Movie only fan here; I remember watching this scene in theaters back in the day, and scratching my head thinking, “Gandalf just soloed the Balrog in his weaker form, so what is going on here?” The scene never fit any of what had been narratively portrayed up to that point. And it made even less sense when I saw how the Witch King was actually defeated: snuck from behind by a hobbit with what I didn’t realize at the time was a magic blade, and then finally destroyed by best girl, Éowyn. As hype as it was, I just kept going back to that scene vs Gandalf thinking, “how the heck did the Witch King even have a chance?” I’m glad to finally know all these years later that it was a film adaptation in error.
There were a lot of changes in Jackson's adaptation of Return of the King that infuriated me. The needless conflict between Frodo and Sam, leading to Frodo sending Sam away. Denathor being turned into a despicable character, comically dispatched, rather than a tragic figure overwhelmed by fear of loss. The stupid army of the dead unleashed on the Battle of Pelanor Field like so many scrubbing bubbles. The changing of Sauriman's fate and the elimination of the Scouring of the Shire. But worst of all was the undermining of Gandalf's power like we see here. In the books it's clear that he's the second most powerful being on Middle Earth, only behind Sauron himself, so getting humbled by the Witch King was inexcusable.
Ahh yes, the infamous Gandalf and Witch-King encounter in RotK film; one of those scenes that is absolutely jaw-dropping and intense purely form a filmic standpoint, and so utterly *frustrating* and exasperating as a book reader. My enjoyment of that scene aside, the way it was described in the book was so much more captivating and laden with potent Christian symbolism.
IMO, Peter Jackson fell for effect, effect and did I say effect? He added a marching elf army to the defense of the Hornburg, had Eomer with his cavalry descend from a hill in the same battle, which is madness, and let the dead fight for Minas Tirith, but this scene tops it all.
I agree with your criticisms and it is certainly a weaker scene symbolically than in the books. However I can understand the choice when it comes to presenting the story on screen where you need to establish characters quickly for an audience who are not familiar with the source material. Gandalf's staff being destroyed is the most annoying part to me. Other than that, having him "defeat" gandalf however temporarily sets up how formidable the Witch King is as a foe, otherwise on screen for non readers of the book he would first show up on the battlefield only to be farily swiftly beaten by a woman and hobbit and that would make him seem comically inept and not formidable at all. So there is a trade off made to somewhat diminish Gandalf in this scene so that the Witch King's on screen presence is enhanced and therefore gives added power to his demise later. I totally agree the way they treated Gandalf in the scene does damage not only the character but the overall narrative and so it's a puzzling choice but I'm glad it's not one I had to make 😅 I'm sure they could have established him better by having him appear first directing the assault and easily cutting through many defenders of Minas Tirith on his way to meet Gandalf. This would demonstrate how dangerous he is and that only someone as powerful as Gandalf could even slow his advance. Then a brief fight between the two of them which ends in an impasse and as they face on another down, the horns are heard and after a moments thought Witch King throws a final blow in the direction of Gandalf and withdraws. That way you establish how formidable he is to a human foe and the audience leaves with the impression he might even be a match for Gandalf ( not least because we've already seen Gandalf defeat a Balrog) and without diminishing Gandalf and damaging the overall symbolism of the two characters in relation to one another.
Its worth remembering that earlier in the story (the book), Gandalf fought the Witch-King and several of the Nazgul to a standstill at Weathertop. We never see the fight directly, but it did happen.
Aragorn also fought several of them with a sword and a lit tree branch. And the hobbit evaded them several times earlier than that. Tolkien never decided upon their strength. Sometimes he said that fear is their only weapon. But when Merry struck the witch king down, it was clearly explained that the Witch King had Master Twardowski-like immortality that only fate could unwind.
For me the most annoying changes are taking the hobbits to Osgiliath, Aragorn's tumble of the cliff, this scene you go through here, Frodo telling Sam to go away after Gollum's lembas crum trick. Those were all unnecessary.
I personally don't mind Aragorn's tumble. It's not strictly "necessary" but it does serve the story: Aragorn sees Saruman's army and reports its size to Theoden. It also leads to what IMO are nice character moments between Gimli and Eowyn and later Aragorn and Legolas. Taking the hobbits to Osgiliath serves the purpose of establishing the city which serves the third movie where the loss of Osgiliath is a major plot point. I personally don't like the change made to Faramir (coveting the Ring) but if that change was to be made then taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath makes sense Frodo sending Sam away was presumably because Sam needed to be away when Shelob attacked. But I agree that the change is unneeded and the subsequent scene where Sam finds the bread and realises he didn't eat it is very silly My least favorite changes are to Denethor and Elrond. In the book Denethor is a ruthless and cynical yet competent leader that falls to desperate madness in the end; the the movie he is a lunatic from the beginning, and the suicide charge is so stupid it ruins Faramir's character as well. And Elrond being a domineering father, attempting to force Arwen to renounce the choice of being Man or Elf allowed to her by God is just blatant character assassination
Agree, and the breaking of the staff is the worst. The staff has been established as an essential tool for the wizards to wield power (eg. the importance that he have it when meeting Theoden when he was possessed). The idea of personal power being bound to objects runs through LOTR, and the breaking of Saruman's staff was the equivalent of demoting him from being an Istar. Gandalf's ability to do so showed his new power and authority. To have it broken by anyone less than Maiar (eg Sauron, Balrog) is non-sensical, and even that's would be a stretch since they are presumably gifts of the Valar, or even Iluvatar, and not of Middle Earth. A very disappointing scene indeed. (And how did he fix it? Or did he get a new one?)
The scene at the gate in the book gives me goosebumps EVERY time; it's the cock crowing and the war horns that get me. The movie version irritated the heck out of me.
My issue with Jackson was he removed or down played so many epic moments in the story. The main one that annoyed me was death of Boromir. That scene deserved to be awesome, demonstrating the strength of Boromir in his last stand. Instead, Jackson watered it down like he did throughout the desecration of Tolkiens masterpiece.
A very good commentary on what is one of the strongest pages of text in the Lord of The Rings, and what seems to be only a downgrade of an alteration. Bravo!
Setting aside the thematic element needs of the film, in the books, Gandalf openly admits the the Witch-King might well be able to defeat him. We never get to see them actually clash swords or hurl lightning and white fire at each other in ROTK, but Gandalf definitely thought his defeat was a possibility.
What people seem to love forgetting is that it's implied at several points during the battle that Sauron was empowering the Witch King during the battle, so Gandalf wouldn't be battling an undead sorcerer from Carn Dum as much as he'd be fighting a figurative avatar of Sauron.
Gandalf fought six of the Nazgul led by the witch-king at Weathertop earlier in the story. We don't get to directly see that fight, but the impression is that they fought each other to a draw and the light from the battle could be seen from very far off.
@@dannyk1790 at that point of the story, Gandalf was the most powerful being in Middle Earth, directly rivaling Sauron. The Witch-King could be empowered by his master's will, but his power was still below Gandalf's, as Sauron himself was still not in possession of the One Ring, and even so, he could not pour his entire power on a corrupted wraith like the leader of the Nazgûl. A single combat between them, as shown in that scene, would have been unthinkable: Gandalf did not take part in the battle directly, and on the other hand the Witch-King would have know his limits. Think that while Gandalf was still Gandalf the Grey, he had already defeated Durin's Bane, the Balrog of Moria, another Maia. The Balrogs were among the most powerful beings ever recruited by Morgoth. And when Eru sent Gandalf back to Middle Earth, he was "upgraded" in power. However, the Witch-King could still "defeat" him if Sauron's army won the war at the end, because if that so, Gandalf would have failed his mission. But not in single combat, as the movie suggested.
@dannyk1790 This is true. Gandalf tells Aragorn in Fangorn that he is the most "dangerous" being he will ever meet on Middle Earth... except if he's taken alive in front of Sauron. People often make the mistake of assuming that the standing in the divine hierarchy of Tolkien's world equates their power and battle capacity - that because Gandalf is a Maia he is automatically stronger than anyone who isn't Ainur. This isn't true though, there are numerous instances where beings of "lower" standing match or exceed those higher up in the hierarchy: various elves defeating Balrogs in single combat, Fingolfin fighting Morgoth and wounding him, Elendil and Gil Galad defeating Sauron in the 2nd age. We can't say that Gandalf is Maia and therefore automatically overpowers Witch King who is Man I still don't like the movie scene though. The reason is that the scene makes it look like Gandalf is completely and hopelessly outmatched by Witch King, that Gandalf literally cannot do anything to resist let alone defeat Witch King. This obviously isn't accurate and the scene in the book proves it If we assume Sauron has amped Witch King's powers he would at most be a match to Gandalf, and probably weaker. Gandalf takes the challenge seriously, he knows he might be defeated if he isn't careful (even though I believe he would nevertheless be favored to win)
The part that you read, starting with, "The battle for Gondor..." And ending at, "Rohan had come at last." is my favorite part of the whole trilogy. I get goose bumps EVERY TIME I read it. And I've long ago lost count of how many times that has been. To fundamentally change that scene is nearly heresy to me.
And furthermore it’s perfect in what Gandolf’s role in opposing Sauron had been throughout the ages. Gandalf doesn’t defeat the WitchKing himself, but he does so much to setup the outcome. He saves Theoden who comes to aid Gondor and pulls the WK from the city. He frequents the Shire and chooses Merry and Pipen (“in this it’s maybe better to trust to friendship”) to accompany the fellowship over someone like Glorfindel. He aids those who opposes Sauron vs fighting him directly vs just fighting Sauron himself.
