Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Mugwump;619620What part of Gandalf's power do you think comes from his staff in the first place, Ibrîn? Is it really a source of his power and sustenance, as your Latinate signature phrase implies (aside from its more mundane meaning), or is it merely used to focus Gandalf's inherent powers?

(By the way, you're missing a "u" in [I

antiquum[/I].)

Personally, I don't feel that any of an Istar's power comes from his staff, because Tolkien said that all magic in ME is a part of the native power of the being who is using it. (My sig -- sorry about the misspelling; it's been about 40 years since Latin Class -- is actually a personal reference. I'm getting up there, and these old bones and joints are creaking badly, these days. Perhaps I should go back to "Stulta vitarae non potes"....? ) I hadn't realized that post actually made it through -- my computer freaked out on me while I was typing. Oops....

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

It ought to be obvious that I was referring to the dagger which Merry possessed.

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

In regard to the question stating if Gandalf was mortal, I have to say, that is foolish, even for a question. He returned enhanced and wiser but he was still mortal, of course, and a man only.

Foolish? Let us do math, shall we? How are you at counting past 1000? How about past 2000? Are you using both fingers and toes yet? Gandalf had been in Middle-earth for over 2000 years at the time of the War of the Ring. Please, can you tell me what mortals live over two millenia? He obviously is not a 'mortal man' within the parameters set by Tolkien. The oldest known 'mortal man' was Elros Half-elven, who loved to be 500, but he was given special dispensation and chose the gift of mortality. On a side note, nowhere does it say the WitchKing could indeed not be killed by the hand of man. You misunderstand a prophecy given by Glorfindel, who said:

"Do not pursue him! He will not return to these lands. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man will he fall."

Just as you took the narrowest view of the quote, so did the WiKi. Glorfindel's prophesy was indeed fulfilled when Eowyn, a female, slew the WiKi, with the aid of a Hobbit (who was indeed an adult male, but technically not a 'man'), but this was only based on circumstance. Nowhere does it say that the WiKi could not be killed by a man. This is emphasized when the WiKi flees from Glorfindel, rather than face an Elf of Aman in his wrath. Why run if the WiKi could not be slain? Was it because Glorfindel was a male Elf but not a 'man'? If that is the case, then Gandalf, a Maia, was no more a 'man' than Glorfindel was a 'man'. Gandalf may have 'appeared' to be a man, but that is no more the case than Glorfindel or Meriadoc not being defined as 'men'.

Which brings us to your contention that the blade of Westernesse used by Meriadoc played a part in the WiKi's destruction. The text points to the blade and not the bearer as the reason for its effect on the Wiki; therefore, a Dunedain male, a mortal man and maker of the knife, would have had the same effect on the WiKi as a Hobbit. The Dunedain who crafted the baneful blades wrought the knives for one specific reason, to kill the WiKi. They didn't make them in fashionable designed colors and hand them out to the ladies of their court.

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

The Black Captain also gained strength before assaulting the White City, and his power increased as time passed, that is why he was able to outmatch The White Rider.

That is not mentioned in the movie, and there is not much emphasis on that point in the book. Funny you should believe something as truth when such a thing is never discussed in movie terms. As far as the movies, PJ was all over the place in regards to the liberties he took from the books, and his annoying inconsistencies were noted several times in this thread. In the books, the WiKi neither broke Gandalf's staff, nor seemed to intimidate him in the least. When facing the Balrog, Gandalf showed real concern. That just was not the case with the WiKi. The WiKi was not, as Tolkien stated, Gandalf's primary foe, Sauron was.

Please read the book again as many times as necessary. Use it like shampoo, wash, rinse, repeat.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

That is not mentioned in the movie, and there is not much emphasis on that point in the book. Funny you should believe something as truth when such a thing is never discussed in movie terms. As far as the movies, PJ was all over the place in regards to the liberties he took from the books, and his annoying inconsistencies were noted several times in this thread. In the books, the WiKi neither broke Gandalf's staff, nor seemed to intimidate him in the least. When facing the Balrog, Gandalf showed real concern. That just was not the case with the WiKi. The WiKi was not, as Tolkien stated, Gandalf's primary foe, Sauron was.

From the movie script (sic), which you can find here:

CLOSE ON: PIPPIN ... desperately seeking reassurance.
PIPPIN
But we have the White Wizard. That's got to count for something.

GANDALF looks down at PIPPIN, he says nothing ...

PIPPIN (cont'd) (nervous) Gandalf?

GANDALF stares into the distance as if seeing something in his mind's eye.

INSERT IMAGE: A TOWERING, HOODED FIGURE, DRESSED in BLACK, is being dressed in ARMOUR by attendant ORCS ...

GANDALF V/0
Sauron has yet to reveal his deadliest servant. . . The one who will lead Mordor's armies in war, the one they say no living man can kill.

CLOSE ON: GANDALF still staring intently as if facing his enemy in .person.

GANDALF
The Witchking of Angmar . . .(he looks down at a startled PIPPIN) , .;
you've met him before . . .

ANGLE ON: PIPPIN looks up at GANDALF, afraid to ask . . .

GANDALF (cont'd) He stabbed Frodo on Weathertop.

INSERT IMAGE: FRODO screaming as the MORGUL BLADE is driven into his SHOULDER . . .

PIPPIN blanches at the MEMORY . . .

GANDALF ( cont'd ) He is the Lord of the Nazgul - the greatest of the nine . . .

EXT. MINAS MORGUL - NIGHT

GANDALF V/0
And Minas Morgul is his lair.

Many view the scene above with the Witch King as his 'powering up' moment. Note that Peter Jackson doesn't have Gandalf fretting about Sauron recovering the Ring, but about the coming battle and the Black Captain.

[Sarumian]

Dealing with Gandalf's mortality we are touching a delicate subject. Tolkien is a Christian and the idea of God embodied in a person, who saves humanity, sharing his destiny with humans is a central point of Christianity. Tolkien as a creator doesn't dare to compete with Bible, but works out a different storyline, where not the Creator (Eru) himself, but rather some angelic beings experience something like this. Gandlf is one of them and while he suffers like a human, he knows what lies beyond death and he originally belongs to the world beyond Middle Earth.

This means his "death" is a sort of voluntary act rather then an inevitable end of being as it is the case for a human being. Even if his body had been tired and broken he could have staying alive until he decides 'that's it, I cant endure this anymore'. So, as I have already written, he couldn't be afraid of death, because death for him means return to Valinor.

I don't think we should underestimate WiKi. He was a serious chalenge for Gandalf. I believe Sauron could have made an idea of Gandalf the White's power after their personal encounter in the TT, when reserected wizard diverted the Dark Lord's attention from Frodo to himself, while he "sat in a high place and strove with the Dark Tower". So Sauron could prepare his best servant to fight against the White Wizard and supply him with a perilous enchanted weapon. What Wiki was showing to Gandalf was that he was no more afraid of fire, Gandalf's magic tool, ut was ready to use it himself. However, it couldn't be an easy task to get rid of Gandaf. I belive that the power and high spirit of Wiki's army made him stronger, as he belived, he could make an incredible pressure on Gandalf's state of mind, allowing others to kill the wizard. Well it didn't mean as well tht Gandalf was an easy tagert.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by alatar

Many view the scene above with the Witch King as his 'powering up' moment. Note that Peter Jackson doesn't have Gandalf fretting about Sauron recovering the Ring, but about the coming battle and the Black Captain.

