f13.net

I think you're missing a major factor in all this. The fans. Particularly the obsessed ones, you know, the guys who speak Klingon and stuff? J.J. and crew had three options for a Prequel:

a) Make everything exactly as these fans know it is based on years of EU and such. (and yes, Kirk has a very established backstory at this point). This probably would have bored J.J. to tears and made the movie not very accessible for your average movie goer.
b) Make almost the movie we have but without explaining the differences. The hardcore fans would have shit bricks and badmouthed the movie to anyone who would listen. It might still have succeeded but it would have alienated a large part of this existing fanbase.
c) Do what they did. Find a way to reinvent things but do it in a way that will satisfy as many of these hard core fanatics as possible.

Let's be honest, there are three main fanbases I can think of that obsess enough that if you fuck with things you have to find a way to explain it in-universe.

 1) Star Wars fans. I think this is part of the bitching about the prequels from the hard core fans. Lucas ignored EU and such and pissed some of them off. We're ignoring for the moment the quality, or lack thereof, of the prequels. Now, imagine if someone rebooted Star Wars but Leah was on Tatooine with Luke and the look of the movie was very different. The Falcon? That ship is absolutely brand new! Not a speck of dust. You can bet the fans would be up in arms!

2) Lord of the Rings fans. You know those guys who speak Elven? PJ pushed their buttons simply by having Arwen at the river with Frodo in FOTR instead of some elf prince whose name I forget. Can you imagine if he changed anything major without explaining it somehow?

3) and this one is of course Star Trek fans...

The real tragedy is that Liv Tyler was a shitty choice for Arwen. Hell, she's a shitty choice for anything but T&A in her daddy's music videos.

What was wrong with her? She was hot and spoke Elvish. What more do you want?

edit: Of course, I don't care much about Lord of the Rings to begin with. I'm not exactly sure who Arwen is supposed to be.

I agree with you for the most part.

Now, about the LoTR thing, there ARE MAJOR changes and departures that Peter Jackson did that was never explained away.
Saruman (you know, the owner of one of the Two Towers), just disappears at the end of the 2nd movie - last we saw of him, he was looking mighty annoyed at the water damage he may not be able to claim insurance on. Yes I know theres a DVD deleted scene, but in the movie - he just disappears without so much of a how-de-do from Gandalf. I have a personal theory that maybe PJ or the powers to be wanted to do a "Scouring of the Shire" sequel to the LoTR trilorgy - thats why they left out the filmed end of Saruman/Wormtongue  (which really takes less than 5 mins to resolve) from the movie.

Then theres a whole bit where Aragorn falls off the cliff with the worg, which I don't think thats in the book or explained away well.

The thing is, I personally believe that most of the hardcore fans can be bribed off or placated for the most part if you bring in enough of "TEH AWESOME!" into your movie.

PS: Transparent Aluminum already exists - its called Sapphire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapphire), α-Al2O3

Yeah I know but I didn't want to do an exhaustive review of the changes, the Arwen one was the first that popped into my head. The one major LOTR fan I know has bitched about each and every one of those changes. Not to the level of "it ruined the movie for me!" but still has bitched. If you go to other forums you will find some of these people that say it did ruin the movie for them and I once saw a post by a guy who never saw the other two LOTRO movies because Arwen at the river ruined it for him from that point forward.

Perzactly. Jackson made this change in going from book to movie, and people still ask "Who's Arwen supposed to be?"

It was to give the nerdragers some reason to differentiate this Trek from their Trek. While I had no problem with the time travel part of the equation at all (I actually thought it was a good way to bridge to the two versions AND give them free rein to do their own stories from here), it was just to suck up to the Trek fanboys.

I mean who's she supposed to be other than what was showed? Not what she is supposed to be in general. I gathered enough about the character from the movie that I didn't deem it confusing or bad. Her story seemed to be that she was an immortal in love with a mortal. And she seemed to play the part as well as anyone else who played an elf in it. What exactly am I supposed to not like or want more of? As far as cinematic storytelling goes, it worked. If you're too close for comfort with the books though, it's usually the reader's habit to forget that they're dealing with two different mediums here. Movies tend to distill things, and mostly convey plot through symbolic and/or essential actions. The worst kind of scripts are ones that don't do that. Nobody wants to watch an additional 5 hours of Arwen picking berries or some shit.. even though a LotR fan might think that's great and all, he's wrong. He's the only one in the room with his arms up in the air about it. [edit] That goes for just about every book adaptation.. and big fans of the respective books. Take a step back and realize that Jackson made a pretty timeless trilogy based on books written in the fucking 1930's or some shit. I'm not a big fan or anything, but they are pretty good. I'd only consider Conan the Barbarian the better fantasy movie.

I'm not a fanatical enough fan that having Arwen at the ford instead of the elf who was supposed to be there bothered me.  It's just I couldn't see much reason for it.  It looked like they were trying to beef up Arwen's part in the movie. It didn't work. She was a minor character in the books and seeing her a couple of extra times in the movie didn't change that.

Edit: Hmm this isn't the right thread for this. Sorry about that.

The Star Trek thing is beaten to death anyway.  On with the derail!

Arwen was a minor enough character that I didn't notice her being at the river as a big change when I saw the first movie.  Having reread the books a couple of times with more attention paid to her, though, I think why some people got bent out of shape about the change was that she wasn't supposed to be a warrior princess like Eowyn.  She doesn't tend to charge to the rescue and save the day; her strength and her role in the story are very different from Eowyn's, and I think to some extent Eowyn and Arwen are meant to represent two sides of Aragorn's character and the choice he has to make in what sort of man he's going to be.

