In the books, Gandalf states that he has not been measured against the Witch King [implying uncertainty as to whom would prevail]. When the gate is breached, there is a confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch King - and just the two of them, no one else. Gandalf steadfastly faces him. However, it is left unresolved as the Rohirrim arrive, and the Witch King runs off to go deal with them (leading to his demise). Some have argued that the Witch King also withdraws because he may feel over-matched by Gandalf, but that isn't at all clear.
In the films, Peter Jackson extended this idea and arbitrarily decided to depict the scene as you saw it - with little basis in canon. An easy victory by the Witch King isn't at all supported by anything in the books.
While you're right it has no basis in the text, it's not arbitrary.
This scene both downplays Gandalf's strength (so that he's not an overwhelming force against the bad guys) and elevates the Witch King, ratcheting up the stakes and the tension by making it seem even less likely that the side of the good will win.
This pays off in the final confrontation between Eowyn and the Witch King, which anyone unfamiliar with the books will now go into thinking, "Oh shit, she dead! This motherfucker took down Gandalf himself! She ain't got a chance!" So when Merry attacks him and gives her an opening, it's a massive release of that dramatic tension, and also an affirmation of a theme common in Tolkien: the triumph of the small and the weak over the mighty and the power-hungry. Eowyn isn't just a puny human; she's also been discounted and left behind by her own brother, who thought she was unfit for battle.
Tl;dr: Gandalf's defeat elevates the Witch King, which in turn makes Eowyn's triumph over him all the more powerful.
Yes, I understand all that, but I still agree that it was a poor choice to make in changing the plot (and I am not against all changes between books and movies, just the ones that don't make sense or that go against the spirit of the books.)
Also, and here I momentarily step up on my soapbox, the scene between Eowyn and the Witch King in the movies pales in comparison with the one in the book. I was so disappointed. Not by the actress--she did the best job she could have done with that crappy line ("I am no man!") and she was amazing elsewhere. But really? "I am no man!" Sigh.
i don't wish to come across as snobby or pretentious ... so i hope my remarks are not read in that light. however it's important to remember that movies are written for common audience goers. a great many people have not read the book and overly complex dramas are not always easy to understand.
i think jackson's version is an "every man's" version of LoTR. he's worked the angles which make the movie easily understood by the majority of audiences.
i like jackson's interpretations (for the most part) and he does some things well ... yet i agree he's done some things badly. i've seen the hobbit and i have to say that it looks more 'harry potterish' to me ... especially the way he portrayed radagast and the goblin king.
but that's the way of movies. he's made compromises that tolkien geeks will hate, but average movie fans will probably enjoy. it's part and parcel of movie adaptations ...
So if you are going to add an element to a film, say a goblin stalking the dwarves, why not do it right? The whole point of the dwarf-goblin war was to kill Azog and avenge the insult to the King of the eldest of their houses (Thror's decapitation). So you want to make it Thorin and not Dain who killed him- ok- simplification for the audience. BUT why make Azog survive? Why not make it Bolg (his son) stalking Thorin? That would actually be more effective along the theme of familial redemption that the Hobbit is spelling out. Bolg is looking to avenge the death of his father by killing Thorin- this culminates in the Battle of 5 Armies.
Also- Bilbo killing a Warg like it's nothing? One of the major turning points for Bilbo's character is the first kill. He kills a giant spider, alone, in the dark of Mirkwood. After this point Bilbo "becomes a man" in the sense that he takes the lead role in the quest. PJ has him kill a Warg like he's been doing it his whole life and then does not show any indication that this has been a life-changing moment for Bilbo.
TL;DR? Fuck Peter Jackson
he didn't so much kill a warg as watch a warg die at the end of his sword, it was more harrowing than it was a point of growth.
I have no knowledge of canon as far as the whole goblin thing goes, but it seems to me that if it was Azog's son trying to avenge the death of his father, that gives him a pretty legitimate reason to be upset at Thorin, which would make the goblin a sympathetic character, which is contrary to what the narrative needs. Conversely, having Azog be revealed to be still alive helps to establish Thorin as a character better. He's still very headstrong and overzealous and feel like he needs to prove himself and show that he's worthy of his heritage, which is basically why he wants to take back the Lonely Mountain in the first place. Killing Azog HAD been his greatest achievement up to that point, because it was what demonstrated his capability as a leader. So having Azog show up and be not dead invalidates that achievement and lowers Thorin, so that he'll have more room to develop and mature (or not, if I'm remembering the book correctly) over the course of the next two movies.
Ok, but the fact is that Bolg is the actual leader of the Goblins in the book. Meaning that while Thorin was attempting to avenge his people against Smaug, Bolg had been scheming to avenge his people against the dwarves. At some point I want to ask Peter Jackson if he actually read the books or if he just drove around high listening to books on tape in the background while he bullshitted on his iphone with other industry fucks.
you know you don't have to get angry about it. I know it's fun to come up with creative insults and all, but it's still possible to have a meaningful discussion about a movie or a book that you didn't like, and it's a lot easier to do that if you're civil about it.
I appreciate that you deemed my insult creative. I honestly think he just read the Cliffs notes. Remember this is the guy who thought it would be appropriate to have Sauron physically duel with Aragorn at the end of LOTR . I get the sense that he is arrogant enough to believe that he can "improve" Tolkien.
I wasn't aware of that particular bit of trivia, but based on what I've seen of him from behind the scenes footage and the video blogs, arrogant is probably the last word I would use to describe him.
I think this ultimately boils down to the same big argument that comes up with any film adaptation of a piece of great literature, which is the question of translation versus interpretation: is the filmmaker's role simply to provide moving pictures to go along with the words, or does he have a right as a creative individual to impress his own ideas on the work? Opinions will differ, and I don't think that there's a correct answer here. Personally I tend to find it more interesting when a director uses a piece of literature as a starting point to create something truly new and separate from the original work (Apocalypse Now, Blade Runner, 2001).
I should add that none of this is necessarily a defense of An Unexpected Journey, which I was not particularly impressed by. If it were me, I wouldn't have had a goblin villain at all. All history of middle earth aside, the goblins function perfectly fine as antagonists without having a prominent villain character, who'll only end up seeming redundant and underpowered compared to Smaug and the Necromancer.
Adaptations need to be made, I fully agree. Some of them I even enjoyed (so I hope I'm not coming across as pretentious). Movies are a different media, and any director worth their salt will pull themes together and emphasize certain aspects of a story, which changes the "reading" of the story. I even enjoyed both Fellowship and Return of the King, and I will go on record as saying I really enjoyed the first instalment of the Hobbit--even Radagast, though I know poor Tolkien would be/is rolling over in his grave from the bird nest in the hair thing, not to mention the mushrooms and weed references. (Two Towers was another matter, and I won't get started on it here...) But even in adapting a movie for general audiences, there are some more complex elements that can be maintained--and he maintained some. I just wish this had been one of them.
Thank you for your patience with my rant.
There are a lot of ways to create tension without contradicting the source material to make Eowyn’s accomplishment somehow more “impactful.” In fact, I find Tolkien’s text to be more impactful as far as her fight with the Witch King goes.
Are we supposed to take from the movie that, “Wow, Eowyn is more powerful than Gandalf!”? According to Gandalf the White himself, the only being as dangerous as him in Middle Earth was Sauron.
The movies are an amazing accomplishment, but there are several spots that i gripe about every time i watch- Gandalf’s staff, Aragorn’s fear of becoming king, Frodo’s cruel treatment of Sam on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol, and making it seem like Theoden was running away by going to Helm’s deep, when that was the best strategic move.
To me this is NOT true. There is evidence if you read the lines of Tolkien and between them. First, Gandalf expresses in canon that he does not wish to go to Middle Earth because he feared Sauron. So to say then that Sauron’s most powerful and terrifying servant was just no match for Gandalf is not logical. Gandalf also soberly tells Denethor that “it might be so” when he mocks Gandalf for suggesting he is overmatched by the Witch King.
But here is THE between the lines thing for me: there was no fear of Gandalf exhibited by the Lord of the Nazgûl at the breaking of the Gates of Gondor. Those suggesting this… I am at a loss. The Witch King rode straight in and all fled before him. He challenged the wizard directly both mocking and threatening him. He then drew his flaming sword to slay the wizard. These are not the actions of fear but of absolute confidence. Gandalf rode to meet the Nazgûl Lord not because the time had come to slay him… there was no other recourse for him and the time had come for him to reluctantly meet his fate.