Yes, I saw that scene multiple times. Gandalf doesn't say anything that we already don't know:

'Sauron has yet to reveal his deadliest servant' -- Yes, I believe we are all quite aware that the WiKi is Sauron's deadliest servant, particularly since Balrogs never seemed to take orders well from anyone except Morgoth.

'The one who will lead Mordor's armies in war' -- *Quickly scans WiKi's resume* Ah yes, Mr. WitchKing -- may I call you WiKi? -- it says here you led Sauron's ground forces out of Angmar and destroyed the Dunedain kingdoms of Eriador. Quite impressive! But WiKi, I have a note here regarding your lack of support for Sauron during the Numenorean invasion. You seem quite absent in the whole affair. I believe the note says 'up and ran away'. There are also several botched jobs more recently, like on Weathertop, at Bree, and at the Ford of Bruinen. I am afraid we'll have to start you off in janitorial services, as managerial positions are filled at present. You handle a mace quite well, how are you at a mop and bucket?

'the one they say no living man can kill' -- "They' being Glorfindel, of course, and Peter Jackson obviously did not read the Glorfindel quote thoroughly. It's what happens when one quickly scans a book while laying on a sofa eating a burrito.

'He is the Lord of the Nazgul - the greatest of the nine' -- Yes, I believe that was established early on in both the books and the movie. Nothing new to report.

'He stabbed Frodo on Weathertop' -- Again, PJ's attention to detail is staggering. I suppose that had to be reiterated for anyone who did not see the first movie. Please note also that in the fray Frodo came dangerously close to terminating WiKi with his Westernesse blade (not mentioned in the movie). And Aragorn chased the Nazgul off with a flaming fagot. And no, I am not referring to Legolas, but a fire brand or a bunch of sticks.

'He is the Lord of the Nazgul - the greatest of the nine' -- When in doubt, repeat for added emphasis and heightened...ummm...something or other.

Now -- strictly from the movie, mind you -- where does it say that the WiKi has been taking anabolic steroids and has become greater than a Maia, particularly since 1) Aragorn merely shrugs them off with a burning brand, 2) they get drowned by an Elf-maid who sounds like she has some throat congestion (or has been taking male hormones), 3) is chased off by Gandalf while rescuing Faramir, 4) eventually dies to a shield-maiden and a weak stab to the leg by an injured Hobbit (with no explanation of the efficacy of the blade he wields).

I am merely pointing out inconsistencies here. Y'all can believe what you wish.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Now -- strictly from the movie, mind you -- where does it say that the WiKi has been taking anabolic steroids and has become greater than a Maia

Strictly from the movie, what's a Maia?

particularly since 1) Aragorn merely shrugs them off with a burning brand, 2) they get drowned by an Elf-maid who sounds like she has some throat congestion (or has been taking male hormones), 3) is chased off by Gandalf while rescuing Faramir, 4) eventually dies to a shield-maiden and a weak stab to the leg by an injured Hobbit (with no explanation of the efficacy of the blade he wields).

But the Witch King did have a shiny new helmet, and that's gotta count for something. And the scene that I mentioned, did we read that Gandalf tells Pip that the deadliest servant, "Ain't no big thang..."?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by alatar

Strictly from the movie, what's a Maia?

Aint tha' loike them Aztecs, 'cept from Peru? I mispoke, Al. Nowhere is Maia or Maiar mentioned in the movie. But it is interesting that in The Two Towers during the flashback sequence in the 'White Rider' scene there are specific mentions of a supernatural occurence:

'Through fire and water.'

(Flashback: Gandalf is battling the Balrog on a peak)

'From the lowest dungeon to the highest peak, I fought him, the Balrog of Morgoth.'

(Gandalf holds up Glamdring and a flash of lightning strikes it before he plunges the sword into the Balrog. With a final cry, the Balrog falls from the peak and lands, smoking, onto the icy rocks below)

'Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.'

(On top of the mountain, Gandalf crawls a little ways and then collapses)

'Darkness took me. And I strayed out of thought and time.'

(The camera zooms in Gandalf’s eye and enters an amorphous realm of stars and whirling galaxies, ending in a blinding white light)

'Stars wheeled overhead and every day was as long as a life-age of the earth. But it was not the end. I felt life in me again.'

(The camera zooms out from Gandalf’s eye; he is lying, naked and very still, in the snow. His hair has turned white and his wounds are completely healed. He suddenly shudders with a deep gasp as life returns to him)

'I've been sent back until my task is done.'

Who completely healed Gandalf of his wounds (he looked quite beat up before his transformation)? He's been sent back by whom? Even if one discounts the lack of background information regarding Eru/Valar/Maiar, one has to get the implication that God himself sent Gandalf back to finish his task. Otherwise, what can you assume the script is referring to? Again, with such an implication, how then can we go from Gandalf defeating a Balrog 'of Morgorth' (who is this Morgoth, by the way?), being ressurrected and completely healed, breaking Saruman's staff and chasing away Nazgul on the Pelennor, to having his staff shattered, being unhorsed and cowering in fear to the WitchKing? It is bogus and utterly inconsistent. Silly even.

Originally Posted by alatar

But the Witch King did have a shiny new helmet, and that's gotta count for something. And the scene that I mentioned, did we read that Gandalf tells Pip that the deadliest servant, "Ain't no big thang..."?

I don't believe I ever said in this entire conversation that Gandalf treated his confrontation with the WitchKing lightly. But in the movie Gandalf did have a Hobbit with him. So, based on Eowyn and Merry defeating the WitchKing, I believe that Gandalf having Pippin by his side would certainly tip the scales in his favor.

Have I mentioned I have, once again, drank far too much coffee today?

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

It's funny, but apparently Jackson had originally intended to mention the fact that the wizards were Maiar. In one of the various books that were published about the making of the films, one of those for FotR is "embellished" with quotes from the film broken out into boxes. One is a quote from Saruman, speaking to Gandalf, in which he says (as I remember it; the book is in storage somewhere), "Are we not both Maiar, members of a most excellent order...?" I don't recall the entire quote, but I do recall that the word is mentioned, and it is a line that never appears anywhere in LotR the book. It plainly came from the script as it stood at the time the book was laid out, and was either never filmed or was deleted.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

It's funny, but apparently Jackson had originally intended to mention the fact that the wizards were Maiar. In one of the various books that were published about the making of the films, one of those for FotR is "embellished" with quotes from the film broken out into boxes. One is a quote from Saruman, speaking to Gandalf, in which he says (as I remember it; the book is in storage somewhere), "Are we not both Maiar, members of a most excellent order...?" I don't recall the entire quote, but I do recall that the word is mentioned, and it is a line that never appears anywhere in LotR the book. It plainly came from the script as it stood at the time the book was laid out, and was either never filmed or was deleted.

Problem is, if you don't know about Gandalf's real nature, his return is pretty much inexplicable, and looks more like the standard Hollywood 'here's-one-of-the-favourite-characters-coming-back-to-help-save-the-day-just-when-you-thought-he-was-gone-forever' eye rollers, aka the Han Solo Syndrome.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Definitely a problem. For a long time, I've felt that in Jackson's permutation of Tolkien's world, it would've made more sense to leave Gandalf dead than to bring him back and really serve no purpose to the remaining plot. Since Jackson and his co-writers found ways to put nearly all of Gandalf's important lines (and deeds) from the second and third books into the mouths and actions of other characters (or utterly discard them), permanent death would have been a more dignified treatment of his character. Aragorn's "kinglyness" should not have relied on any of the other characters being diminished, nor should the Witch King's apparent power have needed the lessening of Gandalf, or anyone else. These things were not required in the book. That they apparently were required in the movie seems, to me, to indicate flaws in the way Jackson and his co-writers "reimagined" it. IMHO, of course.

