Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[Essex]

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]

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.

[obloquy]

Well, no offense was taken, and I share your feelings on the matter. It's a silly modification, and I imagine it was to prevent such questions as "why didn't Sauron just go out and own them all?" It goes along with my point earlier about Gandalf: the whys are too difficult to explain in a visual setting, and would likely require a good bit more from the audience than is wise for a movie that is not intended to be "art" or even particularly thought-provoking.

Besides, if the movie explained everything, we wouldn't be able to use our superior knowledge of Tolkien to woo the ladies.

[Boromir88]

In FOTR I didn't mind the eyeball, it just goes to show the all-knowing/all-seeing side of Sauron. I don't have a big problem with the way they showed it in FOTR.

But, when you start giving it human qualities (the eye blink) and equip it with a spotlight, it's taking it way down cheese lane.

[narfforc]

Boromir88 is spot on (or is that spotlight on) when he says the eye is cheesy, hell they even have the damn thing talking at the end. To Obluquy, I take your point on wooing the ladies, great. Going back to The Witch-King vs Gandalf. There has been some point made to Gandalf being scared, what of? The most that can happen to him is that his physical body would be destroyed, well that has already happened at least once. As one of the Ainur he cannot die. If he failed in his task, then The Valar could have sent more aid. The only thing that mattered was the destruction of the ring, that was already on course, if Gandalf had died it would not have meant the end of his task anyway, he had already (almost) succeeded by moving all the pieces into place by the time of his confrontation with Angmar. The main problems here are that Jackson doesnt fully explain the origins of Sauron, Saruman and Gandalf ie Maiar, this could have been one of the extended parts of one of the films, if they could invent that pathetic piece where Eowyn and her stew dribble over Aragorn, whilst explaining he is of The Dunedain, then I am sure that a few lines could have done the same for the others. Going back to Gandalf being scared, I again mention Narya, this Ring had the power to strengthen hearts, and Gandalf was far from being a mere mortal. Another thing, Angmar had led troops to the defeat Amon Sul and Fornost, he had also been beaten at Fornost by Earnur. This same king later accepts the challenge of The Big Bad Witch-King, who is sooo powerful he has to betray him into defeat, the King is captured and never heard of again. Where am I leading to, well can anyone tell me who The Witch-King of Angmar had personnally killed all by his himself. There seems to be lots of running away from the bogeyman stuff, which is in keeping with one of his other names The Captain of Despair. So that is why he isnt called Lord of The Mighty Sword Arm or King of The Warrior Wraiths then. Which brings me back to the confrontation. In through the gates came Angmar, Gandalf sat upon Shadowfax (The horse by the way endures the terror) tells The Witch-King he cannot enter, it is the Witch-king who halts (Why? what is he scared of). The Witch-King then taunts Gandalf, who doesnt move. If anyone should be scared it would be Angmar, for in defeat his doom is very dark. Now can anyone explain to me how Jackson could get this one scene so wrong.

[obloquy]

Whooooooooo boy. I like you, but you called the Witch-King "Angmar". Did some old forum Wight send you a PM telling you how to push my buttons?? :P:P:P

Edit: I do agree with you, though, as you can see from my posts above, and my generally enormous regard for Gandalf.

[The Saucepan Man]

Narfforc, you make some good points. 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.

At Last! A forum with a thread that I can comment on in detail! I absolutely hated the EE scene of Gandalf and the Witch-king. But alas, I really cannot add to what all you marvelous fans have already nailed it on the head.
First of all, there is no way in Middle-Earth that the Witch-king could have defeated Gandalf so easily. There is a very, very slight possibility that he could have beaten him, but not effortlessly. It is an impossible for the White Wizard, a Miear (sp) spirit to be defeated by a corrupt sprit of a Man. I love the Witch-king as much as the next person, but that was just going overboard. This scene has got to be the worst scene out of the entire movie series. And it really hurts, because PJ and his team worked so tirelessly to bring u an extremely well scripted adaptation of our beloved books, but they just threw this scene away completely. I realize that they added/subtracted/altered certain things in the movies to make things more clear and fluid without losing the overall message of the books. But all this scene did was take away! Us fans really don't have a lot to pain over, becuase we know Gandalf's true strength. But what about countless fans who are only fans of the movie. They will go the rest of their lives thinking of Gandalf (the White, no less) as a weak old man. They should have just cut it out completely even in the EE, if it was going to turn out the way it did. All it does is make Gandalf extremely weak and helpless, and make the Witch-king far too powerful (and foolish, because he could have finished off his greatest adivisary right then and there) . Actually, I thought that throught ROTK, Gandalf seemed less powerful, less assertive, and less determined then he ought to have, but that scene was just the worst and most rediculous. It almost ruinded the entire move experience, and not just for ROTK. It almost shows how careless they were in some of these scenes. In fact what made me stop myself from hating the movies that I have come to love, were all the things that they did get right. But a slip-up of this caliber is almost unforgivable. Actually I really wouldn't have minded the breaking of the staff if Gandalf had actually tried to do something about it. What would have salvaged the scene was if Gandalf had gotten up off the ground, instead of flailing there like a beaten old man, and start to glow a pale white and unsheath Glamdring. Or they could have made it exactly like they did in the book where they just face each other with the utmost tension. Now that I have gotten it all out of my system, I beleive I shall do what Essex said, and live with it. From what I've read from the comments on this thread, there are a few exceptional and beleivable explanations about this scene. But this severe lapse in film-making judgement does make the Witch-king's death a little sweeter, and I almost completely forgot about the whole Gandalf/Witch-king scene when Aragorn and Gimli kill Gothmog.