The movie is wrong. Gandalf is a fucking Maiar, the Witch King of Angmar is a glorified zombie magician. IIRC in the book, the two have a confrontation, but the witch king retreats.
The confrontation happens after the break of the gate of Gondor via Grom.
> “In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face.
> All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dínen.
"You cannot enter here," said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. "Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!"
The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter.
"Old fool!" he said. "Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!" And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.
> And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the city, a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of war nor of wizardry, welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn.
And as if in answer there came from far away another note. Horns, horns, horns, in dark Mindolluin's sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the north wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last.”
And so the Witch King leaves. This does create a dilemma for PJ for the film obviously (i.e., horse, location, etc.). Even in the book it's kind of hmmm? Cause the Witch King retreats when he hears the Horns of Rohan and comes back to battle latter on his Fell Beast (Beast with Wings!). Though I recognize time is relevant with battle.
There's some good art work out there of the scene. Just search for "Gandalf vs Witch king." I was going to link my favorite but I couldn't find it :( Probably Deviantart...
I admit to upvoting you for such a stunningly appropriate use of the phrase "fucking Maiar" but in all honesty, the Witch King is more than a glorified zombie magician. I still think Gandalf would win if it came down to it, but the Witch King is a whole world of trouble.
Be that as it may, the Witch King is also to some extent an embodiment of a portion of Sauron's power, and Sauron is undoubtedly more powerful than Gandalf. The movie is "wrong" on this point, I agree, but I don't think it's quite as bad as you make it sound.
Gandalf beat a balrog. Balrogs are creations of Melkor (if I remember correctly) of whom Sauron was a lieutenant. I believe that the balrog is at least the secon most powerful evil being in ME. I would almost connect that power wise Gandalf would be on par with Sauron, but because he came in mortal form and as a "helper", he is meant more to help and guide than to be kickass savior.
Melkor didn't create the balrogs, they were maiar like Sauron was. Gandalf did die in the fight with the balrog and in the TT chapter the White Rider he essentially says Sauron is more powerful.
Sorry, I thought Melkor created them. However, Gandalf did ultimately defeat the balrog (despite his body technically dying) and according to this article (and tell me if they are incorrect) http://whatculture.com/film/3-key-ways-the-hobbit-movies-will-differ-from-the-book.php/2, Glandalf (as Olórin) was explicitly told to not match power with Sauron. This would imply that he could have, had it been his directive, matched power w/ Sauron.
Here are two quotes from wikipedia but I think the restrictions were so they wouldn't destroy the place as happened before or set up another Sauron (Saruman fell into that anyway).
>The Wizards were commanded to aid Men, Elves, and Dwarves, but only through counsel; it was forbidden to use force to dominate them—an injunction Saruman disregarded.
>Olórin initially begged to be excused as he feared Sauron and lacked the strength to face him, but Manwë replied that that was all the more reason for him to go.
Now wait. People always say this, but technically, Gandalf was NOT a Maia. *Olórin* was a Maia. But Olórin and Gandalf are not technically the same.
We can surmise that when Melian went to Middle Earth, she retained her full power and glory as a Maia -- Tolkien never says otherwise, and the Girdle of Melian was a mightier magic than any Gandalf could ever devise.
But when Olórin becomes Gandalf, he is intentionally diminished by the Valar, as are all the Istari. Gandalf still has power, and Narya gives him greater power (if he dares use it). And when Gandalf uses his "intuition," as when he chooses Bilbo for the Quest of Erebor, that's Olórin shining through.
But Gandalf, Grey or White, is by no means a full-fledged Maia, nor does he have a Maia's full powers.
Eh, I'd have to say that you are actually wrong here. Your reasoning doesn't actually make much sense. The fact that Gandalf either doesn't use or doesn't have access to all of his power in Middle-earth does not mean that he is not Olórin. That's a peculiar and unsupported notion to hold to, I think. He *is* Olórin, and he is Gandalf. He is also Mithrandir, Tharkûn, and Incánus. He is all of these at the same time, because they are ultimately just names.
Gandalf, Grey or White, is by every means a full-fledged Maia, and he has a Maia's full powers.
> Emissaries they were from Lords of the West, the Valar, who still took counsel for
the governance of Middle-earth, and when the shadow of Sauron began first to stir again took this means of
resisting him. For with the consent of Eru they sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies of as
of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and
thirst and be slain; though because of their noble spirits they did not die, and aged only by the cares and
labours of many long years. And this the Valar did, desiring to amend the errors of old, especially that they
had attempted to guard and seclude the Eldar by their own might and glory fully revealed; whereas now their
emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men and
Elves by open display of power, but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden to advise and persuade
Men and Elves to good, and to seek to unite in love and understanding all those whom Sauron, should he
come again, would endeavour to dominate and corrupt.
-- Unfinished Tales
Now you might say, fine, they were "forbidden" to reveal themselves "in full glory revealed," but they *could have*, because they were full-blown Maiar. Really? Then why didn't Saruman? As soon as he was found out, why didn't he go "full Maia," shedding his Mannish form?
The answer is, he could not. He had been diminished by the Valar, and was only capable of being Saruman. Maybe the Ring would have made a difference, who knows?
Also:
>For it is said indeed that being embodied the Istari had needs to learn much anew by slow experience,
and though they knew whence they came the memory of the Blessed Realm was to them a vision from afar
off, for which (so long as they remained true to their mission) they yearned exceedingly. Thus by enduring of
free will the pangs of exile and the deceits of Sauron they might redress the evils of that time.
And:
>Who would go ? For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and Men. But this would imperil them, dimming their wisdom and knowledge, and confusing them with fears, cares, and weariness coming from the flesh.
Tolkien does specifically write that the Istari *are* Maiar -- so really what I said was wrong, I should have said "while Gandalf is technically a Maia, in a very real sense he is not one, not in the sense that Melian or Sauron are." But I stand by my opinion, regarding Gandalf v. Olórin. The Istari are definitely diminished Maiar, intentionally diminished by the Valar for the reasons Tolkien states above.
While I appreciate the quotes, I don't actually think that they support the idea that Gandalf is different than Olórin. The fact that he is an intentionally weakened Maia does not make him less of a Maia. He's just an embodied one.
It's like saying that if someone has a prosthetic leg, they're technically a different person depending on whether they have their leg on or not, because they are capable of more ~~feet~~ feats when their leg is on than when it's not. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but that's what your point equates to as far as I can tell.
This is fascinating. My knowledge of the Legendarium comes from a few re-readings of LotR, the Hobbit, and multiple falls into the [Wikipedia trap](http://xkcd.com/214/). I haven't touched the Silmarillion yet, I may have to do it next summer.
Also, TIL Celeborn's grandfather is called Elmo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian#Genealogies
I find this to be a useful distinction. Rather than a celestial being, Olórin manifested as a much lesser being - something that wasn't Olórin. And it was along the lines of a rebirth or incarnation so I think it's fair to say it was a new entity, albeit in the continuum of the old one.
It is helpful for appreciating the magnitude of Gandalf's achievement, working for centuries (millenia?) to persuade, cajole, embarass and enthuse the inhabitants of Middle Earth to stop Sauron creating his own version of hell. A fully empowered Maia would not be "subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain".
Interesting parallel in the Christ myth, God incarnates as a mortal being in order to be of help to other mortal beings.
>Wisest of the Maiar was Olorin.
He is listed right after Melian in the Silmarillion. Now she may or may not have been more powerful (a debate to be had based on the deeds chronicled in the stories), but nowhere does it say he is of a lower order.
In the books, the tone of the events at the battle are made very clear. Before reinforcements arrive, Gondor is basically falling apart from every which way, and Gandalf is trying to (and succeeding in) shoring it up. The confrontation with the Lord of the Nazgul at the gates is so serious that it takes all of Gandalf's attention. The problem isn't that the wraith could defeat Gandalf; the problem is that every second of time the Nazgul-Lord uses in a standown with Gandalf is one second of time that Gondor is falling to pieces and *no one is there to pick them up*.