I think my biggest complaints about omitted stuff are the breaking of Saruman's staff, and the Scouring of the Shire, both of which provide some resolution to largeish plot threads (what happened to Saruman, how did this whole adventure change the hobbits, who we have followed through the whole story).

The thing is, sometimes they'd add things that just felt fantastic and fit great (Bilbo telling stories to the hobbit children at the birthday party -- brilliantly done), and sometimes I think they just went off the rails trying to muck with stuff that really was fine as is.

Arwen at the ford certainly didn't ruin the movie for me though.

I'm still really annoyed that the Scouring of the Shire, which would have been an awesome scene in every way, was omitted in favor of fifteen minutes of slow-mo hobbits jumping on a bed.

Peter Jackson hated the Scouring. That's the reason it's not in the movies. Which sucks monkey ass as a reason, frankly. But, the movies are still good.

You could probably do an entire movie out of the scouring.

Really?  I knew they were going to cut it the moment I heard they were making a movie (just like Tom Bombadil), just for pacing reasons alone.  I was never really a fan of the Scouring.  It felt really weird and out of place.  Meh, didn't really bug me, just thought the whole thing was kind of pointless.  Glad it wasn't included.

The Scouring pays off every bit of the Hobbit's journey. It's subtle, but it is the most telling example that "things will never be the same." The idyllic paradise of the Shire, so immune to the troubles of the world, was corrupted, and it took hobbits who had been changed by the external world to put right. It was payoff that the movies lacked somewhat. And it gave Sauruman a more fitting end than disappearing into Orthanc or getting spiked on a wheel.

While I liked the Scouring in the book, I don't think it would have been given the justice it deserved in the movies.  It would have had to been another hour of film.  I wish he would have filmed it and added it to the extended versions though.

Yeah, I totally understand why he dropped it (the movie suffered from "too many endings" as it was).  It makes me sad though, as it's always been one of my favorite parts of the books.  I mean, there's a big story there, but the story is told from the eyes of the hobbits and the scouring of the shire shows that their world was not untouched, and neither were they.

I really don't get this from PJ's film at all.  Except for Frodo being a brooding wuss, the other Hobbits seemed the same as they were at the beginning.  I think the biggest changes of all were really in Merry and Pippin, throughout the books, and that was totally glossed over in the movies.

It's there but it's a subtle and small moment. It's when they sit in the bar and all kind of look at each other. You get the feel that they've all experienced stuff noone else in the room has and they know it. Then Sam goes up to Goldie and it both breaks the moment and shows very well how they've changed as old Sam never had the balls to do that.

That's beautiful man.

As a Tolkien fan who doesn't give a shit about the transition from book to movie as long as they tell a good story, I thought the LOTR trilogy was about average. Some good bits, a lot of mediocre bits, and a lot of stupid shit. Liv Tyler is one of the stupid shit bits. She can't act, and they shoehorned her into the movie to give Aragorn a love interest, but all of her scenes were crap that they stuck it in there so we wouldn't forget who she was before the end of ROTK finally rolled around.

including the scouring would have ruined the hamfisted allegorical significance that the movies played up

just like including the ents properly (the difference that pissed me off the most) would have ruined the human/hobbit centricity of the film

the films were just fantasy action, making them anything else wouldn't have gone down as well.

i mean, lotr isn't subtle to begin with, but even then it was too much for a 'major motion picture', so all sorts of shit got culled for those reasons... where 'pacing' stands in for 'giving the audience room to pause and consider'

I have no problem with Saruman's end.  Saruman defeats Gandalf.  Gandalf dies and comes back and breaks Saruman's staff.  Then the Witch King breaks Gandalf the White's staff.  I thought it was a great way to show their power levels.  I thought that was a nice touch and made the Witch King more of a badass.

Scouring of the Shire.  Really?  It felt out of place in the books and it would have made a long end after Mt. Doom even longer. 

Except he didn't.  Perrin walked up to Gandalf and said "Yo, Steward dude is trying to light people on fire, might want to fix that."  Gandalf said "FFS you little shit, do I have to do all the work around here?" and while they were away Merry shanked the Witch King in the leg while Aragorn's clingy psychopath rammed a sword in his mouth, just like Aragorn refused to do with her, showing she's so over him now and has moved on to other relationships.

Except he did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lth9e7BeKwo&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lth9e7BeKwo&feature=related)

I don't remember seeing that scene in the film, nor do I remember reading about this event in the book.  Are you sure this isn't just a deleted scene?  I want to call bullshit, but I'll admit it's quite possible that my memory is leaky on this.

I don't remember that scene at all either.

What the fuck ?

wasnt in the cinema release for sure

Indeed...though it was a pretty cool scene.

Not so much.  It kinda says 'The Witch King would Fuck You Up, Gandalf'.

And that's not the case.

It's in the movie but only in the extended. In the cinematic version, however, a continuity error hints to that (omitted) scene, because Gandalf still grabs a spear from a guard to knock Denethor off the bonfire in a later scene;

At 4:30:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR3Z388PIew&feature=related

Edit:
And no, it's not in the books. Because of what Ironwood said.

So in other words, it officially never happened?  Good, because it doesn't make any damn sense.

.


How odd.  Watched the Extended version a few times.  That scene just does not register in my memory at all.

It's still shite.

I think the coolest thing about that scene is the Witch-King's flaming sword. THAT's how I want my magic swords.

The problem with the scene is the whole Gandalf-getting-his-staff-broken thingy.  No way the Witch King could have done that (not to my way of thinking, anyway).  Tolkien wouldn't have made such a big deal out of Gandalf becoming The White only to have him get bitch slapped 10 minutes later.

