Time to fix Gandalf versus the Witchking

[Farael]

Originally Posted by alatar

I'm back to sitting this out until Eönwë responds to my last post.

Can I give it a try?

While Gandalf was indeed Olorin the Maiar, he was not quite a "normal" Maiar. Unlike what all Ainur could do, namely taking a "human-like" shape, Olorin was "incarnated" in Gandalf. So even though Olorin was a Maiar and unkilable, Gandalf was something else, and he could be killed. As a matter of fact, the Balrog kills Gandalf... and then he is sent back (reborn, in a way).

Let's say that the WK stuck a sword right through Gandalf... Gandalf would've been dead. Not Olorin, and perhaps Olorin would've been ticked and wrecked holy (he's a demi-god after all) chaos on everything that was going on.

Still, I don't think that the WK had a reasonable chance of killing Gandalf, even if it was technically possible. As mentioned before, Gandalf defeated a Balrog, which is FAR stronger than the WK.

Having said that, and going back to the glycogen comment, what if dwarves had an exo-skeleton made of Chitin, like most bugs do?

I mean, they lived in dark places, literally under a rock... furthermore, what if dwarves could metabolize their exo-skeleton to allow them to perform "super-dwarven" feats of skill?

And what if Shadofax's mane was actualy a storage of polysacharides?

~Farael, the biochemist -_-

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Farael

~Farael, the biochemist -_-

Oh no!

How we've gotten to dwarven exoskeletons from fixing a scene from Peter Jackson's LotR is anyone's guess.

PJ rules out exoskeletons; you see the endos when the FotR enter Moria. Haven't found a Tolkien reference for or against (though surely in Three Ages someone would have noticed and remarked on it).

[Galendor]

Originally posted by Alatar:

Do you have a list of scenes, and if you have that much time on your hands , could you give the details - whether the scene should be deleted or altered?

No, Alatar - I spoke too carelessly and I apologize for it. I don't really have the time or expertise to compile such a list to back up my claim, so it was a pointless claim to make. I can think offhand of scenes that I might like to see eliminated, but as far as arguing for alterations I am probably not up to it in expertise. Sorry again.

But I do tend to agree with Quempel on the issue of Shadowfax, dwarves, and physiological endurance. If you were to poke and prod Shadowfax, would he not feel like a real horse? And if you were to (sorry) dissect Shadowfax, would he not be composed of tissues? And if you looked closer, would not these tissues be composed of cells? And then proteins and nucleic acids?

Or was he composed of pure magic designed to look and act like a real horse?

I suspect that Shadowfax looked, felt, and smelled like a real horse. If he had a father and a mother, then I would imagine he came into being when a sperm cell fertilized an egg cell, and grew from there. He seemed to exist in the physical world, he did get tired if memory serves, gravity seemed to have an effect on him, he did not fly but seemed held to the ground by the same force that held Gimli to the ground. But he raced along far faster and further than any horse we know of. So why shouldn't Gimli be able to run longer and faster than one of us can here in the "real" world? He was a heroic, stout little member of a different species than us, so we can only guess at the metabolic pathways governing his physiology. And Gimli might have a long history of strengthening his body by running up mountains, for all we know. Plus, the oxygen content of the Middle Earth atmosphere might have been higher, permitting a longer run.

Besides, if we are willing to make an argument as STW does that Gimli should be constrained by the biochemistry that governs our bodies, then where does it all end with science versus LOTR? A physicist could come here and make the argument that there is no way that putting a ring of metal on your finger can make your physical form, and everything you are wearing, become invisible (i.e. no longer absorb, reflect, or refract light), especially while you remain solid and able to interact with other physical objects (pick them up, kick them, etc.).

[Sauron the White]

LOTR - At the end of the Chapter The White Rider in THE TWO TOWERS Legolas isspeaking to Gandalf about seein Shadowfax in the distance and says he is

"a very great horse. I have not seen his like before."


"Nor will you again', said Gandalf. 'That is Shadowfax. He is the chief of the Mearas, lord of the horses, and even Theoden, King of Rohan, has never looked on a better.

And earlier, in the chapter The Council of Elrond, Gandalf says of Shadowfax,

"There is one among them might have been foaled in the morning of the world."
That is a reference to th earliest days in Valinor.

