Gender: Male Location: The epitome of my evolution.
Account Restricted
i've read the Silmarrilion (sp?), The Hobbit, and the Lotr Trilogy at least five times each. I'd recommend that you at least ask first, before making such assumptions.
I assumed you hadn't read Tolkien's work from the wrong information in your posts, your lack of knowledge of LOTR and Gandalf and your ridiculous arguement against Gandalf.
1) You can't even spell Gandalf
2) Your HP easykill spells do not work like that against an immortal angel/being/spirit.
3) Gandalf was loved by many people in ME, especially elves. I'm sure he wouldn't have much trouble. Besides not everyone in ME can use magic like in HP so it is actually much more exciting and powerful when you do see it.
4) Immortal mean immortal. He is not subject to death, everlasting, enduring, perpetual. At least his physical form (body) is mortal whereas his inward form (spirit) is immortal. Can you understand this? Alot of your comments about Gandalf's immortality indicate you don't.
5) Olorin was put in the guise of an old man (Gandalf). That means that he's completely subject to the same feelings, pleasures and fears of any other man in ME. So yes he is vastly powerful but he is essentially not physically sturdier than any other old man (although this too is debatable), so the fear of dying isn't so foreign. I repeat: physically he's mortal, but his spirit is immortal.
6) Gandalf was never afraid of dying again in RotK! If you're refering to the comment in the book where Denethor suggests that Gandalf is retreating because he is outmatched, Gandalf was simply being humble (one of his most admirable traits, heck he didn't even want to be one of the Istari because he thought he wasn't strong enough) and trying to diffuse Denethor's wrath (stemmed from his pride, which is always frustrating, especially when I watch the movie
7) Again, the magic in HP and in LOTR are VERY different. Gandalf was forbidden by the higher powers that sent him to ME (Eru and the Valar) to not use open displays of power as a way of resisting Sauron. He was supposed to encourage the people of ME instead of using his great power to scare them. If he just cast spells and destroyed everything that he could how much of a battle would there be and what kind of struggle do you think there would be? There would be no story and Gandalf gets all the praise. Boring huh? Besides, people in ME would rely on him to win their battles for them, what kind of independence and future does that give them after he leaves in the Fourth Age?
That's the difficult thing with HP buffs, they don't seem to understand appreciate the sublties and articulate details of LOTR.
8) Again Gandalf is spelt with an F not a PH! And for the record AGAIN: GANDALF NEVER BATTLED THE WITCH KING! In the movie that was not a battle, Peter Jackson only did that (and I know this for a fact) to give the WK more of a threatening presence in the movie. So the WK "breaking" Gandalf one way to do it. I don't agree with it and think there's other ways he could have achieved this but hey I didn't make it either so I have to accept it (I do this by skipping that scene )
It also never happened in the book. Read my other thread about this. Or read the last 2 pages in RotK: The Siege of Gondor. But since you've read it 5 times already, you should be very familiar with this scene.
9) Saruman didn't "WTFpwnd" Gandalf. It's not HP, it's LOTR. That (like the WK scene I talked about above) never happened in the book and was added for the same reason as the WK scene: to give Saruman power. And also once he snatched Gandalf staff (which I might add, the Istari's magic is somewhat attached to their staff's but not fully) he had more power and was so able to cane Gandalf.
10) Read 4) Then read it again. Then if you still don't understand it, then tell me what you don't understand as it's actually very simple.
11) OKAY I don't mean to be a total nitpick, but seriously if you had read the books as many times as you say you have, anyone would think that you could at least spell Maiar properly! I don't believe you at all.
12) For the love of Tolkien, it's The Silmarillion! I don't know if you're lazy or you just don't know how to spell it. But I don't believe that you've read The Silmarillion, The Hobbit and The LOTR Trilogy 5 times at all! You're not kidding me for a single second!
Therefore I didn't need to ask you as you see you got most of the information wrong. It's ok to ask if you don't know...
Gender: Male Location: The epitome of my evolution.
Account Restricted
A simple typo. Hooray.
Doesn't have too. Gandalf's spirit is immortal, but his body is not. he's just as mortal as everyone else. he can bleed, he can be stabbed, etc. Yes, he can "Come back to life", however KMC vs. rules state that if a character can't fight back for an extended period of time, he loses the match.
Different types of love. There's a drastic difference between the love you have for your own creation, as opposed to the love one has with a mentor, or accomplice. And even if it was, as you stated, Lotr characters do not possess the same abilities that Harry Potter characters do, and vice versa.
