Gandalf Vs. The Witch King

[JoltFlame]

I never claimed the Istari weren't Ainur, and since you find my previous post nonsense, I must assume that you believe Gandalf is not a man nor is he mortal.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

I never claimed the Istari weren't Ainur, and since you find my previous post nonsense, I must assume that you believe Gandalf is not a man nor is he mortal.

I don't quite see your point of contention. If you concede the Istari were of the Maiar, how could Gandalf be mortal?

[Eönwë]

I think that everyone's arguing over different things. Are we talking about movie Gandalf, book Gandalf or Olórin?

Because they are all very different with very different strengths.

Obviously, book Gandalf would win as he comes back stronger than before, and even before he killed a Maia incarnated with its full power before dying himself, which is incomparable to a mere man.

Olórin is the even more obvious victor, as he never dies throughout (though Gandalf the Grey, the incarnation does, he himself doesn't as he's a Maia).


But I think the real question is about movie Gandalf.
As for him, I think that if he can kill a Balrog and break Saruman's staff (both of whom are shown as extremely powerful) he could probably beat the Witch-King. As well as this, the Ringwraiths don't seem to pose much of a threat to Rivendell, whereas in even Lothlorien, in which Galadriel seems more powerful than Elrond with her Mirror and such, they are filled with dread at the thought of a "Balrog of Morgoth".
Obviously, Peter Jackson wants us to think otherwise- that Gandalf and the Witch King are evenly matched, or that the Witch King is even more powerful than Gandalf. But I don't think it makes sense even from a purely "movies" perspective.

[JoltFlame]

But the staff of Gandalf is shattered by The Black Captain, so I fail to see how you can put Gandalf above the Lord of the Nine, especially when discussing the movies.

As for Gandalf, it matters not if the Istari were of Maiar, they could still be slain as they were sent to encounter Sauron, as men.

[Mugwump]

Originally Posted by JoltFlame

But the staff of Gandalf is shattered by The Black Captain.

That's the point. That happened only in the movie. In the book, the Witch King threatened Gandalf and fire flickered along his sword, but Gandalf did not move, just sat there placidly on the great horse Shadowfax, with no fear, and neither did Shadowfax move or show any fear. Then the Witch King heard the singing of the approaching men of Rohan, and he retreated from Gandalf.

The point isn't whether the movie Gandalf was stronger than the movie Witch King at that time -- we all agree that the movie Gandalf seemed weaker. The whole point of this thread is that the movie Gandalf in that scene was inconsistent with the Gandalf of the novel. Tolkien's Gandalf would never have had his staff shattered by the Witch King.

[Mugwump]

Yes, Jolt, I do believe that if Gandalf is (as you admit) Ainur, then since the Ainur are neither men nor mortals, but are in fact immortal, therefore Gandalf is neither a man, nor mortal. What is confusing to you about that conclusion? And incidentally, immortals can die, although they do not age. The true difference between a mortal and an immortal may be that a mortal knows that someday he must die. An immortal does not.

Originally Posted by Eönwë

Obviously, Peter Jackson wants us to think otherwise- that Gandalf and the Witch King are evenly matched, or that the Witch King is even more powerful than Gandalf. But I don't think it makes sense even from a purely "movies" perspective.

It may not make sense if you are a Tolkien purist, but Jackson was always willing to deviate somewhat to make the cinematic release more effective. In this case he clearly made a conscious decision to give the climactic scenes of the War of the Ring more punch by magnifying Aragorn to be the clear "hero" so that when he became king, got the girl, etc. it would prove more emotionally satisfying by all the traditional cinematic storytelling criteria. So he did what he had to do to make it so.

The fact is, most of the moviegoing public are not Tolkien fanatics. Even I am willing to dismiss problems like wimpy-Gandalf from my mind in order to enjoy the movies, which I think are magnificent (all of them). Yes, the cinematic version is not exactly true to the book. You are correct, it is the movie Gandalf, and in order to appreciate the movie you just have to dismiss from your mind questions about why Gandalf suddenly became so much less powerful and less wise than he was before.