Originally posted by Turr_Phennir
True, but then I didn't take the time to understand his subtleties.
It was simple, really.
RJ before most any given debate: (_._)
RJ after most any given debate: (_O_)
Considering how often he engaged in defenseless positions, it's safe to say he preferred being in a near constant state of the later.
Originally posted by Korto Vos
You have nothing backing this assertion.That Shield blocked and broke the Balrog's flame sword. There was a massive amount of force behind that strike.
Yes I do: Harry Potter Movie 7 part 2.
Nice try? Well, it wasn't even a nice try: just you ignoring movie feats from a side you do not support.
And the massive amount of force behind that strike was very very weak for it's massive size. That bridge was quite long, very narrow, and not very "tall": assume even a stronger rock comprises the bridge and it should have easily broken.
Originally posted by Korto Vos
Wonderful, Voldemort either:A. broke a [B]severely damaged
shield (that was dented by a "massive bombardment"😉B. knew the proper incantation to break this severely-damaged shield [/B]
1. It wasn't severely damaged.
2. He did not make any incantations: just fit raged with his massive power.
Originally posted by Korto Vos
Thanks for your opinion!
No problem. I just wish your points were a bit stronger and not made so much of blind fanboyism: it makes for better discussions.
Originally posted by Korto Vos
WHAA-?The strike didn't break the bridge because all the force concentrated within it was directed against Gandalf, and the Shield absorbed all of that energy.
You don't have the tiniest bit of idea of what "inerita" is, do you?
You also failed to even acknowledge that Gandalf stumbled under the strike.
That's a pretty good strength feat on Gandalf's part. However, we know that his shield had "anti-fire" in it which is part of the reason the sword broke...which took away some of the force of the blow (you clearly see his arm follow through with the swing that shows he did not get to transfer all the force into Gandalf).
But, hey, that was a nice try on your part!
Originally posted by Korto Vos
1. You claimed that the Hogwarts shield > Gandalf's Shield, but unless my eyes deceive me, I didn't see anything backing your assertion.2. Voldemort took down a shield that severely damaged by a massive bombardment, and could have very well known the specific spell to remove such a barrier.
1. Since it clearly is, yes, that's a very easy assertion to make. Each one of those bombardments were like powerful bombs going off (non-vacuum/nuclear bombs, of course).
at 1:22
The shield was self repairing and barely damaged. But, of course you wouldn't see anything backing your assertion because you think gandalf's shield, which was anti-fire/Balrog, is somehow supposed to stop Voldemort and his large array of abilities which do not necessarily include brute force.
2. No, not severely damaged. Make sure you're not lying (you are and you know you are).
The shield had barely any damage...at all. And the damage it did have was still self repairing.
Additionally, the shield was so powerful that even though it was being constantly bombarded by the death eaters with powerful explosions, it still was strong enough to completely vaporize any death eaters than ran at the shield. Completely
If the Balrog were to take a swing at the shield, it's sword would have been completely vaporized, as well. (waaaaa, he's magical and hos resistances to magic! None were seen. In fact, based on feats, it appears to have 0 immunity to everything thrown at it...it was just massive).
Originally posted by Korto Vos
And you "gotsta have prooofs" that the Hogwarts shield > Gandalf's Shield.
It's there, clearly, for you to see.
Denying it doesn't mean it isn't there.
A single one of those massive blasts would have destroyed most of the bridge, the Balrog, gandalf, and the blast shards would have killed our lovely friends waiting on the other side.
But, let's go ahead and pretend that the shield isn't retardedly more powerful that Gandalf's...which got destroyed under a single swing.
Originally posted by ares834
Yeah, I never said Gandalf was immune to the flames but rather verifying what Gandalf said when he claimed that he "fell through fire and water."
No, falling through "fire and water" is an English metaphor that finds its place in Christianity.
It means to go throw a massive change/rebirth through trial.
It is the metaphor used for a person that converts to Christianity and is reborn into a righteous and enlightened person.
So the next time you hear "I was reproved through fire and water", you'll know exactly what the mean.
The REAL meaning behind that metaphor is this: in the old days, to clean something with water meant to get it pretty darn clean. To then clean it with fire meant to sterilize it. That's really dang clean at that point.
It should be no wonder that Gandalf was then called "Gandalf the White". It symbolized his ascension in both power and being. It should be no wonder the it is also "soul washed white before God" is related to repentance and whiteness is associated with perfection (unblemished souls and so forth).
Were you aware of the blatant Christian symbolism in the LotR series? You do know that Tolkein was a devout Christian, right?
The metaphor works quite well in the scene, too. I'll be honest and admit that at 9, when I first read the trilogy, the Christian themes were lost on me. It wasn't until I re-read it as a teen that I saw how obvious it was. He was a good friend of C.S. Lewis.
