Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

Originally Posted by davem

The movie messed up. The incident in the book is essential. Gandalf turns from the confrontation with Angmar in order to save Faramir. He does the right thing, because he is the only one who can save Faramir. It is an act of trust in Eru, that in the end a good act will be rewarded. Frodo makes the same choice with Gollum if you think about it. Gandalf rejects the belief that the end justifies the means, that it would be ok to let Faramir be killed in order to win the battle. To desert Faramir would have been immoral. Gandalf had no choice if he was to stay true to himself & what he was fighting for.

True, but in the book Gandalf was all too aware that the WK could not only kill more people if he was not confronted, he could even bring ruin on Minas Tirith itself since knobody else at the time had the courage to challenge him. If Gandalf had gone on to challenge the WK, it may have been that Theoden would have still lived, & by Gandalf halting the domination of the WK on the battlefield, that in itself would have at least given the soldiers of Gondor & Rohan more belief that victory was still possible. I would therefore not have blamed Gandalf for going after the WK in this situation, as Gandalf could not have just relied on hoping that a prophecy would avail. A prophecy is just that - it is a prediction & not necessarily a means to an end.

The film however does not really make out that the WK is critical to the success of Mordor, aside from being the General. If Gandalf had taken him out, Mordor would still have been well in charge of the battle of the Pelennor fields.

[Essex]

as DaveM said, Gandalf took the moral choice (as I pointed out about 6 months or so, but great minds think alike Dave, LOL!)

Mansun, if Gandalf had gone after the Witch King and defeated him (sending him packing, but not killing him as the Propehcy foretold) - then Middle-earth would have been lost....

Refer to my earlier posts on this - this thread is a very good read but I'm afraid it's mostly all been said before...........

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

as DaveM said, Gandalf took the moral choice (as I pointed out about 6 months or so, but great minds think alike Dave, LOL!)

Mansun, if Gandalf had gone after the Witch King and defeated him (sending him packing, but not killing him as the Propehcy foretold) - then Middle-earth would have been lost....

Refer to my earlier posts on this - this thread is a very good read but I'm afraid it's mostly all been said before...........

If you think I've got the time or the inclination to read every post on this thread you you've got another think coming....

However I have repped you for your insight

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Lets get back to the main theme of the thread, the titanic confrontation between Gandalf vs WK which promised so much but delivered so little in the ROTK, rather than turning it into a Punch & Judy thread.

Let's let people post what they would like to post on this thread, provided that it remains within the forum principles and tangentially relevant to the subject at hand, shall we?

If you do not wish to read particular posts, you do not have to. As I have said previously, please leave the modding to the mods. That's kind of what we are here for ...

[The 1,000 Reader]

In the end, there was no clear advantage to any side, none backed down or quivered in their boots, and they were both pulled away from the fight before it could start. In the end, it's best to look at it like a battle of equals. Enough said.

Originally Posted by Essex

as DaveM said, Gandalf took the moral choice (as I pointed out about 6 months or so, but great minds think alike Dave, LOL!)

Mansun, if Gandalf had gone after the Witch King and defeated him (sending him packing, but not killing him as the Propehcy foretold) - then Middle-earth would have been lost....

Refer to my earlier posts on this - this thread is a very good read but I'm afraid it's mostly all been said before...........

Gandalf took the moral choice? Of course he did - but that does not mean it was necessarily the right choice. At the time, the choice was finely balanced, Gandalf was undecided & his instinct was to protect Minas Tirith from the WK, & for that knobody could blame him if he did go after the WK. In the end he had to rescue (after intense persuasion from Pippin) Minas Tirith from another evil which had set inside to corrupt the heart of the City.

It is interesting to note that, by Gandalf confronting the WK & telling him to go back, he was actually giving the WK a choice to return to Good, which the WK rejected utterly due to it being subdued to the Evil will of Sauron & thus its demise followed quickly thereafter. The same could be said for the Balrog also, when it confronted Gandalf.

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Let's let people post what they would like to post on this thread, provided that it remains within the forum principles and tangentially relevant to the subject at hand, shall we?

If you do not wish to read particular posts, you do not have to. As I have said previously, please leave the modding to the mods. That's kind of what we are here for ...

Where did The Saucepan Man name originate from? Sounds like a superhero who could take on the Witch-King & wallop him with the pan while it is still hot. No need for Gandalf to take on the WK afterall!