It was clear from the context of the book that the whole, Hey, I'm Gandalf and I'm sitting on this horse in front of the gate and, by the way, you're no fucking getting in pal, nae trainers, was a reinforcing of the point that, after his fall, no-one fucked with Gandalf.

He even made clear that there were about 3 people in Middle Earth that would even remotely bother him and, by the way you cowled wee shite, ur no wan o tham.

That scene is stupid.  It should have been taken out.  As already mentioned, if you define the 'levels' of power, Gandalf isn't about to get bothered by a sorceror who has a weakness to fire.

For Fucks Sake.

Without knowing the books, and just going by the movies, I thought the other chick (Erowyn? (sp ???)) didn't get much screentime. I guess I'll complain about that. She seemed to be important, yet Arwen probably has a bigger role.

I only mention it because she killed that Witch King, right? You guys are talking about the same Witch King. I think.

Right. Eowyn was supposed to be a more important character than Arwen if you go by the book. She actually had a few pages where she was the main protagonist while Arwen never did (that I recall).

 :Love_Letters:

I believe that Gandalf could not *destroy* the witch king (due to him being destined to be offed by Eowyn), but that's about it.

That may be closer to the truth (though I tend to think Gandalf could possibly do a lot of things that he chose to leave to others...that's just his MO), but it doesn't invalidate the point.  No way the Witch King breaks his damn staff.

Is my nerd hat on straight?

Sauron put his power into the Witch King, just like he put his power into the Ring. (He probably did it through the Rings, like a LAN party!) Anyway, power in ME isn't all linear and predictable. That's why some blonde bimbo with a rusty sword could kill one of the mightiest bad guys in ME at the time.

At that moment at the gates, the Witch King was at the height of his power, fully backed by Sauron, and ready to throw down. Could he have beat Gandalf? We'll never know, but I don't think it would have been a guaranteed smackdown.

Plus, the Witch King could have used the fact that he weighs the same as a duck to dazzle and confuse Gandalph allowing him to sneak in and break his staff.

Um.  No.  Ratman, I don't wanna fight, but you're just NOT RIGHT.

If you take the movie in and of itself, your theory doesn't hold up.  If you take the books into account, your theory just melts in the sun like yesterdays hoarfrost.  Or summat.

Basically, you're not right.  Fucking GLORFINDEL could handle that soft shite.  Gandalf would have made an absolute jamrag out of him.

As has been mentioned, his demise was foretold as 'That's the way shit's gotta go down'.  It doesn't say anything about HIS power, but instead speaks to the nature of prophecy itself.

Fuck me, in the films Aragorn, without even Narsil-reforged, chucked a fucking torch at the guy and he legged it.  Gandalf could have just set the fucking guy alight to watch him BURN.

But, as has also been said, Gandalf knew that with great power comes a greater sense of 'leave fucking things alone you arsehole or you'll turn into a baddie'.  That's why he kept refusing the ring and why he mostly STOPPED himself from sorting out shit that other people could have handled.

'Cause otherwise you're Saruman.

Hell, in the books it's clear that Gandalf and Saruman were pretty much the same person except when they were asked to visit the East, Saruman said 'Fuck Yes' and Gandalf said 'Away chase yersel'.

Arg

Don't Make me Nerd Out.  It's Sick and WRONG.

Oh man, I love the Britishisms that flow from you when you're arguing, Iron. It's like I don't understand half of it, but I know it's awesome somehow.  :grin:

Oh I was in total agreement.  I also agree that in general Gandalf was not into interfering -- he preferred to counsel and didn't seek power (in sharp contrast, as has been pointed out, to Saruman).  Even when he was sent back as Gandalf the White, and the gloves came off, he kept the direct interference to a minimum.

Glorfindel was an elf lord. Gandalf said there were few like him who could ride openly against the nine.


True.


Gandalf tried. In the book he mentions that he fought 4 or 5 of them on weathertop and drove them off, but Gandalf never had the power to destroy them. Bound to the Ring's fate and all that. Gandalf ran from the Nazgul. Partly to draw them away from Frodo, but partly because they were a danger to him.
The Nazgul were far from home, not yet at the prime of their power, and are strongest when their enemies fall to despair. That's why Aragorn could face them at weathertop and not get steamrolled.


Again true, but it didn't stop him from putting his two cents in (The Balrog) when he felt it was necessary.


Beats talking about the retarted Star Trek movie.  :grin:

Just to let the nerd flow:

In the books it's clear that the reason why Eowyn is able to do what she does is that Merry's dagger had been enchanted specifically to attack the Angmar and that's what undoes most of the Witch Kings protective magic allowing her to strike him down.

Also, Glorfindel is enough on his own to make all 9 of the ring wraiths together take a detour, Gandalf is another type of being all-together and defeated a Balrog (Sauron, Gandalf, Saurman and Balrogs are all the same order of being) in single combat.  The witch-king is only a human, even with some of Sauron's (which is no more than Gandalf's) power and one of the nine rings (Gandalf has one of the three), he wouldn't have stood a chance.

Edit:  Gandalf had to be the one to kill the Balrog under Moria because there was no one else to do it.  Glorfindel killed a Balrog in his first incarnation but the current incarnation was weaker, Gandalf guided the men and the elves to the demise of Sauron because that's what needed to happen for them as a people, he took out the Balrog when he encountered it because it wasn't supposed to be around any more and couldn't be left to show up later.

The elves and the white council all thought Durin's bane was some menace left over from the early years (Like Shelob) but they didn't think it was a Balrog.  Once Gandalf knew what it was he had to do something about it, there is a reason why it was hiding under a mountain for 3000 years.

This same discussion happened recently on another board I lurk at, so here's an excerpt from Tolkien's letters:

"He [Gandalf] 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'. ..... He [Gandalf] alone is left to forbid the entrance of the Lord of Nazgul 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."