[Guinevere]

Can it be that the staff-breaking could have affected Movie-Gandalf's state of mind ?
Because in the "Last debate" scene afterwards, he acts totally out of character.

Gandalf: "Frodo has passed beyond my sight. The darkness is deepening."
Aragorn: "If Sauron had the Ring, we would know it."
Gandalf: "It's only a matter of time. (.........)
(.........)
Gandalf: " (.....) I've sent him (Frodo) to his death"

I could hardly believe my ears!! What's happened to Gandalf, the kindler of hope, whose credo used to be "Despair is only for those who know the end beyond all doubt - we do not." ? Gandalf may be afraid, yes, but never hopeless and despairing!
Why did they have to change the person of this central character so much ? Perhaps to make a contrast for Aragorns sudden hopefulness and resolution ? In this movie scene, the "diversion" is Aragorn's idea and Gandalf doesn't even believe it'll work!
I really don't mind obliterations and changes that are "in character" (like many in FotR) but this is too much!

[Essex]

This is very much like Aragorn taking Theoden's idea to ride out and face the Orcs in one last stand at Helm's Deep.

I think Jackson is giving as much of the decision making to Aragorn as he can. I'm not sure why, and I don't agree with this.

Just another thought as I posted. This change in Gandalf is more believable movie-wise as Saruman has spread the seeds of doubt into his mind at the begining of the EE. This also gives some credence to Gandalf's question of whether Frodo was alive to Aragorn in Edoras.

[alatar]

Throughout the trilogy PJ lessened the role of Gandalf. The Grey Pilgrim starts as the prime motivator behind the forces of good and ends up just some kindly old man who carries a big stick - until *that* exploded.

In FOTR, Gandalf gets the Ring moving towards destruction, escapes from the clutches of the most powerful wizard in Middle Earth and takes on a Balrog. (I painfully accepted the change in regards to whose idea it was to go through Moria, among others).

In TTT, after surviving the Balrog fight and supposedly becoming more powerful (as witnessed when he meets the three hunters in Fangorn), he's now an exorcist and an errand rider.

In ROTK, after 'firing' Saruman, Gandalf loses his nerve and has to be reassured about the plan. He can't get the Rohirrim to fight unless there's some watch fire thing message comes from Gondor. Pippin lights the same while Gandalf acts as a distraction.

After using his staff to chase away the Nazgul, Gandalf's in the back of the formation that greets the three trolls that come knocking at the gates and are dressed to kill. Why didn't he use the staff then?

He loses to the Witch-King, then has to find another stick to whack another king in the head. I assume that *he* spurs Shadowfax at Denethor, which is odd in that he spent some time talking with Frodo about 'needlessly dealing out death,' which could and accidentally did happen. Didn't see a lot of pity there. And I realize that Pippin needed something to do, but what does Gandalf really do in the Houses of the Dead?

After the big battle he is again concerned about the plan, but luckily Aragorn has a good idea. During the battle at the Black Gate he seems (to me) to be just another sword, or captain. He does, however, guide the eagles to Mount Doom.

Seeing what PJ had done to Gandalf, I'm glad that the Scouring of the Shire wasn't filmed. We'd have Gandalf crying after hearing 'sauce' from Ted Sandyman*...

*Yes, I know that that didn't happen, but we're talking PJ's world here.

I must say, this has been a fascinating discussion. I think the only unforgivable moment was the shattering of Gandalf's Staff. Otherwise, I think the scene was well done.

