Gandalf Vs. The Witch King - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Essex · 01-12-2005, 09:40 AM

This is very much like Aragorn taking Theoden's idea to ride out and face the Orcs in one last stand at Helm's Deep.

I think Jackson is giving as much of the decision making to Aragorn as he can. I'm not sure why, and I don't agree with this.

Just another thought as I posted. This change in Gandalf is more believable movie-wise as Saruman has spread the seeds of doubt into his mind at the begining of the EE. This also gives some credence to Gandalf's question of whether Frodo was alive to Aragorn in Edoras.

alatar · 01-12-2005, 11:06 AM

Throughout the trilogy PJ lessened the role of Gandalf. The Grey Pilgrim starts as the prime motivator behind the forces of good and ends up just some kindly old man who carries a big stick - until *that* exploded.

In FOTR, Gandalf gets the Ring moving towards destruction, escapes from the clutches of the most powerful wizard in Middle Earth and takes on a Balrog. (I painfully accepted the change in regards to whose idea it was to go through Moria, among others).

In TTT, after surviving the Balrog fight and supposedly becoming more powerful (as witnessed when he meets the three hunters in Fangorn), he's now an exorcist and an errand rider.

In ROTK, after 'firing' Saruman, Gandalf loses his nerve and has to be reassured about the plan. He can't get the Rohirrim to fight unless there's some watch fire thing message comes from Gondor. Pippin lights the same while Gandalf acts as a distraction.

After using his staff to chase away the Nazgul, Gandalf's in the back of the formation that greets the three trolls that come knocking at the gates and are dressed to kill. Why didn't he use the staff then?

He loses to the Witch-King, then has to find another stick to whack another king in the head. I assume that *he* spurs Shadowfax at Denethor, which is odd in that he spent some time talking with Frodo about 'needlessly dealing out death,' which could and accidentally did happen. Didn't see a lot of pity there. And I realize that Pippin needed something to do, but what does Gandalf really do in the Houses of the Dead?

After the big battle he is again concerned about the plan, but luckily Aragorn has a good idea. During the battle at the Black Gate he seems (to me) to be just another sword, or captain. He does, however, guide the eagles to Mount Doom.

Seeing what PJ had done to Gandalf, I'm glad that the Scouring of the Shire wasn't filmed. We'd have Gandalf crying after hearing 'sauce' from Ted Sandyman*...

*Yes, I know that that didn't happen, but we're talking PJ's world here.

Snorri Swifthammer · 01-12-2005, 12:02 PM

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 · 01-12-2005, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snorri Swifthammer

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.

I agree; however, one of the many issues I then have is that if W-K was so terribly powerful, why does Eowyn have to be chased by Gothmog after killing W-K? Wasn't that enough, like in the books? She kills the 'boss,' then has to run from the Gimp. Ouch!

What does finally put her in a death-like state, PJ version?

Guinevere · 01-12-2005, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Snorri Swifthammer

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 Elessar 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.

I agree very much with that!
It seems PJ et al think that movie watchers today would not accept heroes that are "superhuman" :nobler and wiser and less flawed than we are. But by changing these characters they take away something essential.

Captain of Despair · 01-13-2005, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snorri Swifthammer

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.

It also doesn't help increase "the heroism of the humans" when the army of the dead finishes up the battle of the pelennor fields (but that's a little off topic).

Essex · 01-14-2005, 03:17 AM

actually they WERE humans (albeit 'dead') who redeemed themselves by fighting with Aragorn (yes, I know they fought against the corsairs only, but this change in the movie was understandable)

the phantom · 01-14-2005, 02:35 PM

Quote:

I think PJ tries to humanize everyone too much and they come off looking weak a great deal.

Quote:

It seems PJ et al think that movie watchers today would not accept heroes that are "superhuman" :nobler and wiser and less flawed than we are. But by changing these characters they take away something essential.

Both of you are 100% correct. Check out davem's New movie article- anyone agree?.

Captain of Despair · 01-14-2005, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essex

actually they WERE humans (albeit 'dead') who redeemed themselves by fighting with Aragorn (yes, I know they fought against the corsairs only, but this change in the movie was understandable)

Yes, the change was understandable (if only to wrap up the battle more quickly) but I definitely could have done without it.

01-12-2005, 09:40 AM	#1
Essex Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Essex, England Posts: 886	This is very much like Aragorn taking Theoden's idea to ride out and face the Orcs in one last stand at Helm's Deep. I think Jackson is giving as much of the decision making to Aragorn as he can. I'm not sure why, and I don't agree with this. Just another thought as I posted. This change in Gandalf is more believable movie-wise as Saruman has spread the seeds of doubt into his mind at the begining of the EE. This also gives some credence to Gandalf's question of whether Frodo was alive to Aragorn in Edoras.

01-12-2005, 11:06 AM	#2
alatar Doubting Dwimmerlaik Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Heaven's basement Posts: 2,466	Throughout the trilogy PJ lessened the role of Gandalf. The Grey Pilgrim starts as the prime motivator behind the forces of good and ends up just some kindly old man who carries a big stick - until that exploded. In FOTR, Gandalf gets the Ring moving towards destruction, escapes from the clutches of the most powerful wizard in Middle Earth and takes on a Balrog. (I painfully accepted the change in regards to whose idea it was to go through Moria, among others). In TTT, after surviving the Balrog fight and supposedly becoming more powerful (as witnessed when he meets the three hunters in Fangorn), he's now an exorcist and an errand rider. In ROTK, after 'firing' Saruman, Gandalf loses his nerve and has to be reassured about the plan. He can't get the Rohirrim to fight unless there's some watch fire thing message comes from Gondor. Pippin lights the same while Gandalf acts as a distraction. After using his staff to chase away the Nazgul, Gandalf's in the back of the formation that greets the three trolls that come knocking at the gates and are dressed to kill. Why didn't he use the staff then? He loses to the Witch-King, then has to find another stick to whack another king in the head. I assume that he spurs Shadowfax at Denethor, which is odd in that he spent some time talking with Frodo about 'needlessly dealing out death,' which could and accidentally did happen. Didn't see a lot of pity there. And I realize that Pippin needed something to do, but what does Gandalf really do in the Houses of the Dead? After the big battle he is again concerned about the plan, but luckily Aragorn has a good idea. During the battle at the Black Gate he seems (to me) to be just another sword, or captain. He does, however, guide the eagles to Mount Doom. Seeing what PJ had done to Gandalf, I'm glad that the Scouring of the Shire wasn't filmed. We'd have Gandalf crying after hearing 'sauce' from Ted Sandyman... Yes, I know that that didn't happen, but we're talking PJ's world here.

01-12-2005, 12:02 PM	#3
Snorri Swifthammer Animated Skeleton Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Erebor Posts: 49	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.

01-14-2005, 03:17 AM	#7
Essex Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Essex, England Posts: 886	actually they WERE humans (albeit 'dead') who redeemed themselves by fighting with Aragorn (yes, I know they fought against the corsairs only, but this change in the movie was understandable)