Gandalf is basically an agent of Free Will.  He can intervene in select circumstances, but he's there to make sure that people know they have a choice.  The only time the gloves really come off is with the Balrog (a threat from the First Age) and with Saruman (a traitor who has abandoned his mission).

I seem to also remember he stressed the point that no mortal MAN could possibly slay the Witch King, but nobody ever said anything about WOMAN. 

The Witch King was no longer 'only' a human.

lol

The prominence of Arwen in the movies was to combine a few events to form a thread through all three movies. By creating the forbidden love angle, they were able to get Frodo and the Fellowship easily to Rivendell, able to show some stress between Elrond and Aragorn, allow the Elves to leave Middle Earth after Elrond said they were while giving Elrond a reason to let his daughter while protecting her from Sauron by reforging and handing over the sword to Aragorn, and then neatly wrap it up in the third movie with the love interests hooking up.

Eowyn was a more important character in the books by far, but PJ probably didn't want to get too much into the politics of managing the kingdom while Saruman had the King under his spell. And after that, the movies did a fine job of showing her not wanting to be just a kept women, stowing away to the battle, doing well enough for herself, meeting up with the Hobbits, establishing her requited relationship with her dad, and therefore all having been well explained and present in her final encounter.

I was not sorry to see the lack of Bombadil (didn't serve a real purpose other than to flesh out the world, better as a Simarillion filler than a key character in LoTR), highlighting the differences between the various elven groups (I was fine with who showed up to Helm's Deep because it'd take too much time to explain otherwise), the lack of the Scourging of the Shire, and the lack of resolution with Saruman (trapped in the tower and eternal trees keeping him there, what's the problem?).

The mass marketable story ended with the trench run death of Gollum/ring. Everything after that was to explain how much the previously niave and disconnected (and Ranger-protected) Hobbits had evolved in the world. They didn't tell nearly enough of that story to have that be a valid ending. And honestly, I felt it was tacked on in the books too because from what I recall, there was absolutely nothing told about Hobbiton between the time the four leave and their encounter with the new guard post inspired by the Men who showed up.

Besides, the ending was long enough anyway. Like this post  :oh_i_see:

Darth Sidious would kick all their asses. Gandalf would be all like "I am a Maiar of Valinor, I'm probably powerful in some way-- OH FUCK A WOLF, QUICK LET ME UP THAT TREE!" and Sidious would lay the lightning on his ass. Know what would break just about any staff? Lightsaber. Yeah.

(http://thatwoman.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/gauntlet.jpg)

 :awesome_for_real:

And Gandalf is fully the equal of his master.  You were told this, don't be dumb.

Sauron is an order of magnitude more powerful than any of the "wizards" who later come. Hes on an entirely different level.

How so? Sauron started out exactly the same. Sure, I grant you that he got some extra experience and training from his time with his old master. But after losing the ring that he permanently poured most of his power into? At that point Gandalf could easily kick his ass in a direct confrontation even without the extra boost from Narya.

They may both be Maiar but that doesn't make them the same. The impression I get from the Silmarillion and the unfinished tales is that Sauron is one of the Old Things and they don't make them with that kind of power level anymore. It's similar to the difference between First Age Elves and later ones, Feanor would snap Haldir like a twig and yet they are both 'the same'. Gandalf and co kicked Sauron out of Mirkwood but couldn't actually defeat him properly, only curb his influence.

I always thought all the Maiar were created at the same time, only most remained outside of the world. Also, Sauron's strength is more that he is a really great manipulator, not a fighter. Any time he got into the action himself, he was defeated but managed to run away.

Seems like his true power is to get out of trouble alive. Although of course, during LotR he would still have been more than a match for most mortals.

Because Tolkien explicated stated this was the case. But we dont even have to rely on that to make that determination. And it really has nothing to do with training, Sauron was a high ranked member of the Maiar before he fell. All of the wizards are "lessers" in the hierarchy of their type. And they are even further handicapped in their power when they "arrive". This is done for a very specific reason, to make certain they don't have the means to battle Sauron directly or the ability to outright dominant mankind. This all happens after Sauron is "Depowered".

This is why they all appear as old men, who bleed/eat/die like normal mortals. There are countless examples in the books showing the Wizards are far less than Sauron. It takes the entire White Council to merely displace Sauron, that includes all of the wizards and the most powerful elves of the age.

Basically the Valar are smart enough to realise that sending ludicrously overpowered agents across to get things done has the potential to go very wrong. The Istari are powerful by mortal standards (although probably not so much by the standards of the older Noldor) specifically so they don't get funny ideas about enslaving the locals and setting up their personal empires. When Gandalf goes back as Gandalf the White he's invested with a lot more power to reflect the reality on the ground - the Istari are either MIA or actively working for the other side and shit is starting to get real. He's the last throw of the dice for this round of Valar vs Servants of Morgoth.

If memory serves it is Eowyn's killing of the Witch King that ends the battle of Pelinor Fields and not the ghosts who weren't even at that battle. So yes, she is quite a bit more important in the books because she, with the help of a hobbit, had just saved all of Gondor.

Strangely, since this is no longer about Star Trek, I'm not really interested anymore.   :oh_i_see:


But seriously, some of you are still wrong on barely subhuman functional levels.

Sauron and Morgoth both invested their power in kicking ass and enslaving people. Gandalf's power was in motivating people and giving them hope. To take the magic out of it for a moment (Which Tolkien seems to have been doing after the books were published, and taking the fun out of them by explaining every nerd question... wait that sounds familiar...) they developed different toolsets for dealing with ME. Blatantly pointed out in the Silmarillion- in order to affect ME, a being like the Valar/Maiar has to operate by it's rules.

