Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

The staff of Gandalf is shattered and the wizard is cast down, before The Black Captain. What does that tell you?

It tells me that the director was more interested in special effects than in intertextual integrity, and took absurd liberties with the original story and offered a plot point that the author in no way intended.

[JoltFlame]

Would that not also be the case if Peter Jackson chose to end their confrontation in favour of Gandalf?

I believe the scene clearly describes the superiority of The Black Captain to Gandalf.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

Would that not also be the case if Peter Jackson chose to end their confrontation in favour of Gandalf?.

I don't think so. Though Tolkien did not depict a physical battle between Gandalf and the Morgul-lord, Gandalf was successful in preventing his entry into Minas Tirith, which appears to be Gandalf's purpose in blocking the gate. Therefore, it could be said that Gandalf had 'won', in that he accomplished his objective.

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

I believe the scene clearly describes the superiority of The Black Captain to Gandalf.

Perhaps PJ's imagining does, but I absolutely do not get that impression from the book.

[Mugwump]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

It tells me that the director was more interested in special effects than in intertextual integrity, and took absurd liberties with the original story and offered a plot point that the author in no way intended.

I don't think it was so much for special effects, but I did notice a significant departure (in the film) in this instance and others related to the same problem. In the third film Jackson opted to emphasize the leadership qualities of Aragorn at the expense of Gandalf. I think this was done for cinematic effect (in the story, not special effects) in order to make Aragorn seem more "kingly." In the book it was always Gandalf who knew the right thing to do, but in the third film all of a sudden Gandalf was unsure, almost despairing, and it was Aragorn who was saying no, we have to attack the Black Gate to give Frodo his chance. In the novel it was the other way around: it was Aragorn who ridiculed trying to attack Mordor with such a small force. He called it a farce, a joke. It was Gandalf who was the clear leader of all the allied forces at that point, dictating what had to be done, and Aragorn was like, "I sure hope you're right."

Jackson turned that relationship around in the third firm. I had already noticed by the end of the second film (of the theatrical release) that Aragorn did not seem all that much of a leader at all. He was too reluctant a leader, certainly not kingly, and I was puzzled in the third film where all this kingly quality and wisdom came from all of a sudden, as Gandalf took second fiddle. It was a little better when the extended versions came out and a little more background for Aragorn and his motivations came forth, but in Return of the King Jackson still had to pull the old switcheroo, lessening Gandalf and magnifying Aragorn, to give his ascension to the throne the cinematic punch--and justification--it needed.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mugwump

...lessening Gandalf and magnifying Aragorn, to give his ascension to the throne the cinematic punch--and justification--it needed.

Perhaps if PJ had chosen to make Aragorn the Chieftain of the Dunedain as he was in the books, rather than an uncertain, friendless loser as in the movies, he would not have had to make such a daft change in the 3rd movie.

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

Would that not also be the case if Peter Jackson chose to end their confrontation in favour of Gandalf?

Why do either? It was unnecessary. It was a deliberate manipulation by the director, like many throughout the films, that was inelegant and presupposed that the audience was too stupid to actually comprehend a more sophisticated and subtle plot.

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

I believe the scene clearly describes the superiority of The Black Captain to Gandalf.

I hate to reiterate what already has been posted ad nauseam, but the text gives no such impression. By the time of the confrontation, Gandalf has chased off several Nazgul on Weathertop, defeated a Balrog, been ressurrected by the Valar and broken Saruman's staff. What had the WiKi done previously to garner any acclaim? Let's see, he ran from Glorfindel on two occasions, been stabbed at by a Hobbit on Weathertop, and was drowned in a river. WiKi went on to be destroyed ignobly by an untested woman and a wounded Hobbit. So much for superiority.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Why do either? It was unnecessary. It was a deliberate manipulation by the director, like many throughout the films, that was inelegant and presupposed that the audience was too stupid to actually comprehend a more sophisticated and subtle plot.

Just to give you an idea on this one, a person I know recently (I mean within the last few months) found out there were books.... More importantly she was sooo excited she screamed "They made a novelization of the movies, awesome!" until she started reading them... after which she said to me "JRR Tolkien butchered Peter Jackson's masterpiece" *FacePalm*

So I'll agree people can in fact be really stupid... especially in these modern times, where learning isn't important anymore... but That is a different discussion

[Mugwump]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

a person I know recently found out there were books.... she was sooo excited she screamed "They made a novelization of the movies, awesome!" until she started reading them... after which she said to me "JRR Tolkien butchered Peter Jackson's masterpiece" *FacePalm*

That story sounds apocryphal, but I like it.

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

So I'll agree people can in fact be really stupid... especially in these modern times, where learning isn't important anymore...

We have to keep them that way, or they might not vote correctly. But That is a different discussion

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Mugwump

That story sounds apocryphal, but I like it.


We have to keep them that way, or they might not vote correctly. But That is a different discussion

Ok after grabbing a dictionary my assumption of the meaning of apocryphal is correct...
I know it sounds doubtful but if you knew this person you'd expect ANY idiocy... I'm talking Jessica Simpson "Chicken of the Sea" stupid... ok annnywho. as for voting depends which side you support... sh... chat skewerels.. do you hear them?

[JoltFlame]

He'd to do either because, eventually, Gandalf had to come across The Black Captain, in one way or another and as described in the novel, before Gandalf, the Lord of the Nazgûl lifted high his sword and fire sprang down the blade.

Peter Jackson simply prolonged their meeting as opposed to their confrontation in the novel.