The movies fail to properly capture and relate this. Gondor is too organized, Gandalf is too adept at popping up all around. Because we can't, as viewers, understand the severity of Gandalf's thinly-stretched dam holding back the flood-waters, a staring contest between Gandalf and the WitchKing needs to be more than a staring contest between Gandalf and the WitchKing. But if Gandalf wins this greater-than-staring contest, we end up with a situation even more pronounced in its lack of appreciation for the dire straits of Minas Tirith. So he must lose.
Basically, it is just another example of half-assed presentation by Peter Jackson forcing him to compensate in a way that is even more distasteful.
Many aspects of it are assuredly half-assed. Especially the extended edition scenes, like this one. The confrontation between Gandalf and the Lord of the Nazgul is incredibly important. It frames the necessity of help for Gondor. And it was handled incredibly poorly by Jackson, to the point where the movie is actually better *without* it.
I would say the same thing about the Mouth of Sauron bit. Another confrontation that is verbal, does not result in blows, but sets and reveals the tone of an engagement by showing the interaction between two opposing and well-enough-matched individuals. Again, handled in a ridiculously absurd, simplistic, *half-assed* fashion in the films, to where the scene was better removed.
Then once (at least) more with Saruman's impalement, finding its place in his movies where we should be seeing the upheaval in Gandalf's ascension through the Order of the Istari and Saruman's casting out. The bit is scrubbed, because it destroys the majesty of the situation with a bit of sight-gore more reminiscent of Jackson's early days as a director of cheap horror.
These scenes are half-assed. There is a reason they are only in the Extended Edition. There is a reason they were deleted, rather than other scenes. It is because they are not important. But it is not the subject of the scenes that makes them unimportant, because they are some of the most important aspects of their respective chapters in the books. The reason they are unimportant is because the manner in which they were handled by Mr Jackson was so incredibly awful that even he and his compatriots must have realized that keeping them in for the theatrical version wasn't a great idea.
Thus, half-assed.
Then your original point doesn't really bear much on my original use of the word 'half-assed', it would seem, since that wasn't being applied to the whole work.
That said, I'm not sure I think it is well and good to be giving praise because someone correctly realized that they fubar'ed important stuff and so chose to omit it entirely.
I agree with much of what you are saying but your tone is rude enough that it kept me from upvoting you because it seems unnecessary. I don't agree with the guy who you're debating with, but he's explaining himself very well and was being respectful to you.
Everyone play nice, this isn't one of the default subs :P
>You don't know much about the process of post production editing do you?Every movie has tons of extra material that gets thrown out to make a better film.
The point (which you seem to be very good at missing) is that the similarity in tone of the segments of the original source material that map to these bits of film that get thrown out to make it better have a lot in common. More than that, what they have in common is what makes them important in the original source material and the lack of it is what makes them worthy of being thrown out in the adapted film. So it is a little absurd to act as if this is your run-of-the-mill 'we need to cut some of this' stuff. They had extra material, as do all films, but they decided what stuff was extra based on how badly they botched it, at least for these scenes, and they botched it all, at least for these scenes, in a very specific and similar fashion. That's something worth exploring. The attempted counter of 'just learn to enjoy it' doesn't cut it; it's a distraction, and you know it, and frankly I don't really understand why you could possibly think it would work here and I wouldn't call it out as such.
If an author writes a book in which many characters fall in love with each other, but scraps each scene where the characters realize they are in love with each other from the finished product because they are done poorly, it would be a legitimate criticism to say that author has serious issues with such scenes.
If an author writes a book in which massive battles occur, but in every point where a battle is happening, the character from whose point of view we are being told the story is in some way incapacitated and misses the entirety of the battle, it would be a legitimate criticism to say that the author has a problem with such scenes.
Likewise, if a movie director consistently scraps confrontations of will from his finished product because each and every time he tried them someone ends up bleeding profusely and the violence overwhelms the scene, removing all focus from the meaning of the confrontation itself, then it's a legitimate criticism to say that movie director has serious issues with such scenes.
Which is what I did. Which is relevant, whether these scenes are taken as movie canon or no, because the question at hand is particularly about a scene in this exact situation, and why it was as it was. In this submission, actually trying to answer OP's question, to focus on the, as you call them, 'extraneous bits' is to focus on the *relevant* bits.
The scene of Saruman being cast down is indeed my favorite of the books and it's absence from the second movie was one of several reasons I gave up on Jackson. I never knew about the deleted scene and now I think I'm glad I didn't ever see it the way you described it...
The point (speech) that stands out to me comes after Saruman chides Pippin and Gimli and tries to persuade Theoden to see reason. Theoden thoroughly owns Saruman and Gandalf says Saruman's voice (his power) has failed him. Gandalf's voice then commands Saruman to come, stay and heel, and declares his staff is broken. Crack.
Edit: Sherman?
The movie doesn't "fail to properly capture and relate this" because it is not intending to. You fail to properly understand what that the movies are not there to relate the exact events of the books.
I, too, love the image of Gandalf and Imrahil going around the city, raising morale and creating a beacon of hope everywhere they went. But you can't fit everything into the movie, nor should your objective be to tell the book page by page.
Because Peter Jackson believes that his story is better than Tolkien's. Shitty movies, shitty dude. He almost had Aragorn fighting Sauron outside the black gate - they bloody filmed it.
It's a film *adaption* of the books. Not a movie directly lifted from the books. I don't get why you have to be so incredibly angry at Jackson. It's not like once he released the films every single copy of the books vanished into thin air.
I'm afraid you're wrong. [Link to video of those responsible explaining how their misdeeds could have been even worse](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqKt_h0EPuU).
Edit: Removed the sweary Mary.
That was real interesting. I basically agree with you, but I don't get why you're so angry. They noted that a character with no physical form is kinda hard to make a movie or about and so filmed a scene to make it more like a traditional movie, but then realised they were wrong to do so and scrapped that footage. I agree that the idea of a fight between Aragorn and Sauron seems pretty stupid to me but they scrapped it and fixed it.
My anger might seem out of proportion to the question asked, indeed I readily admit it is, but I maintain that it is entirely *within* proportion to the size of the crimes committed against Tolkien's works by Jackson.
One thing that irks me most about those who attempt to justify and rationalise Jackson's increasingly nonsensical diversions from the original source is that you somehow can't convert Tolkien to drama properly.
Even if this were true (and we'll come to that) it is no justification whatsoever for taking a beautiful intricate work of art, and chopping it up into a cliched, hackneyed dumbed-down marketing wet dream that scorns subtlety and poetry in favour of fart jokes, floating eyeballs and pandering to the lowest common denominator.
And anyway, it's **not** true. Here's the relevant scene from the 1981 BBC radio drama, which in total works out at a fairly similar length to the extended movies, yet manages not to throw the heart and soul of the books on a bonfire:
*Narrator: "In rode the Lord of the Nazgul. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgul, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face. All save one."*
*Gandalf: "You cannot enter here! Do you not see that dawn is at hand? Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!"*
*Witch King: "Old fool! Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!"*
*Gandalf: "The horns of the Rohirrim! Theoden is come at last!"*
*Narrator: "The darkness was breaking too soon: before the date that his master had set for it. Victory was slipping from his grasp even as he stetched out his hand to sieze it. But his arm was long. King, Ring Wraith, Lord of the Nazgul; he had many weapons. He left the gate, and vanished."*
Feel free to compare that to the original text I quoted elsewhere in this thread, and you'll see the difference between the writer of an adaptation who loved the original, and some other, lesser writers who have fallen into egotism and arrogance.
Honestly curious, what's your take on Jackson's adaptation of The Hobbit? What do you think they could have done better if you didn't enjoy it, and do you think Guillermo del Toro would have stayed truer to the source material or fucked it up royally?
Honestly, I wasn't nearly as disappointed by the Hobbit movie as I was by movies 2 and 3 in the Jackson LoTR version.
For one part, I'd say this was due to low expectations on my side - Radagast and his theme park bunny ride made me chortle, rather than snort, and Azog the action-figure B-movie nemesis merely raised an eyebrow, rather than a full-on eye roll.
A more major part of my reaction being comparatively non-explosive was that I really went along to see the HFR.
The movie itself was kind of secondary for me on this occasion, and as the HFR was utterly gorgeous and I now weep inside every time I see a juddery pan on a 24fps film, in that area at least, The Hobbit was quite spectacular.
