On the topic of Gandalk Vs Witch King

[SolkaTruesilver]

(first, I would appreciate if you would click on the link in my sig, in order for you to be mugged by me in a childish game on the internet. Thank you)

I often hear complains about Peter Jackson's treatment of Gandalf in the special edition of LotR:RotK, when he was battling the Witch King..

Ok, he wasn't battling the Witch King, he was more being totaly wiped by the guy.

Lots of people said that it's impossible, that Gandalf, a half-god owner of the Red Elven Ring could be beaten so easily by a mere mortal.

1) First, I don't think the statute of Half-God (Maiar) in LotR gives you any invincibility. After all, Saruman himself was stabbed my Grimna (in the book). In the Unfinished Tales, elvens heroes managed to kill their lot of Balrog. So, when it's Maiar Vs Mortals, I think the mortal still have their chances. And I think the Witch King is probably one of the most powerful mortal (or undead) to have ever been.

2) Second, the Red Elven Ring. It has been often said that the Elven rings were not meant for combat, and could not be used as a weapon. Since the Ring of Men were meant to be powerful tools for the Kings of Men, I don't think we could say the same thing for the Witch King's ring. So, Elven Ring Vs Ring of Man would be a clear win for the Ring of Man.

3) Third (is it redundant to say "first, second, third" if I number my points?), in the MOVIE, the Witch King definetly caught Gandalf off-guard.

In a fight between mighty wizards, I am sure that definitly has a lot of influence, if one manage to surprise the other.

Think of it, I find Tolkien wrote the Witch King to be pretty stupid. He went head-off against the most powerful foe, not trying any ambush. If the Witch King really was that much of a smartass, he would have done exactly what he done in the movie: wait until Gandalf was distracted, and attack him, breaking it's staff (I think we can strongly establish that staff = power for a wizard in LotR. Like a wand in Harry Potter)

[Turcano]

Think of it, I find Tolkien wrote the Witch King to be pretty stupid. He went head-off against the most powerful foe, not trying any ambush. If the Witch King really was that much of a smartass, he would have done exactly what he done in the movie: wait until Gandalf was distracted, and attack him, breaking it's staff (I think we can strongly establish that staff = power for a wizard in LotR. Like a wand in Harry Potter)

The thing is that in the book, it was more of a battle of wills than a physical confrontation. Physical combat might have occurred soon afterwards, but the Witch-King was distracted by Rohan's reinforcements, so we don't really know how that battle would have been decided, if it happened at all.

[averagejoe]

My problem with the treatment of that in the movie was that the Witch King only breaks Gandalf's staff in the extended edition, so for those of us who didn't go out and buy it Gandalf is just kinda inexplicably without it for the rest of the movie.

[Green Bean]

My problem with the treatment of that in the movie was that the Witch King only breaks Gandalf's staff in the extended edition, so for those of us who didn't go out and buy it Gandalf is just kinda inexplicably without it for the rest of the movie.

To be honest, the first time I saw the movie, I was too distracted by the EPIC BATTLE FOR THE FATE OF THE WORLD to notice the missing staff. :smallbiggrin:

[HP Hurak]

1) First, I don't think the statute of Half-God (Maiar) in LotR gives you any invincibility. After all, Saruman himself was stabbed my Grimna (in the book). In the Unfinished Tales, elvens heroes managed to kill their lot of Balrog. So, when it's Maiar Vs Mortals, I think the mortal still have their chances. And I think the Witch King is probably one of the most powerful mortal (or undead) to have ever been.

2) Second, the Red Elven Ring. It has been often said that the Elven rings were not meant for combat, and could not be used as a weapon. Since the Ring of Men were meant to be powerful tools for the Kings of Men, I don't think we could say the same thing for the Witch King's ring. So, Elven Ring Vs Ring of Man would be a clear win for the Ring of Man.

3) Third (is it redundant to say "first, second, third" if I number my points?), in the MOVIE, the Witch King definetly caught Gandalf off-guard.

In a fight between mighty wizards, I am sure that definitly has a lot of influence, if one manage to surprise the other.

Think of it, I find Tolkien wrote the Witch King to be pretty stupid. He went head-off against the most powerful foe, not trying any ambush. If the Witch King really was that much of a smartass, he would have done exactly what he done in the movie: wait until Gandalf was distracted, and attack him, breaking it's staff (I think we can strongly establish that staff = power for a wizard in LotR. Like a wand in Harry Potter)

I think the 3 points made above are fairly sharp ones.
Except that they seem to assume Tolkiens story playing by natural science rules, and seem to have missed the point that there would have been plenty of better times, in millenia gone by, for Sauronic forces to track down and flatten/enslave every one of the istari, if that was the case. (With all the armies of the witchking taking over the north, and all the times the istari got involved in either covert or pretty direct operations against Sauronic forces) Supposing this was a mere question of might, as it might indeed pretty much be, in a world mainly governed by clamied natural laws (e=mc2 and all that).