Others agree. Here is some info from The Encyclopedia of Arda

In the old north of Middle-earth lived a proud race of wild horses, long-lived, wise and fleet of foot. The legends of Men said that their ancestors had been brought from the West by Béma, their name for the Vala Oromë.

Gimli is but one of many Dwarves with no particular blessings or abilities which would distinguish him from his bretheren. There is no foundation for ultra-marathon running in any account of the rest of the Dwarves in any of the books.

ANd one (hopefully last) other point. It is not my contention that nobody could run 45 miles each day for three days. Highly trained elite ultra marathoners , the elite of the elite, have done that. My contention is that an untrained Dwarf could not. Shadowfax, on the other hand, can run and run and run as Gandalf has said. He is the equal to those extra-highly trained ultra-marathoners.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Galendor

No, Alatar - I spoke too carelessly and I apologize for it. I don't really have the time or expertise to compile such a list to back up my claim, so it was a pointless claim to make. I can think offhand of scenes that I might like to see eliminated, but as far as arguing for alterations I am probably not up to it in expertise. Sorry again.

Don't take it that way. I hope that it didn't seem that I was demanding anything. I always like to hear what others think about the movies.

Is there any scene that you would 'fix?' If so, how?

But I do tend to agree with Quempel on the issue of Shadowfax, dwarves, and physiological endurance. If you were to poke and prod Shadowfax, would he not feel like a real horse? And if you were to (sorry) dissect Shadowfax, would he not be composed of tissues? And if you looked closer, would not these tissues be composed of cells? And then proteins and nucleic acids?

If you ate him, would he not taste like chicken?

So why shouldn't Gimli be able to run longer and faster than one of us can here in the "real" world? He was a heroic, stout little member of a different species than us, so we can only guess at the metabolic pathways governing his physiology. And Gimli might have a long history of strengthening his body by running up mountains, for all we know. Plus, the oxygen content of the Middle Earth atmosphere might have been higher, permitting a longer run.

Maybe the Endless Stair was a dwarven training course.

Besides, if we are willing to make an argument as STW does that Gimli should be constrained by the biochemistry that governs our bodies, then where does it all end with science versus LOTR? A physicist could come here and make the argument that there is no way that putting a ring of metal on your finger can make your physical form, and everything you are wearing, become invisible (i.e. no longer absorb, reflect, or refract light), especially while you remain solid and able to interact with other physical objects (pick them up, kick them, etc.).

I guess the discussion is, what works within the fantasy world, and what sticks out like a sore foot (from all of that running)? Like I've always said, we've got Balrogs and wraiths and ghost armies, so what's a marathoner Dwarf between you and me?

[Quempel]

That's my point, if we accept all the other 'fantasy' in LoTR, what's the problem with Gimli being able to run. Facts are horses can't and don't run like Shadowfax, heck even Brego is an extraordinary horse in real horse standards, come to think of it so is Bill the Pony.

If we are going to apply human standards to Gimli, then we need to apply those same standards to Legolas, Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, and every one else in the books and movies. So if we do that Elves are nothing more than people who have really screwed up calendars and only have one month years. Aragorn couldn't possibly be an 80 plus year old man so he has one of those really silly Elvin calendars too. Frodo and Sam would have the same knee, back and other health issues that modern Little People have and would in no way be able to walk anywhere near as many miles as they did. And as for the Witch King...in reality we don't have zombies so the question of him being able to beat Gandalf is a non-issue. Well then again in reality we don't have demi-gods pretending to be wizards either, so I guess no Gandalf either.

But in the movie I think PJ missed the boat with WK beating down Gandalf, it was bad and made me feel like Gandalf had suffered a needless character assassination.


And StW's diaroma's are very nice and must have taken a great deal of work and time.

[Sauron the White]

Thank you to both alatar and Quempel for the kind words on the dioramas.

There are those who may argue that because the genre is fantasy, anything goes no matter how improbable or other impossible. If an author wants to have an air force of 400 pound warthogs flying to Venus to do battle with blue six armed amazons, well, that is the authors right. I would say only if those several components are part and parcel of what the author has established for the norms of that world and has laid a proper foundation for such events and creatures.

One of the things that makes LOTR such a great book is the level of superb writing and craftmanship that went into it. It seems that JRRT labored and slaved over every word choice and went much much further than even the most diligent of authors in constructing a world which may be fantasy but also makes perfect sense.