[Mugwump]

Originally Posted by alatar

From the movie script (sic), which you can find here: ...

I remember the scene a bit differently, although I admit this may not be exactly accurate...

CLOSE UP: PIPPIN ... desperately seeking reassurance.
PIPPIN
But we have the White Wizard. That's got to count for something.

GANDALF looks down at PIPPIN, he says nothing. He takes a puff from his pipe and starts coughing ...

PIPPIN (cont'd) (nervous) Gandalf?

GANDALF stares into the distance as if seeing something in his mind's eye. (*Cough, cough... wheeze...*)

GANDALF V/0
Sauron has yet (*cough, cough*) to reveal his deadliest (*cough, hack*) servant... Big Tobacco! (*Cough, hack, wheeze*)

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

Definitely a problem. For a long time, I've felt that in Jackson's permutation of Tolkien's world, it would've made more sense to leave Gandalf dead than to bring him back and really serve no purpose to the remaining plot.

That makes so much sense.

I guess we have to realize that the writers were limited in that they could not find a way that they thought the audience would 'get' where Aragorn becomes more kingish and yet Gandalf remains a step above.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Who completely healed Gandalf of his wounds (he looked quite beat up before his transformation)?

Who healed cliff-diving Aragorn? Brego?

He's been sent back by whom? Even if one discounts the lack of background information regarding Eru/Valar/Maiar, one has to get the implication that God himself sent Gandalf back to finish his task.

Conjecture. I use my sister as the penultimate example of the average viewer (as she has never read the books). She would have never guessed that it was a god that sent Gandalf back, but that he, being a wizard, had pulled it off somehow on his own.

Otherwise, what can you assume the script is referring to?

The local wizards guild?

Again, with such an implication, how then can we go from Gandalf defeating a Balrog 'of Morgorth' (who is this Morgoth, by the way?),

Exactly.

being ressurrected and completely healed, breaking Saruman's staff and chasing away Nazgul on the Pelennor, to having his staff shattered, being unhorsed and cowering in fear to the WitchKing? It is bogus and utterly inconsistent. Silly even.

Which is exactly the problem. Even if the Witch King was powered up to the level of Sauron with the Ring, it did not seem so in the film, and so even my sister couldn't figure out why Gandalf could kill a balrog but get proned by the Black Flyer.

Have I mentioned I have, once again, drank far too much coffee today?

I would have guessed that you were chewing the beans...

[Sarumian]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

Aragorn's "kinglyness" should not have relied on any of the other characters being diminished, nor should the Witch King's apparent power have needed the lessening of Gandalf, or anyone else.

The power of WiKi is shown in the book by breaking the Gates of Minas Tirith. The growing power of Aragorn is shown in liberating of South Gondor and leading its men to the battle. It looks like they started altering the storry and couldn't stop.

As it was said many times in this thread, one of the reasons why the scene was altered, was to make it mens' (not wizard's) viktory. But this doesn't work as the final blow to Morgul Host comes from the Dead, and PJ was accused in robbing men of their victory here http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=15272

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Sarumian

It looks like they started altering the storry and couldn't stop.

That's really the problem, isn't it? I've adapted short stories and novellas for stage performance (most of which required some degree of special effects that needed to be somehow translated to the different presentation), and there's a terrible temptation to want to "make it your own," somehow. To some degree or another, change is necessary because some things just don't work as well in a visual medium as they do in print. Once you start making changes, you have to take care, or you wind up changing much more than is needed, and it becomes a snowball effect. One change triggers another, and another, and soon, the changes that you thought were necessary for adaptation aren't that at all: they're changes needed to support something you altered that either wasn't necessary or wasn't particularly well thought out. In my opinion, a lot of the problems in Jackson's version of LotR hinge on the decision to weaken Aragorn's character in regards to his leadership and desire to be a king. That is really what ultimately led to the change in the confrontation between Gandalf and the WK. If Aragorn of the movies had behaved more like Aragorn of the book from the start -- a man who is striving to be king not for glory, but for the love of Arwen and of his people -- then there would not have been a need for other "stronger" characters to be diminished so that he could step in and take command.

I could go on at some length about this, but I don't think this is the proper topic for it. Suffice it to say that in my opinion, Jackson et al made some questionable decisions early in the scriptwriting process, which led to more and more poor decisions as the process continued. The confrontation between Gandalf and the WK was just another part of that snowball that appears to have gotten badly out of control.

All just my opinion, as ever.

[Dakêsîntrah]

This thread was very interesting to read. Of course I could not read all of it. But it was very entertaining, so as to keep me up all night.

I do believe it makes logical sense to simply conclude that if the Witch-king and Gandalf ever did engage in a duel, it would be a stalemate.

One thing that Tolkien replicates is Biblical pneumatology or more closely the nature of angelology.

In Gandalf he seems to replicate to a degree the nature of Jesus Christ in the flesh, or even the angels that intervened in the flesh.

If you agree with my theology, and perhaps even Tolkien's, then we may throw a contrast of sorts into the mix between the natures of Gandalf and the WK, and between the natures of Jesus and Satan.

It seems Gandalf was incarnated in the flesh as Gandalf the Grey, and then *reincarnated later as the White. Much like Christ, in that I see Gandalf the Grey much like Jesus before his death. I see the clothing in white as symbolic of resurrection.

Tolkien would probably agree with me as to the nature of the Deity of Christ, in that Jesus was 100% divine yet 100% in the flesh of men. Same as Gandalf. Furthermore, it is true Gandalf always had the potential to use fully his divine powers. It is not that he was limited or restricted to the use of them while in bodily form. I believe the Valar did not really restrict him to the use of all things divine, just as God had not restricted Jesus during his lifetime. But in terms of both of their missions, their purpose were altogether different than showing off their divinity. If they were to suffer bodily on earth, then it would follow that if they were allowed to transcend the limitations of said physical body, it would have been violated and breached according to the natural laws of the said universe. They were not limited to no divine miracles, they certainly both did many, but they were all in the guise, under the manifestation of what the natural universe allowed.

Now we have the Witch-king, who Tolkien alludes had been demonically enhanced by Sauron. The Witch-king indeed was the Christian equivalent of the Anti-Christ, whom Satan also enhances, rather possesses (depends on how you view theology).

it is certainly correct to portray Gandalf as perhaps temporarily fearful of the Witch-king's presence. I would think Gandalf was more fearful of losing his body in a time where there was a dire need for his bodily presence during the siege of Minas Tirith. I think the WK certainly could have slain Gandalf's bodily form, but there is certainly no way the WK could have defeated Olorin, the Maia Spirit. If Jesus could be tempted, Gandalf could be fearful.

Conversely, I think that in terms of sorcery, Gandalf was stronger; but I doubt Gandalf as a Maia had any chance to really dispose of any Undead Nazgûl. They are neither living nor dead. So who can judge the living spirits, or for the Nazgûl specifically, neither living nor dead? Is it for the Valar to decide, or must that fall on Eru, Mandos? Are they stuck in some kind of limbo, some Abyss?

Someone pointed out why the WK would pull out a flaming sword against Gandalf. I think the WK stood no chance against Gandalf in terms of sorcery, but in terms of melee, the WK would actually stand a chance. But we can all imagine how this magically enhanced sword of the WK might be immune to such deflection or paralyzing spells of Gandalf. We know what happened to Aragorn's sword in Fangorn Forest. I think via melee, WK was confident he could overpower Gandalf in that surprise encounter.