My problem with that (special edition) LOTR movie event is precisely that the idea of the witchking putting the smack on Gandalf just because he might, as an individual, be able to do it, messes with the dramatical universe Tolkien wrote. I think it obliterates 1) the idea that this is a world where events hold a deeper meaning, where the world has a rather detailed fate (as played out in the maian song-battle before the world came to be) 2) the truth of this claim, by one E. Iluvatar: "...And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite..." 3)the concept of Gandalf (at this point supposedly even more powerful and insightful than ever, having died as the grey and arisen as the white, by Iluvatars will) as a wizard too powerful/sage too insightful to have to sneak around and hide himself in the world, or fear being trampled by beings far stronger and more cruel than him (or his 'pansy' One God?).

As I read and understood the embassy of the Istari, they were made to walk in the guise of agebent old men, of seemingly far less power than they actually held, so as not to be made leaders among mortals, which would have simply mirrored the fascist oppression of mortals and indeed Iluvatars peaceful dream of the world, that the enemy they were sent to obstruct was already doing to the world.

While one might argue that none of this was clear in the movie, and that the storyline in the movie shouldn't be limited by concepts that the ignorant audience never gets a glimpse of, I would argue that it only belittles the story to forget or ignore these themes. Whether one believes such themes to form misleading tales of the world relevant to man, for which the story was no doubt written, or not.

My own take on the event where Gandalf meets the witchking is that they are both pawns in a greater scheme. One is quite satisfied to be so, thinking that this bigger scheme is also a greater one than what he might ever acchieve, and somehow knows, by the time they meet, that the tide is already turning, maybe even by the very fact that things couldn't look much darker without being all over. The other is deeply dissatisfied, and sneers and threatens, eager to prove himself the more powerful one, and the greater scheme to be all for naught.
According to Tolkien, the greater scheme never did come to naught.
Maybe that makes for a stupid tale with stupid characters.
I think it is interesting! :smallsmile:

[slight strider]

In my opinion, a fight between the movie Gandalf vs. the movie witch king would be very hard to determine, but in the book Gandalf would kick the crap out of the book Witch king.

In the movie, Gandalf is underpowered compared to his book version, so really this argument depends on your perception of it.

However since Gandalf is an immortal god, and the witch king a mortal, I think that Gandalf would prevail in either situation.

[averagejoe]

To be honest, the first time I saw the movie, I was too distracted by the EPIC BATTLE FOR THE FATE OF THE WORLD to notice the missing staff. :smallbiggrin:

I was still too disgusted by Denathor eating to notice the epic battle. :smallamused:

[SolkaTruesilver]

In the movie, Gandalf is underpowered compared to his book version, so really this argument depends on your perception of it.

However since Gandalf is an immortal god, and the witch king a mortal, I think that Gandalf would prevail in either situation.

1) I would like you to give me an example of Gandalf's true power in the book that wasn't shown in the movie

2) Gandalf isn't a Valar, he is a Maiar. As I said in the opening title, Maiar have been known to be killed by mere mortals. Balrogs were killed by uber-elves, Saruman was stabbed by Wormtongue, and even Sauron was beaten by Isildur.

[averagejoe]

1) I would like you to give me an example of Gandalf's true power in the book that wasn't shown in the movie.

I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion of your opponent, but Gandalf did display a bit more power in Fellowship when he spontaneously lit an entire forest on fire to defend everyone from the wargs.

Also, he was physically weaker in the movies. In the books he was able to lift Faramir himself. In the movies he had to get saved by freakin' Pippin.

[Infernal Undead]

1) I would like you to give me an example of Gandalf's true power in the book that wasn't shown in the movie

2) Gandalf isn't a Valar, he is a Maiar. As I said in the opening title, Maiar have been known to be killed by mere mortals. Balrogs were killed by uber-elves, Saruman was stabbed by Wormtongue, and even Sauron was beaten by Isildur.

Actually the Maiar have the same qualities as the Valar when it comes to being immortal so do the elves. Sauron needed the Ring not because he could be destroyed but because he trickedd the Valar and needed a way to keep his spirit away from them.