And there is the problem of ultra marathoning dwarves. It even defies the foundations of Tolkiens own world. Nowhere does it say that dwarves are natural distance runners despite the author giving them a physiology that completely defies such abilities. Nowhere does it say that Dwarves - unlike the chief of the mearas - can run and run and run and do so on a regular basis which would train them for such achievements. Tolkien does not lay that foundation.

One can make a case for both Legolas and Aragorn as several here have done in the previous discussion and I say the wisdom of their reasoning and conceded the possibility of their achievement in Middle-earth. With Gimli, Tolkien simply pulled this out of thin air and wrote that Gimli did it despite all reason, logic, physiology, experience and even his own mythology saying there is no foundation for it.

"Its only a fantasy" is not a blank check for clumsily including a poorly researched passage that just does not make sense in the confines of the world JRRT himself created.

[Galendor]

Originally posted by Sauron the White

There is no foundation for ultra-marathon running in any account of the rest of the Dwarves in any of the books.

STW, is there any foundation for ultra-marathon running by Aragorn or Legolas? Neither of them were trained specifically as distance runners, were they? Why is it more reasonable that they, but not Gimli, could do this long run?

As already discussed, Tolkien described dwarves as having great stamina and being very tough. I assume Tolkien meant this description relative to other races of Middle Earth (like men or elves). And I like to think Gimli's stamina and toughness was particularly high, even compared to other dwarves. So for me, it seems ok (and somewhat supported by the text) that if Aragorn and Legolas could make this run, so could Gimli. It probably hurt a lot, and he was terribly sore, awful chafing in the worst places, etc.

To be clear: I acknowledge that by real world standards, none of them had the right physical training for a sudden 3-day ultra-marathon. But if Aragorn and Legolas could make this run, then I think Tolkien's description of dwarf endurance gives us at least some reason to believe Gimli could do it to.

He probably would have had a hard time keeping up simply due to his shorter legs. But if they covered 45 miles per day for 3 days, and ran for 16 hours per day, they would need an average pace of 2.8 miles per hour. That isn't much faster than a brisk walk. Do I have my numbers wrong?

[Sauron the White]

Galendor ... please, I beg you , please review the previous postings in various threads on this subject. All of this - every question and point you have - and tons and tons more has been discussed in detail, enough detail to get lots of people really angry that it went on and on and on. I think all of your questions will be answered.

Among the MOVIES threads that discussed this subject at length were
Denethors Plunge
Split Personality

lots of stuff there with facts and figures, calculations and speculations, experiences and theories ... something for everybody.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Sauron, as much as I respect and revere Tolkien, nothing that is written here about his books could be called Holy! Let's not take anything more seriously than it merits!

You've expounded your ideas on the marathon and Gimli's abilities (or rather lack of them) on other threads; by now, we all know that this is one of your pet peeves. It is not necessary to bring that subject into other threads - let's please return to the topic that is the basis for this discussion. Thank you!

[Sauron the White]

Estelyn... in fairness I was asked a question by Galendor who asked me for a response after I made a very short joke. I have repeatedly tried to give shorter answers and if you look at my last post in this thread you will see that I asked anyone interested to review the previous threads where this was discussed at length. I share your feelings not to have this thread turned into a discussion that has already been held elsewhere.

My reference to Holy was not of Tolkien - I will be glad to correct that for you with a substitution of a different word.

[Galendor]

I'm sorry, my fault! I am responsible for bringing this up here, not STW. I apologize I was not fully aware that it had been discussed at length already.

STW, thank you very much for directing me to the names of the other threads in which this topic has been discussed. I look forward to reading them.

So I take full responsiblity for this departure from the topic of this thread, and thank you for allowing it to continue as long as it did.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Galendor

I'm sorry, my fault! I am responsible for bringing this up here, not STW. I apologize I was not fully aware that it had been discussed at length already.

STW, thank you very much for directing me to the names of the other threads in which this topic has been discussed. I look forward to reading them.

So I take full responsiblity for this departure from the topic of this thread, and thank you for allowing it to continue as long as it did.

Galendor, no need for you to apologize. We older members should know better. A Wormtongue might easily find me a picker of bones.

Anyway, I'm still interested; what would you change? I could accept all of PJ's LotR EE version in toto if but for one little change. When Gandalf is on the ground, staffless, helpless before the Witch-King, just three seconds before we hear the horns of the Rohirrim, put a slight grin on the old wizard's face.