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Mansun

It is interesting to note that, by Gandalf confronting the WK & telling him to go back, he was actually giving the WK a choice to return to Good, which the WK rejected utterly due to it being subdued to the Evil will of Sauron & thus its demise followed quickly thereafter. The same could be said for the Balrog also, when it confronted Gandalf.

I think you're overcomplicating that. I think it was, in basic terms, like:

"Get the **** out!"
"Bring it on, *****!"

Pretty simple.

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

I think you're overcomplicating that. I think it was, in basic terms, like:

"Get the **** out!"
"Bring it on, *****!"

Pretty simple.

I am actually basing my ideas from the excellent Spark Notes study guide for The Lord of the Rings (written by ex-Harvard University students who have a real passion for the subject). Although we are discussing the movies on this thread, I very much recommend that people buy this study guide, as it really does add another dimension to one's thinking - 232 pages all for just £2.99.

Gandalf, being a symbol for Good, really did give the 2 big villains of the LOTR (save Sauron) a choice to turn away from Evil. That, I guess is what he was sent to middle-earth for.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Mansun

Lets get back to the main theme of the thread, the titanic confrontation between Gandalf vs WK which promised so much but delivered so little in the ROTK, rather than turning it into a Punch & Judy thread.

Sorry. Thought that you might be interested my reasoning regarding why I posted thus.

Gandalf, being a symbol for Good, really did give the 2 big villains of the LOTR (save Sauron) a choice to turn away from Evil. That, I guess is what he was sent to middle-earth for.

Gandalf the Confessor? That's an interesting take on the text. Does he only give the choice to the more powerful main characters (i.e. the Balrog, the Witch-King, Saruman) as he seems never to ask any of the orcs or wargs to turn from their evil ways before he despatches them? My understanding of the text is that he is offering his opponent a way out, as he sees its end, and that it is nigh, and so tells said opponent that it may want to retreat.

A common courtesy from the exemplar of Good Guys.

Saruman truly gets a chance to turn, but does Gandalf have the power to absolve the other White Wizard's sins? I think not; Saruman would be judged by his behaviour (works) after he were to leave Orthanc.

And though this too is off-topic, to me in Middle Earth there is a strong correlation between 'human-attractive' form and the chance for redemption. The Witch-King, having no real form, had no chance to turn away from evil.

Come to think of it, a Punch & Judy showdown between Gandalf vs Witch King would be quite funny.

[The 1,000 Reader]

I don't think Gandalf would be too happy with that since the Witch-King's gauntlets would basically be iron knuckles.

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

I don't think Gandalf would be too happy with that since the Witch-King's gauntlets would basically be iron knuckles.

Gandalf has his solid oak staff to stave off the Witch-King. We may have a stalemate here.

[The 1,000 Reader]

He won't have that staff if it's a Punch and Judy fight.

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

He won't have that staff if it's a Punch and Judy fight.

They usually use a cosh or something to immitate a staff.

[The 1,000 Reader]

And a mace will tear right through a staff, or it could get set on fire.

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

And a mace will tear right through a staff, or it could get set on fire.

What? The old wizard would probably have wacked the head off the Witch-King by then with his staff. Take that as a lesson - always respect your elders.

Am I the only one who thinks the WK is badly overrated in the movies & the book?

[ninja91]

Respect your elders? How do we know that Gandalf is older than the Witch-King? (I am expecting to be proven embarrassingly wrong)

Originally Posted by ninja91

Respect your elders? How do we know that Gandalf is older than the Witch-King? (I am expecting to be proven embarrassingly wrong)

The Gandalf puppet would have a very long white beard indeed. The Witch-King would probably look like Darth Vader. Who would you think to be older?

[ninja91]

Well, the Witch King is basically a magically enhanced evil spirit of a king who died centuries, possibly even an age or more ago. Was Gandalf around even before then? And was it because he was one of the Maiar?
yeah... post #300 on this thread
go me

[narfforc]

Gandalf/Olorin was present before the Creation of Ea, The Witch-king is a man by origin, so even if he was the oldest man alive/dead, then he would still be Ages younger than any Maia, for the Sun rose only in the First Age of Middle-earth. I hope that clears up who is older.

[CSteefel]

I think one has to distinguish between consistency within the movie itself and the issue of whether the book was followed or not.