I recall how the WK said he would 'break' Gandalf. I would presume breaking his fleshly body. I think the WK suspected that it was impossible to destroy Gandalf's actual spirit. Surely the WK isn't that stupid to confront Gandalf without the knowledge that he is a Maia. It is Sauron who probably informed the WK of this knowledge, and then possessed it, so it would be emboldened. Without the WK's direct possession via Sauron, you see him flee in the face of Gandalf, Glorfindel, and possibly Aragorn. The WK acting without the direct will of Sauron is just a Man stuck in limbo, whose only real weapon was fear of the unknown, something every man fears in real life, and I am sure was prevalent in Tolkien's own lifetime.

We know that Sauron at the time didn't physically 'possess' the Ring, but he did certainly always possess it spiritually. We say his will was poured into it, but when we speak of will, we speak of Spirit, for they are one and the same. This is Tolkien, who poured his will into the narratives, a will of his that was entrenched in orthodox theology.

To be honest, my Tolkien knowledge pales in comparison to all you folks on here. But I am well versed in Christian theology, and I can already see clearly where Tolkien may be coming from.

Now back to the hypothetical duel between the WK/Sauron and Gandalf: I really do see this as paralleling a hypothetical Jesus versus the Anti-Christ/Satan. You can think back to the temptation of Jesus by Satan. You ask: Why did not Jesus just destroy Satan right there and then while in the body? Well, that was not the Will of God. In like manner, Eru did not will Gandalf to destroy the WK - as I think it is not possible to "kill" a spirit, synonymous to the nature of a Spirit in Biblical Theology. Tolkien does not make mention any possible way for Eru or the Valar or the Maiar to vanquish spirits into nothingness. You ask why God cannot or will not destroy Satan to nothingness, yet his judgment is to be in chains for eternity. You ask why Melkor was not totally vanquished to nothingness, yet he was put in chains into the Void by the Valar. These spirits will always exist, but will be imprisoned in a Realm far outside the Divine or human realms that they cannot interfere.

Now to the breaking of the staff and the prostration of Gandalf in the movie: Yes, it strays from the book, but I see no problem here, considering what I have just said.

I see it quite feasible that the WK should break Gandalf's staff. It's all a symbolic act.
The Staff symbolises Gandalf's stewardship of Middle Earth - not so much a physical conduit to enhance his divine powers. I see the Staff as merely a physical item from that universe that served as a conduit for manifesting divine miracles via the guise of natural law. Much like the cloak of Christ served to act as a physical means whereby one could be healed.

It is a physical manifestation of Gandalf's title, and the WK knows via Sauron that the eradication of anything physically symbolic of his titular power granted while on ME AND Valinor, is worth more than just the physical body. Much like the 'breaking of Jesus' on the cross. A physical 'breaking' that was supposed to show what a failure he is to humanity, and that his mission was also a waste spiritually. And of course, a physically dead Gandalf would be of no immediate use in the siege of Minas Tirith. Hence, I think it is feasible that the WK breaks his staff first, as the body of Gandalf will wait as it is of second importance.

Now, probably Tolkien is turning in his grave at the change submitted by PJ and Co., but Tolkien was not inspired by God to write Middle Earth, so I have no fear to say some changes in the movie are fine, or may be even better.

The Nordic, Finnish or Anglo Saxon et cetera poems are timeless, and many of them like the Kalavala are classic canon material. Yet I find Tolkien replicating them and making changes for his fantasy story. Peter Jackson has his own interpretation, and is in its own right movie canon.

Best Regards

[Inziladun]

Well met, Dakêsîntrah, and interesting thoughts.
Just a few quick thoughts of my own.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

I do believe it makes logical sense to simply conclude that if the Witch-king and Gandalf ever did engage in a duel, it would be a stalemate.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Conversely, I think that in terms of sorcery, Gandalf was stronger; but I doubt Gandalf as a Maia had any chance to really dispose of any Undead Nazgûl.

The Witch-king's vulnerablity to destruction is clear: he was rendered impotent by two mortals. Merry had his Barrow-blade, which had Númenórean spells upon it that apparently enhanced the damage done by it, but Éowyn had nothing but an ordinary sword.
The way I see it, Gandalf had ample power to do away with the WK, or any of the Nazgûl. Think of the manner in which he rescued Faramir from them:

But now the dark swooping shadows were aware of [Gandalf]. One wheeled towards him; but it seemed to Pippin that he raised his hand, and from it a shaft of white light stabbed upwards. The Nazgûl gave a long wailing cry and swerved away..

ROTK The Siege of Gondor

Gandalf was the self-described 'servant of the Secret Fire', and 'wielder of the flame of Anor'. The Nazgûl were said to specially fear fire, and Gandalf's fire would seem to be the worst they could imagine- divine fire from the West.

If mortals could bring about the WK's vanquishment, and Gandalf obviously possessed a power feared and avoided by the Nazgûl, it doesn't seem a question of could Gandalf have destroyed him, but why he failed to do so.

Throughout the books, Gandalf is bound to primarily using persuasion and his own intelligence to accomplish his goals, resorting to 'magic' only in direst need. Even in emergencies, he unleashes only the bare minimum of power necessary to get the job done. Gandalf, and the other Istari, were in Middle-earth not to fight Sauron and his forces militarily, but to direct resistance against him, military and otherwise. They were not allowed cavalier displays of raw power for no reason: that would have lead to their being followed out of fear, not wisdom; and that was the path of a Sauron. Gandalf knew the Men of Gondor and Rohan were still capable of fighting the immediate threat, and kept his power mostly veiled. We see brief flashes of it when he saves Faramir (twice), and earlier when he overthrows Saruman at Orthanc. When the Witch-king threatened to enter Minas Tirith itself, Gandalf blocked the gate, but no more.
What he would have done, had the Witch-king tried to press into the City, could still be debated, I suppose. But my feeling is that under no circumstances would he have allowed the Witch-king to enter, and we would have seen another flash of the White.

[Pitchwife]

Wow, Dakêsîntrah, that's an epic first post! I don't quite feel up to digging into the theological aspects you discussed so extensively, but I'd like to make a few minor comments:

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

I think via melee, WK was confident he could overpower Gandalf in that surprise encounter.

He certainly was, but does that tell us something about Gandalf or about the WK's ignorance of who he was up against? He may have had a notion of who or what Gandalf the Grey was, but the contemptuous tone in which he adressed Gandalf doesn't sound to me as if he had any idea how his opponent had been changed and enhanced by being resurrected.
On a similar note, I agree Gandalf felt - maybe not exactly fearful, but certainly apprehensive of confronting the WK; but again, does that tell us something about the balance of power between them or rather about Gandalf's natural humility?

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

I recall how the WK said he would 'break' Gandalf.

That must have been in the movie. In the book he said nothing of the sort.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

The Staff symbolises Gandalf's stewardship of Middle Earth

That's an interpretation of the staff I find both quite possible and quite attractive (and never mind that it doesn't play the least part in the movie). But if that was so, it's rather a strong argument against the WK's ability to break it. Breaking Gandalf's staff would be tantamount to symbolically (and in a mythological context, symbolically equals factually in my book) revoking his stewardship - just like Gandalf revoked Saruman's leadership of the Heren Istarion by breaking his staff in Isengard - , and the WK was in no position to do this; no one in Middle-earth was. Power isn't crucial here, authority is - or rather, authority is the only power that matters. Just like Gandalf could only break Saruman's staff after he'd been sent back and empowered as the new White Wizard, only those that had invested him with stewardship could have broken his own staff and revoked it.
Finally (and now I'm digging into the theology after all), I think you're actually weakening your own case by stressing the parallels between Gandalf and Jesus. Gandalf resurrected being killed a second time by the WK would be much like Jesus dying on the cross a second time after his resurrection. As Eliza Doolittle would say, Not bloody likely.
That is not to belittle the WK - he certainly was a formidable opponent and would certainly have made short shrift of any mortal (and most Elves) unaided by Númenórean blades and prophecy, but I just don't see any chance of him prevailing against Gandalf the White.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

To be honest, my Tolkien knowledge pales in comparison to all you folks on here.