That's all that I ask.

[Sauron the White]

Those few seconds of the scrubbing green bubbles sweeping away the forces of evil from Minas Tirith. That is a cut I would welcome.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Those few seconds of the scrubbing green bubbles sweeping away the forces of evil from Minas Tirith. That is a cut I would welcome.

Do you mean that you would keep the Green Scrubbers, but not let them clean Minas Tirith, or do away with the GS altogether? The later would take more than just a few seconds of editing.

[Sauron the White]

It is not the Army of the Dead that bothers me its the panaromic shots of all those green bubbles sweeping over the city. I have not timed that shot but I do think its only a few seconds - perhaps ten or fifteen at the most.

[Quempel]

I also did not like the 'green scrubbing bubbles' (nice reference). They nulified the need for anyone, including Rohan, needing to be at the battle. Plus they remind me of the green faries from Moulin Rouge.

[Sauron the White]

quempel .. glad to see we agree on the green scrubbing bubbles.... but... I simply adore the green fairies from MOULIN ROUGE - in fact love the entire film.

[Quempel]

Oh I love the green faries in Moulin Rouge (as a fairy myself), but not so much as green scrubbing bubbles in RoTK.

I too love Moulin Rouge, it makes me cry every time.

[Galendor]

Any one I could mention has been mentioned before, even a newcomer like me can see the topic of "problems in the movies" has been well covered, and by people far more capable than me.

To me, it seems like Jackson felt that injection of crude or slapstick humor was needed every so often to appease certain audience members. I really took offense to that. Rather than a scene of Gimli falling off a horse, why not a close up of someone's face, perhaps showing some emotion such as sadness, or heck, even hunger. It IS possible to develop sympathetic characters without making them clowns. Why does the modern movie industry look down on their audience in this fashion, imagining that we need moments of silliness occasionally or we might get bored? As an example, take STW's "This is this" movie, the Deer Hunter. Its been a while since I saw it, but I don't think Deniro or Walken's characters ever had silly, out of charcter moments of base humor to lighten up he movie. And yet it is revered as a classic movie, and always will be. I know it didn't make a fraction of what LOTR made as a movie, but it will go down as a classic, and never resorted to silly pandering to the audience.

It might be argued that Tolkien had some humor in his books, but if so it was well timed and appropriate. Legolas and Gimli did have a "who can kill the most orcs" contest. And it did lighten the mood of that portion of the book. But it was not presented in a silly fashion, e.g. (that still only counts as one! Or, ...my axe imbedded in his nervous system!).

I don't mind many of the slight or not so slight character changes in the movies so much, I know a great deal of simplification and streamling was needed to fit it all into movie length. I did enjoy the movies (especially FOTR)!

Some things that spring to mind:

The killing of the cave troll in Moria could be cut down, it became cruel to hear him bellowing as he was slowly killed.

Any scene where a dwarf-tossing joke occurs, or Gimli is made clownish.

Legolas skateboarding on the shield.

Witch-King knocking scared old Gandalf on his butt.

Legolas killing the oiliphant and then sliding down its trunk. I mean sheesh, if he can do all that so nonchalantly, then why didn't he just take out several of them?

Green scrubbing bubbles of course - they even had a "sound" that went along with their scrubbing action (shudder).

Eye of Sauron turning to Mt. Doom when Ring is destroyed, stretching as it focuses on it, crying out (sort of), and then exploding.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=7


what do you think?

[Eönwë]

It seems that someone has done this, but in German. Anyway, you can find it here:

Enhanced Gandalf versus Witch-King fight

[CSteefel]

Originally Posted by obloquy

There's nothing wrong with this scene existing in the movie, as Gandalf's entire nature has been adapted for the film version. The scene plays out as it should.

I certainly disagree there. Why would Aragorn be able to drive off five of the Nazgul, including the Witch King, when Gandalf cannot deal with the WK by himself after he has returned to ME with much enhanced powers? And Gandalf himself drives off nine of the Nazgul on Weathertop. The movie basically misses most of the point of Gandalf's return as the White Rider, making the encounter with the WK at the gates even less believable. This is not all that long after Gandalf has broken the staff of Saruman, which is possible only with these expanded powers...