1. Gandalf could not have defeated the Witch King. He knew this. The best he could hope for was to dismiss him, only to have him re-emerge again. And that would have taken a monumental battle, which very possibly could have taken Gandalf's life. He was weary, and knew the battle was not for him to win, but must be won by men. Some argued that he fought the Ringwraiths on weathertop... but if you revisit that section, Gandalf did not win. He managed to escape after a long battle and was pursued by 4 wraiths, while the remaining went on after the ring. In the scene, Gandalf looks apprehensive, maybe even fearful... And rightly so.. but I also think he was steadying himself for battle. At this point, the Witch King had the advantage, but left Gandalf to deal with the more immediate threat of the Rohirrim, knowing a direct confrontation with Gandalf would have taken time. He knew he had (supposedly) time to come back and take the city.

I also believe the Witch King was stronger in closer proximity to Mordor, and the will of his master.

2. Some have argued that Aragorn defeated or drove off the Witch King at Weathertop. This is also not true. After the Witch King stabbed Frodo with the Morgul Blade, Frodo cried out "Elbereth" which caused the Witch King to cry out. When Aragorn came with the flaming brands, the Nazgul withdrew rather than fight, believing their work was done. They merely had to wait for the blade to do it's work and send Frodo into the realm of shadows and under Sauron's power.

3. The whole argument of the Witch King not being able to be killed by any living man, I believe, is also a bit bogus. I don't think the Witch King could have been harmed by ANYONE until Merry stabbed him with the blade he got from Tom Bombadill, which had been made for the war against the Witch-king of Angmar by the Men of Westernesse. Only this sword (or the sword which Pippen had also!), could have broken the spell which bound the Witch Kings sinews together, thus rendering him vulnerable to attack. Eowyn just happened to be the closest, and the immediate benefactor of the Merry's attack. Eowyn's attack did fulfill Glorfindel's prophecy, but once the spell was broken, I think anyone could have killed the Witch King.

All in all, we have to remember that the Witch King was Sauron's greatest servant and a powerful being. Gandalf may have been more powerful, and may have been able to drive off the Nazgul Lord, but very possibly would have been killed in the effort himself. I'm sure Gandalf did not look forward to this battle, and knew he was needed to bolster the morale and re-enforce the wills of the men of Gondor, not to mention stopping Denother from burning Faromir alive. I have to say though, other than for the shear dramatic factor, I'm at a loss to explain Peter Jackson's rationale for breaking Gandalf's staff, and that's really the only part that made me cringe....

Anyway, that's my two and a half cents worth....

[Essex]

Welcome to the Downs Shire Guy, and very well posted!

Have a look at a few earlier posts on the main reasons I think PJ got rid of Gandalf's staff. I haven't listened to all of the commentaries or appendicies on the EE yet, so maybe something will come from them.

Wow! Thank you everyone for all of your positive feedback! Starting this thread, I never expected to arouse the intellect of so many people.

Many points were raised that have never crossed my mind, I think it's time I re-read Tolkien's works .

Everyone here is so well mannered and thoughtful and I am looking forward to a long stay in this community. Thanks again for the kind input!

P.S. - Just curious, how many times have all of you read the books? I have read The Hobbit three times, The Lord of the Rings twice, Tree and Leaf once, Letters From Father Christmas once, Farmer Giles of Ham once, Smith of Wootton Major once, and the Silmarillion half-way. (I put it on hold to Terry Brooks' Shannara series which I recommend to all of you.)

[St. Povis]

Allright. Forgive me for being blunt, crass, or otherwise untoward.

What in the world was Peter Jackson thinking? I understand that there are budget limitations, union people, and other pains in the rear end to contend with, but yes, that scene was the pinnacle of irritation for me, the ultimate and most horrible bastardization to feed the masses I have ever seen. Now, keep in mind that I realize I am a raving fanatic, and that I have been a fan of the series since grade school. Now, in essence and bearing in mind that I have actually read the books and the Silmarillion, people will forgive me if I think that they have no right to be upset or not upset if they haven;t read the world's most contemporary masterpieces that set the foundation for this series of films.

I realize that it makes me sound like a pompous *** or a total looser to some and others. I don't care. That scene really just lights my fuse at both ends. I mean, lets face it, Gandalf as a character has practically taken on a life of his own. His overall demeanor with most potent creatures is laconic until provoked.

