a whole, a bit more interesting. In that vein, I can understand his desire to make Gandalf's character a bit more human and flawed. However, I feel that the vehicle he used to achieve that portrayal was far to extreme and inaccurate in regards to Gandalf as a Tolkien character.

01-05-2005, 03:37 AM	#1
Essex Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Essex, England Posts: 886	regarding Saucepanman's point, I believe that the Book WK rode into Minas Tirith through the main gate as this had not been taken by an Enemy before? He could have easily flown in on his Nazgul, but wanted to be the first through the Gate so went on horseback. Maybe........ No one's mentioned Pippin in this scene. Having Gandalf on the floor we see Pippin's courage in trying to (but failing to) confront the Witch King. Also, I know this can be seen as inconsistent, but I also think Jackson is showing that Gandalf is not all powerful or infallable. It shows that Gandalf himself seems unsure that he can beat him. PS I agree with the point mentioned earlier on explaining the role of Merry's sword. That's one of the main reasons why I wanted the old forest / bombadil / barrow downs scenes in so he could get his Sword from Tom. PPS Gandalf has grown since movie 1, so why not the Witch King? PPPS Yes, Gandalf DID beat the Balrog but at what price? His Death. PPPPS Saruman was a broken man already defeated, found out as a treasoner and therefore stripped of his powers as head of the Council before Gandalf broke his staff. PPPPPS I'm only playing Devil's advocate here by the way.......

01-05-2005, 05:56 AM	#2
narfforc Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Muddy-earth Posts: 1,297	I would like to add a few more points on this. Firstly on Weathertop Strider says "Sauron can put fire to evil uses, as he can all things, but these Riders do not love it, AND FEAR THOSE WHO WIELD IT. Gandalf upon the Bridge of Khazad-Dum says "I am a servent of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor", he wasnt talking about the latest fireworks, and we keep forgetting Narya The Ring of Fire. Secondly I would like to point out a popular misquote, Obluquy says that Sauron is naught but an eyeball, that is but the Eye of Sauron, as The Mouth is something else. How can Gollum who was born well after the destruction of Saurons body at the end of The Second Age, know that there are only four fingers on the black hand, in The Black Gate is Closed he says "Yes, He has only four fingers on The Black Hand", surely if he had been refering to popular myth he would have said "had" not "has", it is because he has seen the physical body of Sauron, also Denethor states "that Sauron will not come save only to triumph over me when all is won", that suspended eyeball is going have fun travelling without any legs or maybe it will sprout imaginary wings like the Balrogs (Sorry got carried away, I mean no offence). Thirdly I think the idea of Sauron giving The Witch-King more power could be a possibilty, but my inner feeling says no. This is not Sauron of The Second Age, This is a much reduced Sauron, remember he put much of his power into the One Ring and he hasnt got that. Also he has expended an awful amount of power rebuilding his power base and body, I just do not think there would be much left, and if there was any he would need it for control, read the last pages of Mount Doom to find out what happens when Saurons will is withdrawn from his minions.

01-05-2005, 11:45 AM	#6
Essex Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Essex, England Posts: 886	Whenever Jackson goes on a tangent from the text of the book we have these debates. Yes, it would be better if Jackson stuck to the books and only dramatised what actually happened. The only problem is is that if we did that a lot of the scenes would be very staid (if that's the right word), and no fluidity to the scenes. For example the WK scene. If we copied it from the book, we would have: In through the gate comes the WK on a horse Gandalf sitting there on Shadowfax Some dramatic speech WK raises he Sword Cock crows and the horns blow WK leaves. On paper this worked well, as we can put our own thoughts and imagination around it. (people screaming, running away, gandalf's expression and whether he is frightened, in contempt or whatever. We also do not get the tone of the voice from Gandalf from the text so we don't know how he feels). On screen, Gandalf just sitting there WOULD NOT HAVE WORKED. Jackson had to show SOME RESPONSE from Gandalf. And yes, to many extents he went too far. But it is Jackson's & co's reasoning that Gandalf is AFRAID of the WK and that the Rohirrim save the day. THIS IS WHAT I ALSO GET FROM THE BOOKS. It is their take on what happens to Gandalf really being the centre of controversy in this scene. Even if the WK didn't break his staff, I'm sure we'd still have a lot of dissagreements from people on this scene. The staff breaking is just something to hone in on. Regarding the staff breaking: As I've stated on another thread, I think Jackson HAD to get rid of Gandalf's staff as he's shown the Wizard is very powerful with it, and therefore could easily have dealt with Denethor in the next scene. As it is, in the EE and the theatrical versions, Gandalf does not have his staff in Rath Dinen and therefore himself, Shadowfax and Pippin had to 'fight' with Denethor. Otherwise, in the movie version, it would have been too simple for Gandalf to get Denethor out of the way, and we would no doubt have a lot of people complaining that he HADN'T used his staff on Denethor!

01-05-2005, 02:21 PM	#7
narfforc Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Muddy-earth Posts: 1,297	I stand corrected, somewhat, and offer apologies to Obluquy. However I must point out that Jackson is wrong to portray Sauron as "Just an eyeball", and furthermore for the sake of those people who have only seen the films, I wished to draw attention to the fact, and not be involved in perpetuating the myth, sorry to be a pain, I have no doubt you know the difference, but it was just how it read.