Clearly, the scene in which the staff of Gandalf is broken by the Witch King is very different from the book. In the book, I think the battle was meant to be either a standoff, or one in which Gandalf might have won eventually due to the reasons given above, the Maia origin, the return to Earth after the fight with the Balrog with new powers, the fact that the Black Riders are driven off early on by Aragorn, later on the Pellennor Fields by Gandalf himself. But equally clearly, Tolkien wanted the humans (Eowyn and Merry specifically) to bring about the end of the Witch King, thus establishing their own heroic claims. It would not make for much of a story to have Gandalf simply deal with all of the enemies.

As far as the movie is concerned, some of these same arguments can be advanced, although Peter Jackson is not necessarily adhering to the hierarchy of Middle Earth discussed elsewhere. So there is just the question of how Gandalf is able to drive off the Nazgul at Weathertop, and then again on the Pelennor Fields.

My main problem is that the breaking of Gandalf's staff seems gratuitous, since Tolkien provided a perfectly good mechanism by which the final confrontation between the Witch King and Gandalf can be avoided in the interest of the dramatic tension of the story. That is, the Witch King is called away by the arrival of the Rohirrim, while Gandalf is called away by the threat to Faramir. In the book, the confrontation between the two is merely delayed in the minds of the Witch King and Gandalf, except that Theoden is killed in the interim (which Gandalf bemoans in the book, pointing out that he might have saved him, as he did Faramir earlier) and then Merry and Eowyn finally dispatch the Witch King, fulfilling the prophecy of Glorfindel some 1300-1400 years earlier.

So yes, for me this was the worst scene in the movie and the one that seems the most out of place, although I come at the movie after having read the book about 10 times. Still, even in the movie we see the defeat of the Balrog by Gandalf, even at the cost of his own life, and then the return with apparently enhanced powers, so this breaking of Gandalf's staff simply does not make sense.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by CSteefel

But equally clearly, Tolkien wanted the humans (Eowyn and Merry specifically) to bring about the end of the Witch King, thus establishing their own heroic claims. It would not make for much of a story to have Gandalf simply deal with all of the enemies.

Even in the books, Gandalf is just there to keep the 'playing field' level. He never attacks the forces of Sauron, but simply defends. He shepherded Faramir and the wounded home, and drives away fear when the Nazgul appear. Gandalf faces down the Witch-King at the Gate, but does not attack him.

PJ, I think, as you say, wanted to make sure that humankind had its role, but he may have diminished the role of Gandalf too much in order to pump up Aragorn's.

So there is just the question of how Gandalf is able to drive off the Nazgul at Weathertop, and then again on the Pelennor Fields.

Note that in the movies Gandalf never sees the Nazgul until the Pelennor Fields (if memory serves). In Gondor Gandalf uses his magic spotlight, which, being so much like the Searchlight Eye of Sauron, drives the Nazgul from their prey. However, Gandalf cannot use this same ability later as (1) you can only use a spell once per day per AD&D rules or (2) he ran out of batteries.

My main problem is that the breaking of Gandalf's staff seems gratuitous, since Tolkien provided a perfectly good mechanism by which the final confrontation between the Witch King and Gandalf can be avoided in the interest of the dramatic tension of the story. That is, the Witch King is called away by the arrival of the Rohirrim, while Gandalf is called away by the threat to Faramir. In the book, the confrontation between the two is merely delayed in the minds of the Witch King and Gandalf, except that Theoden is killed in the interim (which Gandalf bemoans in the book, pointing out that he might have saved him, as he did Faramir earlier) and then Merry and Eowyn finally dispatch the Witch King, fulfilling the prophecy of Glorfindel some 1300-1400 years earlier.

Much agreed.

[CSteefel]

Originally Posted by alatar

Even in the books, Gandalf is just there to keep the 'playing field' level. He never attacks the forces of Sauron, but simply defends. He shepherded Faramir and the wounded home, and drives away fear when the Nazgul appear. Gandalf faces down the Witch-King at the Gate, but does not attack him.

Good point, I had not thought of it this way, but I believe you are right. Even the fight with the Balrog could be thought of this way, since he is basically defending the Fellowship.

Still (and perhaps you agree), breaking Gandalf's staff goes well beyond this, implying that Gandalf cannot defend himself. I still find this hard to swallow even without the books, because in the movie, the return of Gandalf the White is certainly played up, and it makes no sense to have him sent back as a Maia with apparently enhanced powers and then have him ignominiously de-staffed by the Witch King.

[alatar]

I did read last night, in the Return of the King, that when the Nazgul withdrawal from their attack on Faramir's retreat, due to the coming of Gandalf, that it states something like (and maybe someone can provide the exact text) the Witch-King did not want to contest the White power at that time. This, to me, means that the Witch-King would eventually go after Gandalf, the Boss for the good side, but did not do so rashly as his foe would not be easily defeated.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by CSteefel

.... it makes no sense to have him sent back as a Maia with apparently enhanced powers and then have him ignominiously de-staffed by the Witch King.