It's not a simple power level question.

Only until someone thought of picking him up and throwing him down a deep hole.

With Star Trek having been broken off from discussion, I find this new Star Wars tie in to have potential.

(http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/4577/yodasu5.jpg)

This is why I like George Lucas.  Modern-day movie guys who do what you described, like Kevin Smith, weep with pain and pen a 10,000 word monologue EVERY SINGLE TIME a virgin calls them a name on the Internet.  Lucas doesn't even pretend to care about all the people throwing shit at him, or pretend to know what other authors have done with his work. 

There is, however, something to be said for standing on the shoulders of giants, rather than kicking them in the nuts to cripple them to your level.

Lucas is the way he is becasue he has an entire company of people terrified to say shit to him or tell him he's gone off the rails. Everyone that told him he was wrong he got rid of and destroyed in the last 20 years, and hes surrounded himself with yes men.

Some inspiration.

When Sauron entered ME he was a crafter, thats what his specialty is. Throughout the ages he was different things at different times, Maiar are fairly flexible in what they can do. Gandalf uses motivation because he is restricted from using any other means, thats his job as an Istari not the limitations of him being a Maiar. Evidenced by the fact he defeats a Balrog (Maiar of destruction and ass kicking) in single combat. We don't even know what Gandalfs specialty is (beyond being related to fire) because he was a non-factor in the previous ages. All we know is what his marching orders are after he becomes an Istari which includes having his power significantly nerfed. But even if he was at full strength he is far weaker than Sauron. They are in entirely different leagues.

Sauron	<	Saruman (in decline) + Gandalf the Grey + Radagast
Sauron	>=	Durin's Bane (note: it's implied that the Balrog does not serve Sauron and is, in fact, a rival)
Balrog	<=	Gandalf the Grey

Gandalf the Grey is between Sauron and the Balrog of Moria in power, but lesser than Saruman the Fruitcake.  The Balrogs were also lieutenants of Morgoth, of whom Sauron was merely the first amongst equals.  Sauron lost a significant amount of his power making the ring, which is why other bad dudes figure they can challenge him or don't submit to his will (Saruman would require the ring).  Gandalf gained a significant amount of power when he came back, he also has a ring of power.  He also explicitly stated that he's the most dangerous thing Gimli will ever meet save Sauron.  It can be inferred that the distance between the full strength of the White and the weakened form of Sauron is pretty fucking thin.

And they were all out of people /campbell   :rimshot:

From the old SPI game "War of the Ring" (1977 bitches!) here are the stats for a few characters:

Balrog-Combat 4, Endurance 6
Gandalf the White-Combat 2, Endurance 6 BUT Sorcery A (like the best)
Witch King-Combat 3, Endurance 6, Sorcery B
Gandalf the Grey-Combat 3, Endurance 5, Sorcery B
Saruman-Combat 2, Endurance 5, Sorcery B

Based on the HARD data presented, we can clearly see that the Balrog, though mighty in combat, is no match for Gandalf the Grey's sorcery.  Gandalf wins.  Correct.

Saruman defeats G the Grey although Gandalf has a combat edge (Glamdring?).  BUT Saruman took him by surprise AND had home field advantage.  Saruman wins.  Correct!

Based on this tried and tested formula, we can see that a full out combat between Gandalf the White and the Witch King would result in a narrow win for the G from Valinor.  Correct.

These results are official and cannot be further disputed. 

I seem to recall weapons were item cards. Though that might have been a different LoTR board game.

Here's my thing: He's NEVER had a Star Wars movie that didn't generate hoots of "Kiddy bullshit with wooden acting!" and then make a billion dollars anyway, not 30 years ago and not 5 years ago. How is he supposed to know he's doing anything wrong? Phantom Menace got better reviews upon release than Jedi, and Sith got the best reviews of them all. If the critics don't know what they're talking about and all the movies make money, what exactly should he think?

Even if we accept the premise that all the new ones are terrible, if critics refuse to hammer them worse and audiences fail to reject them... uh... why should he think they're terrible?

(edit: Mixed up what got which review)

Transformers 2 did make a gozillion dollars.  :uhrr: Audiences are fickle.
Today's lesson? Have really fucking good advertising people. (Avatar, Star Trek, etc...)

Sauron >= White Council: the most powerful beings of the age including 3 ring bearers (one being Gandalf) and 3 Wizards cannot defeat him, Sauron withdraws.
Balrog  >= Gandalf: They kill each other, even with a ring of power Gandalf is slain. Its worth noting this Balrog is not exceptional and is one of hundreds.
Sauron   = Gothmog(Lord of Balrogs): The only being who is Saurons "peer" out of all of the followers Morgoth. Gothmog is a metric fuckton more powerful than his kin. Sauron was not "first amoung equals" with Balrogs, he was first amoung equals with the Lord of ALL Balrogs

Gandalf while powerful and a Maiar is still a mortal creature as an Istari, he can be killed in any way that would slay a man/elf. Sauron cannot be killed by any means revealed throughout the books, even in his final defeat he is not "killed". The only remote possibility is to usurp his own power and knowledge or destroy it. Direct conflict with him (And yes Sauron does have a physical body throughout LoTR) is not even deemed an option. The entire White Council could not defeat him while he was at one of the weakest points of his existence.  While Gandalf is slain by a Balrog of no standing even with the aid of a ring of power. The entire function of the Istari is to provide guidance while lacking the power to challenge Sauron directly or dominant mankind should they become corrupt. This is why relatively weak Maiar are chosen for the Istari and even then are greatly reduced of there inherent strength. And while Durins Bane is not under Saurons command (as far as we know) this does not imply they are rivals in power. Merely the Balrogs served Gothmog/Morgoth and not Sauron. And given the Lord of all Balrogs was his sole peer should give a good indication of how powerful he is.

