The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Extended Edition) (2001-2003)

[Fayth]

The fact is Tolkien didn't put that scene in because he did not want Gandalf and the Witch King to face each other. It is truly irrelevant what we speculate because it wasn't supposed to happen! Peter Jackson or whoever made that decision obviously didn't see that, and on the flip side, whoever chose to cut it from the theatrical release did see it.

As for the issue itself, it's a hard one. Gandalf after his return was considerably stronger, or rather, considerably less restrained in the power he was allowed to use, and the Witch King is not just a normal ringwraith, especially at that point in LOTR.

Glorfindel is undoubtedly less powerful than Gandalf, but Gandalf is subject to the rules that were placed upon him by the Valar.

I don't really think there is a right or wrong answer, but that's the point, Tolkien didn't want us to know, so we don't.

[Grand Bob]

There is no ambiguity as to who would have won the fight between Gandalf and the Witch-king, as illustrated by Gandalf's statement to Gimli at Fangorn:

'Dangerous!' cried Gandalf. And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord.'

Of course, this is a moot point, as the confrontation was never going to happen - per the design of Eru, and also to emphasize the theme of pacifism inherent to the story. As Tolkien elaborates in a 1954 letter to Robert Murray:

'He [Gandalf the White] is still under obligation of concealing his power and 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 the 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.'

[Fayth]

Hmm thanks for that. I didn't think of the first line you quoted. Well really, this just makes what they did in the extended edition even worse!

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Fayth

Well really, this just makes what they did in the extended edition even worse!

That was a huge error by Jackson and Boyens, and I still find it hard to believe that being self-confessed "huge fans of the book", they wrote that scene into the movie. Despite our desire for ever-greater "might makes right" action scenes, Tolkien's view is opposite - and very simple. Having survived both World Wars, and as an eyewitness to the carnage of the Battle of the Somme, he is telling us that force is "bad". It may be necessary when all else fails, but force is a characteristic of evil, as is anything that is counter to the "good" qualities of empathy, mercy, and compassion.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

That was a huge error by Jackson and Boyens, and I still find it hard to believe that being self-confessed "huge fans of the book", they wrote that scene into the movie. Despite our desire for ever-greater "might makes right" action scenes, Tolkien's view is opposite - and very simple. Having survived both World Wars, and as an eyewitness to the carnage of the Battle of the Somme, he is telling us that force is "bad". It may be necessary when all else fails, but force is a characteristic of evil, as is anything that is counter to the "good" qualities of empathy, mercy, and compassion.

But remember, just because someone is a fan, doesn't mean they've sat down and studied everything about the novel to practically having it memorized, let alone studying the life story of the author. Certain things in interpretation get missed... others are viewed differently by different people.

[horizonline]

Originally Posted by Fayth

The fact is Tolkien didn't put that scene in because he did not want Gandalf and the Witch King to face each other. It is truly irrelevant what we speculate because it wasn't supposed to happen! Peter Jackson or whoever made that decision obviously didn't see that, and on the flip side, whoever chose to cut it from the theatrical release did see it.

As for the issue itself, it's a hard one. Gandalf after his return was considerably stronger, or rather, considerably less restrained in the power he was allowed to use, and the Witch King is not just a normal ringwraith, especially at that point in LOTR.

Glorfindel is undoubtedly less powerful than Gandalf, but Gandalf is subject to the rules that were placed upon him by the Valar.

I don't really think there is a right or wrong answer, but that's the point, Tolkien didn't want us to know, so we don't.

I was read parts of the hobbit when I was about four, but not by my parents. I was too young to understand it. I later saw the cartoon once or twice, but that's it.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

But remember, just because someone is a fan, doesn't mean they've sat down and studied everything about the novel to practically having it memorized, let alone studying the life story of the author. Certain things in interpretation get missed... others are viewed differently by different people.

Which is why they would have done well to involve some Tolkien scholars like Hammond and Scull. But instead we got the arrogant statement form Boyens (or was it Walsh?) that they improved Tolkien's story.

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

There is no ambiguity as to who would have won the fight between Gandalf and the Witch-king, as illustrated by Gandalf's statement to Gimli at Fangorn:

'Dangerous!' cried Gandalf. And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord.'

Of course, this is a moot point, as the confrontation was never going to happen - per the design of Eru, and also to emphasize the theme of pacifism inherent to the story. As Tolkien elaborates in a 1954 letter to Robert Murray:

'He [Gandalf the White] is still under obligation of concealing his power and 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 the 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.'

Thanks Grand Bob. I figured you would know of one of Tolkien's letters that would enlighten the discussion.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by radagast

Which is why they would have done well to involve some Tolkien scholars like Hammond and Scull. But instead we got the arrogant statement form Boyens (or was it Walsh?) that they improved Tolkien's story.

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish.

Not this again .

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by radagast

Which is why they would have done well to involve some Tolkien scholars like Hammond and Scull. But instead we got the arrogant statement form Boyens (or was it Walsh?) that they improved Tolkien's story.

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish.

Certainly, it's your prerogative to throw such complaints their way (I don't agree); but in the case of Gandalf vs. the Witchking (a scene I'm perfectly fine with) - it seemed to me, in the RotK commentary, that they did not care for the scene and what it did to weaken Gandalf, and were therefore happy to see it out of the Theatrical release. It makes more sense to blame PJ for putting it back in.

[El_Jay]

Well on page 219 of ROTK, Aragorn smirks knowingly. In the movie in that scene he more smirked roguishly... they clearly needed Tolkien's children involved so such a grievous error would not have occurred.

Also Arwen was wearing a white scarf on one page, and in the movie she wasn't wearing it. God Peter Jackson is a megalomaniacal idiot.


Seriously, some people wouldn't have been satisfied by anything short of a page-for-page recreation of the book. We're lucky it was even faithful at all. Studios have shown time and time again that they owe the source material nothing.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

Studios have shown time and time again that they owe the source material nothing.

True, but they should take care not to bastardize pivotal scenes, particularly when said source material was voted in several polls as the best literature of the past century/millenium.

[riverbelow]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

True, but they should take care not to bastardize pivotal scenes, particularly when said source material was voted in several polls as the best literature of the past century/millenium.

They didn't bastardize anything. The EE's are not the definitive releases.

The theatrical is the Directors Cut.

In movies you film more than you need for any eventuation. They felt it prudent to film it, and PJ felt that since those versions are NOT the definitive that he could include a cool looking scene that he took the time to shoot, and which only pisses of those who are super anal about the books interpretation.

Hardly sacrilege since bottom line is the EE are not the definitive movie versions.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by riverbelow

They didn't bastardize anything. The EE's are not the definitive releases.

The theatrical is the Directors Cut.

In movies you film more than you need for any eventuation. They felt it prudent to film it, and PJ felt that since those versions are NOT the definitive that he could include a cool looking scene that he took the time to shoot, and which only pisses of those who are super anal about the books interpretation.

Hardly sacrilege since bottom line is the EE are not the definitive movie versions.

This. People don't seem to remember that.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Not this again .

Yes, this again.

[Xicon]

Originally Posted by riverbelow

The theatrical is the Directors Cut.

Directors rarely have final cut privilege; it usually rests with a producer or worse a studio executive.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by Xicon

Directors rarely have final cut privilege; it usually rests with a producer or worse a studio executive.

This was not one of those cases.

[joenostalgia23]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

Well on page 219 of ROTK, Aragorn smirks knowingly. In the movie in that scene he more smirked roguishly... they clearly needed Tolkien's children involved so such a grievous error would not have occurred.

Also Arwen was wearing a white scarf on one page, and in the movie she wasn't wearing it. God Peter Jackson is a megalomaniacal idiot.


Seriously, some people wouldn't have been satisfied by anything short of a page-for-page recreation of the book. We're lucky it was even faithful at all. Studios have shown time and time again that they owe the source material nothing.

I love you.

[Sephiroth5929]

Let's just throw these films in the trash, obviously they suck and are not true to the books, so they need to be burned and PJ beaten in front of his family for creating such an abomination.

/sarcasm

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by riverbelow

They didn't bastardize anything. The EE's are not the definitive releases.

The theatrical is the Directors Cut.

In movies you film more than you need for any eventuation. They felt it prudent to film it, and PJ felt that since those versions are NOT the definitive that he could include a cool looking scene that he took the time to shoot, and which only pisses of those who are super anal about the books interpretation.

Hardly sacrilege since bottom line is the EE are not the definitive movie versions.

Sometimes; sometimes not.

What is it about the version that was released to cinemas because it couldn't be completed within a studio-imposed timeframe (Jackson's King Kong or any number of others), or because of commercial or studio-imposed limits on running time (Aliens, The Abyss or Dances with Wolves, or any number of others), or because of autocratic decisions by producers (Mimic or Alien3, or any number of others) that makes those versions definitive?