@Whitpusmc Gandalf does a lot of that. Like putting the mark on Bilbo's door, then scratching it out with the spike of his staff. He sets everything in motion... Slyly. There's a quote from God in an episode of Futurama, "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." Invisible leadership acknowledges the true nature of leadership. That people you're leading are the important ones. I don't think Tolkien saw Gandalf as God, but definitely an emissary of God (or Eru in Tolkien's world). Gandalf is a catalyst of God.
@ You nailed it again. I was stunned when I saw that episode of Futurama. It was so well written and highlighted the folly of man and the challenges of our faith in God excellently.
Meanwhile in The Lord of The RIngs: The Third Age video game: The party beating the snot out of the Witch King together with Gandalf and does so again when Eowyn fights him. And then production was rushed and the party teleports to Barad-Dur to literally kick Sauron in the eye. It was a weird game.
Great video. The movies are good, but it's vitally important to point out all the (many) negative and unnecessary changes. (Who is the artist at 7:38? Wow, that black shading on the Witch King is masterful)
In the same vein as this, it made no sense why they completely flipped everything leading up to Moria/The Balrog. I get they were doing it to foreshadow the Balrog. But that's the thing. It's not foreshadowed in the book. Gandalf doesn't know the Balrog is down there or that the Dwarves were attacked. This is why in the books, he's the one urging them to go down into Moria as a shortcut. While everyone else is looking for some other path. Every character having their own opinion/reason to go a different way, which shows each characters motivation and that the Fellowship isn't that solid. And it's one of the key development points for Boromir in the books. It also makes Gandalf seem stupid in the movie since he somehow knows about the Balrog. But doesn't tell Frodo about it before going down there. And he somehow doesn't know the Dwarves have been killed? When Saruman says they dug up the Balrog? If they dug up the Balrog, and you clearly see it stalking the halls, then how did anything survive down there? Dwarf, Goblin, whatever. Arg...all this broken logic just to make one added scene work...
The two changes that annoyed me most were this scene, and the elves showing up to help defend Helm's Deep. The latter forces us to conclude that Gil-Galad died and Isildur got the One Ring at the climax of the War of the Penultimate Alliance. 🙄 Thematically, having a significant force of elves at Helm's Deep goes directly against the idea that the elves are dwindling in power all through the Third Age as they trickle away to Valinor, clearing the way for the Age of Men. It's symbolically very important that the victory in that battle is (almost entirely) a human victory.
My big thing with this video and almost everyone who talks about it is simple. The Nazgul broke Gandalf's staff and knocked hm down, he did NOT defeat Gandalf. In the book, the lines are the same, the Nazgul seems to think that he can win, so at worst, it would not be a super easy fight for Gandalf. This is Sauron's greatest servant in his prime. But the big thing again, is that Gandalf was NOT defeated. Being knocked down and having his staff broken is the same conditions as what turned out to be only the opening of his fight with the Balrog. I saw the parallel the first time watching as a kid, Gandalf was facing a valid challenger, but in no way is he beaten, he would have won And fwiw, Shadowfax flinched briefly, but did not run. He was tense, not terrified.
If the scene was not meant to convey defeat, then the way it was acted was terrible. I give Ian McKellen more credit than that. So it was definitely a mistake, and Peter Jackson was wise to cut it.
Another great critical analysis! Many lore channels have rancorous hate for newer adaptations while completely ignoring and apologizing for the inaccuracies in the PJ films. I love and respect these films but they far from accurate and only the very well read can point out these critical nuances that the films just don’t capture. Shadowfax would have never flenched! Keep up the quality work!
Well done! I was hooked into LOTR and the "Tolkeinverse" going all the way back to 1976 and yet I find myself understanding more about not only the LOTR and the associated legends but also different ways to understand Life Itself. I'm glad that you are looking beyond the sword and sorcery (cool though they may be!) and into the messages that Tolkien is conveying. Best of luck to you on Life's journey! And don't let anyone try to bedazzle you with any kind of allegations that the LOTR is some kind of Satanical allegory. That is hysterical, narrow minded.....crap.
That's kinda a common theme I have towards many of the things I grew up with that I enjoyed....they were a great stepping stone to the real thing but it's kinda painful to look back on some of that stuff now. I was a huge Jimi Hendrix fan growing up but now I listen to his music and it seems so small and drug hazed to take seriously like I once did.
I LOVE these movies and I’m so grateful that they worked so hard on them. They didn’t try to make one B movie they tried to make three excellent ones and they did. They did infinitely better than I ever would and hoped for. That said IMHO, they also messed up Aragorns arc. He did three things to rise up to the Kingship. He left on the quest and had the Sword of Elendil reforged. He confronted/ challenged Eomer and named himself to the Rohhirim. He then took the Palintir and confronted Sauron, claiming right to use the Palintir and openly declaring himself to be the rightful king and opposing Sauron. Yes he followed the prophecy and used the paths of the dead as well, that was fairly well done. But they didn’t have his arc right. Yes, I’m nitpicking. No one will ever pay me to make a movie! 😂
Damn, it's more than 20 yeras since I first read the book, this passage still gives me goosebumps! Btw, the rooster crowing is hugely important, since this was late in the afternoon, during a dawnless period that lasted several days and at that moment -at that very moment! a breeze scattered the thick clouds, making it appear as though the sun was rising from the West
Pretty much agree with the video. And even without knowing that Gandald is an angel, or the cool theme of this scene: Gandalf went against a Balrog, the witch king is a guy
so the Rankin-Bass version got the Witch King perfectly? I am amazed at how their version visually looked like the illustrations. Also I just love that their beasts have goatees to show how evil they are.
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy are amazing films in their own right but they are truly a horrible adaptation of the books. Some of the changes make sense for movie purposes but most are quite idiotic and simply dumb decision making of Peter Jackson. If you watch the commentaries with him and his writers he openly states how low of an opinion he has of Gandalf calling him the same as Wormtongue to the dismay of the writers (Fran and Philippa) Looking back it is obvious that Fran and Philippa were the ones that made the movies so great with the story somewhat similar to the books and all the dumb thing were Jackson's fault. None of the other movies he has made are nearly as good with most being bad or at best barely decent. If only a good moviemaker was in charge it could have been something truly special. Hopefully one day when studios stop being political we could see a remake that is both good and loyal to Tolkien and the books.
I agree; that moment was bullshit. Peter Jackson should be forced to watch this video. If they had simply enacted what was described in the books, the gates bursting open, and all the warriors fleeing from the approaching Witch King except for Gandalf and Shadowfax, would have given that scene Far more power. They thought they were building up the Witch King in that moment, but all it did was to nerf Gandalf. I wish directors and writers would stop trying to improve on classic stories. This was a very good analysis of a scene that was a mistake, and done for all the wrong reasons. Peter Jackson knew better, or should have known better.
You may have missed it if you have only seen the theatrical cut of the movie. It's in the extended cut. I don't know if the extended cuts were ever released in the cinema. They weren't where I lived, when they first came out, but there may have been releases later in select places.
What people seem to love forgetting is that it's implied at several points during the battle that Sauron was empowering the Witch King during the battle, so Gandalf wouldn't be battling an undead sorcerer from Carn Dum as much as he'd be fighting a figurative avatar of Sauron. He even said in (I believe) Volume 5 that a fight between them in the battle would lead to unpredictable results.
@@CyrodiilCome yeah an instrument explicitly placed with restrictions on explicitly so the war against Sauron doesn't turn into a maiar slugfest that sinks the a continent *again*
@dannyk1790 He was reborn and a lot of the restrictions were undone because he was imbued with greater authority. Before this he soloed a Balrog. Nope WitchKing dies.
Movie Aragorn was a sensitive 90s guy. Movie Treebeard was hasty. Book Frodo, sick and weak, defied the 9 at the Ford of Bruinen. The cock crowing also symbolized it was dawn and the sun, the light was coming again.
The movies are the best films ever made and yet don’t come close to the greatness of storytelling found in the books. The films sacrifice much to fit into film format I love the battle of the pelenor in the films from a cinematic standpoint and despise it from a book first standpoint. In every battle in the films men always have something else helping them win. Elves at helms deep. Ghosts at pelenor. In the books the army of the dead only terrify men and cause the corsairs to route and drown and slay each other in despair the army that Aragorn takes to Minas Tirith is a large host of men whom he rallied in his I think weekish long ride from the paths of the dead to Pelargir. I also dislike the change he made at mount doom where Frodo wrestles and throws gollum of the edge where in the books it’s somewhere between or a combination of divine intervention, Frodo’s curse, and gollums own carelessness in his joy.
You are wrong about Arwen in place of Glorfindel. Frodo wounded and exhausted, still stood up against all 9 Nazgul alone, by himself. Arwen was a minor character in the book, she only speaks once in the book and that is after the war was over. She is mentioned during the banquet for Frodo and in the hall of fire she shown to be with Aragorn, but that is it. Her next scene is when she shows up to get married. I disagree with almost all of the changes made by P Jackson, while I know some were because of time a lot were not. The rooster crowing also shows that the war is going against Sauron's plan, the darkness is breaking up too soon. Due to my age, 61, I was exposed to the books long before these movies were made, so I prefer what is in them not the movies.