[dehro]

(I think we can strongly establish that staff = power for a wizard in LotR. Like a wand in Harry Potter)

nope, I think not.

breaking the staff is merely a way to say "you're fired"..not actually changing the nature and scope of the powers of the wielder. Saruman, by the time he got his staff broken, already had lost most of his power and influence, as a consequence of his "diminiscing" into folly and resorting to the works of man and orcs.
if not, he would have done quite some damage to the attacking ents, instead of just sitting and watching in horror. he didn't move a finger, so it can be assumed that he could do nothing. the staff was the simbol of his formal authority over the Wite Council and of his membership of the Istari rank. Gandalf breaking it is just to remark that Saruman has lost the favour of Illuvatar and is not welcome anymore to return to Valinor. Saruman is shocked by it because he realizes what he has lost, and not because it changes anything in his already fading powers.
Therefore no, I don't think that breaking Gandalf's staff changes much in what he can do or do not...much as striking down the rides of the nazgul does not hurt them but merely slows them down. the staff is a tool, albeit a powerful one..but the power that's in it is that of the wielder, and not the other way around...if you break the staff, the power still remains.

[HP Hurak]

Neither ordinary Maias nor those arch-Maias going by the name of Valars are gods. There is only one god (God) in Tolkiens universe.
People tend to forget that Tolkien was a devout catholic, and that this (unsurprisingly) shines through in his worldconcept.

Melkor/Morgoth, the most powerful single maia (and Vala) actually has a dangerous duel with Fingolfin, which he did not wan't to fight personally, except to save face and is himself wounded pretty grievously in that fight. So Maias can definitely have their mortal guise defeated.
That doesn't matter too much, to the faithful of them, however, as their mortal guise can be remade by the will of Eru. (As happened to Gandalf after being killed in the battle with the Balrog.) Of course, once they oppose Erus will that is not likely to happen. Tolkien also describes how the fallen maias gradually lose or diminish their own power by creating powerful items in the world, or indeed acting to counter the fates of the world- the will of Eru.
Such acts apparently tear on them, in a way that is not recoverable. Saurons making of the One ring is an especially smart move for that very reason. Not only does it harness the power of the other rings (made by use of the tainted Sauronic lore) and thereby potentially enslave the other ringbearers, but it also serves as a durable vessel, anchor and focus for a potent part of Saurons own essence/power/soul.
Which is also why he survives the fall of Numenor into the abyss (described as laughing all the way as I recall), yet falls when only the finger bearing the One is severed from his hand; why he desires it so much, at the same time trusting its corrupting (correcting?:smallbiggrin: ) influence so blindly as not to fully grasp the concept and possibility of its bearer choosing its destruction.

I fully agree that a wizards staff in Tolkiens world is something else entirely than harry potter wands. There are several examples in the books of Gandalf doing magic without his staff being mentioned, hinted at or even plausibly in his grasp. (Magical control of smoke etc.)
Surely a wizards staff must be thought of as a tool of great power, as Wormtongues frustration shows, in Theodens hall.
But I agree with dehro that is still described as no more than a tool.
I think a wizard with his staff is like a fighter holding a sword.
But neither would likely be much of a threat if either was powerless without.

[TheElfLord]

I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion of your opponent, but Gandalf did display a bit more power in Fellowship when he spontaneously lit an entire forest on fire to defend everyone from the wargs.

Also, he was physically weaker in the movies. In the books he was able to lift Faramir himself. In the movies he had to get saved by freakin' Pippin.

He lit a copse of trees on fire, not an entire forrest. And he did it by lighitng one tree on fire, which spread to the others. In the movies he is showing with extra powers, such as communicating with the butterfly, and blinding the orcs at Helm's Deep.

As to the lifting Faramir thing, that whole scene was so messed up and butched. (Gandalf knocks Denathor into the flames and he runs off a cliff? Peter Jackson, what were you thinking?)

As to the OP, i thought the sceen was cool looking, but shifted too far in the Witchking's favor. Some of my friends reaction to it was, "Why didn't he just kill Gandalf when he had the chance?" Like many things in the movies, I thought the very descriptive, spooky section of the book was better done.

[EvilElitest]

Wow, for a second i thought this was Grendal vs. the Witch King, never mind, i totally am not getting invovled in this debate
from,
EE

[averagejoe]

He lit a copse of trees on fire, not an entire forrest. And he did it by lighitng one tree on fire, which spread to the others. In the movies he is showing with extra powers, such as communicating with the butterfly, and blinding the orcs at Helm's Deep.

It doesn't matter how he did it, it was effectively instantaneous. And, really, I wouldn't trade that power for the ability to speak with moths. The ability to spontaneously throw flames is potent, especially in settings where the sword is the height of weapons technology. Film Gandalf: still underpowered.