Smaug vs. Balrog

Started by Epicurus15 pages

Originally posted by Robtard
Absolutely not.

I meant Smaug's pit, not the Balrog/Gandalf scene.
Originally posted by Robtard
Youtube the Gandalf/Balrog scene. They fall for over a minute.

He's rather large and being bigger/heavier isn't necessarily an advantage when falling.


Just saw it. Yeah, it does appear much deeper than the pit Smaug fell into. But still, Gandalf was able to survive the fall:
YouTube video
So Gandalf's durability is higher than Smaug's iyo? To me, this is like that scene in TDK where Batman and Rachel are falling down several storeys on a taxi, and Rachel somehow manages to survive but smh either ways.

Your body needs to be very durable simply to carry the immense weight at that size. The way Smaug was portrayed in that movie, he seemed the size of a hill or something. Plus his scales are also stronger/tougher than iron armor.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A Balrog is far more powerful then a dragon.
No, it isn't. This is also a generalized statement and it depends on the dragon and on the Balrog. Smaug is far mightier than the Balrog. Greater feats, smarter, more durable, faster, and bigger. Smaug has all the advantages.

Originally posted by ares834
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.
lol. The context of this discussion has got your number brah.

Originally posted by Robtard
Again, you need to actually watch the LoTR trilogy and stop youtube debating. Gandalf made it clear that normal weapons wouldn't harm it.

Originally posted by ares834
Only if we take Gandalf's statement as literal. And we shouldn't considering a few moments later we see Gandalf hurting the Balrog with his sword.

So what precedence from the movies are you using to contest the notion that the Balrog can only be harmed by magical weapons?

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, it isn't. This is also a generalized statement and it depends on the dragon and on the Balrog. Smaug is far mightier than the Balrog. Greater feats, smarter, more durable, faster, and bigger. Smaug has all the advantages.

But a Balrog is an old world demon while a dragon is a living magical creature. No dragon could ever stand to a Balrog. Balrogs cannot be killed by mortals, and dragons are mortal.

Originally posted by Epicurus
I meant Smaug's pit, not the Balrog/Gandalf scene.

Just saw it. Yeah, it does appear much deeper than the pit Smaug fell into. But still, Gandalf was able to survive the fall:

So Gandalf's durability is higher than Smaug's iyo? To me, this is like that scene in TDK where Batman and Rachel are falling down several storeys on a taxi, and Rachel somehow manages to survive but smh either ways.

Your body needs to be very durable simply to carry the immense weight at that size. The way Smaug was portrayed in that movie, he seemed the size of a hill or something. Plus his scales are also stronger/tougher than iron armor.

No, I'd not say Gandalf is more durable. Though he's clearly far greater than his form appears with surviving smacks from the Balrog and surviving a fall like that. He's also much smaller than either the Balrog and Smaug; he was also riding the Balrog so it took the lion's share of the impact.

I'd not say "size of a hill", though hills vary in size. Regardless, we go by movie feats and I think just about everyone knows how Smaug dies in the 3rd film. So unless Jackson does some of his own writing in making Smaug more bad-ass, the Balrog has better feats thus far.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
lol. The context of this discussion has got your number brah.

Um, what?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
So what precedence from the movies are you using to contest the notion that the Balrog can only be harmed by magical weapons?

The fact that it is never stated.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But a Balrog is an old world demon while a dragon is a living magical creature. No dragon could ever stand to a Balrog. Balrogs cannot be killed by mortals, and dragons are mortal.
This is the movie version only. Acting like the No mortals can kill it is applying a fictional no limits fallacy.

Smaug would decimate the movie Balrog. Again, based off the movies he is smarter, bigger, faster, can fly, and has greater feats.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But a Balrog is an old world demon while a dragon is a living magical creature. No dragon could ever stand to a Balrog. Balrogs cannot be killed by mortals, and dragons are mortal.

Balrogs were killed by mortals. Hell, in HoME Tuor (a human) killed 5 Balrogs in a single battle. Now, admittedly, this is before Tolkien decided there should be only a handful of Balrogs but the notion that they can't be killed by mortals is not shared by the books.

Plus, Morgoth's final defense wasn't Balrogs but winged dragons. And their onslaught was so fierce they temporarily drove the very armies of heaven back.

Originally posted by quanchi112
This is the movie version only. Acting like the No mortals can kill it is applying a fictional no limits fallacy.

Smaug would decimate the movie Balrog. Again, based off the movies he is smarter, bigger, faster, can fly, and has greater feats.

I haven't seen the movie yet. I am only basing what I know from being a dungeon master, years ago. If we are limited to Tolkien only, then I don't know.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I haven't seen the movie yet. I am only basing what I know from being a dungeon master, years ago. If we are limited to Tolkien only, then I don't know.
That explains your opinion. Once you see the movie its obvious Smaug decimates the Balrog.

Originally posted by ares834
Um, what?

The fact that it is never stated.

Which isn't evidence. It isn't stated that non-magical weapons can hurt it, either.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, I'd not say Gandalf is more durable. Though he's clearly far greater than his form appears with surviving smacks from the Balrog and surviving a fall like that. He's also much smaller than either the Balrog and Smaug; he was also riding the Balrog so it took the lion's share of the impact.

I'd not say "size of a hill", though hills vary in size. Regardless, we go by movie feats and I think just about everyone knows how Smaug dies in the 3rd film. So unless Jackson does some of his own writing in making Smaug more bad-ass, the Balrog has better feats thus far.


I doubt any of the feats shown so far indicate that he'd be hurt from a fall like that.

I don't think that he can beat Balrog here, simply based on the nature of the opponents; one breathes fire to incinerate his foes, the other becomes fire to burn them alive. I am not 100% sure, but I think that iffy sword of Balrog's could likely penetrate Smaug's armored hide. What are its best feats?

Originally posted by quanchi112
That explains your opinion. Once you see the movie its obvious Smaug decimates the Balrog.

I will get back with you so. Maybe I can see it after Xmas.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I will get back with you so. Maybe I can see it after Xmas.
Anything Cumberbatch touches turns to gold.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Anything Cumberbatch touches turns to gold.

Well, the Midas touch didn't really end well for its last user...

Originally posted by Epicurus
Well, the Midas touch didn't really end well for its last user...
That is because it wasn't Benedict's golden touch.

Smaug wins

Originally posted by Supra
Smaug wins
Quit riding my coattails.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Quit riding my coattails.

oh that which you dont have?

Originally posted by Supra
oh that which you dont have?
Based on ?