Removing Glorfindal in lieu of liv Tyler getting screen time was extremely disappointing. That scene with her was far weaker dramatically than if Jackson portrayed it with an amazing character like Glorfindal... as intended. It clearly weakened that part of the story the way he presented it.
I absolutely hate this scene in the movie and cannot watch it, but there is something to be said for wanting to change it because gandalf never exercised his power on screen in the books, so a second scene of him yelling words of defiance at the Witch King is repetitive of him doing the same thing to the Balrog.
Gandalf was way above the Witch King in might. Only the Dark Lord would have been an equal foe. PJ did not understand what had changed after the defeat of the balrog, a fellow Maia. The Witch king with all his power was a mortal man enslaved by his ring that Sauron made for him. He could not defeat Gandalf and he knew it. The horns or the Rohirrim gave Angmar the excuse to leave the gates without losing face. Angmar’s destiny was about to be fulfilled by a woman and a halfling. For the prophecy stated that Angmar would not be defeated by mortal man. Eowyn and Merry were not mortal man as in male and a halfling was not a man.
The following characters were decidedly worsened by Peter Jackson: Elrond (OK, I know why it was necessary), Aragorn (no it was not acceptable), the nameless Numenoran (not the very least necessary), Glorfindel (where is he?). I know I know: Peter Jackson is fairly faithful to the original, and he didn't mess up - in fact he did a really splendid job - but these characters are his shortcomings. He messed up a few characters, but he didn't mess up the full story, and that is by far more than can be said, than about a certain series about the 2nd age.
he technically told the same story in the sense that most of the events are accurate, but the actual meaning and themes of the story were heavily warped to the point that it's almost unrecognisable. if you took two groups who had never heard of lotr, had one watch the films while the other read the books, then asked them to say what they thought the point of the story was, you'd get two completely different sets of answers
you do know that on film you can't convey "entered through a gate that no foe had ever entered'' written word allows for more to be said than visual effects there would have been little drama if he had 'just ridden through the gate'' which is how it would have looked on screen
I think by that point it had been well established that Gondor had stood tall throughout the millennia, continuously fighting the darkness as the last true vestige of the spirit of Men. With that context within the viewer’s mind, imagine a scene in which all of the death and the destruction and the screaming, the sounds of war are drowned out by the deafening sound of hoofs. They come ever closer, the tension builds up, and at its climax the sounds of battle return, Grond breaks down the mighty gates and the Witch King slowly walks underneath them, all fleeing the sight, except for one. Just an idea, but I would have loved this type of scene much more! Definitely a subjective thing of course, but it’s a lovely discussion. Thanks for watching!!
Um that scene quite clearly shows a barred parry ending in the witch king using a blowback spell Gandalf staff was never broken it was just out of gandalf's hand.
The problem in the movies is that Gandalf is portrayed like Saruman as a wizard, a man not a Maia. This is why they make Galadriel and other high elves more powerful than him and him vulnerable to evil characters like the witch king. It totally changes everything but the movies manage to make it work pretty well, except this scene, but again its so well done they still get away with it!
Gandalf's origin isn't mentioned in the films either way, but it doesn't state that he is just a man, or portray him as weaker than the high elves. Unless you are referring to Galadriel combating Sauron in The Hobbit movies after Gandalf had been captured. Difference there is, he was taken by surprise, and she attacked wielding her ring with Istari backup. I dont really care for that addition to the film, though.
Even though I agree that this scene doesn't make much sense, I must notice that this increase brevery od Merry and Eowen, and there achievement of slaying Witch King
I truly loved these movies, but absolutely hated this scene. Gandalf the White was reduced to a sniffling bitch or like a feeble old man by an opponent far weaker than himself. (And Shadowfax should of rear kicked the fell beast in the chops...because its Shadowfax). This is the same Gandalf, while Grey, took on the Balrog and smote its ruin on the mountainside, then travelled across the universe so he could return as Gandalf the White. I think Jackson did it, to make Eowyn have a more girl boss moment against the Witch King, which on the side note, he also stuffed up by diminishing her victory to a cliche. He should of stuck to the book with the Eowyn. The book's scene is far more potent, you feel her fear and then inspired by her courage and loyalty in the face of unspeakable evil against the foul dwimmerlaik and she did not yield. And when she said , in the book, ..."For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him" - god that's goosebumps! But instead we got " I am no man" god thats eye-roll cringe. And by the way Gandalf IS no man, he is a Maiar second only to the Valar, so he could easily wiped the floor with the Witch King.
I interpreted this scene as Gandalf representing the state of the situation. Gandalf has power but in my head canon power is dependent on the characters will. In that moment, the entire city had basically been defeated and was just waiting to be slaughtered. Gandalf wasn’t so much “defeated” as much as he just “gave up”. Giving up though basically is being defeated though in the world of magic in my head canon. Like his will couldn’t compete with the witch kings IN THAT SITUATION which is why the witch king wins here, just because the witch king actually was every bit on the “winning side” in that interaction
This was a poor scene, but nowhere near as bad as having the Dead arrive on the Corsair ships from the south. In the film, the army of the Dead washes up to the city walls like a load of green soap-suds and wipes out Sauron's army. Not only is this scene a really awful piece of CGI, using the Dead like this cheapens the sacrifice of the living combatants, because the Dead could've done all the fighting for them if only the timing had been a bit different. In the books, the Dead are really only frightening, not physically deadly. Horror of them causes the Corsairs to panic and jump into the river at the Battle of Pelargir in South Gondor. Aragorn then uses their ships to bring human reinforcements north to the city. Sauron's forces, expecting the Corsairs to join them, instead find themselves flanked by more troops on Gondor's side.
Watch that scene again. Shadowfax did NOT run from the witch king. He stood his ground and remained with Gandalf. Good horse. Bad viewer.No like for you.
I agree that this scene was not the best. But I disagree with the reasons for it. The constant "How could a mere human defeat a Maia" is applying video game / RPG logic to the understanding of power levels in the legendarium. After all, a living elf king was able to permanently maim Morgoth himself, giving him a limp. He did pay this with his life, and Morgoth has been made vulnerable by the fact that, in order to corrupt Arda, he bound himself in a physical form to put his essence in the world, but the context plays a role. Gandalf might be a Maia, but he has been sent to middle-earth in a form whose power is limited. Facing him is a spectre of a powerful sorcerer-king, but also, he is made more powerful by Sauron, who concentrate his will in his captain. In book, in the exchanges between Denethor and Gandalf (after the fall of the Rammas Echor), Gandalf admits that he does not know if he could defeat the chief of the Nazgùl in this situation, quoting the prophecy. Why the Witch-King might actually have beaten Gandalf: In the book, the Witch-King says "Die now and curse in vain". Gandalf doesn't reply. Throughout all of Tolkien's work, words hold power. Bombadil can change the elements and chase evil spirits by singing to them, and the victory can sometimes go to the person who has had the last word. So we see that the Nazgùl has had the last word before its confrontation with Gandalf, and is preparing to strike. Gandalf can only wait. And we know that Gandalf doesn't even know if he can beat him. Would that have been just a blowing of the staff and pushing the wizard to the ground, powerless, in one shot? Maybe not. But if the confrontation had actually started, I'm pretty certain this wouldn't have ended well for Gandalf. Maybe another case of fighting the Balrog, as the Witch-King carries a lot of Sauron's power within himself. Why Gandalf didn't actually need to FIGHT the witch-king: Let's not forget the role of Gandalf here. He stands at the gate. He's not trying to reach the house where Denethor is about to burn himself like in the movie and getting interrupted on his way there. He's holding the gate of Minas Tirith. The role of Gandalf has never been to fight directly the forces of Sauron. He fights them when he's with the small group he's leading, but his role is always to guide, to counsel, and assist. In the battle of the black gate, he doesn't even participate, but watch on an elevated point. Gandalf's purpose at the gate of Minas Tirith wasn't to fight the Witch-King. He was there to delay him. He could even had stopped him from doing more damage to the Rohirrim if Denethor wasn't trying to burn Faramir. But never does Gandalf actually says that he could've beaten the Witch-King. He simply was there as an instrument of Providence. To delay the forces of evil just long enough so that men can gather their forces and fight back.
It is not even close.. Gandalf the Grey was on par with ALL 9 Nazgul coming at him at the same time. Gandalf the White would wipe the floor with the which King without breaking a sweat. When Gandalf fell with the Balrog he chased him down and fought him to death instead of allowing him to retreat and hide. He would have done the same with the which king if he had not gone away. Your arguments are not valid. It does matter that the which king is a mortal while Gandalf is immortal. Gandalf the White has his limitations removed and is insanely powerful. The which king has one of the rings of power for men(presumably) while Gandalf has Naria one of the Elvish rings of power that are much more powerful than all the rest (except the one ring) There is not even a comparison to be made here Gandalf wins 100% of the times but because Peter Jackson is an idiot we got what we got.
@@Karadjanov Read the books. Again. Go look at the exchange between Denethor and Gandalf after the fall of the Rammas Echor. Gandalf is not certain he could beat the Witch-King. He says so when he reminds the prophecy about him. Leave aside your video game logic for a moment and understand that winning a fight doesn't mean an absence of injury. Even if Gandalf won, Sauron has put enough of his power in his captain, which is barely a puppet held up together by spells at that point, to seriously endanger Gandalf's physical form (Which is still limited. No, Gandalf the White has not have his limiter removed. The very fact that he's still bound to a physical shape demonstrates that he's still limited, just less than under his grey form. A maia without limits can take many shapes or just exist as a force of the elements, like the Valar. And power levels don't exist in the way you suggest in Tolkien. Once again, Fingolfin, a single elf, serioulsy maimed a Valar. He gave his life to do so, but Morgoth got stuck with a permanent limp. And once again, this is leaving behind the most important part of my comment, which is about the theme of Providence throughout the book.
