Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Captain of Despair

It doesn't seem to me that Gandalf's words were the reason that the Witchking halted. It seemed more like the Witchking was confronting Gandalf as the warriors of old did before battling. The Witchking threw back his hood, countered Gandalf's words with a few of his own, and proceded to raise his flaming sword as if ready to attack.

He halted because Gandalf was in his way. He couldn't continue. And not only was Gandalf unafraid (which WK was unaccustomed to), he was capable of squashing him out of hand.

In response to obloquy: I don't believe the Witchking to be on par with Gandalf, but I also don't believe Gandalf to be equal to Sauron.

I anticipated this response and retorted preemptively in my post above. I've written a lot on it here on the Downs and provided plenty of evidence to support my contention. Your turn.

Another comment I would like to make (to no person in particular) is about the infamous prophecy. People always use it to justify why a person could or could not defeat the Witchking, but this is one of my pet peeves. All the prophecy meant is that the Witchking would be defeated by Eowyn and Merry. It did not mean that, in theory, a man could not defeat him or any non-man could.

But if a male Man had killed the Witch-King (which he could have), Glorfindel would've been proven wrong, and we are all familiar enough with Tolkien to know that Glorfindel would not have been proven wrong. That's the point. "In real life," yeah, a male Man had just as much shot as anyone at killing the WK, but really, once the prophecy had been uttered, it was then "impossible" for any male Man to do the deed.

[Captain of Despair]

Originally Posted by obloquy

I anticipated this response and retorted preemptively in my post above. I've written a lot on it here on the Downs and provided plenty of evidence to support my contention. Your turn.

Well, I have neither the desire nor the knowledge to try and defend my claim agianst someone so well versed in Tolkien's works. It is more of a personal view that I have developed over time. But I would love to read what you have written if you could provide me with the links.

Originally Posted by obloquy

But if a male Man had killed the Witch-King (which he could have), Glorfindel would've been proven wrong, and we are all familiar enough with Tolkien to know that Glorfindel would not have been proven wrong. That's the point. "In real life," yeah, a male Man had just as much shot as anyone at killing the WK, but really, once the prophecy had been uttered, it was then "impossible" for any male Man to do the deed.

My point is that you can't really use the prophecy when discussing whether or not so-and-so could theoretically defeat the Witchking.

[narfforc]

To Obluquy and The Captain of Despair, Hi. Just a few things to add to this marvelous ongoing discussion. Firstly, Tolkien does use Prophecy as Doom, once uttered it is carved in stone, in his world no other thing will happen but The Prophecy. Secondly concerning Gandalf and Sauron. There are a number of things to think of here. Why did Manwe want Olorin to go so badly, why did Varda and Cirdan perceive him to be greater than Saruman. What we also must remember is that this is not Sauron of The First or Second Age, this is a much weakened Sauron, Gandalf the Grey would have struggled, maybe Gandalf the White wouldnt. However in saying all this, I personally think that the reason Gandalf was sent was for his inner qualities, his ability to move mens hearts, to defy the darkness, in this he was a match for Sauron, he matched hope against despair and won. I dont think it was Gandalf`s part to fight openly against Sauron, in fact the Istari had been forbidden to, so we will never know.

NOMOREIHERE

[The Saucepan Man]

Based primarily on what Tolkien says in his Letters, I would agree with obloquy that Gandalf was Sauron's equal. Although I would rule such evidence as inadmissible, or at best of little persuasive value, in interpreting the films as the "book" facts relevant to this are not part of the film story.

Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that, in the films, Gandalf is portrayed as more powerful as the Witch King. But does this really mean that it is ludicrous to have Angmar ( ) seemingly better Gandalf, and to have Gandalf show fear, in this scene? After some consideration, I don't think that it does. There are numerous examples in Tolkien's works, many of which are carried over into the films, of characters defeating those who are clearly superior in power. I would class Eowyn and Merry combined as less powerful than the Witch King, yet they defeated him. And Wormtongue (in both book and EE) was able to kill Saruman. Circumstances count for much. Perhaps, given all that was going on in his mind (directing the defence of Minas Tirth, riding to the aid of Faramir, not to mention thoughts of Frodo's desperate journey), Gandalf's mind was momentarily distracted and the Witch King was able to seize the initiative. Gandalf's fear is also justifiable. If it was possible for the Witch King to defeat him (and, given the precedents noted, I believe that it was), there was much at stake. If Gandalf fell, Minas Tirith could fall. And that could well bode darkly for Frodo's Quest and the fate of Middle-earth itself. A fear of failure in these circumstances is understandable. Moreover, since Gandalf is not portrayed as a Maia in the films, it is plausible that he was subject to the Witch King's main weapon - fear - even if less so than "ordinary" Men.