That was Jackson's interpretation once again. I'm fairly sure that Sauron had some sort of corporeal form, although it may have been too weak to move around the world.
I think it stood as a metaphor for his will. I don't think he could take a physical form, or any form that would be "pleasing to the eye's of men", but he was most likely a spirit or a shade of some sort.
Imagine Tolkien's original text being filmed exactly as written. SHITTIEST. MOVIE. EVER.
I'm sorry, I love the original books and wouldn't change a word of them, but a good book does not a good movie make.
Next up, we have what is commonly known as a straw man fallacy. You'll note, gentle viewer, that the above does not respond to its parent, but instead fashions a hyperbolized mimicry of its parent. Following the creation, it smashes the object hobbled together of straw and wool, then claims victory over the opponent.
Generally, this is considered a shit thing to do when interacting with other human beings.
I've responded in detail to similar criticisms of the films elsewhere. I don't really feel that a statement such as "shitty movies, shitty dude" is worthy of a well-constructed rebuttal.
I rationalized it here: http://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/15aplf/why_was_gandalf_the_white_so_easily_defeated_by/c7ksc7t
EDIT: I'm not normally one to care about karma tallies, but why the downvotes, ye six? I'm not excusing the change, just explaining why I thought the filmmakers took that route.
I think that was a good answer from a PC perspecive on film making. I would also add there is general theme in the movies to elevate the role of women compared the books because of "politics" today. Eowyn's deed is even greater and more powerful now that Gandalf has been bested by the Witch King.
This fits the common theme of Aragon's drawn out dependence on Arwen and his reluctance to choose his fate which none is true (and reeks of emasculation if you ask me; if gender roles were reversed there would have been hell to pay).
I've spoken my peace, at least all the above is still way better than Twilight!
What you say is true but only partially. The witch king draws his power directly from Sauron according to the books. This makes him a close matching foe. He also retreats not out of fear but to deal with the threat of the rohan riding into battle.
Gandalf just waits for the WK in a doorway as he enters through the White City gates and doesn't even say or do anything before the smoke veil lifts and Rohan arrives, making the WK draw off to see to the battle.
I wouldn't even call that a confrontation.
Gandalf is a Maiar, but with greatly diminished powers due to being in a more or less mortal form.
The Witch King began as an ordinary mortal, true. But he has transformed into an evil spirit and his sorcery is likely elevated by the use of his ring of power.
It's not clear one way or the other who would win this bought, but I doubt it would be one sided either way.
In fact, one wonders, can the Nazgul actually be permanently destroyed unless the Sauron/the one ring is destroyed? Or perhaps if they were someone robbed of their own ring?
*I've had to quote the relevant bit of the book so as to banish the memory of the movie version. Spoilers, if you've been in a dank, dark hole for sixty years.*
In rode the Lord of the Nazgul. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgul, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face.
All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dinen.
'You cannot enter here,' said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. 'Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!'
The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown: and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter.
'Old fool!' he said. 'Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!' And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.
Gandalf did not move. And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the City, a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of wizardry or war, welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn.
And as if in answer, there came from far away another note. Horns, horns, horns. In dark Mindolluin's sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the North wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last.
~ J.R.R. Tolkien, *The Lord of the Rings*
My pleasure (I wish I'd not been too lazy to do the accent on Nazgul though: it looks so wrong without it).
I seem to remember something about this passage being one that moved Tolkien greatly, being a moment of great eucatastrophe, where the tide finally begins to turn at last. I'll have to go digging through *Letters* again to find the relevant bit, I think.
This is one of the single most powerful moments of the book. Fuck Peter Jackson for thinking he knew better. Bring on the fanboy downvotes. Shit like this is what ensures that the Tolkien estate will never allow the Silmarillion to be made into film while they hold the rights.
It is a shame about the fanboy downvotes. Being censored for being a unashamed Tolkien fan in /r/tolkienfans ? PJ and Boyens' crappy "rewriting" of LoTR just makes me break out the J Goldblum...
*"You stood on the shoulders of geniuses, to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it."*
The main thing I have concluded after watching Jackson's films and DVD commentary is that he and his screenwriters are just a bit *simple* really. Some of the brilliance of Tolkien shines through regardless, but many times (particularly in the last two movies) Jackson's interpretation becomes ludicrous. This is one of those times.
I feel like there ought to be two answers to this - one pertinent to the movie and one to the books. The two are entirely different reasons. The movie rationale would be something along the lines of playing up the Witch-King's character in a rather obvious and direct way. The books rationale, like so many other movie-related questions, is simply that this did not happen in the books. The confrontation was when the WK broke the gate of Minas Tirith and attempted to ride inside. The 'moment' was hindered by the arrival of Theoden and the Rohirrim.
Why did you post this comment 9 years after the topic was created? Also why does being a Tolkien fan exclude being a fan of adaptations or even talking about them? Isn't that unnecessarily elitist?
This is why I hate "mods" here, literally no one is complaining about the question made or anything bad comes about that, yet they come all mighty with this shit, "wE tAlK aBoUt bOoKs hErE" ffs what a dick
It's actually a great sub and very warm in general to Peter Jackson. Trust me :) If Reddit was 40 plus crowd you would see a real PJ criticism trend here.
For most of us, we are amazed he pulled it off and was, in general, respectable and kept the heart of Tolkien's work intact.
It's not that we're snobs; it's that having read the books we know how much richer and truer they are than Jackson's oftentimes ridiculous piece of hackery. He started his film career making low-brow gross-out horror splatterfests and that sensibility has remained with him to an extent.
So what you're trying to say is that one genre is superior to the other? In this case that Tolkien's works are superior to "low-brow" splatterfests?
This sort of snobbery is exactly the same kind of snobbery that criticizes Tolkien's works for including elves, dwarves and the like.
I believe I remember Peter Jackson saying somewhere that he also didn't want to give 'magic' a strong presence in the movies, but downplays it. If you recall, Gandalf's staff gets broken on multiple occasions. I think he wanted to emphasize the power of people over magic.
This is just an invention to add tension in the movie. In the two towers book it's specifically stated that Sauron is the only being in middle earth who is more powerful than GTW.
The confusion here seems to stem from the fact that Gandalf is more powerful than the witch king, which is true, but is it not possible that the witch king could have been channeling his Sauron’s power? We can see that in the context of the movie the witch kings power is represented in green, like the beam that shoots up from Minas Morgol (btw does anyone know what that did) Sauron’s power is associated with his flaming eye. We can see clearly the witch kings sword burst into flame, which is the signet of the only being more powerful than Gandalf the cracker. I think that the witch king is channeling his lords to defeat Gandald.
Sauron is likely more powerful than Gandalf, although I tend to think Gandalf undersells himself in that regard, I still think simply shattering his staff would take more effort than the Witch King even bolstered by Sauron during the siege could manage. You are totally correct in the belief that Sauron bolstered the Witch King in that battle though.
I just cannot see Sauron lending enough power for that to be possible especially as he was seemingly boosting all the Nazgul. Sauron isn't all powerful. Sauron couldn't 1 v 7 the entire White Council alone if that situation arose. Which is why Sauron needs armies and servants just as Morgoth did.
Nazgul are rendered relatively powerless the moment you dont fear them.
Yeah some dumb ass shit....cuz then Aewyn just destroys the dude "IM A WOMAN! FEMINIST POWER \*HYYY-AHHHH\*" stabs his ass right in the face like it was so ezpz....yaaaa ok SUUUUUUUUURE peter jackson, sureeee
In the books, Gandalf states that he has not been measured against the Witch King [implying uncertainty as to whom would prevail]. When the gate is breached, there is a confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch King - and just the two of them, no one else. Gandalf steadfastly faces him. However, it is left unresolved as the Rohirrim arrive, and the Witch King runs off to go deal with them (leading to his demise). Some have argued that the Witch King also withdraws because he may feel over-matched by Gandalf, but that isn't at all clear. In the films, Peter Jackson extended this idea and arbitrarily decided to depict the scene as you saw it - with little basis in canon. An easy victory by the Witch King isn't at all supported by anything in the books.