@@maaderllin J. R. R. Tolkien himself has stated in his letters that Gandalf the White is so powerful that the only one who could contest with him is Sauron IN POSSESION of the One Ring.
@@Karadjanov I didn't remember anything of the sort in Tolkien's letters, so you'll have to provide a more precise source for me to believe what you said. The closest thing to the thing you said would be in letter 156: Quote: " The 'wizards' were not exempt, indeed being incarnate were more likely to stray, or err. Gandalf alone fully passes the tests, on a moral plane anyway (he makes mistakes of judgement). For in his condition it was for him a sacrifice to perish on the Bridge in defence of his companions, less perhaps than for a mortal Man or Hobbit, since he had a far greater inner power than they; but also more, since it was a humbling and abnegation of himself in conformity to 'the Rules': for all he could know at that moment he was the only person who could direct the resistance to Sauron successfully, and all his mission was vain. He was handing over to the Authority that ordained the Rules, and giving up personal hope of success. That I should say is what the Authority wished, as a set-off to Saruman. The 'wizards', as such, had failed; or if you like: the crisis had become too grave and needed an enhancement of power. So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was accepted, and enhanced, and returned. 'Yes, that was the name. I was Gandalf.' Of course he remains similar in personality and idiosyncrasy, but both his wisdom and power are much greater. When he speaks he commands attention; the old Gandalf could not have dealt so with Théoden, nor with Saruman. He is still under the obligation of concealing his power and of teaching rather than forcing or dominating wills, but where the physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good will of the opposers to be effective he can act in emergency as an 'angel' - no more violently than the release of St Peter from prison. He seldom does so, operating rather through others, but in one or two cases in the War (in Vol. III) he does reveal a sudden power: he twice rescues Faramir. He alone is left to forbid the entrance of the Lord of Nazgûl to Minas Tirith, when the City has been overthrown and its Gates destroyed - and yet so powerful is the whole train of human resistance, that he himself has kindled and organized, that in fact no battle between the two occurs: it passes to other mortal hands. In the end before he departs for ever he sums himself up: 'I was the enemy of Sauron'. He might have added: 'for that purpose I was sent to Middle-earth'. But by that he would at the end have meant more than at the beginning. He was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors; but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the moment of its failure. 'Naked I was sent back - for a brief time, until my task is done'. Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business is only with this embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of thought and time'." Nowhere does it state the very precise thing you said. As for the Witch King's power level, it is made more precise in letter 210: "It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done. It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Z to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken. See III 114.3" So my conclusion is that it is as I already said. Gandalf would not "whipe the floor" with the Witch King. He might win, but it might also be costly. But in the end, it still doesn't even matter because, once again, Gandalf's role is NOT to face the Enemy head on. The fact that he stuck to those restrictions is the very reason, with his self-sacrifice against the Balrog, that he is in fact sent back to finish the job of leading the resistance against Sauron. He can only perform acts of last resort saving.
Hello there, I do not agree. First of all, they are two different versions and in very different languages: one literary and the other one cinematic. In the movie this scene creates the peak point of despair, and the fact that Gandalf is saved in the last moment by the ride of the Rohirrim creates this effect. We know what happened in the books is kind of the opposite but again, to create tension and pay off in a visual medium like film, sometimes we don't have any other choice but to change and adapt some of the material at hand. I love both the movies and books, but I understand perfectly well that they are two different mediums and that what works in one of them is not necessarily going to work in the other. Thanks for sharing, I enjoy your channel very much!
"First of all, they are two different versions and in very different languages: one literary and the other one cinematic." This is meaningless considering both versions are telling the same tale. "In the movie this scene creates the peak point of despair, and the fact that Gandalf is saved in the last moment by the ride of the Rohirrim creates this effect." How does it create "the peak point of despair?" Wouldn't that point be the moment Pippin declares to Gandalf that he didn't think it would end this way? And the ride of the Rohirrim is made pointless by having the Dead Men of Dunharrow show up at Minas Tirith like a zombie can of insect repellant. Here's where your asssertion about the difference languages fails: the literary is done intelligently and makes sense. The cinematic... not so much. "to create tension and pay off in a visual medium like film, sometimes we don't have any other choice but to change and adapt some of the material at hand" This is just low-effort confirmation bias, and unsubstantiated as well. "I understand perfectly well that they are two different mediums and that what works in one of them is not necessarily going to work in the other." That's only true of you understand how the literary medium works before you adapt it to the cinematic.
@@jachyra9 it comes down to a very essential rule of film: show, don’t tell. Whereas in a novel you can get away with just telling. In other words, it’s a visual medium that needs to tell the story visually. It’s okay to disagree
@@esecarolus - "Show, don't tell" isn't literal in regards to literary adaptation. And I know it's okay to disagree. But I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was pointing out how you're wrong.
@@jachyra9 we’re both entitled to our opinion. Focus on the topic. The fact is that Jackson’s adaptation stands the test of time and is still the best LOTR adaptation from the book to the screen to date. Yes, it sacrificed some of the book scenes, characters, and other details in favor of pace, style, visual richness, and engagement. In addition, a shot by shot copy of what happened in the book was not only impossible but it would have been straight up boring, simply because what the reader enjoys while reading is not always the same of what the spectator would enjoy while watching
@@esecarolus - "we’re both entitled to our opinion." No one is entitled to an opinion. That's a logical fallacy. "The fact is that Jackson’s adaptation stands the test of time and is still the best LOTR adaptation from the book to the screen to date." Your opinion, an assertion that you haven't substantiated. Just typing words doesn't make anything you claim factual, and certainly is not a cogent argument. And considering there hasn't been a complete adaptation of The Lord of the Rings other than Jackson's, claiming that it's the best is like claiming you're the best version of you. "Yes, it sacrificed some of the book scenes, characters, and other details in favor of pace, style, visual richness, and engagement." Again, you're just typing, and in such a way as to imply Jackson's choices were necessities, as though he was a trauma surgeon making difficult decisions in the heat of the moment. Please... "In addition, a shot by shot copy of what happened in the book was not only impossible but it would have been straight up boring, simply because what the reader enjoys while reading is not always the same of what the spectator would enjoy while watching" Strawman.
There are multiple changes in the Lord of the Rings movie scripts from the book starting with the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring about Frodo leaving the Shire and Gandalf’s reaction to it. By the time of the arrival of the Witch King, the changes had piled up into the hundreds and changes continued until the end of Return of the King. I still very much enjoyed the films. But this brings up the issue that movie adaptations are a very different genre from an epic book.
From a practical, narrative point of view, the reason Jackson made this decision was that Gandalf wouldn’t have the staff during the battle at the Black Gate and thus could not intervene when Aragorn is nearly killed.
Gandalf the Grey didn't need his staff to kill the Balrog, but Gandalf the White would have issues overpowering a troll? Apart from that, Gandalf didn't actually participate in that final battle in the books cause he was playing a higher game of wills with Sauron.
@ The staff has a symbolic meaning as the point of origin for a wizard’s power, so the loss of it has a subliminal effect on the audience when watching the scene. Need I also remind you of the part where Gandalf is nearly killed by Nazgul in the absence of the staff?
@@JesseBrown-qf6zp - "The staff has a symbolic meaning as the point of origin for a wizard’s power, so the loss of it has a subliminal effect on the audience when watching the scene"... The audience. Yeah.
@@JesseBrown-qf6zp - Gandalf's staff couldn't be broken by the Witch King. One of many stupid decisions Team Jackson made that clearly demonstrate they don't understand what Tolkien wrote.
Movie only fan here; I remember watching this scene in theaters back in the day, and scratching my head thinking, “Gandalf just soloed the Balrog in his weaker form, so what is going on here?” The scene never fit any of what had been narratively portrayed up to that point. And it made even less sense when I saw how the Witch King was actually defeated: snuck from behind by a hobbit with what I didn’t realize at the time was a magic blade, and then finally destroyed by best girl, Éowyn. As hype as it was, I just kept going back to that scene vs Gandalf thinking, “how the heck did the Witch King even have a chance?” I’m glad to finally know all these years later that it was a film adaptation in error.
There were a lot of changes in Jackson's adaptation of Return of the King that infuriated me. The needless conflict between Frodo and Sam, leading to Frodo sending Sam away. Denathor being turned into a despicable character, comically dispatched, rather than a tragic figure overwhelmed by fear of loss. The stupid army of the dead unleashed on the Battle of Pelanor Field like so many scrubbing bubbles. The changing of Sauriman's fate and the elimination of the Scouring of the Shire. But worst of all was the undermining of Gandalf's power like we see here. In the books it's clear that he's the second most powerful being on Middle Earth, only behind Sauron himself, so getting humbled by the Witch King was inexcusable.
yes, most of the extended version was nice, but this scene deeply annoyed me. perhaps the worst change
Simultaneously the worst change, and the best cut for the theatrical.
It was done for a visual shock effect, which undermined the story and the entire character arc of Gandalf.
None of the ringwraiths are any match for Gandalf!