In spite of some of the other somewhat less irritating flukes in the movie (No Tom Bombadil, Haldir's Death, Saruman's heinously discarded character, and a few others), I liked, no LOVED these movies. I think Peter Jackson is a Genius, and I give him credit for even trying to undertake something that most directors would not (surely, until now, when Hollywood re-hashes it, sooner or later) have DARED to pick up, likely knowing that it could have made or broken their career, however (un)established they may or may not have been. Tolkeins work commands respect for any of a host of reasons.

But this Gandalf vs. the Witch King scene?! We waited YEARS for this last installment, and, to me (forgive my vulgarity, don't read any further if you can't handle the analogy), its like finding a big piece of petrified cat crap at the center of what I thought was a tootsie roll pop! DAMN IT! DAMN IT DAMN IT! Peter Jackson, if you are reading this, I really really have to know: What were you thinking?! Sir Ian: What were YOU thinking? How could you have let this happen? Didn;t you come to own the character to some degree on stage? I'm sure you're nowhere near as arrogant as some of the other accomplished (or grossly less accomplished) actors of this day and age, but...WHY?!

Ahh well, let the hate mail pour in:

saint_povis_the_insane@yahoo.com

[narfforc]

Well there it is in a nut shell. Thank you St Povis. So it is up to you, are you in the Witch-King does a number on Gandalf ala (Jacksons lets take as many liberties as we can film) camp or have are you in the ones who have actually read the written word of Tolkien (not just LotR). The choice is yours readers, the two versions are incomparable. In fact I might just go and write a book called The Lord of the Rings, based on the blockbuster movie, it is certainly a story I have never read

[St. Povis]

I'll probably burn in Hell for the title, but...

I've read everything that's accessible/available. Hobbit, LOTR Trilogy, Silm, and all of the currently published Lost Tales. If there are others pertinent to this particular scene, I am unaware of them.

There are people who would argue, especially here, that I am in the wrong for thinking as I do, but, lets face it, Gandalf would not have had it that rough with that damnable ****candle.

[alatar]

St. Povis

I'm with you.

What kills me is that Jackson put this scene in for the Tolkien fans, but left it out of the theatrical cut as so...what...not to confuse my illiterate sister who had a hard time keeping up with the story anyway?

I'm going to let go now.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by St. Povis

Allright. Forgive me for being blunt, crass, or otherwise untoward.

What in the world was Peter Jackson thinking? I understand that there are budget limitations, union people, and other pains in the rear end to contend with, but yes, that scene was the pinnacle of irritation for me, the ultimate and most horrible bastardization to feed the masses I have ever seen. Now, keep in mind that I realize I am a raving fanatic, and that I have been a fan of the series since grade school. Now, in essence and bearing in mind that I have actually read the books and the Silmarillion, people will forgive me if I think that they have no right to be upset or not upset if they haven;t read the world's most contemporary masterpieces that set the foundation for this series of films.

I realize that it makes me sound like a pompous *** or a total looser to some and others. I don't care. That scene really just lights my fuse at both ends. I mean, lets face it, Gandalf as a character has practically taken on a life of his own. His overall demeanor with most potent creatures is laconic until provoked.

In spite of some of the other somewhat less irritating flukes in the movie (No Tom Bombadil, Haldir's Death, Saruman's heinously discarded character, and a few others), I liked, no LOVED these movies. I think Peter Jackson is a Genius, and I give him credit for even trying to undertake something that most directors would not (surely, until now, when Hollywood re-hashes it, sooner or later) have DARED to pick up, likely knowing that it could have made or broken their career, however (un)established they may or may not have been. Tolkeins work commands respect for any of a host of reasons.

But this Gandalf vs. the Witch King scene?! We waited YEARS for this last installment, and, to me (forgive my vulgarity, don't read any further if you can't handle the analogy), its like finding a big piece of petrified cat crap at the center of what I thought was a tootsie roll pop! DAMN IT! DAMN IT DAMN IT! Peter Jackson, if you are reading this, I really really have to know: What were you thinking?! Sir Ian: What were YOU thinking? How could you have let this happen? Didn;t you come to own the character to some degree on stage? I'm sure you're nowhere near as arrogant as some of the other accomplished (or grossly less accomplished) actors of this day and age, but...WHY?!

I agree with your post in its totality.

[The Only Real Estel]

Allright. Forgive me for being blunt, crass, or otherwise untoward.

