# Why didn't the LOTR movies explain Gandalf's backstory? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 25, 2014, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147 "2014-12-25T08:55:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2014, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/41 "2014-12-26T16:16:34Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > There’s no indication that they didn’t know, is there? Other than none of them coming right out and saying something like “I know you’re a maia”. Especially Galadriel, having actually been IN Valinor and having seen the Light of the Trees, would be able to know what the Istari really were. She’s possibly the most powerful non-divine being in Middle-Earth at that point. > [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](#): > > Cirdan knew what Gandalf and the other wizards were, as he met them when they got off the boat from Valinor. And certainly Galadriel, & who was born in Valinor, grew up chumming with the Maiar and Valar, would have recognized him for what he was. Hmm. I thought it was stated that the Istari “took the form of Man”. To me that implies that the face Gandalf wore in the Third Age, and thus did not appear in his “natural born” visage. Edit: Anyway, my point was that it doesn’t surprise me that people could mistake Gandalf for another mortal magic user. There should be many tales of such people. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/42 "2014-12-26T16:38:05Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Hmm. I thought it was stated that the Istari “took the form of Man”. To me that implies that the face Gandalf wore in the Third Age, and thus did not appear in his “natural born” visage. About Gandalf and Cirdan, the Silmarillion has this to say: > [@](#): > > At the first that Ring had been entrusted to Círdan, Lord of the Havens; but he had surrendered it to Mithrandir, for he knew whence he came and whither at last he would return. So it seems to me he recognized Gandalf’s nature, seeing through his disguise. Cirdan would not have known Olorin as a Maiar, as he never left M-E. ---
**Author:** ![Airk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de053/32.png) [@Airk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airk)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/43 "2014-12-26T17:43:23Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > There’s no indication that they didn’t know, is there? Other than none of them coming right out and saying something like “I know you’re a maia”. Especially Galadriel, having actually been IN Valinor and having seen the Light of the Trees, would be able to know what the Istari really were. She’s possibly the most powerful non-divine being in Middle-Earth at that point. Pretty much this; I mean, why would this be a topic of casual conversation, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2014, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/44 "2014-12-26T18:24:10Z")
> [@Airk](#): > > Pretty much this; I mean, why would this be a topic of casual conversation, exactly? Well, most of the time, no. But some of these conversations were attended by Dwarves and Men. Would the Elves assume that the Dwarves and Men were working with the same knowledge and assumptions that the Elves were? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2014, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/45 "2014-12-26T18:27:21Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Well, most of the time, no. But some of these conversations were attended by Dwarves and Men. Would the Elves assume that the Dwarves and Men were working with the same knowledge and assumptions that the Elves were? Would the Elves care? ---
**Author:** ![Tuxie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ee59a6/32.png) [@Tuxie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuxie)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2014, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/46 "2014-12-26T18:38:38Z")
Of all the wizards, only Gandalf seemed to get anything done. And even that is because his bosses gave him an ‘extra life’ . The two blue wizards, do they do anything? Radaghast isn’t even in the LOTR movies; they should’ve had him leading the army of ents against Isengard. And Saruman got corrupted by the One Ring. But from a writing standpoint it does give good tension in the story. The Istari are fallible. None of the leaders of men really trust any of them. Some, like Radaghast seem to have gotten too attached to Middle Earth to really do much productive things. Gandalf had the most allies and the most sense, yet him and a Balrog double KOed each other which made the whole quest seem all but hopeless. I mean if this badass wizard died not halfway through their journey, what chance would two emo guys, Rambo elf and a bunch of ewoks have? Plus if he was too badass it would have stolen Aragon’s thunder. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/47 "2014-12-26T18:50:01Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Would the Elves care? Ha! But seriously, why invite them if you don’t really want their input? And if you want that input, don’t you think it only natural that you and they are all operating with the same intel and whatnot? ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/48 "2014-12-26T19:17:41Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Another interesting point was that when Sauron first moved in to Dol Guldur (in the southern Mirkwood), he pretended (or allowed people to believe) that he was a mere human who learned magic (or had knowledge of lore beyond most folks), and was called “The Necromancer”. > > Gandlaf becomes suspicious after a while, and goes to Dol Guldur to check him out, discovering his true identity. > > But this implies that mere mortal Men could have been seen as practitioners of mysterious powers or skills, and tales told of these individuals can probably grow taller as time passes. Gandalf and company could be viewed as more of these kinds of people. > > The Numenoreans were also skilled practitioners of magic, and a couple might have survived the fall of Numenor. These folks could also be the source of more tales of Men who practiced magic. After a thousand years, they take on the same kind of legendary status that Merlin/King Arthur (or even Robin Hood) does now. > > I don’t know how often Humans or Hobbits see astounding creatures or magic in the Third Age, but I imagine that they would have a rich tapestry of fantastical tales involving powerful (but mortal) “wizards” that don’t involve the Istari. > > There’s no excuse for the Elves, though. They aught to know exactly what Gandalf and Sauruman are. Elrond and Galadriel are pretty sharp cookies, so even if the Istari don’t talk much about themselves, those two Elves can probably make some shrewd guesses about them. Tolkien’s buddy C. S. Lewis, of course, brings together the Numenor and Merlin legends in That Hideous Strength. In the book, Merlin is one of the last inheritors of a magical tradition that came east after the fall of Numenor, and persisted a few centuries after the birth of Christ. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/49 "2014-12-26T19:34:34Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Tolkien’s buddy C. S. Lewis, of course, brings together the Numenor and Merlin legends in That Hideous Strength. In the book, Merlin is one of the last inheritors of a magical tradition that came east after the fall of Numenor, and persisted a few centuries after the birth of Christ. :eek: I did not know that. I haven’t read much of Lewis’ stuff… just _The Witch, the Lion, and the Wardrobe_, which to me felt as if it was aimed at a younger audience. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2014, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/50 "2014-12-26T20:26:56Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > Stringbean writes: > > \> Wizard has a certain connotation built off of decades of fantasy story-telling. > > If you really mean just “decades” of fantasy storytelling, then you’re asking Tolkien to have known about the tropes developed in the past few decades despite the fact that _The Lord of the Rings_ was published in 1954 and _The Hobbit_ was published in 1937. And Tolkien began putting together the world of Middle-earth (everything in those two books and the others like _The Silmarillion_) in 1916 or so. Do you mean centuries? What was available in 1916 that shows wizards in the way you know them? About 400 years of European folklore and mythology, actually. The word _wizard_ derives from the Anglo-Saxon verb _witan_, “to know”, and by the 1550s it had come to mean “Practitioner of magic, sorcerer”. A 13th century scholar called Michael Scot was nicknamed “Michael the Wizard”, and Mary, Queen of Scots’ lover Francis Hepburn was called “the Wizard Earl of Bothwell”. Rowling’s wizards are closer to the traditional definition of the word than Tolkien’s. > [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Tolkien’s buddy C. S. Lewis, of course, brings together the Numenor and Merlin legends in That Hideous Strength. In the book, Merlin is one of the last inheritors of a magical tradition that came east after the fall of Numenor, and persisted a few centuries after the birth of Christ. Except he spelled it “Numinor”, probably to suggest the word “numinous”. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2014, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/51 "2014-12-26T23:19:54Z")
> [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > Except he spelled it “Numinor”, probably to suggest the word “numinous”. Mostly it was that he had only heard it read aloud by Tolkien during meetings of the Inklings. From the treasury of old philological lore stored in his mind Lewis drew what must have seemed the most likely spelling of a word he’d never seen written. Of course with his philology he would have seen at once how _numinous_ derives from Latin _numen_. Letter E and all. He would have gone on to tell you how in Latin it originally meant God giving you a nod. Obviously, _Studies in Words_ is my favorite book by him. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2014, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/52 "2014-12-26T23:35:39Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Except that Tolkien wrote long before Harry Potter came along and made everyone think of “wizards” as human beings who had studied the craft of magic. > [@Sir\_Prize](#): > > I think that’s what wizards usually are in most tales that have wizards. I didn’t put much time or thought into that one-line post, but my semi-serious point was that, when you describe a character as a “wizard,” what people are going to think that means, or associate with that word, is probably going to depend on what other “wizard” characters immediately spring to mind. Nowadays, the best-known characters who are described as “wizards” are probably the ones in Harry Potter and in Tolkien, although there are plenty of other, less prominent examples. In the mid-20th century when Tolkien was writing, the characters that the general public would have been most likely to think of as “wizards” were, I’m guessing, the Wizard of Oz (who is actually a “humbug” wizard without actual magical power), and Merlin from the Arthurian legends (who in most accounts is somehow magical by nature, not just an ordinary human who has studied magic). Fantasy aficionados would also be familiar with the various wizards appearing in sword-and-sorcery tales. ---