As mentioned on this thread here many moons ago and here: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthr...ighlight=staff

What's so important about breaking Gandalf's staff? It's really just a symbol rather than a weapon really. OK, so Gandalf broke Saruman's staff, but he was just showing what power he himself had at that point. I think that's what PJ may be trying to do here, to show that the Witch King has grown in power too.

As I mentioned on the thread above. to summarise:

here's where I can see the use of gandalf's staff in lotr

breaking the bridge in moria

making a faggot burst into flame on caradhras

Facing the wargs he held his staff up to ward off the wargs, but used a flaming branch and a spell to finish them off, not his staff

He tried to use his staff to open the doors of moria to no avail

He used it as a torch in moria and to flash a bolt of light to see what was about

He ‘lifted up his staff’ - possibly to ward off the blows of the 3 hunters when he met them in fangorn

He raised his staff in edoras making ‘a roll of thunder and to blot the sunlight out

But notice this: no mentioned of his staff against saruman – “He raised his hand, and spoke slowly in a clear cold voice. 'Saruman, your staff is broken.”

And notice saruman has a staff when the company overtakes him – but obviously no power to run ‘through’ it.


So really I see the staff as possibly a conduit of his power. But I don;t really believe Gandalf needs a staff to use his power.

Indeed, he uses his hand to break Saruman's staff, both movie and book wise, and his hand to ward off the nazgul on the pellonor fields bookwise

My final point from another thread where I (sacrilegously maybe) blame the Author:

the staff makes it EASIER to cast spells, why does he not use his staff on the two of the most important confrontations - 1/ on the door to the chamber he had to say a Word of Command - which spent him of most of his power and 2/ breaking Saruman's staff - neither of these occasions did he use his staff, but in the case of number 1 - Ten minutes later he DOES use his staff to break the Bridge. Very confusing I have to admit....... a mistake by the Author??????

[alatar]

Essex, it's all clear now. The reason Gandalf uses his staff only in specific cases is so that he doesn't have to bend at the waist - bad back and all. If the object/person is in reach, then he just raises his hand; if not, he gets out his stick.

[Trotter]

Originally Posted by Essex

So really I see the staff as possibly a conduit of his power. But I don;t really believe Gandalf needs a staff to use his power.

Indeed, he uses his hand to break Saruman's staff, both movie and book wise, and his hand to ward off the nazgul on the pellonor fields bookwise :

Agreed, the staff being broken doesn't bother me so much as Gandalf falling upon the ground with that look of fear on his face! Book Gandalf never would have let an enemy see his fear. PJ could have at least scripted a duel between the two that ended with the WK flying off to confront the Rohirrim. Or better yet, he could have shot the scene as it was in the book!

Originally Posted by Trotter

Agreed, the staff being broken doesn't bother me so much as Gandalf falling upon the ground with that look of fear on his face! Book Gandalf never would have let an enemy see his fear. PJ could have at least scripted a duel between the two that ended with the WK flying off to confront the Rohirrim. Or better yet, he could have shot the scene as it was in the book!

Or better still, he should not have included this scene at all as it serves no purpose other than to start a long debate about who is mightier of the two (my vote goes to Gandalf the White by some margin)!

[Essex]

but it doesn't really matter in the long run WHO is more mightier than the other. If the strongest aways won each fight, how boring would life be? if the strongest won, how comes Sauron didn't win? Middle-earth thankfully isn't as black and white as this.

Originally Posted by Essex

but it doesn't really matter in the long run WHO is more mightier than the other. If the strongest aways won each fight, how boring would life be? if the strongest won, how comes Sauron didn't win? Middle-earth thankfully isn't as black and white as this.

I think it mattered to the people of Gondor at the time of war! Anyway, the two were about to draw fire with fire in the book - a direct confrontation of powers of Good & Evil. In this kind of scenario where the stakes are very high the victor is usually the Good one with the higher order of power, although the film did not follow this order of course. To see Gandalf so easily overmatched by the Witch-King in the film was a huge disappointment for his character, unlike his encounter with Saruman & the Balrog in the first movie.

By the way, how would you have gone about filming this scene Essex & nafforc?

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Mansun

By the way, how would you have gone about filming this scene Essex & nafforc?