I have already addressed this.
So? If your so powerful that you can effortlessly flick away an opponent, or number of opponents, you shouldn't have any need to have fear of dieing.
I was referring to his "death" speech with Pippin.
I agree, it would be boring. This is called PIS. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that Gandalf has not shown any real considerable feats that put him above people like Voldmort.
More PIS. This is all true, but irrelevant to this discussion. You are explaining why Gandalf doesn't go all out with his powers, but these reasons mean nothing. In a debate such as this, regardless of why or why not the character has no high showings of power, feats are required. If you can not provide feats that make Gandalf superior, or any reasons why Gandalf would win, Voldemort wins this by default.
I hate Harry Potter. I've only read books 1-5 and, coincidentally, quit after that. I was side tracked after book 5 by the Silmarillion.
Yeah yeah..
True. I did not find that out until after I read all of the books fully. More gayness brought fourth by the brilliant mind of Peter Jackson. he was a fool for not including "The Scouring" as well. Though at the same time I understand why he did it. Most of the people who didn't read the books didn't know any better. So eh. What can you do?
Feel free to take notice at those little numbers at the top of the posts. Look at the dates of then, and now. I didn't start seriously reading the books until last November.
You said this TODAY at 07:57 AM. That's what it says. Not November. Stop making excuses. You were wrong. Accept it and move on. Denying it just makes you even more stubborn to accept that you're wrong. Trust me I know.
Your "simple typos" are consistant. Typo's are usually one-offs. Your's arent. That's why I assumed.
You REALLY do not understand the concept of Gandalf's imm/mortality STILL. Go read The Silmarillion again because I'm jaded of explaining it to you yet again for you to just come up with more irrelevant questions that go under the subject of his imm/mortality or tell me that you "have already addressed this" when you have not.
Peter Jackson excluded The Scouring of the Shire because it detached away from the movement and feel of the movie. Just think: Eagles fly and pick Frodo & Sam up. Hobbits go home later and find a battle going on. Then they go through the preperations of war, etc. They win the battle then rebuild the Shire. Then get settled in again. THEN only after all that, they stick around for a bit longer in the Shire then leave with the rest of the crew to the Undying Lands. Just think this huge war with Sauron has just finished now they have to deal with the battle in the Shire. It just isn't ideal and it's kinda confusing for people who only know the movie (Just like it was easier for PJ to make it look like Saruman was controlling Caradhras while the Fellowship were going around it when really it was the WK. It makes it easier for people who've only seen the movie to understand it, even if it pulls away a bit from the truth. PJ has his reasons for doing what he did, he didn't take the project lightly. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about here, no bull shit, he was making it down the road from where I live for crying out loud!)
As far as Gandalf's magic goes. I have already explained why he does not use it openly. On the other hand if Gandalf and Voldemort were in their own world, like some kind of neutral arena (not from either LOTR or HP) and they had their complete power and form that they truly are (Gandalf's true form=Olorin. Voldemort's true form=I have no idea. Enlighten me?) that would be another conversation altogether.
I would then say this. Gandalf would win for one reason only:
J.K. Rowling said that Voldemort's boggart would be his own corpse. She also said: "Voldemort's fear is death, ignominious death. I mean, he regards death itself as ignominious. He thinks that it's a shameful human weakness, as you know. His worst fear is death".[45] According to Rowling, the difference between Harry and Voldemort is that Harry accepts mortality, and thus Harry is in the end stronger than his nemesis: "[T]he real master of Death [i.e. someone like Harry] accepts that he must die, and that there are much worse things in the world of the living."[27]
SO THEN the question would be "who is magically stronger: Gandalf or Harry Potter?' And I know we would all agree that it's Gandalf.
Besides this is all really irrelevant as we are just using our imagination to debate over something that would NEVER EVER happen. But if it did, Gandalf would win anyway because:
1) Both Harry and Voldemort are mortals and Gandalf is immortal.
2) Gandalf is on the good side, whereas Voldemort is on the evil side (you know what I mean, one has good and the other evil motives). Everyone knows that good usually triumphs over evil in fantasies. Simply because the people fighting for the good side are loved and respected by most people. Whereas people fighting for the evil side are feared and only obey them out of fear of being tormented, degraded, hurt or killed. That's why almost 80% of the voters on this poll have said because they are naturally/subconciously drawn to the good side (plus for their own personal reasons of course).