Originally posted by ares834
Gandalf tanks Saruman's fireball... Clearly he has magic that does make him immune to fire.
I hate to be a douche to a poster that I admire a lot...
but....
Link or vid?
Keep in mind that I have only seen these movies once and I vaguely remember the virtual TK battle between Gandalf and Saruman.
I always suspect those types of claims because they are mostly lackluster or taken out of context. I'm not saying you have done that, but I would be more proud to admit that Gandalf has some immunity to fire because I would really like Gandalf to do better in this fight other that "ZOMG! WTF!?!?!?! VOLDEMORT RAPE STOMPS!"
Originally posted by Korto Vos
Anything I say is 👆It was one piece of evidence showing he is more than just a man. Don't be hasty!
He's a special envoy of the Valar; as "servant" to a "Secret Fire," he states that he wields a mysterious, greater power beyond the average Free People.
Umm...the real question is how does it NOT? Gandalf is clearly saying that the Ring in the hands of someone extremely powerful such as himself would cause terrible devastation.
You're clearly trying too hard to prove me wrong, my sweet.
🙄
It certainly screams beyond your everyday Elf, Dwarf, Man, Hobbit, Orc, whatever.
You don't see Boromir getting resurrected, do you?
It ties with the rest that he is an envoy of the Valar.
Quit getting your panties in a knot. Your average "very powerful individual" doesn't just sent back by divine forces stronger than ever.
I don't even know why you are wasting your time arguing this against me. Nor why I am wasting mine doing the same.
"Whatever eases the pain of your faltering confidence, my sweet." uhuh
Hey, Pro-Gandalf posters have provided better proof and actual means of victory in this thread, as opposed to the Pro-Voldemort "POWAH!!!111" BS.
Spoiler:
I love you even when you're wrong, though, so take heart.As I to you 😍
Wow: you're the anti-Harry Potter version of Rogue Jedi.
Even the taunting and everything.
The only thing you're missing is the meme-taunt photos/
🙂
But, to address your point about Gandalf's "secret power":
Movie feats, please.
We can keep it to movies and still make good points. Saruman, while powerful, did not wield such power and he was being a "naughty wizard".
So a naughty wizard isn't doing anything that much more spectacular than a good wizard.
So I'll take your claim at unseen powers as not amounting to anything. In fact, it is meaningless in this discussion about movies.
However, I will grant you this: the lightning bolt channel + sword stab combo was the most powerful thing Gandalf did. It's easy to see why that was his trump card.
THAT is something that he can do in this thread and channeling all the power of a lightning bolt into a sword strike is surely quite a powerful move.
The fight is outside....so why not?
Here's the problem: the time it takes to do the attack.
Originally posted by Robtard
Yet despite all his power, he was killed by a man-boy student wizard. You probably think Harry Potter could defeat Gandalf.
Uhhh...he could...and with ease.
Hermione at the "end-of-first-year" could easily defeat Gandalf.
Let's not forget that the power difference between an HP wizard and a LotR wizard are vastly different in favor of HP.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, falling through "fire and water" is an English metaphor that finds its place in Christianity.It means to go throw a massive change/rebirth through trial.
It is the metaphor used for a person that converts to Christianity and is reborn into a righteous and enlightened person.
Intresting, I never realised that. Although, in this case, we can take it quite literally as it did happen.
It should be no wonder that Gandalf was then called "Gandalf the White". It symbolized his ascension in both power and being. It should be no wonder the it is also "soul washed white before God" is related to repentance and whiteness is associated with perfection (unblemished souls and so forth).
Good point.
Were you aware of the blatant Christian symbolism in the LotR series? You do know that Tolkein was a devout Christian, right?
Of course. One thing I will point out though is Tolkien did not want people to take his work as metahpor. In fact, he called out Lewis on this. However, despite this the Christian symbolism is quite clear through the novels.
I hate to be a douche to a poster that I admire a lot...but....
Link or vid?
Keep in mind that I have only seen these movies once and I vaguely remember the virtual TK battle between Gandalf and Saruman.
No problem. It's in the extended edition so it's no wonder you didn't see it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBW5P8c6_cs
It's at around the 2:55 mark.
Originally posted by ares834
Intresting, I never realised that. Although, in this case, we can take it quite literally as it did happen.Good point.
Of course. One thing I will point out though is Tolkien did not want people to take his work as metahpor. In fact, he called out Lewis on this. However, despite this the Christian symbolism is quite clear through the novels.
Class act. 👆
This, gentlemen, is how to have an adult discussion/debate.
Originally posted by ares834
No problem. It's in the extended edition so it's no wonder you didn't see it.YouTube video[/url]
It's at around the 2:55 mark.