Ahh yes, the infamous Gandalf and Witch-King encounter in RotK film; one of those scenes that is absolutely jaw-dropping and intense purely form a filmic standpoint, and so utterly *frustrating* and exasperating as a book reader. My enjoyment of that scene aside, the way it was described in the book was so much more captivating and laden with potent Christian symbolism.
IMO, Peter Jackson fell for effect, effect and did I say effect? He added a marching elf army to the defense of the Hornburg, had Eomer with his cavalry descend from a hill in the same battle, which is madness, and let the dead fight for Minas Tirith, but this scene tops it all.
I agree with your criticisms and it is certainly a weaker scene symbolically than in the books. However I can understand the choice when it comes to presenting the story on screen where you need to establish characters quickly for an audience who are not familiar with the source material. Gandalf's staff being destroyed is the most annoying part to me. Other than that, having him "defeat" gandalf however temporarily sets up how formidable the Witch King is as a foe, otherwise on screen for non readers of the book he would first show up on the battlefield only to be farily swiftly beaten by a woman and hobbit and that would make him seem comically inept and not formidable at all. So there is a trade off made to somewhat diminish Gandalf in this scene so that the Witch King's on screen presence is enhanced and therefore gives added power to his demise later. I totally agree the way they treated Gandalf in the scene does damage not only the character but the overall narrative and so it's a puzzling choice but I'm glad it's not one I had to make 😅
I'm sure they could have established him better by having him appear first directing the assault and easily cutting through many defenders of Minas Tirith on his way to meet Gandalf. This would demonstrate how dangerous he is and that only someone as powerful as Gandalf could even slow his advance. Then a brief fight between the two of them which ends in an impasse and as they face on another down, the horns are heard and after a moments thought Witch King throws a final blow in the direction of Gandalf and withdraws. That way you establish how formidable he is to a human foe and the audience leaves with the impression he might even be a match for Gandalf ( not least because we've already seen Gandalf defeat a Balrog) and without diminishing Gandalf and damaging the overall symbolism of the two characters in relation to one another.
Its worth remembering that earlier in the story (the book), Gandalf fought the Witch-King and several of the Nazgul to a standstill at Weathertop. We never see the fight directly, but it did happen.
Aragorn also fought several of them with a sword and a lit tree branch. And the hobbit evaded them several times earlier than that.
Tolkien never decided upon their strength. Sometimes he said that fear is their only weapon. But when Merry struck the witch king down, it was clearly explained that the Witch King had Master Twardowski-like immortality that only fate could unwind.
I understood it that way that the Nazgul were weak in the beginning of the story and grew stronger as time passed
Excellent post. That scene really irked me too! Also nice narration :)
For me the most annoying changes are taking the hobbits to Osgiliath, Aragorn's tumble of the cliff, this scene you go through here, Frodo telling Sam to go away after Gollum's lembas crum trick. Those were all unnecessary.
I personally don't mind Aragorn's tumble. It's not strictly "necessary" but it does serve the story: Aragorn sees Saruman's army and reports its size to Theoden. It also leads to what IMO are nice character moments between Gimli and Eowyn and later Aragorn and Legolas.
Taking the hobbits to Osgiliath serves the purpose of establishing the city which serves the third movie where the loss of Osgiliath is a major plot point. I personally don't like the change made to Faramir (coveting the Ring) but if that change was to be made then taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath makes sense
Frodo sending Sam away was presumably because Sam needed to be away when Shelob attacked. But I agree that the change is unneeded and the subsequent scene where Sam finds the bread and realises he didn't eat it is very silly
My least favorite changes are to Denethor and Elrond. In the book Denethor is a ruthless and cynical yet competent leader that falls to desperate madness in the end; the the movie he is a lunatic from the beginning, and the suicide charge is so stupid it ruins Faramir's character as well. And Elrond being a domineering father, attempting to force Arwen to renounce the choice of being Man or Elf allowed to her by God is just blatant character assassination
Agree, and the breaking of the staff is the worst. The staff has been established as an essential tool for the wizards to wield power (eg. the importance that he have it when meeting Theoden when he was possessed). The idea of personal power being bound to objects runs through LOTR, and the breaking of Saruman's staff was the equivalent of demoting him from being an Istar. Gandalf's ability to do so showed his new power and authority. To have it broken by anyone less than Maiar (eg Sauron, Balrog) is non-sensical, and even that's would be a stretch since they are presumably gifts of the Valar, or even Iluvatar, and not of Middle Earth. A very disappointing scene indeed. (And how did he fix it? Or did he get a new one?)
He had to grab a spear from a guard to whack Denathor. Also, he didn't have a staff in the final battle and is weilding Glamdring two-handed.
The scene at the gate in the book gives me goosebumps EVERY time; it's the cock crowing and the war horns that get me. The movie version irritated the heck out of me.
My issue with Jackson was he removed or down played so many epic moments in the story.
The main one that annoyed me was death of Boromir. That scene deserved to be awesome, demonstrating the strength of Boromir in his last stand. Instead, Jackson watered it down like he did throughout the desecration of Tolkiens masterpiece.
A very good commentary on what is one of the strongest pages of text in the Lord of The Rings, and what seems to be only a downgrade of an alteration. Bravo!
Setting aside the thematic element needs of the film, in the books, Gandalf openly admits the the Witch-King might well be able to defeat him. We never get to see them actually clash swords or hurl lightning and white fire at each other in ROTK, but Gandalf definitely thought his defeat was a possibility.
What people seem to love forgetting is that it's implied at several points during the battle that Sauron was empowering the Witch King during the battle, so Gandalf wouldn't be battling an undead sorcerer from Carn Dum as much as he'd be fighting a figurative avatar of Sauron.
Gandalf fought six of the Nazgul led by the witch-king at Weathertop earlier in the story. We don't get to directly see that fight, but the impression is that they fought each other to a draw and the light from the battle could be seen from very far off.
@@dannyk1790 at that point of the story, Gandalf was the most powerful being in Middle Earth, directly rivaling Sauron. The Witch-King could be empowered by his master's will, but his power was still below Gandalf's, as Sauron himself was still not in possession of the One Ring, and even so, he could not pour his entire power on a corrupted wraith like the leader of the Nazgûl. A single combat between them, as shown in that scene, would have been unthinkable: Gandalf did not take part in the battle directly, and on the other hand the Witch-King would have know his limits. Think that while Gandalf was still Gandalf the Grey, he had already defeated Durin's Bane, the Balrog of Moria, another Maia. The Balrogs were among the most powerful beings ever recruited by Morgoth. And when Eru sent Gandalf back to Middle Earth, he was "upgraded" in power.
However, the Witch-King could still "defeat" him if Sauron's army won the war at the end, because if that so, Gandalf would have failed his mission.
But not in single combat, as the movie suggested.
@@TWANDTW "directly rivaling Sauron"
Book Three, I believe, reveals that he's still below Sauron even without his ring.
@dannyk1790 This is true. Gandalf tells Aragorn in Fangorn that he is the most "dangerous" being he will ever meet on Middle Earth... except if he's taken alive in front of Sauron.
People often make the mistake of assuming that the standing in the divine hierarchy of Tolkien's world equates their power and battle capacity - that because Gandalf is a Maia he is automatically stronger than anyone who isn't Ainur. This isn't true though, there are numerous instances where beings of "lower" standing match or exceed those higher up in the hierarchy: various elves defeating Balrogs in single combat, Fingolfin fighting Morgoth and wounding him, Elendil and Gil Galad defeating Sauron in the 2nd age. We can't say that Gandalf is Maia and therefore automatically overpowers Witch King who is Man
I still don't like the movie scene though. The reason is that the scene makes it look like Gandalf is completely and hopelessly outmatched by Witch King, that Gandalf literally cannot do anything to resist let alone defeat Witch King. This obviously isn't accurate and the scene in the book proves it
If we assume Sauron has amped Witch King's powers he would at most be a match to Gandalf, and probably weaker. Gandalf takes the challenge seriously, he knows he might be defeated if he isn't careful (even though I believe he would nevertheless be favored to win)
The part that you read, starting with,
"The battle for Gondor..."
And ending at,
"Rohan had come at last."
is my favorite part of the whole trilogy. I get goose bumps EVERY TIME I read it. And I've long ago lost count of how many times that has been. To fundamentally change that scene is nearly heresy to me.
Bingo!! You nailed it.
And furthermore it’s perfect in what Gandolf’s role in opposing Sauron had been throughout the ages.
Gandalf doesn’t defeat the WitchKing himself, but he does so much to setup the outcome.
He saves Theoden who comes to aid Gondor and pulls the WK from the city. He frequents the Shire and chooses Merry and Pipen (“in this it’s maybe better to trust to friendship”) to accompany the fellowship over someone like Glorfindel. He aids those who opposes Sauron vs fighting him directly vs just fighting Sauron himself.
@Whitpusmc Gandalf does a lot of that. Like putting the mark on Bilbo's door, then scratching it out with the spike of his staff. He sets everything in motion... Slyly.
There's a quote from God in an episode of Futurama, "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." Invisible leadership acknowledges the true nature of leadership. That people you're leading are the important ones.
I don't think Tolkien saw Gandalf as God, but definitely an emissary of God (or Eru in Tolkien's world). Gandalf is a catalyst of God.
@ You nailed it again. I was stunned when I saw that episode of Futurama. It was so well written and highlighted the folly of man and the challenges of our faith in God excellently.