That's all I have to say about it because as far as I have read there's no evidence to discuss it further or believe different.
I repeat: Stop making excuses. You were wrong. Accept it and move on. Denying it just makes you even more stubborn to accept that you're wrong. Trust me I know.
Gender: Male Location: The epitome of my evolution.
Account Restricted
I wasn't referring to that, you tool. I was referirng to all the simple grammar mistakes and errors I said in the arument that you've been quoting, which was WAY back in August LAST YEAR. Read.
Want my advice? NEVER assume.
I have already addressed this. Either refute it, or explain why my reasoning is flawed. Or don't. But don't throw your sh*t around talking down to me and assuming I don't know what I'm talking about because you can't counter it, or it does't make sense to you.
HENCE why I said I can understand why he did it. Read.
I don't care if you do, honestly, because I do too.
And I have already addresed it.
but she didn't say "magically" stronger. She just said stronger, which is ambigous. She could mean magically stronger, or mentally stronger, or even physically stronger
[quote\Besides this is all really irrelevant as we are just using our imagination to debate over something that would NEVER EVER happen. [/quote]
No.. I'm using actual feats to back Voldemart up. You are using theories. "Well, if Gandalf was allowed to use his full abilities.." Which is faulty because, since we haven't actually seen Gandalf's true abilities, we have no way to compare. All we can go off of is what we see him and other Wizards do in the books, which overall isn't superior to what Voldemart can do.
Only his spirit is mortal. his regular body can be "destroyed", after which point he can be reincarnated. But it's not instantaneous like Wolverine's regenration, and as such as far as this site's rules are concerned, it would be the equivelent of Gandalf being knocked out, which is enough to score a win for Voldemort. VS. fights don't have to be a fight to the death. if character B can't get up and keep on fighting after he is attacked, character A wins.
But that is PIS (Plot-induced stupidity), someething that happens because in order to further the plot. Saying that Gandalf would win because in the movies and stories the bad guys never would does't fly here.
Quit the holier them thou attitude. You've been owned. Accept it and move on. Denying it just makes you even more stubborn to accept your wrong. You should know.
The Sacred Fire, before you make fun of someone for their spelling skills, make sure you can spell yourself. Spelt is a species if wheat..
To add, you're allowed to have an opinion and a discussion but tone it down a notch. This thread was created for people to vote on and elaborate on who they vote for, but you're making it seem like no one's opinion but your own is right just because someone disagreed with you..
Blax_Hydralisk, no one said that Olorin as Gandalf could not win. He never used his full extent of power (that he wasn't given by the Valar and Eru while in ME) in LOTR, and so yeah you're right we don't know what it is so we can't say.
I was not owned. But I'm not going to discuss this anymore with you because it's obvious now that you have your set opinion that isn't goin to change any millenia soon (the same said for me, except I've got an open mind). Plus nothing has REALLY been addressed/discussed.
Kelly_Bean, I was pointing out Blaxs' spelling mistakes of the LOTR names, places, etc because they were consistant. Enough that it's distracting, and consistant enough to assume he really couldn't spell them. I don't know if I SPELT it that way, don't think I did and can't find where I said it because I actually do proofread and edit my posts before I send them
Also, thanks for your POV guys, didn't mean to come across so arrogantly. I can accept your opinions though I don't think it's good to be so stuck in them so to close your mind off to new ones which is probably why I came off that way.
As for this whole debate, we could fight till we are blue in the faces, probably won't change anything. You see the sky blue I see it black. I can accept that and move on to other debates.
Gender: Male Location: The epitome of my evolution.
Account Restricted
My mind is just as open as yours. However, I require feats and hard evidence, as opposed to what-ifs and logical assumptions. I just dislike assumptions as a whole.
Also, seeing as this is a Lord of the Rings forum, Gandalf will win in the poll. Were you to place the same exact poll in the Harry Potter forum, Voldie would win. That's just how it works- 99% of the time people will defend their fandom. And those who belong to both simply have fun playing devils advocate for their own amusement, depending on their mood.
I don't like polls much, because they never really mean much. Some people simply click things for the sake of clicking things. -shrugs-
Although like I said, I think most people are naturally drawn to the 'good-side', they like good to triumph over bad and this poll may or may not reflect that.
erm...if a little wizard dude called Potter can compete with Voldemort then I think Gandalf the most awesome wizard ever could whoop his ass.
__________________
"In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields at Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom."
KMC Community Forums
Oct 21st, 2007 03:53 AM
)