Olorin is said to be afraid of Sauron, which makes sense, but the WK is a different story. Now Tolkien does say somewhere that the Witch King has been invested with new powers, presumably transferring some of his own power on to the WK. But this is never mentioned in the movie, so the scene at the gates where Gandalf's staff is broken comes across as incongruous given all the preceding scenes... In fact, the real point is that there is no coherent interpretation of Gandalf in the movies...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by CSteefel

I certainly disagree there...In fact, the real point is that there is no coherent interpretation of Gandalf in the movies.

I agree with your disagreement and your conclusion on coherency. The scene is annoying; in fact, it is one of the 'pimples of perturbance' that jut out with painful regularity in the LotR films like acne on an otherwise pretty face.

[Keyan]

[QUOTE=CSteefel;609308Now Tolkien does say somewhere that the Witch King has been invested with new powers, presumably transferring some of his own power on to the WK. But this is never mentioned in the movie, so the scene at the gates where Gandalf's staff is broken comes across as incongruous given all the preceding scenes... [/QUOTE]

"He has not revealed his most deadly servant, the one who will lead his armies into battle"... (paraphrased from memory).

That to me indicates that PJ is setting this up as a more powerful WK, one that can challenge Gandalf.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by CSteefel

I certainly disagree there. Why would Aragorn be able to drive off five of the Nazgul, including the Witch King, when Gandalf cannot deal with the WK by himself after he has returned to ME with much enhanced powers? And Gandalf himself drives off nine of the Nazgul on Weathertop. The movie basically misses most of the point of Gandalf's return as the White Rider, making the encounter with the WK at the gates even less believable. This is not all that long after Gandalf has broken the staff of Saruman, which is possible only with these expanded powers...

It's fine for the movie because the movie establishes its own rules and hierarchy. Gandalf is not an incarnate demigod, while the Witch-King has to be elevated to fill Sauron's role as Chief Villain. The idea conveyed in the movie is that the WK is now (RotK) effectively invincible and clearly enhanced over his FotR iteration. Perhaps PJ misunderstood the same obscure letter the rest of you did. In any case, the scene works for the movie because the movie made what took place possible by minor adjustments in all the material that preceded it.

Olorin is said to be afraid of Sauron, which makes sense, but the WK is a different story.

Obviously you're correct about Olorin being immeasurably greater in power than the WK, but there is no Olorin in the film, only Gandalf. "Gandalf" has not been established as a primeval spirit who knew Sauron as a peer before Middle-earth existed. He's just a cranky old wizard who is sometimes impressive, but clearly not up to dealing with the WK.

Now Tolkien does say somewhere that the Witch King has been invested with new powers, presumably transferring some of his own power on to the WK.

You misunderstand and misrepresent Tolkien.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by obloquy

It's fine for the movie because the movie establishes its own rules and hierarchy. Gandalf is not an incarnate demigod, while the Witch-King has to be elevated to fill Sauron's role as Chief Villain...

...He's just a cranky old wizard who is sometimes impressive, but clearly not up to dealing with the WK.

"Gandalf...Gandalf the Gray...yes, that is what they used to call me. I am Gandalf the White."

No, Obloquoy, I will have to disagree with you on this one. PJ lifts an entire sequence from Tolkien when Gandalf flashes back with a vivid description of his resurrection after he had defeated the Balrog. The insinuation is that Gandalf is sent back from the dead to finish his mission. It would make little sense to have Gandalf die once more -- wouldn't he just be sent right back again? Obviously someone (who in the film is nameless) does not want Gandalf to die. And after he defeated a balrog!

Later, Gandalf the White is seen chasing off a whole herd of Nazgul in order to rescue Faramir. In this context, the scene where Gandalf's staff is broken makes absolutely no sense, particularly since Gandalf the White had only recently broken Saruman's staff (which would, I believe, show plainly that Gandalf's power has increased exponentially as well).

So let's see here, the movies show:

1. Gandalf defeating the Balrog
2. Gandalf being resurrected
3. Gandalf claiming Saruman's 'White' title
4. Gandalf breaking Saruman's staff (after being completely unaffected by a huge fireball flung by Saruman, mind you)
5. Gandalf easily chasing away several Nazgul with a magic blast of white light

The plotting is uneven and in places downright sloppy. It is Peter Jackson merely going for cheap thrills and effects rather than offering a cohesive and unambiguous plot.

[obloquy]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

"Gandalf...Gandalf the Gray...yes, that is what they used to call me. I am Gandalf the White."