Meanwhile in The Lord of The RIngs: The Third Age video game:
The party beating the snot out of the Witch King together with Gandalf and does so again when Eowyn fights him.
And then production was rushed and the party teleports to Barad-Dur to literally kick Sauron in the eye. It was a weird game.
This scene is wrong ? Go back to the abyss !
Great video. The movies are good, but it's vitally important to point out all the (many) negative and unnecessary changes.
(Who is the artist at 7:38? Wow, that black shading on the Witch King is masterful)
In the same vein as this, it made no sense why they completely flipped everything leading up to Moria/The Balrog. I get they were doing it to foreshadow the Balrog. But that's the thing. It's not foreshadowed in the book. Gandalf doesn't know the Balrog is down there or that the Dwarves were attacked. This is why in the books, he's the one urging them to go down into Moria as a shortcut. While everyone else is looking for some other path. Every character having their own opinion/reason to go a different way, which shows each characters motivation and that the Fellowship isn't that solid. And it's one of the key development points for Boromir in the books.
It also makes Gandalf seem stupid in the movie since he somehow knows about the Balrog. But doesn't tell Frodo about it before going down there. And he somehow doesn't know the Dwarves have been killed? When Saruman says they dug up the Balrog? If they dug up the Balrog, and you clearly see it stalking the halls, then how did anything survive down there? Dwarf, Goblin, whatever. Arg...all this broken logic just to make one added scene work...
The two changes that annoyed me most were this scene, and the elves showing up to help defend Helm's Deep. The latter forces us to conclude that Gil-Galad died and Isildur got the One Ring at the climax of the War of the Penultimate Alliance. 🙄
Thematically, having a significant force of elves at Helm's Deep goes directly against the idea that the elves are dwindling in power all through the Third Age as they trickle away to Valinor, clearing the way for the Age of Men. It's symbolically very important that the victory in that battle is (almost entirely) a human victory.
Yeah, that scene made no sense.
My big thing with this video and almost everyone who talks about it is simple. The Nazgul broke Gandalf's staff and knocked hm down, he did NOT defeat Gandalf. In the book, the lines are the same, the Nazgul seems to think that he can win, so at worst, it would not be a super easy fight for Gandalf. This is Sauron's greatest servant in his prime.
But the big thing again, is that Gandalf was NOT defeated. Being knocked down and having his staff broken is the same conditions as what turned out to be only the opening of his fight with the Balrog. I saw the parallel the first time watching as a kid, Gandalf was facing a valid challenger, but in no way is he beaten, he would have won
And fwiw, Shadowfax flinched briefly, but did not run. He was tense, not terrified.
If the scene was not meant to convey defeat, then the way it was acted was terrible. I give Ian McKellen more credit than that. So it was definitely a mistake, and Peter Jackson was wise to cut it.
PJ could never resist the old "saved at the last second" trope.
See also: most scenes in The Hobbit trilogy 😉
Another great critical analysis! Many lore channels have rancorous hate for newer adaptations while completely ignoring and apologizing for the inaccuracies in the PJ films. I love and respect these films but they far from accurate and only the very well read can point out these critical nuances that the films just don’t capture. Shadowfax would have never flenched! Keep up the quality work!
Yeah, this scene was the worst change for me.
Well done! I was hooked into LOTR and the "Tolkeinverse" going all the way back to 1976 and yet I find myself understanding more about not only the LOTR and the associated legends but also different ways to understand Life Itself. I'm glad that you are looking beyond the sword and sorcery (cool though they may be!) and into the messages that Tolkien is conveying. Best of luck to you on Life's journey! And don't let anyone try to bedazzle you with any kind of allegations that the LOTR is some kind of Satanical allegory. That is hysterical, narrow minded.....crap.
LOTR is my favorite movie but they made evil to strong and this is one example of that. Thanks for this.
The Rankin Bass cartoon version of this scene was much more thrilling to watch.
That's kinda a common theme I have towards many of the things I grew up with that I enjoyed....they were a great stepping stone to the real thing but it's kinda painful to look back on some of that stuff now. I was a huge Jimi Hendrix fan growing up but now I listen to his music and it seems so small and drug hazed to take seriously like I once did.
I LOVE these movies and I’m so grateful that they worked so hard on them. They didn’t try to make one B movie they tried to make three excellent ones and they did. They did infinitely better than I ever would and hoped for.
That said IMHO, they also messed up Aragorns arc. He did three things to rise up to the Kingship. He left on the quest and had the Sword of Elendil reforged. He confronted/ challenged Eomer and named himself to the Rohhirim. He then took the Palintir and confronted Sauron, claiming right to use the Palintir and openly declaring himself to be the rightful king and opposing Sauron. Yes he followed the prophecy and used the paths of the dead as well, that was fairly well done. But they didn’t have his arc right. Yes, I’m nitpicking. No one will ever pay me to make a movie! 😂
Damn, it's more than 20 yeras since I first read the book, this passage still gives me goosebumps!
Btw, the rooster crowing is hugely important, since this was late in the afternoon, during a dawnless period that lasted several days and at that moment -at that very moment! a breeze scattered the thick clouds, making it appear as though the sun was rising from the West
The rooster crowing right as Witch-King runs flames down his sword really should have been in film
Pretty much agree with the video. And even without knowing that Gandald is an angel, or the cool theme of this scene:
Gandalf went against a Balrog, the witch king is a guy
so the Rankin-Bass version got the Witch King perfectly? I am amazed at how their version visually looked like the illustrations. Also I just love that their beasts have goatees to show how evil they are.
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy are amazing films in their own right but they are truly a horrible adaptation of the books. Some of the changes make sense for movie purposes but most are quite idiotic and simply dumb decision making of Peter Jackson. If you watch the commentaries with him and his writers he openly states how low of an opinion he has of Gandalf calling him the same as Wormtongue to the dismay of the writers (Fran and Philippa) Looking back it is obvious that Fran and Philippa were the ones that made the movies so great with the story somewhat similar to the books and all the dumb thing were Jackson's fault. None of the other movies he has made are nearly as good with most being bad or at best barely decent. If only a good moviemaker was in charge it could have been something truly special. Hopefully one day when studios stop being political we could see a remake that is both good and loyal to Tolkien and the books.
I agree; that moment was bullshit. Peter Jackson should be forced to watch this video. If they had simply enacted what was described in the books, the gates bursting open, and all the warriors fleeing from the approaching Witch King except for Gandalf and Shadowfax, would have given that scene Far more power. They thought they were building up the Witch King in that moment, but all it did was to nerf Gandalf. I wish directors and writers would stop trying to improve on classic stories.
This was a very good analysis of a scene that was a mistake, and done for all the wrong reasons. Peter Jackson knew better, or should have known better.
Great stuff.
Good points. I didn't even remember that shot was in the movie.
You may have missed it if you have only seen the theatrical cut of the movie. It's in the extended cut. I don't know if the extended cuts were ever released in the cinema. They weren't where I lived, when they first came out, but there may have been releases later in select places.
Someone had to say it. 👍 the other scene i couldnt forgive. Was when Sam left Ftodo and went back down the secret stair.
The better question is WHERE did he get another staff? You can't just walk into a militia armory or buy one off a blacksmith.
What people seem to love forgetting is that it's implied at several points during the battle that Sauron was empowering the Witch King during the battle, so Gandalf wouldn't be battling an undead sorcerer from Carn Dum as much as he'd be fighting a figurative avatar of Sauron.
He even said in (I believe) Volume 5 that a fight between them in the battle would lead to unpredictable results.
Gandalf was an instrument of Aluvatar. They do not compare.
@@CyrodiilCome yeah an instrument explicitly placed with restrictions on explicitly so the war against Sauron doesn't turn into a maiar slugfest that sinks the a continent *again*
@dannyk1790 He was reborn and a lot of the restrictions were undone because he was imbued with greater authority. Before this he soloed a Balrog. Nope WitchKing dies.
Movie Aragorn was a sensitive 90s guy.
Movie Treebeard was hasty.
Book Frodo, sick and weak, defied the 9 at the Ford of Bruinen.
The cock crowing also symbolized it was dawn and the sun, the light was coming again.
The more times I read the books the more I find myself only liking The Fellowship movie and disliking the other ones.
Easily the most baffling and infuriating choice in the entire trilogy
The movies are the best films ever made and yet don’t come close to the greatness of storytelling found in the books. The films sacrifice much to fit into film format I love the battle of the pelenor in the films from a cinematic standpoint and despise it from a book first standpoint. In every battle in the films men always have something else helping them win. Elves at helms deep. Ghosts at pelenor. In the books the army of the dead only terrify men and cause the corsairs to route and drown and slay each other in despair the army that Aragorn takes to Minas Tirith is a large host of men whom he rallied in his I think weekish long ride from the paths of the dead to Pelargir. I also dislike the change he made at mount doom where Frodo wrestles and throws gollum of the edge where in the books it’s somewhere between or a combination of divine intervention, Frodo’s curse, and gollums own carelessness in his joy.
You are wrong about Arwen in place of Glorfindel. Frodo wounded and exhausted, still stood up against all 9 Nazgul alone, by himself. Arwen was a minor character in the book, she only speaks once in the book and that is after the war was over. She is mentioned during the banquet for Frodo and in the hall of fire she shown to be with Aragorn, but that is it. Her next scene is when she shows up to get married. I disagree with almost all of the changes made by P Jackson, while I know some were because of time a lot were not. The rooster crowing also shows that the war is going against Sauron's plan, the darkness is breaking up too soon. Due to my age, 61, I was exposed to the books long before these movies were made, so I prefer what is in them not the movies.