What in the world was Peter Jackson thinking? I understand that there are budget limitations, union people, and other pains in the rear end to contend with, but yes, that scene was the pinnacle of irritation for me, the ultimate and most horrible bastardization to feed the masses I have ever seen. Now, keep in mind that I realize I am a raving fanatic, and that I have been a fan of the series since grade school. Now, in essence and bearing in mind that I have actually read the books and the Silmarillion, people will forgive me if I think that they have no right to be upset or not upset if they haven;t read the world's most contemporary masterpieces that set the foundation for this series of films.

I realize that it makes me sound like a pompous *** or a total looser to some and others. I don't care. That scene really just lights my fuse at both ends. I mean, lets face it, Gandalf as a character has practically taken on a life of his own. His overall demeanor with most potent creatures is laconic until provoked.

In spite of some of the other somewhat less irritating flukes in the movie (No Tom Bombadil, Haldir's Death, Saruman's heinously discarded character, and a few others), I liked, no LOVED these movies. I think Peter Jackson is a Genius, and I give him credit for even trying to undertake something that most directors would not (surely, until now, when Hollywood re-hashes it, sooner or later) have DARED to pick up, likely knowing that it could have made or broken their career, however (un)established they may or may not have been. Tolkeins work commands respect for any of a host of reasons.

But this Gandalf vs. the Witch King scene?! We waited YEARS for this last installment, and, to me (forgive my vulgarity, don't read any further if you can't handle the analogy), its like finding a big piece of petrified cat crap at the center of what I thought was a tootsie roll pop! DAMN IT! DAMN IT DAMN IT! Peter Jackson, if you are reading this, I really really have to know: What were you thinking?! Sir Ian: What were YOU thinking? How could you have let this happen? Didn;t you come to own the character to some degree on stage? I'm sure you're nowhere near as arrogant as some of the other accomplished (or grossly less accomplished) actors of this day and age, but...WHY?!

Forgive me for being the second in a row to quote this rather longish post, but I've got to add something here.

Although I agree that it was worthless to add Gandalf's staff being broken (the book version of the confrontation would've worked better in each & every faze of the scene, I'll acknowledge that), I think that there has been some gross over-reacting of late. The scene is bothersome, but if you are not going to complain--no, rant, rather--about every other deviation from the books than you really should be lightening the mood of your posts. Of course I'm all for discussion & I understand that this is a forum devoted to debatings, but surely this topic can be talked over without any blood pressure-raising bellowings in the room.

I mean, if you do not have a problem with other big changes (Bombadil, Faramir, etc.) because you 'understand it's a part of the movie', or because you 'try to keep the book & movie seperate' than you should consider this scene the same way--a matter for discussion & debate, but not a matter of sacrilege that deserves such ranting.

I don't see why this change is so horrible that it has been lifted up above all the others as the single-largest mistake/change in the whole trilogy...

[St. Povis]

You are entirely right, of course. It is futile to get upset about it. Its almost as silly to get upset about the people who get upset in the first place. Truth in my eyes: Its just what it is. Gandalf, for a lot of people I think is almost like grandfather figure. Certain types of people grow to love him in the books because of his bravery. His mere presence bolsters morale. Some people focus more on other characters. For instance, The Witch King. Some people have an admiration for the Dark threads of Sauron. Some people think its just plain stupid to invest so much of one's self into a story. Who cares? It takes all kinds, doesn't it? I don't expect that everyone here will agree with me, anymore than I expect people to expect me to agree with them. I can see your point, but, in truth, my blood pressure didn't sail through the roof, and, so far I can tell, I'm in no danger of a heart attack or stroke as a result of having witnessed this movie. Haldir's death is irritating to me for no other reason than that it deviates from the book.

Tom Bombadil: Well, can't say that his character touched me much when I read about him the first time around. In fact, I think the first time I read it, I must have drifted off into other thoughts while reading about it, because when I picked it up for the second time, I had no memory of him at all. None. It was like a totally new character which put a whole new spin on the book. I read the books in 5th and 6th grade (thereby dooming me to my nerd-dom, if there's anything to 'formative years' theories). But re-reading and then discovering his charater added a totally new dimension to the experience. I can almost equate with some of the reasons I imagine Jackson to not want to 'go there', so it doesn;t frustrate me all that much.

Now, the other scenes just don't hit people like myself (Remember, even being one in a million still means there are at least 61/2 thousand out there exactly like you) with the same strength. Its like watching your grandpa get his *** kicked in a subway or something. Maybe not as traumatizing, but still an unpleasant experience for those with the emotional investment in his character. I'm sure Gandalf isn;t the only one with fanatics.

Face it, Tolkein's work touches people in ways that most contemporary pieces of literature do not. I don't expect you to understand, or even to want to understand. IT just irked a lot of us because of all the things that Big G stands for to them.