I would have filmed it exactly as it was in the book. But I'm unsure of the dramatic tension it would have on screen as apposed to the tension it does have in the book. I think this might be one of the reasons why Jackson & co made their Sacrilegeous Change. - it's not possible sometimes to copy line for line and action for action from book to film. See my earlier post on how weak movie Harry Potter &TPS was compared to the written word.

Originally Posted by Essex

I would have filmed it exactly as it was in the book. But I'm unsure of the dramatic tension it would have on screen as apposed to the tension it does have in the book. I think this might be one of the reasons why Jackson & co made their Sacrilegeous Change. - it's not possible sometimes to copy line for line and action for action from book to film. See my earlier post on how weak movie Harry Potter &TPS was compared to the written word.

I agree, but if PJ wanted to add more tension then how about the WK just hurling a bolt of fire at Gandalf, who with all his power just manages to block it (rather like when he staved off the huge fire sword of the Balrog)?

Rather than getting into a debate again over who was mightier than who, it wasn't even realistic that Gandalf could be finished off within 10 seconds of combat unless the Witch King was much, much more mightier. I doubt even whether Sauron could manage it so clinically - but according to PJ's logic the Dark Lord would be able to finish off Gandalf in 1 second!

Even people who watched all the movies but without indepth knowledge of book were probably left wondering why Gandalf was so easily overmatched by the WK when he overcame what appears a greater foe in the form of the Balrog.

In short, PJ should have stuck with the hierachy of power as with the Book; in some cases, knobody knows for sure who is more powerful than who, so the audience should be left with the same feeling rather than being given the answer in this false manner so simply. The same also applies for the scene where Aragorn beheads the Mouth of Sauron - in the book he is more or less the equal of the Witch King so why was he so easily defeated in the movie??? Where is the logic????

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Essex

But I'm unsure of the dramatic tension it would have on screen as apposed to the tension it does have in the book.

I'm sure it would have the same effect and the same tension. In the book it is one of the tensest moments at all and I can understand PJ couldn't bring himself to drop it completely. The problem is, that it's a quite un-Jacksonesque kind of tension.


Let's imagine how it could have been.


Grond has just smashed the gate (without the Witch King's help, different from the book). We see the wolf's head swing back like we do in Jackson's vision. Then Gandalf tells his gondorian soldiers to stand their ground whatever comes through the gate.

The audience holds their breath. Now we're prepared for anything. A great onslaught of orcs and trolls and whatnot probably?

No.

We see the black hooves of a black horse slowly stride through the gate. Cut to Gandalf. He does not move, but his face does show fear. We see the faces of soldiers showing a lot more of it. But Gandalf is in control.

The camera moves from the hooves up, and there we see the figure cloaked in back: A Nazgûl, no, the Nazgûl. The bowmen stand paralysed, no dart is shot. We see the Witch King moving his head, taking a glance at the defenders.

A moment of silence.

The Nazgûl theme rises.

And there goes the trademark Nazgûl scream, worse than ever. The defenders drop their weapons and flee.

*Nêbâbîtham Magânanê*

Gandalf alone remains on Shadowfax, stern and unmoved, less fearful now. The music stops again.

"You cannot enter here etc."

The Witch King is dismayed, but little. That does not suffice to drive him away. Again a moment of silence. Then he lifts his arms, he leads his hands to his hood. Do we finally, after 2 and a half movies, get to see what's under those sheets? Yes! In slow motion he takes the sides of his hood and guides them to his shoulders. Now we see his crown (an iron bracelet with some sort of spikes and dark gems) and his eyes(!) (glowing red, I would say)

"Old fool! Old fool! This is my hour"

He lifts his sword at the word 'my'. Flames run over it (this part is, minus fell beastie, the same as PJ did it). The Witch King then delivers the rest of his line.

Skip the cock. The Witch King charges towards Gandalf. Gandalf is ready to meet him and then...

...well, horns and stuff, Rohan came. The Witch King turns and rushes out the gate where his fell beast awaits its master.

And that's it. We'll see Pippin keeping Gandalf from hunting the Witch King only after the Rohirrim attack.


Now don't crush my innocent ego by saying this wouldn't work.

Alright, do it! I dare ya!