**Author:** ![Airk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de053/32.png) [@Airk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airk)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/53 "2014-12-27T00:27:32Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Ha! > > But seriously, why invite them if you don’t really want their input? > > And if you want that input, don’t you think it only natural that you and they are all operating with the same intel and whatnot? I don’t get this; The humans and dwarves might not know how the world was shaped, either, or that once upon a time it was lit by two great lamps, but you know, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Part of the whole POINT is that Gandalf’s opinion isn’t necessarily better or right just because he’s a Maia. The whole fact that he’s an “angel” is basically irrelevant to the story and it’s certainly irrelevant to the Council of Elrond, which what you seemed to be discussing here? ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2014, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/54 "2014-12-27T01:42:57Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > :eek: I did not know that. > > I haven’t read much of Lewis’ stuff… just _The Witch, the Lion, and the Wardrobe_, which to me felt as if it was aimed at a younger audience. Lewis wrote one series–Narnia–and one trilogy, which is known as the Space Trilogy as there’s no official name for it. Narnia is definitely written for children, although done well enough that it can be enjoyed as an adult. Anyway, I’d suggest the Space Trilogy, which is _Out of the Silent Planet_, _Perelandra_, and _That Hideous Strength_. That said, most people I’ve talked to about that trilogy think that it gets worse over time. But at least give the first one a shot. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2014, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/55 "2014-12-27T02:02:38Z")
> [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > Rowling’s wizards are closer to the traditional definition of the word than Tolkien’s. But Tolkien’s _appear_ in traditional guise. It’s really not a problem, for the very shallow version of the story given in the film, to elide the actual difference. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2014, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/56 "2014-12-27T04:09:26Z")
Agreed that it wasn’t strictly necessary to the movies, and that PJ might not’ve had rights to Gandalf’s backstory anyway. Not much to add except this link to a poem you might like (see post 4): [We Need Your Votes!! in the Anthology Thread of the February 2012 SDMB Poetry Sweatshop! - Cafe Society - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=645019) ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2014, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/57 "2014-12-27T04:28:04Z")
> [@Airk](#): > > I don’t get this; The humans and dwarves might not know how the world was shaped, either, or that once upon a time it was lit by two great lamps, but you know, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Part of the whole POINT is that Gandalf’s opinion isn’t necessarily better or right just because he’s a Maia. > > The whole fact that he’s an “angel” is basically irrelevant to the story and it’s certainly irrelevant to the Council of Elrond, which what you seemed to be discussing here? No, I don’t think it’s irrelevant at all. (And I did indeed have that council meeting in mind.) The Men and Dwarves are going to want to know (if they don’t already) why are we deciding something (the One Ring is explained), and who are we debating this with. But I guess by this time Gandalf has already established a reputation as some sort of traveling sage of wisdom, even if they don’t realize he’s Maia. ---
**Author:** ![Airk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de053/32.png) [@Airk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airk)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2014, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/58 "2014-12-27T05:09:13Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > But I guess by this time Gandalf has already established a reputation as some sort of traveling sage of wisdom, even if they don’t realize he’s Maia. Yes, exactly. “That guy who helped us with the dragon” or “That guy who showed up right before two thousand orcs” is a much more powerful reputation than “Some elves claim he’s an immortal spirit, but he just looks like some old dude to me.” ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2014, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/59 "2014-12-27T05:19:31Z")
I agree it’s a plot hole, and we don’t accept plotholes plugged in the book in other works. The Eagle thing is actually obliquely covered, but why Gandalf can’t just use his powers to curbstomp Sauron’s forces isn’t explained. We know why he can’t directly help Frodo, but not this. His power levels just seem inconsistent. Still, it’s no more a plothole than how the Joker can do what he can do in The Dark Knight, and people love that movie. Plotholes don’t necessarily break movies. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2014, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147/60 "2014-12-27T13:50:44Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > …In the mid-20th century when Tolkien was writing, the characters that the general public would have been most likely to think of as “wizards” were, I’m guessing, the Wizard of Oz (who is actually a “humbug” wizard without actual magical power), and Merlin from the Arthurian legends (who in most accounts is somehow magical by nature, not just an ordinary human who has studied magic). Fantasy aficionados would also be familiar with the various wizards appearing in sword-and-sorcery tales. If you’re going into sword & sorcery, it’s impossible to ignore Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser, created by Fritz Leiber who _invented_ the phrase “sword & sorcery.” Many women of Fafhrd’s homeland practiced Ice Magic & the Mouser had been apprenticed to a “traditional” wizard in his youth. But the heroes’ wizardly patrons were Ningauble of he Seven Eyes & Sheelba of the Eyeless Face–quite uncanny & tricksy in the extreme… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-didnt-the-lotr-movies-explain-gandalfs-backstory/708147.md?page=4)