Well, sorry if its too long a read, I usually can't help but to be verbose, especially when I'm trying to give someone a quality answer, and one that they asked for.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Only Real Estel

I mean, if you do not have a problem with other big changes (Bombadil, Faramir, etc.) because you 'understand it's a part of the movie', or because you 'try to keep the book & movie seperate' than you should consider this scene the same way--a matter for discussion & debate, but not a matter of sacrilege that deserves such ranting.

I don't see why this change is so horrible that it has been lifted up above all the others as the single-largest mistake/change in the whole trilogy...

To add my two cents:

First, note that I will lobotomize myself and pretend to never have read the books. My argument will be based on what I saw in the EE DVDs and on various websites.

Missing Bombadil and Scouring of the Shire etc? Who and what? And I read somewhere that these scenes, whatever they were, weren't filmed. Hard to get torqued up over something I never saw.

Ents and Faramir? A bit odd, as the creatures and the person do some mental flips. One minute, the Ents take hours to say "good morning" and seemingly days to decide on a course of action and then wham! They see a few hacked up tree stumps and it's off to war with a bellows from that Treebeard guy (and aren't these things supposed to be tree shepherds? Not keeping too close an eye on the flock, I guess).

And that Faramir guy decides to bring to the ring to his king dad, then sees a flying Nazgul, hears a speech from Samwise and suddenly changes his decision, placing his life and his father's acceptance in jeopardy. Whatever.

Maybe there's more to the stories but I'm not really emotionally invested in either the Ents (the Ents were too CG) or Faramir, and so let these inconsistencies pass.

Then there's that Gandalf guy. See much of him in FOTR. I like him. Wise, kind, a bit more emotional than that Strider guy - I see Gandalf as a real hero as he sacrifices himself to save his friends from that Balrog thing. Thought that he died, but as we never see the body, and he's in the TTT trailer, I'm assured that he's resurrected. Seems to be the kind of guy that you'd want around, as he'd have your back.

He returns in TTT and ROTK. As posted previously, he now is bigger and badder. Those three running guys can't hurt him in Fangorn. He is now more powerful than that other wizard, not only surviving a fireball blast but also breaking that wizard's staff. Gandalf uses his staff to chase away the flying Nazgul, and he's at the Gates when Grond does its work. Still in the thick of things, and leading from the front. It may look dark, but as I see him on the screen, I know that the good guys are far from being done in.

Then, for some reason he loses his staff to the W-K, who I guess is twice bigger and badder as he now wears a helmet. Okay. But Gandalf on the ground looking fearful? This doesn't make sense, as he beat the Balrog and the Wizard and some trolls and assorted orcs. And with the exception of the helmet, isn't this the same W-K that couldn't catch four hobbits in the Shire, and ran away from a sword- and flame-wielding Aragorn? And Gandalf chased him away with some light from the same staff?

And Pippin, who was the least brave of any of the characters in the films, at least makes an attempt to stand up to the W-K (he did attempt to fight five Nazgul at Weathertop, and so maybe this explains it) and the flying thing. And though he's small, he's at least standing, making him for once 'taller' than Gandalf.

And later the W-K is taken out by a hobbit and Eowyn, both of which, as far as I know, have little fighting experience. So why was Gandalf so afraid? Where was the wise, kind heroic guy that I admired those past ~9 hours?

So that's a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that the scene/character was not internally consistent, opened huge plot holes and I really like Gandalf.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

We come to it at last ... my post on this topic.

Haha, that sounded vain.

Alright.

The mechanics of the confrontation weren't that bad. Yes, in the book, Gandalf stood atop Shadowfax while W-K waltzed in on his own black horse ... Gandalf told him to go back to abyss ... the W-K would have just waltzed in anyway, and fought Gandalf right there if the horns hadn't sounded. He may even have won ...

In the movie, Gandalf told him to go back to the abyss ... and he again lit his sword on fire, taunted Gandalf, and got ready to do his worst.

The difference is ... in the movies, the Nazgul had lost their horses in Fellowship, and in Two Towers got new rides. The whole film showed W-K on a fell beast, why suddenly swap in a horse just for riding through the front gate?

So, he landed on the second wall. That's a big change, but not a vastly important, OH NO THE MOVIE IS RUINED one.

Here's my problem.

First of all, it seemed rushed and not dramatic enough. Gandalf rode through the bastion of stone, and W-K just lands there ... then Gandalf just tells him to go back to the abyss.

There should have been a long standoff, silent, for like ... 20 seconds.