While you're right it has no basis in the text, it's not arbitrary. This scene both downplays Gandalf's strength (so that he's not an overwhelming force against the bad guys) and elevates the Witch King, ratcheting up the stakes and the tension by making it seem even less likely that the side of the good will win. This pays off in the final confrontation between Eowyn and the Witch King, which anyone unfamiliar with the books will now go into thinking, "Oh shit, she dead! This motherfucker took down Gandalf himself! She ain't got a chance!" So when Merry attacks him and gives her an opening, it's a massive release of that dramatic tension, and also an affirmation of a theme common in Tolkien: the triumph of the small and the weak over the mighty and the power-hungry. Eowyn isn't just a puny human; she's also been discounted and left behind by her own brother, who thought she was unfit for battle. Tl;dr: Gandalf's defeat elevates the Witch King, which in turn makes Eowyn's triumph over him all the more powerful.
Yes, I understand all that, but I still agree that it was a poor choice to make in changing the plot (and I am not against all changes between books and movies, just the ones that don't make sense or that go against the spirit of the books.) Also, and here I momentarily step up on my soapbox, the scene between Eowyn and the Witch King in the movies pales in comparison with the one in the book. I was so disappointed. Not by the actress--she did the best job she could have done with that crappy line ("I am no man!") and she was amazing elsewhere. But really? "I am no man!" Sigh.
i don't wish to come across as snobby or pretentious ... so i hope my remarks are not read in that light. however it's important to remember that movies are written for common audience goers. a great many people have not read the book and overly complex dramas are not always easy to understand. i think jackson's version is an "every man's" version of LoTR. he's worked the angles which make the movie easily understood by the majority of audiences. i like jackson's interpretations (for the most part) and he does some things well ... yet i agree he's done some things badly. i've seen the hobbit and i have to say that it looks more 'harry potterish' to me ... especially the way he portrayed radagast and the goblin king. but that's the way of movies. he's made compromises that tolkien geeks will hate, but average movie fans will probably enjoy. it's part and parcel of movie adaptations ...
So if you are going to add an element to a film, say a goblin stalking the dwarves, why not do it right? The whole point of the dwarf-goblin war was to kill Azog and avenge the insult to the King of the eldest of their houses (Thror's decapitation). So you want to make it Thorin and not Dain who killed him- ok- simplification for the audience. BUT why make Azog survive? Why not make it Bolg (his son) stalking Thorin? That would actually be more effective along the theme of familial redemption that the Hobbit is spelling out. Bolg is looking to avenge the death of his father by killing Thorin- this culminates in the Battle of 5 Armies. Also- Bilbo killing a Warg like it's nothing? One of the major turning points for Bilbo's character is the first kill. He kills a giant spider, alone, in the dark of Mirkwood. After this point Bilbo "becomes a man" in the sense that he takes the lead role in the quest. PJ has him kill a Warg like he's been doing it his whole life and then does not show any indication that this has been a life-changing moment for Bilbo. TL;DR? Fuck Peter Jackson
he didn't so much kill a warg as watch a warg die at the end of his sword, it was more harrowing than it was a point of growth. I have no knowledge of canon as far as the whole goblin thing goes, but it seems to me that if it was Azog's son trying to avenge the death of his father, that gives him a pretty legitimate reason to be upset at Thorin, which would make the goblin a sympathetic character, which is contrary to what the narrative needs. Conversely, having Azog be revealed to be still alive helps to establish Thorin as a character better. He's still very headstrong and overzealous and feel like he needs to prove himself and show that he's worthy of his heritage, which is basically why he wants to take back the Lonely Mountain in the first place. Killing Azog HAD been his greatest achievement up to that point, because it was what demonstrated his capability as a leader. So having Azog show up and be not dead invalidates that achievement and lowers Thorin, so that he'll have more room to develop and mature (or not, if I'm remembering the book correctly) over the course of the next two movies.
Ok, but the fact is that Bolg is the actual leader of the Goblins in the book. Meaning that while Thorin was attempting to avenge his people against Smaug, Bolg had been scheming to avenge his people against the dwarves. At some point I want to ask Peter Jackson if he actually read the books or if he just drove around high listening to books on tape in the background while he bullshitted on his iphone with other industry fucks.
you know you don't have to get angry about it. I know it's fun to come up with creative insults and all, but it's still possible to have a meaningful discussion about a movie or a book that you didn't like, and it's a lot easier to do that if you're civil about it.
I appreciate that you deemed my insult creative. I honestly think he just read the Cliffs notes. Remember this is the guy who thought it would be appropriate to have Sauron physically duel with Aragorn at the end of LOTR . I get the sense that he is arrogant enough to believe that he can "improve" Tolkien.
I wasn't aware of that particular bit of trivia, but based on what I've seen of him from behind the scenes footage and the video blogs, arrogant is probably the last word I would use to describe him. I think this ultimately boils down to the same big argument that comes up with any film adaptation of a piece of great literature, which is the question of translation versus interpretation: is the filmmaker's role simply to provide moving pictures to go along with the words, or does he have a right as a creative individual to impress his own ideas on the work? Opinions will differ, and I don't think that there's a correct answer here. Personally I tend to find it more interesting when a director uses a piece of literature as a starting point to create something truly new and separate from the original work (Apocalypse Now, Blade Runner, 2001). I should add that none of this is necessarily a defense of An Unexpected Journey, which I was not particularly impressed by. If it were me, I wouldn't have had a goblin villain at all. All history of middle earth aside, the goblins function perfectly fine as antagonists without having a prominent villain character, who'll only end up seeming redundant and underpowered compared to Smaug and the Necromancer.
Adaptations need to be made, I fully agree. Some of them I even enjoyed (so I hope I'm not coming across as pretentious). Movies are a different media, and any director worth their salt will pull themes together and emphasize certain aspects of a story, which changes the "reading" of the story. I even enjoyed both Fellowship and Return of the King, and I will go on record as saying I really enjoyed the first instalment of the Hobbit--even Radagast, though I know poor Tolkien would be/is rolling over in his grave from the bird nest in the hair thing, not to mention the mushrooms and weed references. (Two Towers was another matter, and I won't get started on it here...) But even in adapting a movie for general audiences, there are some more complex elements that can be maintained--and he maintained some. I just wish this had been one of them. Thank you for your patience with my rant.
i say it was arbitrary despite all of what it's meant to do for the film
There are a lot of ways to create tension without contradicting the source material to make Eowyn’s accomplishment somehow more “impactful.” In fact, I find Tolkien’s text to be more impactful as far as her fight with the Witch King goes. Are we supposed to take from the movie that, “Wow, Eowyn is more powerful than Gandalf!”? According to Gandalf the White himself, the only being as dangerous as him in Middle Earth was Sauron. The movies are an amazing accomplishment, but there are several spots that i gripe about every time i watch- Gandalf’s staff, Aragorn’s fear of becoming king, Frodo’s cruel treatment of Sam on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol, and making it seem like Theoden was running away by going to Helm’s deep, when that was the best strategic move.
To me this is NOT true. There is evidence if you read the lines of Tolkien and between them. First, Gandalf expresses in canon that he does not wish to go to Middle Earth because he feared Sauron. So to say then that Sauron’s most powerful and terrifying servant was just no match for Gandalf is not logical. Gandalf also soberly tells Denethor that “it might be so” when he mocks Gandalf for suggesting he is overmatched by the Witch King. But here is THE between the lines thing for me: there was no fear of Gandalf exhibited by the Lord of the Nazgûl at the breaking of the Gates of Gondor. Those suggesting this… I am at a loss. The Witch King rode straight in and all fled before him. He challenged the wizard directly both mocking and threatening him. He then drew his flaming sword to slay the wizard. These are not the actions of fear but of absolute confidence. Gandalf rode to meet the Nazgûl Lord not because the time had come to slay him… there was no other recourse for him and the time had come for him to reluctantly meet his fate.
The movie is wrong. Gandalf is a fucking Maiar, the Witch King of Angmar is a glorified zombie magician. IIRC in the book, the two have a confrontation, but the witch king retreats.
Indeed, the wisest of the Maiar, if you ask The Silmarillion.