It's my favorite scene in the trilogy. I was very disappointed by how it was handled in the movie.
Removing Glorfindal in lieu of liv Tyler getting screen time was extremely disappointing.
That scene with her was far weaker dramatically than if Jackson portrayed it with an amazing character like Glorfindal... as intended. It clearly weakened that part of the story the way he presented it.
I absolutely hate this scene in the movie and cannot watch it, but there is something to be said for wanting to change it because gandalf never exercised his power on screen in the books, so a second scene of him yelling words of defiance at the Witch King is repetitive of him doing the same thing to the Balrog.
Gandalf was way above the Witch King in might. Only the Dark Lord would have been an equal foe. PJ did not understand what had changed after the defeat of the balrog, a fellow Maia. The Witch king with all his power was a mortal man enslaved by his ring that Sauron made for him. He could not defeat Gandalf and he knew it. The horns or the Rohirrim gave Angmar the excuse to leave the gates without losing face. Angmar’s destiny was about to be fulfilled by a woman and a halfling. For the prophecy stated that Angmar would not be defeated by mortal man. Eowyn and Merry were not mortal man as in male and a halfling was not a man.
The following characters were decidedly worsened by Peter Jackson: Elrond (OK, I know why it was necessary), Aragorn (no it was not acceptable), the nameless Numenoran (not the very least necessary), Glorfindel (where is he?). I know I know: Peter Jackson is fairly faithful to the original, and he didn't mess up - in fact he did a really splendid job - but these characters are his shortcomings. He messed up a few characters, but he didn't mess up the full story, and that is by far more than can be said, than about a certain series about the 2nd age.
he technically told the same story in the sense that most of the events are accurate, but the actual meaning and themes of the story were heavily warped to the point that it's almost unrecognisable. if you took two groups who had never heard of lotr, had one watch the films while the other read the books, then asked them to say what they thought the point of the story was, you'd get two completely different sets of answers
"Peter Jackson is fairly faithful to the original, and he didn't mess up - in fact he did a really splendid job"
Nope. Nope. And.... NOPE.
you do know that on film you can't convey "entered through a gate that no foe had ever entered'' written word allows for more to be said than visual effects there would have been little drama if he had 'just ridden through the gate'' which is how it would have looked on screen
I think by that point it had been well established that Gondor had stood tall throughout the millennia, continuously fighting the darkness as the last true vestige of the spirit of Men.
With that context within the viewer’s mind, imagine a scene in which all of the death and the destruction and the screaming, the sounds of war are drowned out by the deafening sound of hoofs. They come ever closer, the tension builds up, and at its climax the sounds of battle return, Grond breaks down the mighty gates and the Witch King slowly walks underneath them, all fleeing the sight, except for one.
Just an idea, but I would have loved this type of scene much more! Definitely a subjective thing of course, but it’s a lovely discussion. Thanks for watching!!
Um that scene quite clearly shows a barred parry ending in the witch king using a blowback spell Gandalf staff was never broken it was just out of gandalf's hand.
Omg i shouted at the screen when this happened
The problem in the movies is that Gandalf is portrayed like Saruman as a wizard, a man not a Maia. This is why they make Galadriel and other high elves more powerful than him and him vulnerable to evil characters like the witch king. It totally changes everything but the movies manage to make it work pretty well, except this scene, but again its so well done they still get away with it!
Gandalf's origin isn't mentioned in the films either way, but it doesn't state that he is just a man, or portray him as weaker than the high elves. Unless you are referring to Galadriel combating Sauron in The Hobbit movies after Gandalf had been captured. Difference there is, he was taken by surprise, and she attacked wielding her ring with Istari backup. I dont really care for that addition to the film, though.
@ yeah fair point, the movies don’t really give the wizards any history.
Even though I agree that this scene doesn't make much sense, I must notice that this increase brevery od Merry and Eowen, and there achievement of slaying Witch King
I truly loved these movies, but absolutely hated this scene.
Gandalf the White was reduced to a sniffling bitch or like a feeble old man by an opponent far weaker than himself. (And Shadowfax should of rear kicked the fell beast in the chops...because its Shadowfax).
This is the same Gandalf, while Grey, took on the Balrog and smote its ruin on the mountainside, then travelled across the universe so he could return as Gandalf the White.
I think Jackson did it, to make Eowyn have a more girl boss moment against the Witch King, which on the side note, he also stuffed up by diminishing her victory to a cliche.
He should of stuck to the book with the Eowyn. The book's scene is far more potent, you feel her fear and then inspired by her courage and loyalty in the face of unspeakable evil against the foul dwimmerlaik and she did not yield. And when she said , in the book, ..."For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him" - god that's goosebumps!
But instead we got " I am no man" god thats eye-roll cringe.
And by the way Gandalf IS no man, he is a Maiar second only to the Valar, so he could easily wiped the floor with the Witch King.
A man couldn’t compete with a miar even one whose greater power is veiled.
Because it was very mean!
Rings of Power got everything wrong not just a couple of scenes.
I interpreted this scene as Gandalf representing the state of the situation. Gandalf has power but in my head canon power is dependent on the characters will. In that moment, the entire city had basically been defeated and was just waiting to be slaughtered. Gandalf wasn’t so much “defeated” as much as he just “gave up”. Giving up though basically is being defeated though in the world of magic in my head canon. Like his will couldn’t compete with the witch kings IN THAT SITUATION which is why the witch king wins here, just because the witch king actually was every bit on the “winning side” in that interaction
This was a poor scene, but nowhere near as bad as having the Dead arrive on the Corsair ships from the south. In the film, the army of the Dead washes up to the city walls like a load of green soap-suds and wipes out Sauron's army. Not only is this scene a really awful piece of CGI, using the Dead like this cheapens the sacrifice of the living combatants, because the Dead could've done all the fighting for them if only the timing had been a bit different.
In the books, the Dead are really only frightening, not physically deadly. Horror of them causes the Corsairs to panic and jump into the river at the Battle of Pelargir in South Gondor. Aragorn then uses their ships to bring human reinforcements north to the city. Sauron's forces, expecting the Corsairs to join them, instead find themselves flanked by more troops on Gondor's side.
No man may kill the Witch-king
Is Gandalf a man?!
I will admit being a heretic…. I like that scene….
Watch that scene again. Shadowfax did NOT run from the witch king. He stood his ground and remained with Gandalf. Good horse. Bad viewer.No like for you.
I agree that this scene was not the best.
But I disagree with the reasons for it. The constant "How could a mere human defeat a Maia" is applying video game / RPG logic to the understanding of power levels in the legendarium.
After all, a living elf king was able to permanently maim Morgoth himself, giving him a limp. He did pay this with his life, and Morgoth has been made vulnerable by the fact that, in order to corrupt Arda, he bound himself in a physical form to put his essence in the world, but the context plays a role.
Gandalf might be a Maia, but he has been sent to middle-earth in a form whose power is limited. Facing him is a spectre of a powerful sorcerer-king, but also, he is made more powerful by Sauron, who concentrate his will in his captain. In book, in the exchanges between Denethor and Gandalf (after the fall of the Rammas Echor), Gandalf admits that he does not know if he could defeat the chief of the Nazgùl in this situation, quoting the prophecy.
Why the Witch-King might actually have beaten Gandalf:
In the book, the Witch-King says "Die now and curse in vain". Gandalf doesn't reply. Throughout all of Tolkien's work, words hold power. Bombadil can change the elements and chase evil spirits by singing to them, and the victory can sometimes go to the person who has had the last word.
So we see that the Nazgùl has had the last word before its confrontation with Gandalf, and is preparing to strike. Gandalf can only wait. And we know that Gandalf doesn't even know if he can beat him. Would that have been just a blowing of the staff and pushing the wizard to the ground, powerless, in one shot? Maybe not. But if the confrontation had actually started, I'm pretty certain this wouldn't have ended well for Gandalf. Maybe another case of fighting the Balrog, as the Witch-King carries a lot of Sauron's power within himself.
Why Gandalf didn't actually need to FIGHT the witch-king:
Let's not forget the role of Gandalf here. He stands at the gate. He's not trying to reach the house where Denethor is about to burn himself like in the movie and getting interrupted on his way there. He's holding the gate of Minas Tirith.
The role of Gandalf has never been to fight directly the forces of Sauron. He fights them when he's with the small group he's leading, but his role is always to guide, to counsel, and assist. In the battle of the black gate, he doesn't even participate, but watch on an elevated point.
Gandalf's purpose at the gate of Minas Tirith wasn't to fight the Witch-King. He was there to delay him. He could even had stopped him from doing more damage to the Rohirrim if Denethor wasn't trying to burn Faramir. But never does Gandalf actually says that he could've beaten the Witch-King.
He simply was there as an instrument of Providence. To delay the forces of evil just long enough so that men can gather their forces and fight back.
It is not even close.. Gandalf the Grey was on par with ALL 9 Nazgul coming at him at the same time. Gandalf the White would wipe the floor with the which King without breaking a sweat. When Gandalf fell with the Balrog he chased him down and fought him to death instead of allowing him to retreat and hide. He would have done the same with the which king if he had not gone away. Your arguments are not valid. It does matter that the which king is a mortal while Gandalf is immortal. Gandalf the White has his limitations removed and is insanely powerful. The which king has one of the rings of power for men(presumably) while Gandalf has Naria one of the Elvish rings of power that are much more powerful than all the rest (except the one ring) There is not even a comparison to be made here Gandalf wins 100% of the times but because Peter Jackson is an idiot we got what we got.
