[Boromir88]

I had been meaning to do this earlier, but did not have much of a chance then, so here's a massive "reply all" post. Thanks everyone for the replies, and interest.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

And do you know, one of the scenes that really bugs me is the first one in LOTR, where Gandalf drives up and hugs Frodo. Yes, it's sweet, but it just isn't a "Gandalf thing".

It is a relatively minor thing, but now that you've pointed it out, I agree...at least with the Frodo-Gandalf hugging, it seems really out of place, considering how many times has Frodo actually seen Gandalf? It tries to establish a close, personal relationship between the two, or maybe Frodo is just being an excitable teenager at seeing "hey fireworks man is here!" It's not a "Frodo thing" either.

What do you feel about Gandalf hugging Bilbo? After Bilbo is yelling he doesn't want any visitors, but opens the door to Gandalfs "And what about very old friends." That fits a little more based on of course their long past and it would be rather normal when seeing a personal friend again, after many years. I basically loved all of the scenes between the two Ians, two actors who knew what they were doing, what they wanted to convey and it came off great.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

And since I haven't watched the movies in over a half a year, I'll talk a bit about a detail I do remember about Gandalf. He said the famous words, which are now a meme, on the Bridge of Khazad-Dum:

You shall not pass!

We all remember these words in this exact way. But the book has it differently. In the book, Gandalf cries

You cannot pass!

There are two main differences between "shall not" and "cannot". The first is a promise/prophecy in future tense, the second is a fact in present tense. Other than that, there's not much of a difference.

Why did the movie script change it? What's wrong with "cannot"?

And, funny thing, we all remember the movie version better than the book. Why? Does it sould more powerful? Is it the visual effect of that staff raised above Gandalf's head which comes crashing down a moment later? Which one is it for you?

You know, I wish I would have thought to ask this in the first post, because it's a difference I always forget about when watching. Maybe because the "Shall not pass" is, as you say, become the one that's remembered more. There is more power behind "shall not" because it is a future tense, and it is Gandalf saying he will stop the Balrog's will of trying to cross, but the Balrog "shall not." I will make note to bring this up with Galadriel, because there is a much more significant difference betweel "will" and "shall" (and I'm glad the movies did not change this, even though like Nog, I did not care for the CGIing of that scene)

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Boro mentioned that scene with him getting angry with Bilbo: "Do not take me for some conjuror of cheap tricks!". It is actually one of my least favourite scenes with Gandalf - because of the lousy special-effects (the worst is Galadriel turning under that spell at the Mirror...). It makes one laugh more than take it seriously... which kind of spoils the athmosphere.

Hmm..I actually don't mind this, definitely not like Galadriel's "In place of a dark lord..." scene of eery-greenish blue luminosity. Bilbo's personality was obviously being effected by the Ring, and Gandalf needed to scare him a bit was all, it quickly returns to "all these long years we've been friends." It actually played out to how I imagined it in the books, but I could be misremembering because I liked the scene so much.

It's also the first chance of the audience to see that Gandalf is not just some laughing, happy-go lucky magician who shoots off fireworks because the kids love it. There is some hint given by frodo that Gandalf's past exploits make him a troublemaker in the eyes of "respectable" hobbits, but this scene when Bilbo is departing and resistant to leaving the Ring, is the first time we see there is more to Gandalf then fireworks and fun parties. There is perhaps a darker (or "more serious") side to Gandalf that would be important to know. And also fits nicely with the rumors Sam also believes..."Please, Mr. Gandalf sir, don't turn me into anything...unnatural."

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Sir Ian did just fine as Gandalf, whether Grey or White; however, he was at the mercy of the script, which will be a recurring theme for me throughout these sordid discussions.

Which is quite perfect, because that's basically my reasons for wanting to start this. I wanted to think about the script, the actor/actress, the physical image, and how all these factors portray the character in the films, but also compared to the book-character.

From just recalling my general impressions, there were probably 2 to 3 characters who I absolutely believe everything came together perfectly; the script, the cast, the imagination...it all came together to create some beautiful music. More often then not, problems with the characters seem to lie with the script, and not the person in the role, but this is not always the case in my opinion. And other times when I think everything failed. Of course, we'll likely get to these instances at a better time.

With Gandalf, I would definitely hang up the major problems on the script, and not McKellan, but I was still feeling there was something missing. Gandalf was very good, not great, nor on my list of a few characters where everything came together perfectly.

Originally Posted by wilwarin538

I think the main reason is simply that Theoden is a king, and Denethor is not. Gandalf's fondness for Aragorn is also probably a reason that he doesn't like Denethor, since he is making the decisions that Aragorn is meant to. Gandalf the White also seems to have a good understanding of people's character. He knew that Eomer woulld come to his uncle's aid, he knew that Merry and Pippin would try to get the Ents to help (and that the Ents eventually would), and therefore I think he knew that Theoden would eventually step up and be a true king, while Denethor would just go bonkers.

Well, Theoden and Denethor are different personality wise, but I'm not sure if I'd say the reason is because Theoden is a king and Denethor isn't. Perhaps it has to deal with, Gandalf really is underhandedly plotting to restore Aragorn to the throne of Gondor, and is annoyed that Denethor isn't you know...rolling over and bowing down to his authority. Even though we all know the wise thing to do is to listen and trust Gandalf as Theoden did, can you really blame Denethor? King or not, the rule of Gondor is legally his, until the rightful King actually does return, that much Denethor is right about.

Gandalf's brilliant manuevering was his ability to lead the defense, yet work around Denethor's authority, and not maul him. Although, this probably is more telling of Denethor's character than Gandalf's. Since, there was the decision lose all subtlety and make Denethor the crazy man right from the beginning, I don't know what else Gandalf could have done if the "leader" of the realm is running out shouting FLEE!

Originally Posted by Sarumian

For Gandalf the White... Oh, they didn't know what to do with him in the movie... No country for old man... They used him to deal with Saruman, but then... The only thing he does up to his book potential is repelling Nazgul and saving Faramir, the rest could have been done by someone else. After his encounter with Witch King he is a broken man, while in the book Gandalf the White is a righteous Steward of Middle Earth, teaching Aragorn the last and the most important lesson about power: what it is and should be. I cannot blame Sir Ian for this, as it has already been discussed that PJ and Co decided to enhance Aragorn and in fact diminished Gandalf.

Btw, I am sure Gandalf had no idea what Durin's Bane was until they meet at Kazad Doom. Saruman, pushing the Ring into Balrog's domain is laughable, but I'll keep it for Saruman's discussion.

Originally Posted by alatar

Thanks. If I understand you right, and then to explain myself better, though I don't think Gandalf as infallible, but you get the feeling that he's going to go down swinging. PJ's portrayal of Gandalf in TTT and RotK doesn't show this trait; at times he's at a lost for what to do next, and is too dependent on others for information, direction, hope.

Not exactly the architect of Sauron's downfall.

Not to foreshadow and spoil too much, but for the Frodo discussion coming up, the main observation I had was it seemed like Jackson wanted to pay more attention to the "diversion" plot and not the actually destroy-ring plot. By doing so, Aragorn seems to be the main character, as they give the fullblown "ranger to King" development for Aragorn's character, and thus the focus becomes Aragorn. This effects Frodo's story, but I'm noticing now it also effects Gandalf's role in the films.