Originally posted by ares834Robbie picks and chooses based on who he likes more. Gandalf is taking him on in close combat despite the size advantage the Balrog has over him. I never understood the Balrog wank when he just got beat one on one. Gandalf needed aid against a cave troll for crying out loud.
Gandalf is hurting the Balrog during the fall. At no point in that struggle, is he seen charging his sword with lightning.
Originally posted by Robtard
Glamdring is still magical and Gandalf is greater than mortals and elves, why he wasn't burned by fire and survived a massive fall.
Gandalf directly states, "Swords are of no more use here." Not your swords, he says "swords". And he directly contradicts that a minute or so later. The logical conclusion is he was trying to get Aragorn away as he would have stood no chance against the Balrog.
Originally posted by ares834
Gandalf directly states, "Swords are of no more use here." Not your swords, he says "swords". And he directly contradicts that a minute or so later. The logical conclusion is he was trying to get Aragorn away as he would have stood no chance against the Balrog.
Because they couldn't harm the Balrog. If all it takes to kill a Balrog is normal weapons, then Legolas could do it by myself with his speed, agility and accuracy.
It's also evidently clear that normal or magical stabs wouldn't kill the Balrog hence Gandalf after days of fighting magically charges his sword to finally kill it.
Originally posted by ares834The logical conclusion would be that Gandalf's a ****ing wizard armed with an elvish blade and the others are not.
Gandalf directly states, "Swords are of no more use here." Not your swords, he says "swords". And he directly contradicts that a minute or so later. The logical conclusion is he was trying to get Aragorn away as he would have stood no chance against the Balrog.
Gandalf lying so that he could scare the others into running away isn't a logical conclusion, dude. LOL
Sting lights up like a glow-rod in a rave, elvish rope can untie itself with a simple tug and actively harms evil creatures (it buuurns us, it freeeeezes!). Why are we having this discussion about the feasibility of Gandalf's elvish blade having magical properties?
Originally posted by Robtard
So you can't prove that Smaug would survive the dead fall the Balrog did. It's not a Smaug feat, so stop insisting it is.
Originally posted by Robtard
Because they couldn't harm the Balrog. If all it takes to kill a Balrog is normal weapons, then Legolas could do it by myself with his speed, agility and accuracy.
Arrows that would have been tiny compared to the Balrog. Heck, considering the trouble Gandalf has piercing the Balrog's hide, it's doubtful that Legolas's arrows would even pierce the Balrog.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
The logical conclusion would be that Gandalf's a ****ing wizard armed with an elvish blade and the others are not.Gandalf lying so that he could scare the others into running away isn't a logical conclusion, dude. LOL
Except it is... The Balrog never once displays immunity to normal weaponry. I mean WTF is Aragorn going to do with a sword, if he gets to close to the Balrog all he is going to do is burn. Plus when is it even stated that Elvish Blades have special demon kill properties? Quite simply they don't. They are just better made then others.
Beyond that, we see Saruman (the same kind of being as a Balrog) slain by a simple arrow.
Originally posted by Epicurus
Tbf, Smaug was more or less unfazed when falling down that deep pit/well in which Thorin managed to lure him into. Not sure whether it was as big as Balrog's fall, but I for one think that such a fall wouldn't really affect Smaug in the slightest either.
That fall was like a couple of steps compared to the fall the Balrog and Gandalf survived.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Sting lights up like a glow-rod in a rave, elvish rope can untie itself with a simple tug and actively harms evil creatures (it buuurns us, it freeeeezes!). Why are we having this discussion about the feasibility of Gandalf's elvish blade having magical properties?
I never said Gandalf's blade isn't magical. However, it is never described as having special demon slaying powers.
No distinction is made in the movies between magic and special demon slaying magic. The idea that because Gandalf's magical sword can hurt the Balrog despite not being explicitly stated to possess "demon slaying magic", normal weapons can hurt the Balrog (even though there's a direct statement from the Wizard stating that they can not) is fallacious. Gandalf is a wizard armed with a magical blade. That alone is enough to give credit to his statement that regular weapons can not harm it, simply by virtue of there being no precedent of non-magical weapons injuring it.
Originally posted by Robtard
That fall was like a couple of steps compared to the fall the Balrog and Gandalf survived.
And how big is Smaug anyways? Like Balerion(Song of Ice and Fire)-sized big? If so, then I doubt a fall from that height should hurt him at all.
Originally posted by ares834And? Did Gandalf have time to sit Aragon down and explain to him that the rest of the parties weapons would not work because they're pleebs armed with regular weapons while he is a wizard and is armed with a magical elvish blade? If you're so adamant to hang on this statement, does that mean that Gimli could have injured it, since he doesn't use a sword (he uses an axe), or Frodo (who uses a dagger)?
As I said earlier, Gandalf directly contradicts his statement as he says, "swords are no more use here." He doesn't say "normal swords" he says "swords". Yet, his sword does work on the Balrog and thus his earlier statement is contradicted.
This is semantics. The argument is whether or not the Balrog can be harmed by normal weapons. We've seen Gandalf tell Aragorn that the parties' weapons are useless against it. We see the Balrog be killed by a wizard armed with a magical sword. What lends credit to your assertion that the Balrog can be harmed by non-magical weapons?
Originally posted by Tzeentch
If you're so adamant to hang on this statement, does that mean that Gimli could have injured it, since he doesn't use a sword (he uses an axe), or Frodo (who uses a dagger)?
Irony. I'm not the one adamant on hanging on to that statement at all. I'm the one saying it shouldn't be taken literally.
Originally posted by Epicurus
It seemed a couple hundred feet at the very least. If Gandalf survived it, then so could Smaug imo.And how big is Smaug anyways? Like Balerion(Song of Ice and Fire)-sized big? If so, then I doubt a fall from that height should hurt him at all.
Absolutely not. Youtube the Gandalf/Balrog scene. They fall for over a minute. The last scene alone when the camera pans out over the lake shows several hundred feet that they have left to travel.
He's rather large and being bigger/heavier isn't necessarily an advantage when falling.