[alatar]

Note that the Witch-King Gandalf problem does not start up by the citadel, but much sooner. Gandalf's doubts about Frodo and the war (when he had to lean on both Aragorn and Saruman respectively in RotK) showed that he was failing well before he loses his staff. In the Seq08 post of the RotK SbS, I'll note another scene where Gandalf is shown to be losing hope, and now that I'm seeing it in detail, this is even worse than being destaffed.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I'm sure it would have the same effect and the same tension.

but your script below, very well put together I must say, is different from the book. You say

Skip the cock. The Witch King charges towards Gandalf. Gandalf is ready to meet him and then...

...well, horns and stuff, Rohan came. The Witch King turns and rushes out the gate where his fell beast awaits its master.

You are adding in action (ie the wk charging at gandalf) here to heighten the scene on screen. What I'm saying is that you can't do this scene on celluloid with the two of them standing yards apart talking to each other and one of them brandishing a sword. You had to add action to bring us to a point where the Rohirrim 'saved the day'.

PS your way would look a lot better to me though than PJs version. But I also think PJs making the WK look stronger than gandalf so it gives eowyn and merry even more of a heroic stature than they already have - someone who could perhaps defeat gandalf killed by a mortal woman and hobbit.

PPS as said months back on this thread - the countless times I've read this scene in the book I always have a feeling that Gandalf is somewhat bluffing - I seem to get the feeling myself that the WK IS stronger. (though I don't like gandalf prostrate on the floor - that is too much I admit)

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Mansun

What? The old wizard would probably have wacked the head off the Witch-King by then with his staff. Take that as a lesson - always respect your elders.

Wrongo. Mortal weapons don't work. As for you opinion, I think that you badly underrate the Witch-King. This is the only badguy who actually took over an enemy kingdom and ruled it for a full year.

I thought you guys already solved this: Gandalf didn't know if he could beat the Witch-King, and the Witch-King was confident he could thrash old GTW.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Essex

You are adding in action (ie the wk charging at gandalf) here to heighten the scene on screen.

Yeees, okay, you're right. It's not line by line the way it is in the book. But it's quite close, I think.
When I say the Witch King charges towards Gandalf, I didn't mean that they actually get to fight. The WK just approaches his enemy, like he probably would have in the book if the Rohirrim came some seconds later. It's just to show how close to really fighting the two are in the scene.

On whether the Witch King or Gandalf are stronger, of course we do not know. The Witch King has just been upped by Sauron and has the prophecy at his side. Gandalf has just been upped by probably Iluvatar and is a Maia.
I think Gandalf is stronger, but he couldn't have defeated his opponent, not because the prophecy says he couldn't, but because it says that he wouldn't. It would have been a draw even if they did fight.

Originally Posted by Essex

PPS as said months back on this thread - the countless times I've read this scene in the book I always have a feeling that Gandalf is somewhat bluffing - I seem to get the feeling myself that the WK IS stronger. (though I don't like gandalf prostrate on the floor - that is too much I admit)

I think Gandalf the Grey more or less conceeded defeat to the Balrog by quaking in doubt & fear even before the battle began, yet who came out the victor? Gandalf isn't above fear - he would be a fool not to be anxious of doing battle with the dangerous WK. But my feeling is that the majority of his anxiety is based on lack of confidence in himself due to the storm of Mordor which was crippling Minas Tirith at the time. The WK obviously used this advantage to gain confidence. Tolkein meanwhile had achieved greater suspense to the confrontation, & I cannot help thinking that he decided to tonic the power of the WK at the last minute because he was concerned that the WK would otherwise not pose a threat to Gandalf the White, having failed to do so when Grey.

Unfortunatley, for me, the WK never lived up to his character in the book as a truly powerful force in the same way as the Balrog did. The damage to his character was already done after being held off by Aragron relatively easily at Weathertop, & of course by Gandalf the Grey before then without too much danger. The added demonic force suggests that he was a touch more dangerous than before - but that is all. For that reason, the scene in the movie just does not fit either.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Essex

PS your way would look a lot better to me though than PJs version. But I also think PJs making the WK look stronger than gandalf so it gives eowyn and merry even more of a heroic stature than they already have - someone who could perhaps defeat gandalf killed by a mortal woman and hobbit.

Except that, after killing that which floored Gandalf, Eowyn then has to endure the 'running from the Gimp' scene, as for PJ, slaying the Witch-King just wasn't enough for poor Eowyn. No 'dieing scene,' where we are led to believe that after smiting such a foul creature Eowyn 'dies.' No pause in the movie to allow the viewers to consider what just happened. Merry, after stabbing the Witch-King, is not damaged enough to remain in Minas Tirith after the battle.

No big deal after all.

And regarding prophecy, I found this interesting and amusing.