Hey, no false modesty, please, or I'll think you're fishing for compliments!

P.S. x-ed with Zil, who is quite right, of course. Here we go again...

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

P.S. x-ed with Zil, who is quite right, of course. Here we go again...

I know, I'm sorry.
But the idea that the WK, whose power was derived from Sauron (himself a diminished Maia) could be superior, or even on a level playing field with Gandalf, has on me the effect that saying Balrogs had wings would have on some others here.

I don't see much in the way of parallels between Gandalf's return and the Resurrection. I'm wary of delving too deeply into comparisions with Christianity here, but the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ were planned events, the purpose of which was to redeem mankind from sin.
Gandalf's sacrifice was, I think, incidental. He happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and was guiding and guarding the Ring-bearer, whose success was the key to the fulfillment of Gandalf's greater quest, the fall of Sauron. As far as Gandalf knew at that moment, he was the sole person present capable of facing the Balrog, and giving his companions an opportunity to escape. He then accepted the challenge, with the knowledge that the Balrog might well destroy his physical body. When that body did die, his selflessness and dedication to the cause for which he had been sent was duly noted by the Authority in the West, and he was allowed to return for a brief time to finish his task.

[Dakêsîntrah]

The Witch-king's vulnerablity to destruction is clear: he was rendered impotent by two mortals.

So you're inferring the Westernesse blade is able to 'kill' something neither living or dead? How does that work? I think Tolkien may have created for himself a little paradox.

I just don't think it would be in the nature of a sword, no matter what kind of magic enhances it. A sword is made to ultimately kill even in Tolkien's universe, but a physical weapon terminating a spiritual being is not logical.

Gandalf had Glamdring, but that apparently would not have any real effect on the WK.

So the Witch-king would temporarily stun Gandalf and mow him down with the flaming sword.

He may have had a notion of who or what Gandalf the Grey was, but the contemptuous tone in which he adressed Gandalf doesn't sound to me as if he had any idea how his opponent had been changed and enhanced by being resurrected.

Rather it seems to me that regardless whether WK went up against Gandalf the Grey or Gandalf the White, he would still have a chance at beating him with the enchanted sword. I think he could care less who Gandalf was bodily; but I don't think he was stupid enough not to realize Gandalf's innate divinity had risen in his Spirit. What the Witch-king could do however is wrench Gandalf's bodily authority or reputation away from him. And again, render Gandalf useless without bodily form.

But if that was so, it's rather a strong argument against the WK's ability to break it.

I don't see that at all. If we want to say one of Gandalf's sticks were fashioned in Lothlórien, why would something wrought from nature be impossible for WK to break?
I think it's impossible, yes, for WK to wrench Olorin's authority away as a Maia, but in the weak, flawed, flesh of Man it is possible.

On a side note, I really don't believe the Istari came into Middle Earth for the first time wielding staves. Their power was innate.

Just like Gandalf could only break Saruman's staff after he'd been sent back and empowered as the new White Wizard,

I think the Istari always had potential to usurp authority from themselves, so in the case of their wills to break another's staff, for example, it would not be possible unless one of them transgressed the purpose and responsibility of the Valar and ultimately of Eru. Saruman transgressed divine fiat and was judged accordingly.

Saruman could have easily broken Gandalf's staff at Orthanc. But Saruman is more cunning than to declare himself as having turned to the dark side. Rather he has convinced himself that evil, even Sauron, is really not evil, but a maligned interpretation of good that people have created and are thus ignorant of. And so, maybe his digressions with Gandalf can be negotiated to reach a compromise. Gandalf of course refuses, and so Saruman tortures and tempts his mind by imprisoning him on top of Orthanc.

To the Witch-king, a mere stick wrought from that world would be no trouble to break. It doesn't have any special magic enhancements that could resist him, that I am aware of. If a physical body can be broken, so can a physical object from that same universe. If the WK is neither living or dead, why should he fear breaching natural (physical) authority by breaking its physical product or symbol?

That must have been in the movie. In the book he said nothing of the sort.

Yeah, I was referencing the movie.

Gandalf resurrected being killed a second time by the WK would be much like Jesus dying on the cross a second time after his resurrection.

In all respect, I did say that to some degree there are obvious parallels. The nature of both figures are more parallel than the events that surrounded them.
And of course, it depends on your theology, but some Gnostics, or I should rather say, Pneumatic sects, called by their ancient name-- did in fact believe Jesus would die and resurrect a second time. But that's beside the point, I think

but I just don't see any chance of him prevailing against Gandalf the White.

Not prevailing in what sense? Gandalf's innate divinity had risen, which I think was a separate thing in regards to the incarnation of his second body. It was the same body essentially, just the hair color changed and he was dressed in white with a new walking stick, presumably carved from the Elves? I don't see anything drastically different *physically. if you can point me to a text, I will be obliged to concur.

So not to hold forth any false modesty, it really is true that I am less knowledgeable and more hazy on the books than the movies. The movies I have down to a tee, having watched them for the umpteenth time, plus every little nook and cranny of the EE.

Thanks for responding to my rambling.

Best Regards

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I would like to address the theological comparison of Gandalf with Jesus Christ briefly. We do need the Silmarillion for this, since there is no reference to the nature of Eru, Valar, and Maiar in LotR.

In Christianity, Jesus is clearly said to be God himself, come to earth in human form, as one of the Trinity. He is not a created being, but was in existence for eternity. In Arda, there is no Trinity - there is only Eru, who is the sole god. He created the Ainur, of whom some are Valar and Maiar. These may be called "gods" by the Children, but they are clearly intended to be angelic creatures. Gandalf is one of the Maiar.

There may be some parallels between Gandalf and Christ - after all, this is a fantasy world, and things are different there. However, the fact that Gandalf is a created being is enough to refute any direct comparison. He is not even one of the higher group of Ainur, the Valar, but is a servant to them.

The Bible tells incidents of angels who came to earth in human form to fulfil tasks there - bringing messages, for the most part. Their becoming flesh is necessary so that their appearance will not put fear into the hearts of their human listeners. This parallels Gandalf's incarnation.

The resurrection aspect of Gandalf's life can be compared to that of human persons in the Bible who were resurrected by God to fulfil their purpose in life. Resurrection is not theologically limited to God Himself, though it can only be achieved by his power.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Not prevailing in what sense? Gandalf's innate divinity had risen, which I think was a separate thing in regards to the incarnation of his second body. It was the same body essentially, just the hair color changed and he was dressed in white with a new walking stick, presumably carved from the Elves? I don't see anything drastically different *physically. if you can point me to a text, I will be obliged to concur.

"Indeed my friends, none of you has any weapon that could hurt me." This is what Gandalf tells Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli when they first meet him as Gandalf the White in Fangorn. Of course, their weapons are rendered absolutely useless.

When Gwahir the Windlord picks up Gandalf from the mountain, he tells the wizard, "A burden you have been...but not so now. Light as a swan's feather in my claw you are. The sun shines through you."

