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

Boromir88 · 01-05-2005, 05:10 PM

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 · 01-06-2005, 10:58 AM

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 · 01-06-2005, 11:02 AM

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** · 01-06-2005, 11:12 AM

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.

narfforc · 01-06-2005, 12:08 PM

I only wrote Angmar because it is quicker and I am a lazy orc, I shall write out a thousand times The Lord of the Nazgul was known as The Witch-King of Angmar in Angmar, sorry but in my defence (getting all filmy) Gandalf does call him that in the film, so I thought I would get away with it. To Saucepanman, Hi. My very few moans about the film are where Jackson goes too far, he has done marvelous things with these films, I even noticed the walls glittering beneath Helms Deep. The costumes, the places, the visualisation I dont have many problems with, it is when things are changed beyond reason, that my blood boils. Remember this may be a film now, but when the books that have been read by millions, are still being read by millions, people will still be discussing how wrong Jackson character adaptations are/were. I first read Tolkien in the sixties (The Hobbit) and went on to read LotR in the seventies, I feel people like ourselves on this site have a duty to uphold the vision of Tolkien, not Jackson. I remember when the radio series came on air, there was lots of moaning then about missing bits. I can understand leaving things out, but who do they think they are putting bits in that they have blatantly made up. Many people have read Tolkien and have a very personnal relationship with his works, and I say to you my friend, to treat Gandalf this way was wrong. I also do not like how the very solemn and respectable race of dwarves are portrayed, Balin would be spinning in his tomb.

NOMOREIHERE (SILLY ELVEN FOR FAREWELL)

**The Saucepan Man** · 01-06-2005, 12:15 PM

I have a great deal of sympathy for your views. I too read LotR first in the 70s. But, if people want to read the books, they can (and a great many have been encouraged by the films to do so). If they do, they will understand the differences. If not, well that's their choice.

Captain of Despair · 01-06-2005, 12:30 PM

Narfforc, I understand your criticism of the Witchking, but I don't think he should be regarded as such a minor threat. Sure, we never actually see him fight anyone, but he is without a doubt Sauron's most powerful servant and I believe very few could defeat him in single combat (one would need great power and a magically endowed blade, as well). It didn't seem to me that he was scared of Gandalf at the gates of Minas Tirith, and he surely would have entered had the Rohirrim not shown up.

narfforc · 01-06-2005, 12:30 PM

You make a good point about those people coming to the books through the films, and my wish would be that they all would, my pity goes to those who do not and will never see the full extent of the glorious vision that Tolkien has given us. For years I have wished to go down to the pub and say to my workmates, "Did you know that Gandalf isnt just some old bloke", well I live in hope, normally the conversation descends into The Black Speech of Mordor.

NOMOREIHERE

01-06-2005, 11:02 AM	#3
obloquy Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: WA Posts: 941	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. Last edited by obloquy; 01-06-2005 at 11:08 AM.

01-06-2005, 11:12 AM	#4
The Saucepan Man Corpus Cacophonous Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: A green and pleasant land Posts: 8,390	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. __________________ Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!

01-06-2005, 12:15 PM	#6
The Saucepan Man Corpus Cacophonous Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: A green and pleasant land Posts: 8,390	I have a great deal of sympathy for your views. I too read LotR first in the 70s. But, if people want to read the books, they can (and a great many have been encouraged by the films to do so). If they do, they will understand the differences. If not, well that's their choice. __________________ Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!

01-06-2005, 12:30 PM	#7
Captain of Despair Pile O'Bones Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. Posts: 21	Narfforc, I understand your criticism of the Witchking, but I don't think he should be regarded as such a minor threat. Sure, we never actually see him fight anyone, but he is without a doubt Sauron's most powerful servant and I believe very few could defeat him in single combat (one would need great power and a magically endowed blade, as well). It didn't seem to me that he was scared of Gandalf at the gates of Minas Tirith, and he surely would have entered had the Rohirrim not shown up. __________________ Thousands of years of loyal service and I'm still only a Captain

01-05-2005, 05:10 PM	#1
Boromir88 Laconic Loreman Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: USA Posts: 7,521	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.

01-06-2005, 10:58 AM	#2
narfforc Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Muddy-earth Posts: 1,297	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.

01-06-2005, 12:08 PM	#5
narfforc Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Muddy-earth Posts: 1,297	I only wrote Angmar because it is quicker and I am a lazy orc, I shall write out a thousand times The Lord of the Nazgul was known as The Witch-King of Angmar in Angmar, sorry but in my defence (getting all filmy) Gandalf does call him that in the film, so I thought I would get away with it. To Saucepanman, Hi. My very few moans about the film are where Jackson goes too far, he has done marvelous things with these films, I even noticed the walls glittering beneath Helms Deep. The costumes, the places, the visualisation I dont have many problems with, it is when things are changed beyond reason, that my blood boils. Remember this may be a film now, but when the books that have been read by millions, are still being read by millions, people will still be discussing how wrong Jackson character adaptations are/were. I first read Tolkien in the sixties (The Hobbit) and went on to read LotR in the seventies, I feel people like ourselves on this site have a duty to uphold the vision of Tolkien, not Jackson. I remember when the radio series came on air, there was lots of moaning then about missing bits. I can understand leaving things out, but who do they think they are putting bits in that they have blatantly made up. Many people have read Tolkien and have a very personnal relationship with his works, and I say to you my friend, to treat Gandalf this way was wrong. I also do not like how the very solemn and respectable race of dwarves are portrayed, Balin would be spinning in his tomb. NOMOREIHERE (SILLY ELVEN FOR FAREWELL)