1. You're absolutely right: I saw it in the theater.
2. It's still allowed in here unless the thread starter specifies within the first few posts that extended scenes/featurettes are not allowed...he didn't...so it stays. 🙂
3. That was badass. That attack was quite powerful and it acted almost like "brief fiendfyre". There is no doubt in my mind that that attack clearly shows that Gandalf has some sort of "automatic" anti-fire shield going on. OR! It shows how fast Gandalf's reactions are.
4. Why do we have to apply that to just fire? Why can it not be an all-purpose shield? You would definitely see the Harry Potter side saying that something like that was an all-purpose shield if Voldemort did it...so why can't Gandalf's be an all-purpose shield?
5. One thing I'll note is that this is Gandalf after he came back from "the dead". He was more powerful and wiser...and he actually seemed more "righteous". I would say the former version would not have been able to withstand that.
So I would like to amend my position slightly: I think that Gandalf's reactions are fast enough to block most attacks from the HP wizards. Only the fastest/best duelists from HP will be quick enough to get the drop on Gandalf.
So no first years will be able to take him out.
Only seasoned fighters from HP are a good enough match for Gandalf.
That said, I still see Voldemort as been far too powerful and versatile for Gandalf. This is after having read the entire thread.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes I do: Harry Potter Movie 7 part 2.Nice try? Well, it wasn't even a nice try: just you ignoring movie feats from a side you do not support.
Dude, what are you talking about? In your earlier post, you just stated "I'll have to agree that wizard's shields are much more powerful than the one Gandalf used against the Balrog."
How can you quantify that a single wizard's shield is automatically more powerful than one in the Lord of the Rings? That's why I challenged your assertion.
How am I ignoring movie feats from a side I do not support when I've been arguing against the Voldemort-breaking-the-barrier with Quanchi for ages now?
And the massive amount of force behind that strike was very very weak for it's massive size. That bridge was quite long, very narrow, and not very "tall": assume even a stronger rock comprises the bridge and it should have easily broken.
You don't have the tiniest bit of idea of what "inerita" is, do you?You also failed to even acknowledge that Gandalf stumbled under the strike.
Explain to me the physics then. The force of the sword was equally matched by an opposite force by Gandalf's shield, correct? Newton's Third? Or bring in Conservation of Momentum if you like.
1. It wasn't severely damaged.
2. He did not make any incantations: just fit raged with his massive power.
1. It's a shield...if you have one next to you and start beating it down with an ax, it's going to get damaged. You yourself acknowledged it was subject to a "massive bombardment."When Voldemort destroyed it, it was nowhere near as powerful as it was pre-battle.
2. Yes, it was a Shield Penetration spell:
Spell
And if Voldemort didn't have the Elder Wand opposing him, the shield would have been easier to break.
No problem. I just wish your points were a bit stronger and not made so much of blind fanboyism: it makes for better discussions.
Stay classy. You had mild sarcasm in your first post; I responded with some of my own. If that offended you, I apologize. However, I never went out to calling your points lacking strength, exhibiting "blind fanboyism," or stating they promote weaker discussion.
That's a pretty good strength feat on Gandalf's part. However, we know that his shield had "anti-fire" in it which is part of the reason the sword broke...which took away some of the force of the blow (you clearly see his arm follow through with the swing that shows he did not get to transfer all the force into Gandalf).
But, hey, that was a nice try on your part!
All you can see within the two seconds is Gandalf's shield shattering the Balrog's aflame sword into molten fragments and the Balrog recoiling. There was no "follow through." The Balrog's blow landed full impact on the shield, but the barrier's strength, which led to the blade's obliteration, caused the arm holding the breaking hilt to slip downwards and leading to the Balrog stepping back.
1. Since it clearly is, yes, that's a very easy assertion to make. Each one of those bombardments were like powerful bombs going off (non-vacuum/nuclear bombs, of course).at 1:22
The shield was self repairing and barely damaged. But, of course you wouldn't see anything backing your assertion because you think gandalf's shield, which was anti-fire/Balrog, is somehow supposed to stop Voldemort and his large array of abilities which do not necessarily include brute force.
2. No, not severely damaged. Make sure you're not lying (you are and you know you are).
The shield had barely any damage...at all. And the damage it did have was still self repairing.
Additionally, the shield was so powerful that even though it was being constantly bombarded by the death eaters with powerful explosions, it still was strong enough to completely vaporize any death eaters than ran at the shield. Completely
If the Balrog were to take a swing at the shield, it's sword would have been completely vaporized, as well. (waaaaa, he's magical and hos resistances to magic! None were seen. In fact, based on feats, it appears to have 0 immunity to everything thrown at it...it was just massive).
1 & 2. Okay, I see a powerful bombardment. And c'mon, let us not exaggerate- nuclear bombs?
Clearly, if I just wanted to lie, I could just make up some BS like "Gandalf calls Gwaihir to come down and eat Voldemort."
I think my eyes suck. But what I saw was Ron and Hermione destroying the Horcrux, and then Voldemort firing his spell-breaking incantation without even showing the barrier. You only see it afterwards when it's falling apart.