So no, he is not housed in essentially the same body; on the contrary, this presents a fundamental change, not just a hair tint and a romp through Galadriel's closet. Gandalf's physical manifestation has been divinely altered, so much so that he must drape himself again in his gray rags to hide his luminescence. As he stated, he was sent back "for a brief time, until my task was done."

[Mugwump]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Gandalf's physical manifestation has been divinely altered, so much so that he must drape himself again in his gray rags to hide his luminescence. As he stated, he was sent back "for a brief time, until my task was done."

Perhaps Tolkien gave us only an abbreviated version of what Gandalf said. Perhaps he actually said that he was sent back "for a brief time, until my task was done, at which time -- about the middle of the third movie, I expect -- I will diminish, becoming much less wise and powerful in order to make the future King of Gondor seem more heroic in comparison."

[Dakêsîntrah]

So no, he is not housed in essentially the same body; on the contrary, this presents a fundamental change, not just a hair tint and a romp through Galadriel's closet. Gandalf's physical manifestation has been divinely altered, so much so that he must drape himself again in his gray rags to hide his luminescence.

I concede that is the case from the text now. However, the physical *form of Man was not altered dramatically. Of course he was light "as a feather," and of course against his new and divinely incarnated sorcery skills, the Fellowship's Middle Earth weapons would be useless.

This still does not mean a spirit neither living or dead can be hindered with an enchanted sword versus Gandalf - still in the fleshly form of Man.

I agree with you, but I see Tolkien's Gandalf differently than you, perhaps because I am so entrenched in Christian theology.

In Christianity, Jesus is clearly said to be God himself, come to earth in human form, as one of the Trinity. He is not a created being, but was in existence for eternity. In Arda, there is no Trinity - there is only Eru, who is the sole god. He created the Ainur, of whom some are Valar and Maiar. These may be called "gods" by the Children, but they are clearly intended to be angelic creatures. Gandalf is one of the Maiar.

Of course there are various sects of Christianity, and I am sure Tolkien was aware of Gnosticism - a form of Christianity that went all the way back to the time of the apostles or beyond. I know I am probably going on a rabbit trail here, but whether or not Tolkien intended it, some of his Middle Earth "theology" has its roots in his Catholic orthodoxy, and then I see other concepts which have root in Christian Gnosticism. I'm surprised nobody has dealt with Tolkien's Gnostic parallels before, as far as I am aware of. Gnosticism was Roman Catholicism's ancient foe, and I am sure Tolkien came across these watershed traditions during his medieval studies - it is a thing that pervades not only church history, but secular as well.

So, in some Gnostic theology, Jesus is not God, and the Trinity is not really a Trinity, rather manifestations of the Godhead Himself. Much like the Eldar who seemed to emanate from Eru. And of course, as Jesus was an emanation, he was also a created being who came to earth in the guise of a man, as a Messenger. He was not the only Messenger to bring the Light in a Dark World. There were notably four other sages.

The one true God of the ancient Pneumatics was the Sumerian Anu - a close resemblance to the name Eru. Anu and Eru are able to manifest themselves through emanations - so I believe (all conjecture) that Olórin was some sort of manifestation of Eru Himself. Once again, nobody seems to talk about Tolkien and his parallels to even Sumerian myth, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out he knew quite a deal of it.

Gandalf's sacrifice was, I think, incidental. He happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time

If Olórin is an emanation of Eru, I cannot agree with "he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time." I see God's Will as all Sovereign. Whatever happens, whether tragedy or evil triumphs, it is still the Will of the God.

Best Regards

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

This still does not mean a spirit neither living or dead can be hindered with an enchanted sword versus Gandalf - still in the fleshly form of Man.

There is an interesting quote from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien concerning the 'real' power of the Nazgûl:

[The Nazgûl's] peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts)....They have no great physical power against the fearless.

Letter #210 (bolding added)

I don't think the same could be said of Gandalf.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

If Olórin is an emanation of Eru, I cannot agree with "he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time." I see God's Will as all Sovereign. Whatever happens, whether tragedy or evil triumphs, it is still the Will of the God.

The event was apparently not forseen by Gandalf, making his sacrifice distinct from that of Christ.

For all [Gandalf] could know at that moment he was the only person who could direct the resistance to Sauron successfully, and all his mission was vain. He was handing over to the Authority that ordained the Rules, and giving up personal hope of success.

Letter #156 (bolding added)

Whether the fall of Gandalf was arranged by a Higher Authority is another matter. But Gandalf himself believed at the time that he had failed.
When Christ looked up and said 'It is finished', did He think his task had been unsuccessful?

[Mugwump]

Toklien clearly said that LofR was NOT intended to reflect Christian theology in any way or to be analogous to any part of it, and the only similarities lie in those elements that exist in all religions and all world myth.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

So, in some Gnostic theology, Jesus is not God, and the Trinity is not really a Trinity, rather manifestations of the Godhead Himself. Much like the Eldar who seemed to emanate from Eru. And of course, as Jesus was an emanation, he was also a created being who came to earth in the guise of a man, as a Messenger.

I can't claim to be an expert in Catholic, let alone Gnostic, theology, but I was raised a Catholic, and in the faith I was taught, there's a big difference between an emanation/manifestation and a created being - see the Nicene Creed, which stresses that Jesus was

God of God, light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father

(emphasis mine).
I won't deny that Tolkien may have been aware of the Gnostic tradition - after all, he was a man of considerable erudition; but it's a far cry from there to assuming he endorsed its beliefs to such a point that he'd have modeled the metaphysics of Middle-earth on them. As you said yourself, Gnosticism was Roman Catholicism's ancient foe, and the Prof was a devout Catholic.

But we're straying a bit off-topic here. Back to the parallels between Jesus and Gandalf.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

The nature of both figures are more parallel than the events that surrounded them.

Quite the contrary, I'd say. Their nature was quite different - one an angelic spirit (that is, a created being, although of the highest order), the other the Godhead itself made flesh. What's parallel is precisely the events: both made the ultimate sacrifice by offering up their lives in order to overcome evil (although on vastly different scales, and as Zil observes it was rather incidental in Gandalf's case); and in both cases the Father/Authority accepted and vindicated their sacrifice by bringing them back from death in a form that still preserved their human nature (Christ's wounds could still be touched by Thomas, Gandalf still ate, drank and smoked), but was transfigured into something that death and evil couldn't touch in the same way as before.
Which is the point I was trying to make when I said earlier that you were doing your case no favour by stressing the parallels between them. Agreed, Jesus during his earthly life could be tempted by Satan and experienced fear of death to the point of sweating blood; but Christ Resurrected? Satan wouldn't have touched him with a long pole. And Gandalf the Grey might have had reason to fear the WK with his power newly boosted by Sauron, but Gandalf the White? Not with any shiny enchanted Sword of Hellish Flames in Middle-earth.
As for Olórin (or the Eldar, for that matter) being an emanation of Eru himself, I'm really curious what in all of Tolkien's works (apart from Sumerian mythology, which he may or may not have been familiar with) you base this on.

By the way, thanks for adding some intellectual challenge to this discussion of a rather embarassing movie scene. This is fun!

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

I concede that is the case from the text now. However, the physical *form of Man was not altered dramatically. Of course he was light "as a feather," and of course against his new and divinely incarnated sorcery skills, the Fellowship's Middle Earth weapons would be useless.

This still does not mean a spirit neither living or dead can be hindered with an enchanted sword versus Gandalf - still in the fleshly form of Man.