So unless you believe that Gandalf after his reincarnation is more powerful than 3 wizards+most powerful elves of the age+3 rings of power its not even close. This also ignores the fact that Sauron is much more powerful than when the White Council confronted him so Gandalf would have significantly more powerful than the combined might of the White Council for then to be even be close in might. And there is no indication that this is the case.

Tolkien isn't one of my nerd specialities, so let me ask: Is there any room for strategy, luck, or the old Ali/Frazier/Foreman split (A>B, B>C, but C>A somehow) in all this, or is everything secondary to POWER LEVEL like... well... DBZ?

There very much is room for luck and Dramatically Appropriate humblings of the mighty. Isildur (mortal human) goes a few rounds with Sauron in hand to hand combat without being turned into an heavily armoured frappuccino then manages to cut a finger wearing the One Ring from Sauron's hand.

Tons of room.  Indeed, that's what it's really all about.

Try to keep firmly fixed in your head that even though this nerdfight is about the 'All Powerful Witch-King', he was humbled by a woman with basic Cavalry training.

Oh, and a midget.

Gryeyes, when the Lord of the Rings was published the number of Balrogs in existence was set at seven, which Tolkien revised almost every time he made new notes apparently.  It was and is intended to be very fucking serious, later and earlier changes notwithstanding.  Sauron himself is just a goldsmith with political aspirations: fucking Aragorn manages to beat him in a contest of will when Gandalf gives him the Orthanc stone, his might is almost entirely based on the forces he commands and the ring, which he... uhh... lost.

Aragorn is basically incorruptible and possessed of a superhuman sense of duty - he has many opportunities to take the ring for himself but it apparently never even occurs to him to do so. He doesn't so much beat Sauron in a contest of wills, it's more accurate to say that he doesn't lose. Sauron is projecting his power remotely through the Palantir, while distracted with the search for the ring and doesn't realise the significance of Aragorn at that point.

Describing Sauron as 'only a goldsmith' is really understating him. Sure that was how he manifested his power in Numenor where he pioneered the art of making rings of power but he also has a lot of power himself that he used for his work. Saying he's just a goldsmith is like saying Gandalf is just someone who puts on firework displays.

I wish I could find an old post on the LOTRO boards.  It stated that there was no magic in Middle Earth.  Magical things happened because of three things; Will, Craft and something I can't remember.

Basically if your Will is strong enough you can bend armies to you will (orcs).  If you Craft is great enough you can make a ring more powerful than others, etc.

This is why the Witch King could beat Gandalf; Sauron's full Will was focused on Minas Tirith and his lieutenant.  When the WK confronted Eowyn his will dropped, she was no threat.  But Sauron didn't count on the will of Merry to defend Eowyn, Eowyn's will to protect her uncle and of course the prophecy of Glorfindel.

I loved that post, wish I could find it again, it made so much sense to me.

Right.

Not really, the only other time he flexes his power when not dominating minds or crafting stuff is to change the weather.  Supposedly he also has powers of illusion and shape changing.  Tolkien purposefully styled him and Morgoth from the Judeo-Christian Satan archetype, it shouldn't come as a surprise that he's not the avatar of destruction.

Also, as I recall it specifically says that Sauron was driven out of Mirkwood.

As far as I can tell every time it's recorded that Sauron enters the lists as a combatant he gets his ass kicked.  By a mortal.  It's noted that Sauron's abilities lay more toward organization, invention, persistence and coercion and not so much combat or even generalship (his armies are routinely routed by inferior forces and succumb without battle to Numenor).

Gandalf the Grey is not killed by the Balrog, he is killed by the 10 days of exertion it takes to bring the Balrog to battle and kill him.  Gandalf the White is double plus good.  We don't know specifically what Olorin was capable of as a Maiar but he worked directly for Manwe and 'was considered the wisest of the Maiar'.  As an Istari his power is limited to the body of a fragile old man and yet he fights a 10 day running battle with a Balrog and wins, so he's no slouch in the combat arena even if his body betrays him.

I think we've long since shown that Gandalf, White or Grey, was more than a match for the Witch-King, had he wanted to match himself against him.  It's questionable who would have been the victor in the fullness of their power, Sauron or Olorin with all their tricks and time at their disposal but it is pretty clear that Gandalf the White in a direct confrontation with the weakened, ring-less Sauron would probably only result in a no-decision because that's the way Gandalf the White would have played it.

(Two Towers, The White Rider, Page 125.)

Gandalf to Gimli.  For those who don't get quite what he's saying, it boils down to 'Back The Fuck Off, Short-Arse.'

Gandalf doesn't give a fuck.  Gandalf owns you.

Sure there is, but in a comparison of a mortal man (which Gandalf for all purposes is) versus something that most certainly is not is a very lopsided fight. A third grader can be a tactical genius from a long line of ninjas but I can safely say a full grown man will beat his/her ass. The discrepancy in ability is just too great to rationally conclude a different result. Its similar to asking who do you think would win in a fight, Ali in his prime, or a 12 year old kid who boxes at the YMCA. You tend to use how they fared against other opponents to get a general idea of where they stand.

Gandalf is outclassed in every way by a substantial margin. Sauron gets his ass kicked various times, but its usually by multiple extremely powerful beings and it is always a "fight". He also defeats several beings in combat that are more powerful than anything in the third age. The Istari by their very nature are far less powerful, they are intentionally designed to be less powerful than Sauron. 3 Istari and 3 rings and the most powerful beings in ME at that time communally are unable to defeat him when he is at his weakest, what chance do you think a single Istari has.