No, Obloquoy, I will have to disagree with you on this one. PJ lifts an entire sequence from Tolkien when Gandalf flashes back with a vivid description of his resurrection after he had defeated the Balrog. The insinuation is that Gandalf is sent back from the dead to finish his mission. It would make little sense to have Gandalf die once more -- wouldn't he just be sent right back again? Obviously someone (who in the film is nameless) does not want Gandalf to die. And after he defeated a balrog!

Later, Gandalf the White is seen chasing off a whole herd of Nazgul in order to rescue Faramir. In this context, the scene where Gandalf's staff is broken makes absolutely no sense, particularly since Gandalf the White had only recently broken Saruman's staff (which would, I believe, show plainly that Gandalf's power has increased exponentially as well).

So let's see here, the movies show:

1. Gandalf defeating the Balrog
2. Gandalf being resurrected
3. Gandalf claiming Saruman's 'White' title
4. Gandalf breaking Saruman's staff (after being completely unaffected by a huge fireball flung by Saruman, mind you)
5. Gandalf easily chasing away several Nazgul with a magic blast of white light

The plotting is uneven and in places downright sloppy. It is Peter Jackson merely going for cheap thrills and effects rather than offering a cohesive and unambiguous plot.

What does this have to do with Gandalf's nature as a Maia?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by obloquy

What does this have to do with Gandalf's nature as a Maia?

Nothing. But if Gandalf is not a Maia in the film, he's certainly an Aztec as far as semi-divine manifestations go . Although the words 'Maia'/ 'Maiar' /'Maiaric are not used in the movies, after Gandalf's go with the Balrog and his sudden transformation in 'The White' there is the distinct impression that he is immortal and exponentially more powerful (the movie data is in my previous post); in contrast, there really is no comparative explanation that I can remember regarding the WiKi's sudden transformation to all-powerful demi-god invested with all the powers of Sauron in the movie.

Jackson's use of the famous WiKi line "No man can kill me" would no longer apply to resurrected Gandalf, who is no longer mortal nor a man in the strictest sense, anymore than Jesus Christ would be considered mortal man after his resurrection.

Jackson's script directly refers to other powers reviving Gandalf and thus an achievement of immortality:

"....Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside. Darkness took me. And I strayed out of thought and time. Stars wheeled overhead and each day was as long as a life age of the earth. But it was not the end. I felt life in me again. I've been sent back until my task is done. "

The emphasized line "I've been sent back until my task is done" is a direct reference to heavenly intervention (and Gandalf taking Frodo on the last ship merely bolsters the inference of immortality). Therefore, your insinuation that "[Gandalf is] just a cranky old wizard who is sometimes impressive, but clearly not up to dealing with the WK..." is not the perception Jackson portrays after Gandalf's defeat of the Balrog.

Again, the scripting is uneven and relies on gimmickery and visual appeal over substance and continuity. It's much like how PJ dragged Faramir through the dirt for several agonizing sequences before finally showing the character's nobility. The utterly absurd segment where Frodo shows a flying Nazgul the Ring and Faramir finally decides to set the hobbits free is part and parcel of PJ's inconsistency as he bounces from stunning visual vignettes and rebounds to attempt to tell the story.

In fact, I think the scene where Frodo shows the Nazgul the Ring in Osgiliath is even more disconcerting than the WiKi breaking Gandalf's staff. Logic would dictate that the Nazgul, upon seeing a hobbit with the Ring, would not simply fly away, but would call his cohorts and all the collected armies of Mordor to that one point. Frodo would not have even made it into Mordor if logic, even inconsistent movie pretzel logic, prevailed.

Bah, I've drank too much coffee.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

In fact, I think the scene where Frodo shows the Nazgul the Ring in Osgiliath is even more disconcerting than the WiKi breaking Gandalf's staff.

I agree with you here. That would be it- the end. Sauron would know where the ring was and would send his entire force over. And the Nazgul never even has a good reason to fly off. What's worse is that this part is in all the versions and wasn't cut out.

[CSteefel]

Originally Posted by obloquy

Obviously you're correct about Olorin being immeasurably greater in power than the WK, but there is no Olorin in the film, only Gandalf. "Gandalf" has not been established as a primeval spirit who knew Sauron as a peer before Middle-earth existed. He's just a cranky old wizard who is sometimes impressive, but clearly not up to dealing with the WK.

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...

[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...