Finally, who is to say that, in the film, Gandalf would not have rallied his powers and defeated the Witch King, or at least driven him off, had the Rohirrim not arrived? Perhaps the Witch King feared this, which is why he did not finish Gandalf off when he had the chance. We cannot be sure, just as we cannot be sure what the outcome of the encounter would have been at the Gate in the book, but for the arrival of Theoden's Riders.

Now I doubt that any of this went through the film-makers' minds. My only point is that this scene can be explained and justified, in film terms. It is not inherently ludicrous (in the same way, for example, as having Denethor run all the way from Rath Dinen to the front of the Citadel and fall off the edge while on fire).

As to Glorfindel's prophecy, I agree that there is a difference, in theory at least, between prophesising that someone will not die at the hands of a Man and saying that they cannot die in this way. Glorfindel's prophecy in the book is of the former category, but the prophecy in the film falls into the latter category. 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. Assuming that, in the films, Gandalf is a Man, this gives Gandalf even more reason to fear him.

Hi saucepan man,
I am going to respectfully disagree with you on two points that you made in your last post.
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. I feel that there are numerous occasions where Gandalf displays powers that far transcend that of even "extra ordinary men", (kills balrog after surviving endless fall, is sent back after death, uses power from staff to stave off nazgul on fell beasts) and in addition, Tolkien himself had characters and places in his books that were not explained, except in the apendices, or the silmarillion. Thus, I do not feel that Jackson can be let off the hook for his besmurchment of Gandalf's character by concluding that he wasnt treating gandalf's character as though he were a maiar.
Secondly, I think you are correct in asserting that it is not so terrible to simply portray Gandalf as being frightened and unsure in the face of the Witch King. Although I did not like it, that's likely only because I simply love gandalf as a tolkien character so much, and I hated to see him depicted so weakly. 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. Thus, I feel that having the Witch King destroy Gandalf's staff is the same as saying that the Witch King of Angmar is greater and has more raw power that Gandalf, clearly a completely propsterous statement. I could have lived with the witch king knocking Gandalf off his horse, and maybe even with him getting lucky and besting gandalf in a quick one one one battle. However, I think that having him outright destroy gandalf's staff was WAY too much off a statement. When you see the importance of the wizard's staff in the movies (Gandalf and Saruman fighting with them, and then Gandalf finally losing the fight when saruman get's his from him, to gandfalf seeming to need his staff to extract Saruman from Theoden, and gandalf destroying saruman's staff as a symbol of Saruman's expulsion from the order of the istari, and of Gandalf usurping saruman as leader of the order), the natural conclusion that one must draw from the the witch king having the ABILITY to destroy gandalf's staff is that the witch king was a more poweful entity than Gandalf....and just writing that tears me up in side because it's such b.s.

Perhaps, I misinterpreted your previous post, and all that writing was for naught
What do you think?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Habriz

However, I feel that having the Witch King destroy Gandalf's staff is a scene that was completely unforgivable.

Totally agree. Completely took me out of the movies. 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?

I wasn't really big on his staff changing when he went from grey to white (think that it cracked on the Bridge) - he was able to keep Glamdring...

[narfforc]

Hi Essex, Yes I agree Gandalf would have been scared of failure, but not petrified of The Witch-King himself. As for the killing of The Witch-King neither Eowyn or Merry could have done it on their own. The damage done by Merry could have been rectified by the odd bandage spell, if not and the pin prick from his Numenorean Dagger had totally unravelled the spells that kept The Witch-Kings body together, then even the least mighty could defeat him. If Merry had not started the ball rolling, then Eowyn could have bashed away at hearts content, but to no avail, so who killed The Witch-King?. If all it take`s is someone who is not of the race of Man, who is mighty, and has a magical sword, then let me put forward Gandalf the White armed with Glamdring, the sword that had already despatched an equally if not greater spirit to utter destruction. However in saying all this, they were never destined to fight physically. Gandalf had already defeated The witch-King, How?, Gandalf was the mover of all things and always one step ahead. Great tacticians do not always fight themselves. One by one Gandalf blocked and destroyed Saurons pieces, The Witch-King was not important to Gandalf, Sauron was. The quest of Erebor, Smaug Destroyed. The Mines of Moria, Balrog Destroyed. If Sauron could have gained an alliance with either of these two, then Sauron`s forces would have been devastating. The alliance with Isengard in tatters. One of the final pieces to block was The Witch-King. How fortunate that Theoden turned up just at the right time, or was it. Remember the state he was in before Gandalf release`s him from Saruman`s` spell. One step ahead, and all the time the most important piece was coming in through the back door. If Gandalf could not have out-fought Sauron, Then he certainly out-thought him.

NOMOREIHERE

[obloquy]

Staff-breaking is the ultimate. The scene was too much. When Saruman's staff was blown apart by Gandalf, it signified utter defeat and we all knew it. Gandalf was far from "broken", even in the movie, so his staff should've remained intact.

[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.