Sauron versus Istari (One at at time or communally) is a Man amongst boys. There is not a single shred of evidence that conflicts with this but there is a  mountain of things supporting it. And I even narrowed the scope to just "Stupid shit Sheeperherder is claiming".


When he loses the ring he is fighting multiple legendary opponents (we dont know how many exactly but its a bunch) wielding some of the most powerful weapons of that age. And there are only two survivors. Sauron defeats Finrod in single combat one of the most powerful elves of the First Age. Gandalf by comparison gets chased up a tree by some worgs, smacked around by a fellow Istari and killed by a Balrog. He is also a student of Nienna who is not a being of ass kickery. There is no question who would win Tolkien has said Sauron is a being immeasurably more powerful than all the Istari. Everything else we know supports this.

No, he doesn't.  He defeats Finrod in singing.  In this case singing probably means magical ability and also Finrod was cursed by Feanor at the time.  Sauron is beaten at other times by mortals such as Huan who is a dog.  There is no direct fight between the wise and Sauron at Mirkwood either.  Sauron flees, before any direct confrontation happens, to Mordor where he has secretly rebuilt his fortress and gathered an army, which the white councils wasn't then able to act against.

Yes, Sauron with the ring or even prior to the ring (Sauron is said to be greater with the ring than before it) is a greater power than the Istari and probably most of the first age heroes individually.  But without the ring and solely fixated on the domination of middle-earth?  Gandalf the White plays him like a fiddle, which actually is the whole point of all the books of the Lord of the Rings.

With the ring or before the ring, in single combat, Sauron probably wins toe to toe with Gandalf the White.  Without the ring Sauron doesn't let himself come to a confrontation and Gandalf doesn't press it because of his mandate but the answer is seriously in doubt.  Playing by the rules they set themselves?  It was definitively Gandalf.

Singing sons of power is most certainly referring to magic.  Unless fighting someone with magic is not considered combat you are wrong.  Huan is a dog as much as Ungoliant is a spider, you know the being who captures Morgoth one of the most powerful creatures in existence. Gandalf on the other hand is nearly killed by a pack of worgs. And is outright slain by a Balrog. The rules are, Istari are mortal creatures lacking the knowledge and power of their previous incarnation as Maiar. Sauron while greatly diminished is STILL a divine being, he cannot be killed, he retains all knowledge and abilities. Even the destruction of the ring does not kill him. Gandalf on the other hand can be defeated and slain by ANYTHING that would kill a man (even tho he is a badass). He is fearful of the Ring Wraiths because they can in fact slay him, while he is unable to do the same.

Are the Ring Wraiths more powerful than Gandalf? Of course not, but they can kill him. Is Sauron more powerful than Gandalf? Yep. Can Sauron kill Gandalf? Yep. Can Gandalf kill Sauron? nope. Is there any indication what so ever that Gandalf possesses the power to best Sauron in single combat? Nope As to Gandalf playing Sauron like a fiddle I would have to disagree. Gandalf loses the ring early on, is beaten and imprisoned by Sauraman due in large part to Saurons manipulation and corruption. And is forced into a confrontation with a Balrog that results in his death. Unless Gandalfs plan included him being dead and the ring unprotected id say he failed.

Gandalfs "plan" hinges upon an exceptionally unlikely event occurring. Saurons plan has only ONE factor that can prevent him from ruling the world. Gandalf won the lottery, nothing more nothing less. Saurons might is well documented whatever his incarnation, While Gandalfs greatest claim to fame is throwing exploding pine cones at a pack of Worgs that are fully capable of killing him. And slashing a few orcs with a sword. Sauron is recognized as an order of magnitude greater than the Istari in the ranks of Maiar. There is absolutely ZERO evidence supporting that they are equals in power.

Well, I can't even make myself read that wall-o-text. Since i read the silmarillion 20 years ago and have been skimming wikipedia for my replies I'll go ahead and say I'm sure you're probably right. 

Gryeyes in 'being Gryeyes' shocker.

A wise choice.

(http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/11/17/fondue_2001_gallery__321x400.jpg)

My god, it's full of stars!

Gryeyes, Gandalf also reincarnates every time we see him die, so I'm not exactly sure why you're drawing that distinction.

Gandalf is reincarnated through the direct intervention of God (forget its name), this is a feat beyond any of the Valar. He dies the same as any other man would, it had nothing to do with his own ability.

Actually we know a bit about Gandalf in Valinor. First he was a Miar called Olorin, of the people of Manwe, Chief of the Valar and ruler of the Wind and Air. He was said to be the wisest of the Miar. The meaning of Olorin in Quenya is associated with Dreams. Olorin was specifically mentioned in the Silmerilion but in passing. He was the last of the Istari or wizards to arrive and when he did Cirdan the shipwright gave him the elven great ring of Fire, Narya. That's why he uses fire a lot in the books.

Also Sauron "withdrew" from Dol Gulder the first time because he didn't want to face Gandalf alone. Sauron was pretty weak at that stage though.

Yeah, it does.  He's reincarnatable, as are all of his kind, he just needs to ask nicely.  Which means Sauron's ability to go sulk in Mirkwood for a century or two while he puts his shit back together doesn't really make him all that formidable to the wizards.

k

I think you guys have ruined LOTR for me.  :awesome_for_real:

Don't listen to them mate;  most of them appear not to have a frigging clue...

So have any of these characters being bandied about ever actually slugged it out with someone of their own level "on camera" in any of Tolkien's work? Or is it all vague as hell? Because I've taken part in more than my share of "which fictional characters can kick the others ass" nerd fights, and it's usually pretty boring if you don't actually know exactly what the combatants are supposed to DO to each other.