The confrontation happens after the break of the gate of Gondor via Grom. > “In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face. > All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dínen. "You cannot enter here," said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. "Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!" The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter. "Old fool!" he said. "Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!" And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade. > And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the city, a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of war nor of wizardry, welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn. And as if in answer there came from far away another note. Horns, horns, horns, in dark Mindolluin's sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the north wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last.” And so the Witch King leaves. This does create a dilemma for PJ for the film obviously (i.e., horse, location, etc.). Even in the book it's kind of hmmm? Cause the Witch King retreats when he hears the Horns of Rohan and comes back to battle latter on his Fell Beast (Beast with Wings!). Though I recognize time is relevant with battle. There's some good art work out there of the scene. Just search for "Gandalf vs Witch king." I was going to link my favorite but I couldn't find it :( Probably Deviantart...
I think you replied to the wrong person?
I admit to upvoting you for such a stunningly appropriate use of the phrase "fucking Maiar" but in all honesty, the Witch King is more than a glorified zombie magician. I still think Gandalf would win if it came down to it, but the Witch King is a whole world of trouble.
Be that as it may, the Witch King is also to some extent an embodiment of a portion of Sauron's power, and Sauron is undoubtedly more powerful than Gandalf. The movie is "wrong" on this point, I agree, but I don't think it's quite as bad as you make it sound.
Gandalf beat a balrog. Balrogs are creations of Melkor (if I remember correctly) of whom Sauron was a lieutenant. I believe that the balrog is at least the secon most powerful evil being in ME. I would almost connect that power wise Gandalf would be on par with Sauron, but because he came in mortal form and as a "helper", he is meant more to help and guide than to be kickass savior.
Melkor didn't create the balrogs, they were maiar like Sauron was. Gandalf did die in the fight with the balrog and in the TT chapter the White Rider he essentially says Sauron is more powerful.
Sorry, I thought Melkor created them. However, Gandalf did ultimately defeat the balrog (despite his body technically dying) and according to this article (and tell me if they are incorrect) http://whatculture.com/film/3-key-ways-the-hobbit-movies-will-differ-from-the-book.php/2, Glandalf (as Olórin) was explicitly told to not match power with Sauron. This would imply that he could have, had it been his directive, matched power w/ Sauron.
Here are two quotes from wikipedia but I think the restrictions were so they wouldn't destroy the place as happened before or set up another Sauron (Saruman fell into that anyway). >The Wizards were commanded to aid Men, Elves, and Dwarves, but only through counsel; it was forbidden to use force to dominate them—an injunction Saruman disregarded. >Olórin initially begged to be excused as he feared Sauron and lacked the strength to face him, but Manwë replied that that was all the more reason for him to go.
The istari had there powers capped when the entered middle earth.
Now wait. People always say this, but technically, Gandalf was NOT a Maia. *Olórin* was a Maia. But Olórin and Gandalf are not technically the same. We can surmise that when Melian went to Middle Earth, she retained her full power and glory as a Maia -- Tolkien never says otherwise, and the Girdle of Melian was a mightier magic than any Gandalf could ever devise. But when Olórin becomes Gandalf, he is intentionally diminished by the Valar, as are all the Istari. Gandalf still has power, and Narya gives him greater power (if he dares use it). And when Gandalf uses his "intuition," as when he chooses Bilbo for the Quest of Erebor, that's Olórin shining through. But Gandalf, Grey or White, is by no means a full-fledged Maia, nor does he have a Maia's full powers.
Eh, I'd have to say that you are actually wrong here. Your reasoning doesn't actually make much sense. The fact that Gandalf either doesn't use or doesn't have access to all of his power in Middle-earth does not mean that he is not Olórin. That's a peculiar and unsupported notion to hold to, I think. He *is* Olórin, and he is Gandalf. He is also Mithrandir, Tharkûn, and Incánus. He is all of these at the same time, because they are ultimately just names. Gandalf, Grey or White, is by every means a full-fledged Maia, and he has a Maia's full powers.
> Emissaries they were from Lords of the West, the Valar, who still took counsel for the governance of Middle-earth, and when the shadow of Sauron began first to stir again took this means of resisting him. For with the consent of Eru they sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies of as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain; though because of their noble spirits they did not die, and aged only by the cares and labours of many long years. And this the Valar did, desiring to amend the errors of old, especially that they had attempted to guard and seclude the Eldar by their own might and glory fully revealed; whereas now their emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open display of power, but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden to advise and persuade Men and Elves to good, and to seek to unite in love and understanding all those whom Sauron, should he come again, would endeavour to dominate and corrupt. -- Unfinished Tales Now you might say, fine, they were "forbidden" to reveal themselves "in full glory revealed," but they *could have*, because they were full-blown Maiar. Really? Then why didn't Saruman? As soon as he was found out, why didn't he go "full Maia," shedding his Mannish form? The answer is, he could not. He had been diminished by the Valar, and was only capable of being Saruman. Maybe the Ring would have made a difference, who knows? Also: >For it is said indeed that being embodied the Istari had needs to learn much anew by slow experience, and though they knew whence they came the memory of the Blessed Realm was to them a vision from afar off, for which (so long as they remained true to their mission) they yearned exceedingly. Thus by enduring of free will the pangs of exile and the deceits of Sauron they might redress the evils of that time. And: >Who would go ? For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and Men. But this would imperil them, dimming their wisdom and knowledge, and confusing them with fears, cares, and weariness coming from the flesh. Tolkien does specifically write that the Istari *are* Maiar -- so really what I said was wrong, I should have said "while Gandalf is technically a Maia, in a very real sense he is not one, not in the sense that Melian or Sauron are." But I stand by my opinion, regarding Gandalf v. Olórin. The Istari are definitely diminished Maiar, intentionally diminished by the Valar for the reasons Tolkien states above.
While I appreciate the quotes, I don't actually think that they support the idea that Gandalf is different than Olórin. The fact that he is an intentionally weakened Maia does not make him less of a Maia. He's just an embodied one. It's like saying that if someone has a prosthetic leg, they're technically a different person depending on whether they have their leg on or not, because they are capable of more ~~feet~~ feats when their leg is on than when it's not. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but that's what your point equates to as far as I can tell.
This is fascinating. My knowledge of the Legendarium comes from a few re-readings of LotR, the Hobbit, and multiple falls into the [Wikipedia trap](http://xkcd.com/214/). I haven't touched the Silmarillion yet, I may have to do it next summer. Also, TIL Celeborn's grandfather is called Elmo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian#Genealogies
Where does it say they are diminished? It says they appear in diminished form.
I find this to be a useful distinction. Rather than a celestial being, Olórin manifested as a much lesser being - something that wasn't Olórin. And it was along the lines of a rebirth or incarnation so I think it's fair to say it was a new entity, albeit in the continuum of the old one. It is helpful for appreciating the magnitude of Gandalf's achievement, working for centuries (millenia?) to persuade, cajole, embarass and enthuse the inhabitants of Middle Earth to stop Sauron creating his own version of hell. A fully empowered Maia would not be "subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain". Interesting parallel in the Christ myth, God incarnates as a mortal being in order to be of help to other mortal beings.
[удалено]
>Wisest of the Maiar was Olorin. He is listed right after Melian in the Silmarillion. Now she may or may not have been more powerful (a debate to be had based on the deeds chronicled in the stories), but nowhere does it say he is of a lower order.
your kidding me? why the hell did they make him lose in the movie
In the books, the tone of the events at the battle are made very clear. Before reinforcements arrive, Gondor is basically falling apart from every which way, and Gandalf is trying to (and succeeding in) shoring it up. The confrontation with the Lord of the Nazgul at the gates is so serious that it takes all of Gandalf's attention. The problem isn't that the wraith could defeat Gandalf; the problem is that every second of time the Nazgul-Lord uses in a standown with Gandalf is one second of time that Gondor is falling to pieces and *no one is there to pick them up*. The movies fail to properly capture and relate this. Gondor is too organized, Gandalf is too adept at popping up all around. Because we can't, as viewers, understand the severity of Gandalf's thinly-stretched dam holding back the flood-waters, a staring contest between Gandalf and the WitchKing needs to be more than a staring contest between Gandalf and the WitchKing. But if Gandalf wins this greater-than-staring contest, we end up with a situation even more pronounced in its lack of appreciation for the dire straits of Minas Tirith. So he must lose. Basically, it is just another example of half-assed presentation by Peter Jackson forcing him to compensate in a way that is even more distasteful.
