In the Hobbit, and LoTR, the Eagles actually possess power of speech.
You may want to check out the 12-books set of J.R.R Tolkiens and his son Christopher Tolkiens’ writings about Middle-Earth. The Anuir and the nature of the wizards are described, I think, in The Books of Lost Tales, 1 and 2.
I’m sure Gandalf is very powerful and his powers seem subtle, but I too think his portrayal in the movie was pretty wussy. A 5 year old with a hand held mirror could shine some light in the dragon’s eyes & blind them. That’s about all he did in the whole movie. Tony Robbins is a motivational speaker, but he ain’t no wizard.
I love Ian McClellen, and would watch him in anything, but Gandalf was kind of a wuss.
Actually, if history is any guide, they’d have sunk everything beneath the ocean… which is one of the main reasons that their powers in ME were limited.
-David
Sorry, levdrakon, but no way was Gandalf a wuss. Didn’t you see that he was in charge of the defense of Minas Tirith until the Corsair ships showed up? That he engaged in hand-to-hand (well, staff-to-blade) combat? That he inspired the troops? etc. What would you have had him do?
Well, he did make Jack Black see fat chicks as Gwyneth Paltrow…
Soon he’ll be a Wizard of Oz.
No, actually not. The power of the Ring lay not in destruction, but in control. In the hands of a willing user, the Ring could grant the power to control others. With it, there were few indeed who could resist Sauron in his presence. With it, one could control the whole of the world, albeit with a mastery slowly gained.
I realized right after I posted that “wuss” was the wrong word, but too late to edit. You’re right, he was no wuss, and I like that the wizard can duke it out with a sword with the best of them. I don’t like wizards that have to hide behind all their magic.
So while I liked seeing Gandalf lead the charge into combat, and would like seeing him lop a few heads off, I would also have liked it if there had been some magically enhanced bad guy that Gandalf alone had to deal with. With lots of wizardly lights & mystical energy blasts and such. That’s what the little kid in me wanted to see.
Yes, I don’t know why I left that factoid out of my post you quoted…
Not to be rude, but like the Balrog?
Balrog was mentioned in the OP. By “rude,” did you mean to imply I didn’t read the OP? That’s not rude. Just incorrect.
There was no Balrog in the latest movie, or decent Balrog equivalent IMO. The OP’s opinion is based mainly on the movies and I agree Gandalf didn’t come across as that impressive a wizard, particularly in the latest movie. He was an impressive character, but I think that’s more Ian McClellan doing a fine ass job of acting, and just being him.
I loved the Balrog scene in the other movie. But one, or two, or three good wizard scenes spread across the first two movies does not a satisfyingly impressive display of wizardry make, to me just having seen the third movie.
I thought Gandalf made a fine Pinball Wizard…
He’s got such a supple wrist
How do you think he does it?
I don’t know
What makes him so good?
That may be because Lord of the Rings is not about flashy display of wizardry.
There was one more display of Gandalf’s power when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli first met Gandalf the White for the first time. First, at Gandalf’s words “Shall I come up, or would you come down” the three companions did not have the will to launch any pre-emptive strike against Gandalf, whom they believe is Saurman.
Second, when the three did decide to attack, Legolas’ arrows disappeared in a flash of flame (not deflected, as in the movie), Glimi’s arms did not obey him and Anduril burst into flame.
Well, with that said, J.R.R Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings before D+D came along to grace fantasy worlds with obiligatory fireballs and lightning bolts, and Tolkien may understand the less is more rule for special effects long before computer graphics make it big.
More than just a person of special effects though, Gandalf is an icon for knowledge (who alone knows the layout of Moria after so many years), guidiance, inspiration and foresight. Gandalf apparently has some gift of prophecy, being able to discern when to make off with Shadowfax and when not to.
The way magic is handled today has always been a factor I could never understand in D&D, but Tolkien seemed to adjust quite well to what the reality for a good wizard would be: if you have the power to change the world, 90% of what you do would be invisible to the untrained eye. Yes you could in theory make the earth shatter, but why? It would cause so much damage afterwards. If you’re a good wizard, you’re going to choose the less destructive route of subtle tweaks and adjustments instead of huge friggin lightning bolts for the most part. The fire in the hearts of men, the quietly sealed door, the simple ray of light.
I also thought it made the story that much more powerful that a shield maiden could kill the Witch King. If Gandalf did it instead it would be a little too much wizard ex machina.
In the books, Gandalf does a yeoman’s job of holding off despair among the Gondorians. Sadly, the movie does not really do full justice to Denethor or Gondor in the seige.
Gandalf probably could have done it, but in this case he had serious trouble bringing the sum’biznatch to ground. Gandalf, for all his power, couldn’t hit him in the air.
I thought the way the Witch King bought it was a bit silly, actually. I mean, I’m ok with it. But as soon as I saw warrior princess marching off to battle and Witch King kept going on about “no man can kill me” I was thinking, “uh-oh, I see where this is going. Are they really going to do what it looks like they’re going to do?”
At first when he said “no man can kill me” I was thinking, “no human can kill me,” which is fine, 'cause there’re plenty of other species running around that could do the job, and maybe Gandalf himself isn’t technically a “man,” i.e. human. Plus he specifically said he was gonna personally give Gandalf a good spanking. I figured that was a good set up for a nice Gandalf vs. Witch-guy pyrotechnics battle while the armies were doing their thing.
Throughout the movies when they would refer to “man” and “men” it seemed they were referring to humans, as opposed to dwarves, elves, tree-guys, etc. Then at the end there what they meant was males of any species can’t kill me.
I wonder how this was handled in other languages. Were they able to keep that ambiguity between male, and mankind? Or was it obvious earlier on that a woman was going to have to kill him?