I want more "Spider-sense will negate the advantage of Predator's cloaking device!" nitty-gritty and less parsing of Tolkien's napkin notes, dammit!

When Galdalf took on the ringwraiths at Weathertop its off camera. All that's described is flashing lights far off. Gandalf vs Saruman is not described at all. Gandalf fighting the Balrog is off camera. All we have is Ganfdalfs vague description of it "Ever he clutched me, and ever I hewed him" is as far as it gets. The Nine ride past Glorfindel as he is on foot so he does not take them on directly. The closest we get to seeing Elronds power is when he floods the river to sweep them away. The Dead fighting the bad guys is off camera, described by Gimli. The Lord of the Nine and Gandalf have a staring competition and then the Lord of the Nasgul buggers off. Saurons power over the Orcs is described as "the power that filled their hearts with laughter" in the last battle. When Sauron looked away the Orcs suddenly fell back in terror.

So yeah there plenty of room for nerd filling in the blanks.

It's not that kind of work.  LotR is more allegorical, and the meta-conflicts are much more about morality/philosophy than anything else.  Often, it's whoever conforms most to their nature or their philosophical side that wins rather than some DBZ idea of power levels.  One of the reasons for the books enduring popularity is that you can read it in so many ways...

The Witch-king, for instance: 
- Merry stabbed the guy with magic dagger, which may have made him vulnerable.
- Dawn had come, and he was weaker during the day.
- Good old fashioned Hubris:  By bragging about his invulnerability and acting reckless, he opened himself up to being killed
- WK's primary weapon was fear.  Earlier in the work, Eowyn said that she did not fear anything but being trapped in a women's traditional role, so she had no fear of death or of the Witch-king's power.  The WK had grown dependent on his fear ability pacifying resistance, so was unprepared for resistance.
- Eowyn was also seeking death, and trying to protect her uncle.

You could go on forever on all the little or big factors that contributed to why something happened, and you can weight them all separately depending on your own beliefs.


The Silmarillion is basically the mythic structure and backstory on everything in LotR...  and as such there is more epic kickassery.  Mostly it's in the mythic style ("And lo, seven times did Fingolfin strike at Morgoth, and seven times was he wounded!" type stuff), but there are some good bits, and people on both sides get busy slaughtering each other.

Sauron, by the way, gets his ass kicked  by a chick and her dog.   :oh_i_see:

According to extensive notes released by Christopher Tolkien, both Gandalf and Saruman have power levels over 9000.

:heart:

This thread has inspired me to re-read the Silmarillion.  It's seriously one of my most favorite books EVER.  Maybe I can even hop back into the fray later to pick apart arguments with exact quotes and appendix entries!

I read like three pages, then it started rambling about dancing.  I might have to try again, but Unfinished Tales presumed all the preceding bullshit was immaterial, and the Lord of the Rings was condensed to the point where it feels really brief, for epic fantasy.

Singing actually.   :awesome_for_real:

While I know the book definitely isn't for everybody, I just loved the entire epic scope of it (I don't think I've ever read anything more epic) and all the imagery (there are some pretty amazing scenes in it).  But then I'm also a whore for in depth world building, and he lays out quite a bit about all the different kinds of elves, humans, languages, kingdoms, ect.

The first part of the book is the hardest because it throws you into a bunch of esoteric world creation stuff and not much action.  But if you get past that it picks up the pace pretty fast.  The book is also much better on a second read through I found, because right from the get go it starts referencing people and places that are introduced later in the book, and it just seems like a shit ton of made up words you have no clue about.  But when you go back and reread, those parts then really help clarify things more.

See, I can normally read anything, but not that, it was the first book I have not read start to finish.  I used to read ahead of the class when assigned Shakespeare stuff, for fuck's sake, but that I could not finish.  I don't know why.

I reread the Silmarillion about 3 years ago and the only part I really enjoyed was the Part about Beren and Luthulien. Its pretty much the most intamate actiony part of the early book. Plus it has Sauron getting beaten up by a woman.  :awesome_for_real:

I read it ages ago now (almost 10 years :ye_gods:I'm still really young honest!) and feel lik digging it out from a cupboard or buying a new copy but I remember being struck by the changing style. The first part really is along the lines of Genesis and it continues in a biblical/epic poetry style. By the end it's moved closer to the traditional narrative of the LoTR. Frankly trying to pay attention to and follow every name in the book is a good way of driving yourself mad. Unless you really want to follow it just gloss over those parts and google if you get really lost.

I liked it for the background of Numenor (and Elrond and Aragorn's ancestry) and the world building stuff. I feel it's worth slogging through once to get a glimpse of all the work Tolkien put into Middle Earth.

It's also pretty cool to understand the significance of lines that pop up in LotR like "the last child of Ungoliant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungoliant) to trouble the unhappy world".

Sam defeated Shelob.  Ergo Sam > Morgoth > Sauron. :grin:

While I know that comment was just meant for lol factor, Morgoth/Sauron could have just stepped on Shelob.  She was no where at all in the same league as Ungoliant.  Shelob is just a giant spider, while Ungoliant was a demi-god who manifested as a humongous spider that could devour light itself  :-P

Wikipedia is a poor choice of weapon to bring to a nerd fight.

Tolkien hints pretty heavily through the entire confrontation that Shelob is, in fact, not just a big spider.

Terse in the manner of Hemingway?

I'm actually reading through it again, it's really fucking weird not having paragraphs dedicated to the way Gimli adjusts his dress.  Or, you know, shit like what he looks like aside from being a dwarf.

Gimli definitely gets the shitty end of the stick in the movie. He is comic relief and nothing else, fucking legolas stealing all his screen time.

Legolas is merely comic relief of a different type.