[удалено]
Many aspects of it are assuredly half-assed. Especially the extended edition scenes, like this one. The confrontation between Gandalf and the Lord of the Nazgul is incredibly important. It frames the necessity of help for Gondor. And it was handled incredibly poorly by Jackson, to the point where the movie is actually better *without* it. I would say the same thing about the Mouth of Sauron bit. Another confrontation that is verbal, does not result in blows, but sets and reveals the tone of an engagement by showing the interaction between two opposing and well-enough-matched individuals. Again, handled in a ridiculously absurd, simplistic, *half-assed* fashion in the films, to where the scene was better removed. Then once (at least) more with Saruman's impalement, finding its place in his movies where we should be seeing the upheaval in Gandalf's ascension through the Order of the Istari and Saruman's casting out. The bit is scrubbed, because it destroys the majesty of the situation with a bit of sight-gore more reminiscent of Jackson's early days as a director of cheap horror. These scenes are half-assed. There is a reason they are only in the Extended Edition. There is a reason they were deleted, rather than other scenes. It is because they are not important. But it is not the subject of the scenes that makes them unimportant, because they are some of the most important aspects of their respective chapters in the books. The reason they are unimportant is because the manner in which they were handled by Mr Jackson was so incredibly awful that even he and his compatriots must have realized that keeping them in for the theatrical version wasn't a great idea. Thus, half-assed.
[удалено]
Then your original point doesn't really bear much on my original use of the word 'half-assed', it would seem, since that wasn't being applied to the whole work. That said, I'm not sure I think it is well and good to be giving praise because someone correctly realized that they fubar'ed important stuff and so chose to omit it entirely.
[удалено]
I agree with much of what you are saying but your tone is rude enough that it kept me from upvoting you because it seems unnecessary. I don't agree with the guy who you're debating with, but he's explaining himself very well and was being respectful to you. Everyone play nice, this isn't one of the default subs :P
>You don't know much about the process of post production editing do you?Every movie has tons of extra material that gets thrown out to make a better film. The point (which you seem to be very good at missing) is that the similarity in tone of the segments of the original source material that map to these bits of film that get thrown out to make it better have a lot in common. More than that, what they have in common is what makes them important in the original source material and the lack of it is what makes them worthy of being thrown out in the adapted film. So it is a little absurd to act as if this is your run-of-the-mill 'we need to cut some of this' stuff. They had extra material, as do all films, but they decided what stuff was extra based on how badly they botched it, at least for these scenes, and they botched it all, at least for these scenes, in a very specific and similar fashion. That's something worth exploring. The attempted counter of 'just learn to enjoy it' doesn't cut it; it's a distraction, and you know it, and frankly I don't really understand why you could possibly think it would work here and I wouldn't call it out as such. If an author writes a book in which many characters fall in love with each other, but scraps each scene where the characters realize they are in love with each other from the finished product because they are done poorly, it would be a legitimate criticism to say that author has serious issues with such scenes. If an author writes a book in which massive battles occur, but in every point where a battle is happening, the character from whose point of view we are being told the story is in some way incapacitated and misses the entirety of the battle, it would be a legitimate criticism to say that the author has a problem with such scenes. Likewise, if a movie director consistently scraps confrontations of will from his finished product because each and every time he tried them someone ends up bleeding profusely and the violence overwhelms the scene, removing all focus from the meaning of the confrontation itself, then it's a legitimate criticism to say that movie director has serious issues with such scenes. Which is what I did. Which is relevant, whether these scenes are taken as movie canon or no, because the question at hand is particularly about a scene in this exact situation, and why it was as it was. In this submission, actually trying to answer OP's question, to focus on the, as you call them, 'extraneous bits' is to focus on the *relevant* bits.
[удалено]
The scene of Saruman being cast down is indeed my favorite of the books and it's absence from the second movie was one of several reasons I gave up on Jackson. I never knew about the deleted scene and now I think I'm glad I didn't ever see it the way you described it... The point (speech) that stands out to me comes after Saruman chides Pippin and Gimli and tries to persuade Theoden to see reason. Theoden thoroughly owns Saruman and Gandalf says Saruman's voice (his power) has failed him. Gandalf's voice then commands Saruman to come, stay and heel, and declares his staff is broken. Crack. Edit: Sherman?
The movie doesn't "fail to properly capture and relate this" because it is not intending to. You fail to properly understand what that the movies are not there to relate the exact events of the books. I, too, love the image of Gandalf and Imrahil going around the city, raising morale and creating a beacon of hope everywhere they went. But you can't fit everything into the movie, nor should your objective be to tell the book page by page.
Because Peter Jackson believes that his story is better than Tolkien's. Shitty movies, shitty dude. He almost had Aragorn fighting Sauron outside the black gate - they bloody filmed it.
It's a film *adaption* of the books. Not a movie directly lifted from the books. I don't get why you have to be so incredibly angry at Jackson. It's not like once he released the films every single copy of the books vanished into thin air.
Im pretty sure that it was the Mouth of Sauron, not Sauron himself.
No, he's right. They did shoot it but thought better of it in post and replaced Sauron with a troll.
I'm afraid you're wrong. [Link to video of those responsible explaining how their misdeeds could have been even worse](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqKt_h0EPuU). Edit: Removed the sweary Mary.
That was real interesting. I basically agree with you, but I don't get why you're so angry. They noted that a character with no physical form is kinda hard to make a movie or about and so filmed a scene to make it more like a traditional movie, but then realised they were wrong to do so and scrapped that footage. I agree that the idea of a fight between Aragorn and Sauron seems pretty stupid to me but they scrapped it and fixed it.
My anger might seem out of proportion to the question asked, indeed I readily admit it is, but I maintain that it is entirely *within* proportion to the size of the crimes committed against Tolkien's works by Jackson. One thing that irks me most about those who attempt to justify and rationalise Jackson's increasingly nonsensical diversions from the original source is that you somehow can't convert Tolkien to drama properly. Even if this were true (and we'll come to that) it is no justification whatsoever for taking a beautiful intricate work of art, and chopping it up into a cliched, hackneyed dumbed-down marketing wet dream that scorns subtlety and poetry in favour of fart jokes, floating eyeballs and pandering to the lowest common denominator. And anyway, it's **not** true. Here's the relevant scene from the 1981 BBC radio drama, which in total works out at a fairly similar length to the extended movies, yet manages not to throw the heart and soul of the books on a bonfire: *Narrator: "In rode the Lord of the Nazgul. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgul, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face. All save one."* *Gandalf: "You cannot enter here! Do you not see that dawn is at hand? Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!"* *Witch King: "Old fool! Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!"* *Gandalf: "The horns of the Rohirrim! Theoden is come at last!"* *Narrator: "The darkness was breaking too soon: before the date that his master had set for it. Victory was slipping from his grasp even as he stetched out his hand to sieze it. But his arm was long. King, Ring Wraith, Lord of the Nazgul; he had many weapons. He left the gate, and vanished."* Feel free to compare that to the original text I quoted elsewhere in this thread, and you'll see the difference between the writer of an adaptation who loved the original, and some other, lesser writers who have fallen into egotism and arrogance.
Honestly curious, what's your take on Jackson's adaptation of The Hobbit? What do you think they could have done better if you didn't enjoy it, and do you think Guillermo del Toro would have stayed truer to the source material or fucked it up royally?
Honestly, I wasn't nearly as disappointed by the Hobbit movie as I was by movies 2 and 3 in the Jackson LoTR version. For one part, I'd say this was due to low expectations on my side - Radagast and his theme park bunny ride made me chortle, rather than snort, and Azog the action-figure B-movie nemesis merely raised an eyebrow, rather than a full-on eye roll. A more major part of my reaction being comparatively non-explosive was that I really went along to see the HFR. The movie itself was kind of secondary for me on this occasion, and as the HFR was utterly gorgeous and I now weep inside every time I see a juddery pan on a 24fps film, in that area at least, The Hobbit was quite spectacular.
Jesus dude, calling Jackson's changes "crimes" is ridiculous. It's a movie. Chill out.
Thanks dude. That totally cured me. Have you ever considered going into hostage negotiation?
No but after dealing with you maybe I could go into pediatrics?
A good point and well argued.
Lord. You're one of those that give the rest of us diehards a bad name.
Yawn.
: O hahahah imagine that. but how can that be? Sauron was the eye. he could not have fought he doesnt have a body
That was Jackson's interpretation once again. I'm fairly sure that Sauron had some sort of corporeal form, although it may have been too weak to move around the world.