Was the WitchKing's sword enchanted? I don't believe that is stated anywhere. It seemed no more than a flashy parlor trick to me. Which leads me to believe that the WiKi really wasn't aware who he was up against. If anything, pyrotechnics would not be much of a concern to Gandalf, who is obviously a master of fire, what with being 'servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor', the old flaming pinecone trick, zapping Orcs in caves with lightning and blasting Nazgul with excorciating beams, not to mentioning wrestling for hours with a burning balrog and surviving long enough to kill it.

Besides, who is to say that Glamdring would not have its own efficacy against the WitchKing? It sliced through a Balrog, and was feared by Orcs many thousands of years after it was last used. It, too, had pyrotechnic ability and 'shone with a pale light' when enemies were about, and blazed 'bright as blue flame' when Gandalf trepanned the Great Goblin.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

It seemed no more than a flashy parlor trick to me.

So we can take him to be "some conjurer of cheap tricks!"

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

So we can take him to be "some conjurer of cheap tricks!"

Actually, yes, when it comes to it. Think about any direct combat between the Nazgul and any foe that showed no fear: the WiKi/Nazgul fled from Glorfindel on two occasions, five Nazgul ran from Aragorn on Weathertop when the Ring was in their grasp, several more Nazgul were driven off by Gandalf at Weathertop and again in Gondor. Their primary weapon is fear. When faced by a foe who is fearless, the Nazgul flee, even when outnumbering their opponent. In the book, The WitchKing at the Gate of Minas Tirith tried to instill fear in Gandalf, but it did not work. Not even Shadowfax was fearful.

As I referred to previously, the WiKi's stunt with the flaming sword was the Middle-earth equivalent of a bully flexing his muscles. I've faced opponents like that and beat the snot out of them. Gandalf remains still and calm, watching for the opponent's next move, which is what one is taught to do in aikido, jiu-jitsu and other martial arts.

[Sarumian]

Dakêsîntrah,
I’m afraid you overestimate the potential of

a spirit neither living nor dead

who appears almost invulnerable in your version. But it seems to me that the shadowy being as it is couldn’t be very much more potent than some bodiless spirit like Sauron himself after his Ring was destroyed. In Dante’s Divina Comedia sinners’ souls are given some quasi-body – they are ‘shadows’. Shadow is incapable of making any physical impact on anything else, but can remember things and suffer from a physical torture. The spirit of Witch King is tied to his invisible flesh by Sauron’s spell, bound to a Ring of Power. Witch King exercises magic power according to his spiritual potency, most of which is provided by his Master. It is basically some amount of Sauron’s own power that keeps Witch King “alive”, active and powerful and protects him from many perils, until the bound is broken by the counter-spell of Mery’s blade.
Unlike to Witch King Gandalf has a human body which is not protected from suffering, but the crucial thing is that Gandalf can stay alive by his own will. Let me stress this, it is HE who decides whether he should carry on or pass. So his life depends on his own spiritual power and however wounded he was he would die only if all this power had been spent. Due to this, I believe, there was no total separation between

Gandalf's bodily authority

and

Olorin's authority as a Maia

but the former was rather based on the latter, which was, however, unknown to most people of Middle Earth. As a man with Maia’s immortal spirit, Gandalf didn’t have any reason to be afraid of death. He also didn’t fear suffering and pain as his combat with Balrog had shown. But in the scene we are talking about Gandalf’s will appears to be totally paralised. Does this make sense?
And now let’s make some calculation. Sauron took some capable men, made them dreadful and kept them alive for ages. Morgoth took some initially immortal Maiar, much more powerful then mortals, and turned them into dreadful Balrogs. Gandalf’s spirit was powerful enough to endure a long combat with such an enemy, but when Witch King approached him in the movie, he lost completely and in one moment. We know as well, that almost all Witch King’s power comes from Sauron. So can we estimate how much of Sauron’s power should’ve been invested into Witch King to suppress the spirit of the other powerful Maia? I can’t measure it in per cents but I’m sure it is the amount that Sauron would never have dared to hand out to any creature, especially after his disastrous experiment with the Ring. It seems to me that Nazgul can be useful for Sauron only if they don’t have power to clame the Ring, otherwise they'd become very dangerous servants.
This is why I think that Witch King couldn’t posess such a power to break Gandalf’s will and the movie scene doesn’t fit into Tolkien’s universe. However I’d like to thank

Dakêsîntrah

for introducing some interesting points.

[Sarumian]

Originally Posted by Sarumian

It is basically some amount of Sauron’s own power that keeps Witch King “alive”, active and powerful and protects him from many perils

After some consideration I have to correct this point: it was the ring of Power which was responible for 'runing' a wraith, so there was not only Sauron's power, but also power of elf-smiths involved.

However neither of them could create someone comparable to a maia without loosing too much of thir own essence, I believe.

[aldredheron]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and argue a position I don't agree with with.That position is PJ is right to weaken Gandalf because by doing so he increases the heroism of the humans (Aragorn and Eowyn). The fact that Gandalf loses to the Witch-King shows how heroic Eowyn was in standing up to him. The fact Gandalf is hesitant gives Aragorn a chance to assume the role of leader. Now I could almost live with this position if it wasn't for the fact that Aragorn then turns around and tries to confront Sauron with the palantir and ends up running from the orb like a coward.
I think PJ tries to humanize everyone too much and they come off looking weak a great deal. The human element in LotR has, for me, always been the hobbits. Heck, by the end of RotK in the book Aragorn is only ever called Elassar (sp?) and seems much more removed. But it is the hobbits that symbolize the reader in the book, they are normally the ones that you can most relate to in the books.

[alatar]

aldredheron, Welcome to the Downs!

Originally Posted by aldredheron

The fact that Gandalf loses to the Witch-King shows how heroic Eowyn was in standing up to him.

That would be true if Eowyn was shown to be heroic. Sure, she takes out the Witch-King, the biggest baddest Boss in this level.

Then what happens? She runs, limps away from the Gimpy Gothmog, a mere Orc, and is saved only by the action of another (Aragorn's).

So is she the bomb or what? My issue is that I wish PJ would make up his mind.

[Sarumian]

Hello aldredheron,

That's a good point, and though it has been discussed somewhere in the thread, I like the way you formulate it. Let me repeat shortly what I tried to say in my previous posts.

The fact Eowyn withstands Witch King makes her undoubtedly heroic, as she is a human and is not supposed to bear such a terror, so Gandalf doesn't need to loose in order to stress this. But Gandalf's failure makes her some sort of Hollywood superhero who wins whenever it is scheduled in the script regardless how silly it could look. If she was able to dispatch such an enemy, why not to deal with Sauron in the same way?

Let me bring here this quote from the other forum:

http://www.sffworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12663

vgunn

A bit more is mentioned by Tolkien in his letters. Here is something from #156.

Quote:

"He [Gandalf] is still under the obligation of concealing his power and of teaching rather than forcing or dominating wills, but where the physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good will of the opposers to be effective he can act in emergency as an 'angel'. ..... He [Gandalf] alone is left to forbid the entrance of the Lord of Nazgul to Minas Tirith, when the City has been overthrown and its Gates destroyed – and yet so powerful is the whole train of human resistance, that he himself has kindled and organized, that in fact no battle between the two occurs: it passes to other mortal hands."

Moreover, without making Eowyn more heroic, PJ makes Gandalf look completely ridiculous, after the latter describes himself in The Two Towers as the most dangerous creature in ME save for Sauron. Having said that Gandalf is not able to withstand Witch King. Very silly.