I wanted a "You shall not pass!" style yelling match. "GO BACK TO THE ABYSS". Loud, we know Gandalf can do it.

And they should have spent more time on the landing ... Gandalf is riding along, and the Witch-King spots him from the air and flies "On his tail", like he told Pippin he hoped wouldn't happen any time soon. Then Witch-King flies forward, and lands right in front of Gandalf, and Shadowfax rears up, throwing Pippin and Gandalf.

I did like how Shadowfax stood his ground there against a frigging dragon.

Anyway, the staff breaking thing ... seemed pointless, but whatever. The idea is when a wizard comes up against something that outpowers him enough to break his staff, they're screwed. PJ wanted the staffs to be an important part of wizardry.

Oh, and I think that the very first horn note of the Rohirrim was too subdued. They should have made it just a little louder. So everyone knew why Witch-King bailed.

But other than the fact that it was too brief, lacked a powerful intro, and Gandalf's lines were too succint ... I loved it. That sword on fire stuff rocked.

[alatar]

Agree with Keeper of Dol Guldur that the scene was rushed. Have to make time for that drinking scene...(sigh).

On a slightly different tack, don't you think PJ could have spared one moment having someone in Gondor (1) acknowledge the Rohirrim's arrival and (2) cheer? Again, now that I've completed my therapy and have accepted Gandalf's staff-breaking, I'm on to complaining elsewhere. Would that have made sense regarding the sudden 'retreat' of the Witch-King? He could leave Gandalf's demise to another time (he took his staff - what else was there to do?), but he would want to put out the Rohirrim-inspired hope before that got out of hand.

[Snorri Swifthammer]

While on a business trip I stumbled upon irrefutable proof that in the battle of Gandalf vs. the Witch King that Gandalf wins.

While playing with my Lord of the Rings playing cards I noticed the WK is lumped in with the other Ringwraiths as a Queen, while Gandalf is an Ace! Well, I think that more or less wraps up this discussion.

Move along nothing to see here...

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Snorri Swifthammer

While on a business trip I stumbled upon irrefutable proof that in the battle of Gandalf vs. the Witch King that Gandalf wins.

While playing with my Lord of the Rings playing cards I noticed the WK is lumped in with the other Ringwraiths as a Queen, while Gandalf is an Ace! Well, I think that more or less wraps up this discussion.

Move along nothing to see here...

Your evidence is silly (intentionally, I realize), but you're right. There's really no question.

[Rhino]

you all seem to forget that Gandalf alluded to the fact that the WK was more powerful then him when he was talking to Pippin before the battle of Osgiliath
his facial expression alone would be enough to tell that he is terrifed of WK, not only this but his hesitance or thought process before telling Pippin about the WK is another allusion to this.

Secondly, the scene was one of huge drama and tension, WKs' ability to destroy Gandalfs staff and deseat him from shadowfax is PJs' interpretation of the shear, raw power of WK, the fact that you are irked by a minor injustice done to Gandalf, is in itself an injustice to Peter Jackson.

Thirdly, Aragorns ability to defeat WK in the first film is clearly a foreshadowing of his true abilities/power which is revealed later in not only that film but throughout the trilogy.

One other thing, from my interpretation Gandalf is not the most powerful being in ME, that place being reseverved for Sauron (you can take that as you want, but I am simply alluding to the fact that Sauron was able to create such a device of evil and destruction in the form of the One Ring, and then "Come Back from the Dead" though I do not have words to truely give that a justifiyable explianation)
though Gandalf in clearly the wisest being in ME.

thats just a few things that irk me about most of your arguements,
I am not trying to belittle your opinions just present my veiw on the scene

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Rhino

you all seem to forget that Gandalf alluded to the fact that the WK was more powerful then him when he was talking to Pippin before the battle of Osgiliath
his facial expression alone would be enough to tell that he is terrifed of WK, not only this but his hesitance or thought process before telling Pippin about the WK is another allusion to this.

In PJ's world, a case may be made for Gandalf's 'terror' of the Witch-king, but that was not the indication from the book.

Originally Posted by Rhino

Secondly, the scene was one of huge drama and tension, WKs' ability to destroy Gandalfs staff and deseat him from shadowfax is PJs' interpretation of the shear, raw power of WK, the fact that you are irked by a minor injustice done to Gandalf, is in itself an injustice to Peter Jackson.

How, exactly, is questioning a film director's handling of a scene (which featured a misrepresentation of one of the most recognisable and beloved characters in the original work) an "injustice"?