And secondly, he only concentrates his spell on one region of the shield. And yet, everything else falls apart as well, indicating how unstable and weakened the protective bubble was. It's like piercing through layers. The Death Eaters broke through a significant portion, and Voldemort, in his extreme anger at losing the Horcrux (which can't always be replicated), finished it off.
No, you should read my arguments again. Gandalf needs only to counter the initial Avada Kedavra, if the spell manages to stay on target against the Blinding Light, with his Shield, because in theory, he can be able to burn/shatter Voldemort's wand within several seconds.
I don't get what you were trying to accomplish with your Balrog rant.
It's there, clearly, for you to see.Denying it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Haven't denied anything, mate!
A single one of those massive blasts would have destroyed most of the bridge, the Balrog, gandalf, and the blast shards would have killed our lovely friends waiting on the other side.But, let's go ahead and pretend that the shield isn't retardedly more powerful that Gandalf's...which got destroyed under a single swing.
Okay, perhaps I wasn't clear. Obviously the Protego Maxima + Fianto Duri + Repello Inimigotum from several accomplished wizards/witches > Gandalf's one shield.
But you said that wizarding shields in general were superior to Gandalf's Istari Shield, and I was confused as to how you made that conclusion.
Wow: you're the anti-Harry Potter version of Rogue Jedi. Even the taunting and everything. The only thing you're missing is the meme-taunt photos/ But, to address your point about Gandalf's "secret power": Movie feats, please. We can keep it to movies and still make good points. Saruman, while powerful, did not wield such power and he was being a "naughty wizard". So a naughty wizard isn't doing anything that much more spectacular than a good wizard. So I'll take your claim at unseen powers as not amounting to anything. In fact, it is meaningless in this discussion about movies. However, I will grant you this: the lightning bolt channel + sword stab combo was the most powerful thing Gandalf did. It's easy to see why that was his trump card. THAT is something that he can do in this thread and channeling all the power of a lightning bolt into a sword strike is surely quite a powerful move. The fight is outside....so why not? Here's the problem: the time it takes to do the attack.
Don't you think it's rather rude of you to call me an anti-fanboy and being like RJ? I only acted that way because Turr and I were just joshing with each other.
I am terribly confused by what you said afterwards. My whole point was that while the movies never have Gandalf saying, "I am a Maiar," they make it rather obvious that he is some divine above-man figure. I am not claiming he has X powers...
Actually, my whole basis for his victory is his:
* Blinding Light
* Istari Shield
* Pyrokinesis
* Blast (Object Obliteration)
In TTT, against Aragorn and company's ambush, he demonstrates he can uses these abilities successfully in few seconds, without any exertion.
Originally posted by Robtard
Incorrect.Incorrect.
Incorrect.
Actually, Dude did say this:
So I would like to amend my position slightly: I think that Gandalf's reactions are fast enough to block most attacks from the HP wizards. Only the fastest/best duelists from HP will be quick enough to get the drop on Gandalf.
So no first years will be able to take him out.
Only seasoned fighters from HP are a good enough match for Gandalf.
That said, I still see Voldemort as been far too powerful and versatile for Gandalf. This is after having read the entire thread.
Still, he believes Voldemort > Gandalf.
Originally posted by RobtardThat's neither here nor there with this thread. You are also ignoring the pile of dog poo poo which aided Harry's freckled ass to survive from film to film against Lord Voldemort.
Yet despite all his power, he was killed by a man-boy student wizard. You probably think Harry Potter could defeat Gandalf.Correct, Voldermort stomps his little feet and runs off crying after Gandalf uses his fear aura he used in Fellowship.
LoL, "it seemed more powerful", the Balrog ripped through solid stone and survived a super-massive fall, yet it couldn't kill Gandalf with it's strength and fire. But some pyrotechnics from Voldermort will? Hahahaaahahahaha, good one.
Gandalf doesn't need to last very long (though he could), he needs to last a few seconds to dispose of Voldermort, which he does, effortlessly.
Voldemort went up against his biggest rival whose feats >>>The Witch King's who bested gandalf's staff in no time. This is the same character who was owned by a man wildly swinging a torch in the first film. Not very convincing and is leagues better than your hilarious I will ignore the context of Voldemort and Harry Potter's interactions to get back inside Lord Quanchi's head because he's been dancing around in mine for weeks.
Voldemort's attacks rip through solid stone all the time. Whoopty doo. His powerful attack destroyed a protective shield which completely disintegrated a human body on touch.
Gandalf was soundly defeated by a guy who screamed and was owned by a man with a torch. Voldemort is more powerful, quicker, has far better versatility, and flat out superior to Gandalf. Sorry but something like the Balrog would be Voldemort's pet or a soldier he used on the front lines not an enemy that ends up killing him.