On top of that the scene makes a great confusion about the course of events in ME. We know that the power of Witch King is provided by Sauron. In order to switch off another maia, Sauron needed to invest most of his remaining power into the Black Captain; as someone wrote in other forum, he, in fact, had to inhabit Witch King's body. In this case Witch King's preliminary end would have been as disastrous for Sauron as the loss of the Ring. He would definitely have lost the ability to keep his numerous armies in obedience and probably his shadowy embodiment as well. Nothing like this happens neither in the book nor in the movie.

There was also an idea that PJ made Gandalf a lesser being than an angelic spirit of maia, so he didn't supersede Witch King in power. However, Gandalf says in The Two Towers that his name was Olorin and in The Felowship he courteously introduces himself to Balrog as a wielder of the flame of Anor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Fire

I am referring to PJ's movies, not to books only. If Gandalf is not an embodiment of maia Olorin, we can't say who Sauron is etc, the whole Tolkien's universe will not work and it's going to be a different fiction.

[CSteefel]

Originally Posted by aldredheron

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and argue a position I don't agree with with.That position is PJ is right to weaken Gandalf because by doing so he increases the heroism of the humans (Aragorn and Eowyn). The fact that Gandalf loses to the Witch-King shows how heroic Eowyn was in standing up to him. The fact Gandalf is hesitant gives Aragorn a chance to assume the role of leader. Now I could almost live with this position if it wasn't for the fact that Aragorn then turns around and tries to confront Sauron with the palantir and ends up running from the orb like a coward.
I think PJ tries to humanize everyone too much and they come off looking weak a great deal. The human element in LotR has, for me, always been the hobbits. Heck, by the end of RotK in the book Aragorn is only ever called Elassar (sp?) and seems much more removed. But it is the hobbits that symbolize the reader in the book, they are normally the ones that you can most relate to in the books.

But Tolkien accomplishes this without making Gandalf look weak, and more importantly, with out destroying much of the meaning behind Gandalf's return as the White Rider, as PJ was able to do...

By using the device that the Witch King leaves when he hears of the arrival of the Rohirrim (was this an excuse?) AND the disappearance of Gandalf so as to save Faramir, Tolkien is able to turn the final showdown with the Witch King over to the mortals...

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by aldredheron

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and argue a position I don't agree with with.That position is PJ is right to weaken Gandalf because by doing so he increases the heroism of the humans (Aragorn and Eowyn).

Which wouldn't have been necessary if he hadn't... er... wussified Aragorn in the first place. If he thought it was necessary to make so many egregious changes to the source material to make it filmable, he should've either started with a different source or written an entirely new story. Nice to know you don't agree with your own argument.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Sarumian

We know that the power of Witch King is provided by Sauron. In order to switch off another maia, Sauron needed to invest most of his remaining power into the Black Captain; as someone wrote in other forum, he, in fact, had to inhabit Witch King's body. In this case Witch King's preliminary end would have been as disastrous for Sauron as the loss of the Ring. He would definitely have lost the ability to keep his numerous armies in obedience and probably his shadowy embodiment as well. Nothing like this happens neither in the book nor in the movie.

I'm no Tolkien scholar myself and I admit seeing the idea of Sauron needing to inhabit the Witch King's body as quite far fetched, but I can see you are making a tough question - and a justified one. So how come the loss of the Witch King didn't affect Sauron more than it did - or did it? I mean whatever the connection was, there surely was one - and thus losing it would have an effect (think about the talk of the elven Rings losing power).

Sure one can entertain the idea that after the death of the Witch King the battle at the Pelennor Fields was over (like it was in a sense) and that Sauron could muster the heavy forces to go against the "goodies" only as it was at the gates of Mordor, near enough for him to personally rally his troops...

But if the loss of the Witch King was a big deal enough, so how strong/weak he was?

Heh, was that possible weakness of Sauron after losing his first magic general actually the thing that got Gandalf to agree with the plan of going and challenging Mordor head on? If Sauron would have been in full power he could have both taken care of the rag-tag army of the goodies and watch out for any surprises? I had never thought of the death of the Witch King as a reason why Sauron was too weak to catch Frodo in time... Interesting.

I am referring to PJ's movies, not to books only. If Gandalf is not an embodiment of maia Olorin, we can't say who Sauron is etc, the whole Tolkien's universe will not work and it's going to be a different fiction.

I'm not sure if I get you right here but to me it's fairly simple. What PJ did concerns the films only. He has no authorship over the universe Tolkien created. He can make his own interpretations like everyone of us can (PJ's imaginations sure have more effect than the fabulations of you or me!), but it is, like you say, a different fiction then.

Gandalf was a maia (whatever name or embodiment you call him with) as Sauron was, and the Lord of the Rings tells about the fight between these two left to fight it together as the other higher powers receded from the ME - with all the side characters like Frodo, Aragorn, Gollum, the Witch King etc. (Okay, let's fill in Saruman as the third real player.)

And surely Eru was back there pulling the strings and thus in the last instance making all the efforts of both (all) parties insignificant; but on the personal level where they were being able to look oneself from the mirror, or not.

Confused indeed.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So how come the loss of the Witch King didn't affect Sauron more than it did - or did it? I mean whatever the connection was, there surely was one - and thus losing it would have an effect (think about the talk of the elven Rings losing power).

I don't see the destruction of the WK as something Sauron would have felt personally.
The Nazgûl were connected to Sauron, true, but the reverse was not the case. Gandalf said of the Ringwraiths:

'The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him.'

FOTR The Ring Goes South

Sauron's power held the Nazgûl to the earth and held sway over their wills, so his fall would be theirs. But he would not have been diminished by their passing. How could he be? He was losing nothing but servants, when it came down to it.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Sure one can entertain the idea that after the death of the Witch King the battle at the Pelennor Fields was over (like it was in a sense) and that Sauron could muster the heavy forces to go against the "goodies" only as it was at the gates of Mordor, near enough for him to personally rally his troops...

While the loss of his most powerful field commander would have been a heavy blow from a military standpoint, I don't think that in itself had any crippling effect on Sauron or his army. It was demoralising for the rank-and-file-troops, no doubt, but I think the totem of Sauron in the minds of his slaves was enough to overcome that. Certainly you would have seen no cowardice or questioning of orders in Sauron's armies on the battlefield, though the odd Orc or two might voice some displeasure. And Sauron had the sheer numbers to overwhelm the West.
Gandalf did not think Sauron incapable of taking the offensive again after the battle of the Pelannor.

'Hardly has our strength sufficed to beat off the first great assault. The next will be greater.'

ROTK The Last Debate

Gandalf saw no loss in Sauron's war-making ability due to the WK being done in. As Gandalf put it, he would have been capable either of besieging and capturing Minas Tirith, or destroying militarily any army attacking him in Mordor. The point of Gandalf advising the assault on Mordor was not that they would have an easier time of it now that the WK was dead, but that Sauron would hopefully assume Aragorn had the Ring and turn all his attention his way.

[needfiction]

Can I just tell everyone here that it's nothing short of incredible to find a thread via Google that started FIVE YEARS AGO and is still going?!

The debate will never be answered, but I visit so many forums where discussion breaks down in less than an hour to name calling.

Its even more incredible because I guess the original poster is not even active here anymore? It's like dropping a pebble in the ocean, and you walk away, not seeing the tidal wave you created on the other side of the planet somehow.

I found this thread while rewatching the EE again, and I've always hated that scene. It just doesn't fit. So Google brought me here. I can't add to five years of debate, but just wanted to give a nod to you all.

Well done to all who debated this so well!!!

[alatar]

Welcome to the discussion, needfiction! This is the scene that brought me here as well, many years back.