[Rhino]

How, exactly, is questioning a film director's handling of a scene (which featured a misrepresentation of one of the most recognisable and beloved characters in the original work) an "injustice"

I just feel that he handled the scene well, and that so many seem to have negitive feelings towards it is unfair....injustice was the wrong word and I apologize for my mistake.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Rhino

I just feel that he handled the scene well, and that so many seem to have negitive feelings towards it is unfair....

Well, that would be your opinion, to which you are certainly entitled. However, my opinion differs drastically from yours, and your points neither move me nor do I feel it necessary to further quantify the opposing view, as I gave up redundancy for the New Year. That and liver.

[Ondoher420]

Gandalf was made to look ridiculously weak in front of the WK!!! What has Gandalf the White have to fear from the WK as he defeated the balrog in his grey form!! Surely Gandalf is very much powerful than the nazgul

[alatar]

And what of Dumbledore? I've not read the books, but I get the impression from the Harry Potter movies that, at any time, the wizard Dumbledore could step in and prevail in any situation that Harry or Hogwarts finds itself in.

And yet there always seems to be more than enough for Harry and friends to do.

[Dakêsîntrah]

Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh on the Witch-king's reaction to Gandalf in the Extended Edition audio commentary:

Boyens: ["In the book it works on a different level...]

Walsh: ["There's something disempowering about a character who arrives and threatens to do something and then flies away again...Having not actually - well, he broke Gandalf's staff, but - there was just this sense...it made him less frightening..and less potent as a character. It's like an event written to happen, but then didn't. And we really felt it in the pacing of the film."]

Peter Jackson adds: ["We just wanted to make it more exciting and cinematic."]

So the idea of Jackson and Co. is to make the Witch-king more menacing. Give them credit; they tried to add something to the very little screentime the Witch-king was granted.

If they would have filmed the confrontation as it happened in the book, then it would have been a nearly wasteful bit of scenes. As a film director, why would you have one or two scenes of a book rendition of WK vs. Gandalf, building up even more tension than what was actually filmed, and then ending it with the two going separate ways with no actual outcome? Well, that's essentially how it happened in the book, but it certainly wouldn't carry any merit to advancing plot in a movie!

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

If they would have filmed the confrontation as it happened in the book, then it would have been a nearly wasteful bit of scenes. As a film director, why would you have one or two scenes of a book rendition of WK vs. Gandalf, building up even more tension than what was actually filmed, and then ending it with the two going separate ways with no actual outcome? Well, that's essentially how it happened in the book, but it certainly wouldn't carry any merit to advancing plot in a movie!

You have the two commanders of the opposing armies set up against each other; but there's no need to have them fight each other one-on-one if it didn't happen in the book - and it didn't.

The plot doesn't lose anything if no blow is struck between them.

It's this type of thinking that had the director seriously considering wheeling out Sauron himself to fight Aragorn at the Black Gate.

[Strider09]

I never noticed. Well, I haven't read the Return of the King yet.

[Isilmo]

In my personal opinion and im a real Tolkien fan (read all books Hobbit, Sillmarillion, unfinished tales 1 and 2 Trilogy the children of Hurin and all the quenta sillmarillion and ive watched alll the movies from the fellowship to the hobbit an unexpected journey) and although i tend to strongly support canon although i like peter jacksons adaptayions they dont show all the facts and he has tweaked the story for effect i do really like the witch-king and the nazgul my favorite character being the Witch-King of Angmar ithink Gandalf could have put up a bit more of a fight(But not won of course )and the witch-king should have had a more spectacular entrance and really he could have killed gandalf off quickly and then flown off to King Theoden.Also this is my first post on the Forum and i hope i contributed.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Isilmo

In my personal opinion and im a real Tolkien fan (read all books Hobbit, Sillmarillion, unfinished tales 1 and 2 Trilogy the children of Hurin and all the quenta sillmarillion and ive watched alll the movies from the fellowship to the hobbit an unexpected journey) and although i tend to strongly support canon although i like peter jacksons adaptayions they dont show all the facts and he has tweaked the story for effect i do really like the witch-king and the nazgul my favorite character being the Witch-King of Angmar ithink Gandalf could have put up a bit more of a fight(But not won of course )and the witch-king should have had a more spectacular entrance and really he could have killed gandalf off quickly and then flown off to King Theoden.Also this is my first post on the Forum and i hope i contributed.

Hello Isilmo, Welcome to the Downs! Good to hear that you like the Books and the Movies.

As you can see from the length of this thread, opinions differ, but that's what the forum's all about.