@@Karadjanov
Read the books. Again. Go look at the exchange between Denethor and Gandalf after the fall of the Rammas Echor.
Gandalf is not certain he could beat the Witch-King. He says so when he reminds the prophecy about him.
Leave aside your video game logic for a moment and understand that winning a fight doesn't mean an absence of injury. Even if Gandalf won, Sauron has put enough of his power in his captain, which is barely a puppet held up together by spells at that point, to seriously endanger Gandalf's physical form (Which is still limited. No, Gandalf the White has not have his limiter removed. The very fact that he's still bound to a physical shape demonstrates that he's still limited, just less than under his grey form. A maia without limits can take many shapes or just exist as a force of the elements, like the Valar.
And power levels don't exist in the way you suggest in Tolkien. Once again, Fingolfin, a single elf, serioulsy maimed a Valar. He gave his life to do so, but Morgoth got stuck with a permanent limp.
And once again, this is leaving behind the most important part of my comment, which is about the theme of Providence throughout the book.
@@maaderllin J. R. R. Tolkien himself has stated in his letters that Gandalf the White is so powerful that the only one who could contest with him is Sauron IN POSSESION of the One Ring.
@@Karadjanov I didn't remember anything of the sort in Tolkien's letters, so you'll have to provide a more precise source for me to believe what you said.
The closest thing to the thing you said would be in letter 156:
Quote:
" The 'wizards' were not exempt, indeed being incarnate were more likely to stray, or err. Gandalf alone fully passes the tests, on a moral plane anyway (he makes mistakes of judgement). For in his condition it was for him a sacrifice to perish on the Bridge in defence of his companions, less perhaps than for a mortal Man or Hobbit, since he had a far greater inner power than they; but also more, since it was a humbling and abnegation of himself in conformity to 'the Rules': for all he could know at that moment he was the only person who could direct the resistance to Sauron successfully, and all his mission was vain. He was handing over to the Authority that ordained the Rules, and giving up personal hope of success.
That I should say is what the Authority wished, as a set-off to Saruman. The 'wizards', as such, had failed; or if you like: the crisis had become too grave and needed an enhancement of power. So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was accepted, and enhanced, and returned. 'Yes, that was the name. I was Gandalf.' Of course he remains similar in personality and idiosyncrasy, but both his wisdom and power are much greater. When he speaks he commands attention; the old Gandalf could not have dealt so with Théoden, nor with Saruman. He is still under the obligation of concealing his power and of teaching rather than forcing or dominating wills, but where the physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good will of the opposers to be effective he can act in emergency as an 'angel' - no more violently than the release of St Peter from prison. He seldom does so, operating rather through others, but in one or two cases in the War (in Vol. III) he does reveal a sudden power: he twice rescues Faramir. He alone is left to forbid the entrance of the Lord of Nazgûl to Minas Tirith, when the City has been overthrown and its Gates destroyed - and yet so powerful is the whole train of human resistance, that he himself has kindled and organized, that in fact no battle between the two occurs: it passes to other mortal hands. In the end before he departs for ever he sums himself up: 'I was the enemy of Sauron'. He might have added: 'for that purpose I was sent to Middle-earth'. But by that he would at the end have meant more than at the beginning. He was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors; but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the moment of its failure. 'Naked I was sent back - for a brief time, until my task is done'. Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business is only with this embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of thought and time'."
Nowhere does it state the very precise thing you said.
As for the Witch King's power level, it is made more precise in letter 210:
"It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done.
It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Z to reconsider. Their
peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no
great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken. See III 114.3"
So my conclusion is that it is as I already said. Gandalf would not "whipe the floor" with the Witch King. He might win, but it might also be costly. But in the end, it still doesn't even matter because, once again, Gandalf's role is NOT to face the Enemy head on. The fact that he stuck to those restrictions is the very reason, with his self-sacrifice against the Balrog, that he is in fact sent back to finish the job of leading the resistance against Sauron. He can only perform acts of last resort saving.
Bump
Missed the mark, again. Always trying to put Christianity where it doesn't belong. The Professor would be sad
Hello there,
I do not agree. First of all, they are two different versions and in very different languages: one literary and the other one cinematic. In the movie this scene creates the peak point of despair, and the fact that Gandalf is saved in the last moment by the ride of the Rohirrim creates this effect. We know what happened in the books is kind of the opposite but again, to create tension and pay off in a visual medium like film, sometimes we don't have any other choice but to change and adapt some of the material at hand. I love both the movies and books, but I understand perfectly well that they are two different mediums and that what works in one of them is not necessarily going to work in the other. Thanks for sharing, I enjoy your channel very much!
"First of all, they are two different versions and in very different languages: one literary and the other one cinematic."
This is meaningless considering both versions are telling the same tale.
"In the movie this scene creates the peak point of despair, and the fact that Gandalf is saved in the last moment by the ride of the Rohirrim creates this effect."
How does it create "the peak point of despair?" Wouldn't that point be the moment Pippin declares to Gandalf that he didn't think it would end this way? And the ride of the Rohirrim is made pointless by having the Dead Men of Dunharrow show up at Minas Tirith like a zombie can of insect repellant. Here's where your asssertion about the difference languages fails: the literary is done intelligently and makes sense. The cinematic... not so much.
"to create tension and pay off in a visual medium like film, sometimes we don't have any other choice but to change and adapt some of the material at hand"
This is just low-effort confirmation bias, and unsubstantiated as well.
"I understand perfectly well that they are two different mediums and that what works in one of them is not necessarily going to work in the other."
That's only true of you understand how the literary medium works before you adapt it to the cinematic.
@@jachyra9 it comes down to a very essential rule of film: show, don’t tell. Whereas in a novel you can get away with just telling. In other words, it’s a visual medium that needs to tell the story visually. It’s okay to disagree
@@esecarolus - "Show, don't tell" isn't literal in regards to literary adaptation. And I know it's okay to disagree. But I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was pointing out how you're wrong.
@@jachyra9 we’re both entitled to our opinion. Focus on the topic. The fact is that Jackson’s adaptation stands the test of time and is still the best LOTR adaptation from the book to the screen to date. Yes, it sacrificed some of the book scenes, characters, and other details in favor of pace, style, visual richness, and engagement. In addition, a shot by shot copy of what happened in the book was not only impossible but it would have been straight up boring, simply because what the reader enjoys while reading is not always the same of what the spectator would enjoy while watching
@@esecarolus - "we’re both entitled to our opinion."
No one is entitled to an opinion. That's a logical fallacy.
"The fact is that Jackson’s adaptation stands the test of time and is still the best LOTR adaptation from the book to the screen to date."
Your opinion, an assertion that you haven't substantiated. Just typing words doesn't make anything you claim factual, and certainly is not a cogent argument. And considering there hasn't been a complete adaptation of The Lord of the Rings other than Jackson's, claiming that it's the best is like claiming you're the best version of you.
"Yes, it sacrificed some of the book scenes, characters, and other details in favor of pace, style, visual richness, and engagement."
Again, you're just typing, and in such a way as to imply Jackson's choices were necessities, as though he was a trauma surgeon making difficult decisions in the heat of the moment. Please...
"In addition, a shot by shot copy of what happened in the book was not only impossible but it would have been straight up boring, simply because what the reader enjoys while reading is not always the same of what the spectator would enjoy while watching"
Strawman.
in order to resist my urge to b*tch about how much i hate the films i'll just say this was an excellent video lol
"This scene is wrong" could apply to virtually any scene in Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Lord of the Rings.
There are multiple changes in the Lord of the Rings movie scripts from the book starting with the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring about Frodo leaving the Shire and Gandalf’s reaction to it.
By the time of the arrival of the Witch King, the changes had piled up into the hundreds and changes continued until the end of Return of the King.
I still very much enjoyed the films. But this brings up the issue that movie adaptations are a very different genre from an epic book.
The “Simpson’s” can run for a quarter of a century plus…….but we can’t tell the full epic that Tolkien created?? It doesn’t seem impossible……..
From a practical, narrative point of view, the reason Jackson made this decision was that Gandalf wouldn’t have the staff during the battle at the Black Gate and thus could not intervene when Aragorn is nearly killed.
Gandalf the Grey didn't need his staff to kill the Balrog, but Gandalf the White would have issues overpowering a troll?
Apart from that, Gandalf didn't actually participate in that final battle in the books cause he was playing a higher game of wills with Sauron.
@ The staff has a symbolic meaning as the point of origin for a wizard’s power, so the loss of it has a subliminal effect on the audience when watching the scene. Need I also remind you of the part where Gandalf is nearly killed by Nazgul in the absence of the staff?
@@JesseBrown-qf6zp - "The staff has a symbolic meaning as the point of origin for a wizard’s power, so the loss of it has a subliminal effect on the audience when watching the scene"...
The audience. Yeah.
@@jachyra9 I’m not sure whether you’re agreeing with me or not.
@@JesseBrown-qf6zp - Gandalf's staff couldn't be broken by the Witch King. One of many stupid decisions Team Jackson made that clearly demonstrate they don't understand what Tolkien wrote.