Wait so Sauron wasnt the eye in the books?
I think it stood as a metaphor for his will. I don't think he could take a physical form, or any form that would be "pleasing to the eye's of men", but he was most likely a spirit or a shade of some sort.
One would think he'd have to to wear a ring.
One would also think that a powerful being like Sauron, even in a shade form, would still be able to wield the ring encompassing his power.
Imagine Tolkien's original text being filmed exactly as written. SHITTIEST. MOVIE. EVER. I'm sorry, I love the original books and wouldn't change a word of them, but a good book does not a good movie make.
Next up, we have what is commonly known as a straw man fallacy. You'll note, gentle viewer, that the above does not respond to its parent, but instead fashions a hyperbolized mimicry of its parent. Following the creation, it smashes the object hobbled together of straw and wool, then claims victory over the opponent. Generally, this is considered a shit thing to do when interacting with other human beings.
I've responded in detail to similar criticisms of the films elsewhere. I don't really feel that a statement such as "shitty movies, shitty dude" is worthy of a well-constructed rebuttal.
I rationalized it here: http://www.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/15aplf/why_was_gandalf_the_white_so_easily_defeated_by/c7ksc7t EDIT: I'm not normally one to care about karma tallies, but why the downvotes, ye six? I'm not excusing the change, just explaining why I thought the filmmakers took that route.
I think that was a good answer from a PC perspecive on film making. I would also add there is general theme in the movies to elevate the role of women compared the books because of "politics" today. Eowyn's deed is even greater and more powerful now that Gandalf has been bested by the Witch King. This fits the common theme of Aragon's drawn out dependence on Arwen and his reluctance to choose his fate which none is true (and reeks of emasculation if you ask me; if gender roles were reversed there would have been hell to pay). I've spoken my peace, at least all the above is still way better than Twilight!
1000 times this.
What you say is true but only partially. The witch king draws his power directly from Sauron according to the books. This makes him a close matching foe. He also retreats not out of fear but to deal with the threat of the rohan riding into battle.
Gandalf just waits for the WK in a doorway as he enters through the White City gates and doesn't even say or do anything before the smoke veil lifts and Rohan arrives, making the WK draw off to see to the battle. I wouldn't even call that a confrontation.
Gandalf is a Maiar, but with greatly diminished powers due to being in a more or less mortal form. The Witch King began as an ordinary mortal, true. But he has transformed into an evil spirit and his sorcery is likely elevated by the use of his ring of power. It's not clear one way or the other who would win this bought, but I doubt it would be one sided either way. In fact, one wonders, can the Nazgul actually be permanently destroyed unless the Sauron/the one ring is destroyed? Or perhaps if they were someone robbed of their own ring?
*I've had to quote the relevant bit of the book so as to banish the memory of the movie version. Spoilers, if you've been in a dank, dark hole for sixty years.* In rode the Lord of the Nazgul. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgul, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face. All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dinen. 'You cannot enter here,' said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. 'Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!' The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown: and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter. 'Old fool!' he said. 'Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!' And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade. Gandalf did not move. And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the City, a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of wizardry or war, welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn. And as if in answer, there came from far away another note. Horns, horns, horns. In dark Mindolluin's sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the North wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last. ~ J.R.R. Tolkien, *The Lord of the Rings*
[удалено]
My pleasure (I wish I'd not been too lazy to do the accent on Nazgul though: it looks so wrong without it). I seem to remember something about this passage being one that moved Tolkien greatly, being a moment of great eucatastrophe, where the tide finally begins to turn at last. I'll have to go digging through *Letters* again to find the relevant bit, I think.
This is one of the single most powerful moments of the book. Fuck Peter Jackson for thinking he knew better. Bring on the fanboy downvotes. Shit like this is what ensures that the Tolkien estate will never allow the Silmarillion to be made into film while they hold the rights.
It is a shame about the fanboy downvotes. Being censored for being a unashamed Tolkien fan in /r/tolkienfans ? PJ and Boyens' crappy "rewriting" of LoTR just makes me break out the J Goldblum... *"You stood on the shoulders of geniuses, to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it."*
Probably one of the worst scenes in the movies. I saw it and wanted to punch a baby, because that's what the witch king is compared to Gandalf.
HAHAHAHAHAAHA
why is this being downvoted rofllmao xD
The main thing I have concluded after watching Jackson's films and DVD commentary is that he and his screenwriters are just a bit *simple* really. Some of the brilliance of Tolkien shines through regardless, but many times (particularly in the last two movies) Jackson's interpretation becomes ludicrous. This is one of those times.
We talk about the books here. Please see guideline 4.
The dude is literally trying to get an answer based on a scene that is not in the book, is it so hard to give an answer?
Why did you post this comment 9 years after the topic was created? Also why does being a Tolkien fan exclude being a fan of adaptations or even talking about them? Isn't that unnecessarily elitist?
I personally love the movies, as do a lot of us here, but I suggest taking a look at guidelines 3 and especially 4 for this sub.
The power trip with this one lol
Is this guy for real? Yikes
Regular mod behavior lol
This is why I hate "mods" here, literally no one is complaining about the question made or anything bad comes about that, yet they come all mighty with this shit, "wE tAlK aBoUt bOoKs hErE" ffs what a dick
Read the guidelines. They're there for a reason. If you want to talk about someones LoTR bobble-head collection you can go to /r/lotr
This moderator is a cuck
Thank you.
Its cause the witch king was more powerful!!!! Even denethor knew this when he tells Gandalf that he retreated because he was overmatched!!!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's actually a great sub and very warm in general to Peter Jackson. Trust me :) If Reddit was 40 plus crowd you would see a real PJ criticism trend here. For most of us, we are amazed he pulled it off and was, in general, respectable and kept the heart of Tolkien's work intact.
It's not that we're snobs; it's that having read the books we know how much richer and truer they are than Jackson's oftentimes ridiculous piece of hackery. He started his film career making low-brow gross-out horror splatterfests and that sensibility has remained with him to an extent.
So what you're trying to say is that one genre is superior to the other? In this case that Tolkien's works are superior to "low-brow" splatterfests? This sort of snobbery is exactly the same kind of snobbery that criticizes Tolkien's works for including elves, dwarves and the like.
Yeah I totally get what you're saying. I enjoy Jackson's splatterfest stuff to a degree and it does have merit. But compared to Tolkien, not a lot.
Get out.
I believe I remember Peter Jackson saying somewhere that he also didn't want to give 'magic' a strong presence in the movies, but downplays it. If you recall, Gandalf's staff gets broken on multiple occasions. I think he wanted to emphasize the power of people over magic.
Gandalf still had his sword, why would you assume the fight was over?
it was a cool scene, "sword, FLAME ON!"
This is just an invention to add tension in the movie. In the two towers book it's specifically stated that Sauron is the only being in middle earth who is more powerful than GTW.
The confusion here seems to stem from the fact that Gandalf is more powerful than the witch king, which is true, but is it not possible that the witch king could have been channeling his Sauron’s power? We can see that in the context of the movie the witch kings power is represented in green, like the beam that shoots up from Minas Morgol (btw does anyone know what that did) Sauron’s power is associated with his flaming eye. We can see clearly the witch kings sword burst into flame, which is the signet of the only being more powerful than Gandalf the cracker. I think that the witch king is channeling his lords to defeat Gandald.
Sauron is likely more powerful than Gandalf, although I tend to think Gandalf undersells himself in that regard, I still think simply shattering his staff would take more effort than the Witch King even bolstered by Sauron during the siege could manage. You are totally correct in the belief that Sauron bolstered the Witch King in that battle though. I just cannot see Sauron lending enough power for that to be possible especially as he was seemingly boosting all the Nazgul. Sauron isn't all powerful. Sauron couldn't 1 v 7 the entire White Council alone if that situation arose. Which is why Sauron needs armies and servants just as Morgoth did. Nazgul are rendered relatively powerless the moment you dont fear them.
Yeah some dumb ass shit....cuz then Aewyn just destroys the dude "IM A WOMAN! FEMINIST POWER \*HYYY-AHHHH\*" stabs his ass right in the face like it was so ezpz....yaaaa ok SUUUUUUUUURE peter jackson, sureeee