Originally posted by General_IrohWell you're assuming that the Balrog's and Saruman's fire are stronger than than the spells Dumbledore can throw out. Assuming that he can even block them at all (trick statement: it's impossible to know that).
I just don't see how Dumbledore is going to break the shield of istari, the things damage soak has to be pretty crazy, it withstood a direct blast from Saruman and a full strength attack from the Balrog of Morgoth, two of the most powerful things in middle earth weren't able to break it and he can bring it up in an instant, almost reflexively.
Dumbledore's just got too much of an array of attacks and tricks--and the speed to pull them off--for Gandalf to keep up with. As much as I prefer Gandalf and Ian McKellan over Dumbledore and Michael Gambon, I can't for the life of me imagine a non-handicapped scenario in which Gandalf wins.
Well I'm assuming here that Dumbledore isn't significantly more powerful than Saruman or the Balrog, which I'd say is fair. And since Gandalf didn't seem in the slightest phased by the most powerful thing that Saruman could dish out (at least quickly) and from what I understand Gandalf unlike Dumbledore doesn't need to aim or even move to cast a spell, that's why I'm favoring him in this fight. Dumbledore might get off the first few shots but if Gandalf can disarm him before any or much damage is done it's game blouses.
Originally posted by General_Iroh
No word and Dumbledore is disarmed. Difference? Gandalf can still use magic and has an elvish sword at his side.
If Dumbeldore gets a few shots off at first, then that's likely what he'll do. And wandless, wordless magic exists. He does sit a wardrobe on fire very casually.
Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
If Dumbeldore gets a few shots off at first, then that's likely what he'll do. And wandless, wordless magic exists. He does sit a wardrobe on fire very casually.
Originally posted by Nephthys
If I recall, the wardrobe wasn't damaged though. So whether it was real fire is in doubt.
Originally posted by Nephthys
If I recall, the wardrobe wasn't damaged though. So whether it was real fire is in doubt.
Quirrel could do the same thing in the first movie, so someone even stronger like Dumbledore could do far worse.
Originally posted by General_Iroh
Oh really? I wasn't aware, what can he actually do without wand in hand? I was under the impression that everyone from potter needed a wand to use magic unless it was because of a potion 😬Ah okay
A lot of magic is done by lesser powerful wizards like Dumbledore without a wand. Harry Potter blew his aunt up like a balloon and sent her flying. On accident. And he's not even trained.
Originally posted by TheAuraAngel
Quirrel could do the same thing in the first movie, so someone even stronger like Dumbledore could do far worse.A lot of magic is done by lesser powerful wizards like Dumbledore without a wand. Harry Potter blew his aunt up like a balloon and sent her flying. On accident. And he's not even trained.
Originally posted by General_Iroh
Yet Ron couldn't go without his wand and he was completely useless in the chamber of secrets. So I wonder if they're limited to how much they can do.
Ron was a kid. A stupid one at that. They wouldn't teach wandless/wordless magic to a 2nd year. Besides, he'd be worthless in the Chamber regardless.
I just got an image of Dumbledore using Obliviate on Gandalf. I find that image lulzy.
Quirrel, Dumbledore, Snape (to an extent), Voldemort, and... I don't remember anyone else... all used magic without a wand in the films. And apparition. I don't subscribe to the school of thought that prohibits every ability unless it was explicitly used onscreen, so I think both Dumbledore and Gandalf can do a fair bit more than they're shown doing. But I feel that Dumbledore's offensive powers are specifically designed to combat another magical being in fast-paced, highly fatal situations. Gandalf's seem comparatively slower-paced.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Quirrel, Dumbledore, Snape (to an extent), Voldemort, and... I don't remember anyone else... all used magic without a wand in the films. And apparition. I don't subscribe to the school of thought that prohibits every ability unless it was explicitly used onscreen, so I think both Dumbledore and Gandalf can do a fair bit more than they're shown doing. But I feel that Dumbledore's offensive powers are specifically designed to combat another magical being in fast-paced, highly fatal situations. Gandalf's seem comparatively slower-paced.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.OlympusBased on ?
Dumbledore all day.
Originally posted by TheAuraAngelThe difference is Gandalf is still quite formidable without his wand whereas Dumbledore is not. I also dispute it being this easy. I mean why didn't he easily take Voldemort's wand if it's this easy.
Expelliarmus!One word and Gandalf is disarmed.
Gandalf wins.
In terms of epicness level:
Gandalf WITHOUT magic: Uber-epic
Dumbledore with magic: Alright
If Gandalf utilized more magic, there wouldn't be much of a fight here.
And seriously, you guys are basing this off flashy special effects? You're saying that Dumbledore's magic could beat Gandalf's magic just because of more use of magic by Dumbledore?
Peter Jackson didn't exactly show Gandalf doing too many spells, so take this into consideration, what if he had?
And I don't think Dumble could be a Balrog without much use of magic.
And yes, I know this is the movie versus forum...
would they even fight at ALL? Wouldn't their characters be more inclined to materialize chairs, sit back, smoke a pipe, share old stories over toffee-flavored Bertie Botts Beans and hobbiton cakes - but if they were to battle, for whatever high-school rivalry reason, it all depends on whether or not Gandalf can wrest that wand away from dumble then he'd obviously win, him being more adept at hand to hand (plus the sword), but I think, at long range, as the sierra mountains suggest, dumble would win.
Gandalf the White wins. HP spells can be dodged by, well, Harry Potter, who is hardly a champion acrobatic. Even Gandalf the Grey showed extremely impressive feats in his fight against the Balrog, when he hit the lake at terminal velocity and proceeded to fight the Balrog for several days while chasing him up a flight of stairs that extended to the top of a mountain. Gandalf the White can essentially blind people with his brightness, as shown when he appeared, and is immune to medieval weapons (or at least when he's prepared; in the movies it's implied that Merry really did save him) and has impressive TK. His reaction times are faster than Dumbledore, so he'd just TK restrain Dumbledore and stab him with Glamdring.
Guys, get it in your heads. Dumbledore wins simply due to the fact of range+speed.
Think of Dumbles spells as bullets, they are faster, longer ranged, and hit harder than Gandalfs (last can be debated) but the fact of the matter is, a LOTR fanboy is saying the LOTR character loses, and on based fact. This is the MOVIE versus forum. I wish we could use Olorin, but we are stuck with Gandalf. So, Dumbles wins due to
A) Speed and range
B) Variety of spells. Cant be stressed enough for that.
C) More shielding magic than Gandalf.
D) Trained to fight wizard duels to the death (HE GOT SNAPED!)
Gandalf has one thing on Dumbles
Dumbles: DEATH MAKES HIM DIE!
This should answer everything: