Well?

well?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2TTB5t_4Nlc
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

facebook

???

1. Gandalf
2. Dumbledore

Those are the only 2 available answers, kid.

One of them came back as basically Jesus, the other one fucking died. You do the math.

yeah hillarious. Your facebook thread is sad enough, bumping it like this is just embarrassing

Gandalf
>can light his walking stick
>can blow cool smoke bubbles
>gets absolutely REKT and about to be murdered by a dementor. This dementor is later killed by an inexperienced woman

Dumbledore
>can produce zomie-eating fire dragons even when dying
>goes two-to-two with the most badass dark wizard there ever was

Gee, I wonder!

You'd have to be a real oddball, who knows nothing of magic, to think Gandalf would stand a chance.

one can put you in a ball of water until you drown the other can do light tricks, do the math fags

Dumbledore!

Easily!

LIKE THIS POST FOR GANDALF

HEART THIS POST FOR DUMBLEDORE

Dumbledore would whoop Gandalf's ass all the way to Mordor faster than you can say Avada Kedavra.

Calm down, kid.

What does that have to do with a fight? Gandalf might be able to respawn but he would still get the shit beat out of him in a fight.

Also Dumbledore could have become immortal if he wanted to.

>Comparing the Witch King to a dementor

Gandalf is basically a minor god in the setting, I don't know about Gandalf the Grey, but the White is definitely stronger than Dumbledore.

I'd put my money on the one who isn't part of one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

Dumbledore would have had the sense to use the eagles.

Me and keith

>Gandalf is basically a minor god
Not really, though.

Harame XD

Dumbeldore wipes the floor with that mumbling faggot who can only light his stick.

Yeah I know, but I can't remember his exact place in the divine hierarchy. I know he started as an angel, but became much more when revived.

>but the White is definitely stronger than Dumbledore.

where is the proofs though?

Dumbledore could have gone to Mordor and destroyed the ring in literally less than a minute. Gandalf is a cheap conjurer of tricks compared.

2 completely different universes in which magic has a very different approach.

>Dumbledore: Has dozens of lethal spells. Would probably insta-kill Gandalf the Grey without even trying.

>Gandalf the white: Sent back for the single task of leading the fight against Sauron. Doesn't engage anyone in battle unless provoked directly. More of a spiritual leader, only fights certain targets (Nazgul). If he would be put up against Dumbledore, he would probably be immune to all his magic attacks, and simply break his wand within seconds. There wouldn't be a giant battle like dumbledore vs Voldemort. It would be more like Gandalf the white vs Saruman.

My fictional character beats your fictional character xD

To be fair, even Harry could have easily destroyed the ring with the invisibility cloak.

>he would probably be immune to all his magic attacks

Why would he?

Besides Dumbledore has a fucking phoenix who would teleport him behind Gandalf before Gandalf would even be able to shout AHHHHHHHHHH SAVE ME EAGLES.

This is the idea

Absolute nonsense.

What idea? you just said that Gandalf will be immune to magic and didn't present any evidence.

Not really if you think about it. Gandalf is sent for a single purpose and is "engineered" this way to acomplish his goal flawlessly. That's why he got shit on by Saruman at first, but came back with Saruman's title and overthrow him without a sweat. The gods that sent him did not wanted to let the Istari (aka wizards) decide the fate of the Middle Earth, but instead help the people living in it. I'm pretty sure Gandalf the White would defeat Sauron if given the order.

No.

He replaced Saruman as the "White Wizard". That is all.

He would because that's his job in LOTR.
It has very well defined classes.

A white wizard is one of the highest forms of magic users. Dumbledore can use every trick in the book, but those rules wouldn't apply to Gandalf.

Inside the LOTR universe, Dumbledore wouldn't stand a chance. A killing curse should just bounce off Gandalf. Dumbledore's power comes from a wand. Gandalf has shown he can easily break the weapon of another wizard.

Inside the Harry Potter universe however, Gandalf would've been considered a weak wizard. If you only look at his spells, he's not even on a first grade level.

>muh gods

We are talking 1 on 1 here, without universe-specific related entities.

...

>Gandalf has shown he can easily break the weapon of another wizard.

Yeah, but dementors can easily break Gandalfs staff.

youtube.com/watch?v=2TTB5t_4Nlc

the dullest matchup OP

HOWEVER why don't I just fly the fuck out of this thread? looks like Reddit's back on the menu boys

Then Gandalf wouldn't even exist, as he's the personnified will of the Gods. You can't really scale his power in a universe where there is none. So I would say that Dumbledore wins in that case?

Actually you cannot apparate to places far away you've never been before

This is why Newt takes the boat to New York in Fantastic Beasts

>two-to-two
>uses the expression 'gee'

retard

Never understood why they put that in the movies. Doesn't happen in the books.

It made Gandalf look weaker than he was in the books.

Well it is in the kino and this is a board for film discussion so it is canon.

>Actually you cannot apparate to places far away you've never been before

Doesn't matter. You know why?

Because when Dumbledore wants to take a ride, he has a legion of skeletal dragon-horses that can fly incredibly fast and to wherever you tell them.

Gandalf, on the other hand, has to beg the eagles for a lift.

came here to post this basically. the only magic gandalf displayed in the entire trilogy was making his stick glow like an iphone flash light. based on that i'd find it hard to imagine he'd beat a hogwarts first year, let alone the headmaster himself.

>Dumbledore could have gone to Mordor and destroyed the ring in literally less than a minute.

And so could Gandalf, you are forgetting that Gandalf could have taken the ring and easily used it to destroy Sauron. But in doing so, it would turn him into the next Sauron-like lord. Same thing would happen to Dumbledore, or anyone who isn't Tom Bombadil.

Gandalf also killed a Balrog, which in the movies looked like a video game monster, but in the books is a demon in the form of flame and shadow that has existed since the dawn of time.

>And so could Gandalf

No he couldn't.

Comparing who would win in a fight would depend on which fictional world they're in. Apples to oranges.

But if we're comparing characters, and who is 'better', Gandalf wins by a long shot because he's an enjoyable character.

Yes he could. Read the book and watch the movie. It's explained in both when Frodo tries to give Gandalf the ring in Bag-End. This is what Sauron feared most, and what he believed would happen.

>Understand Frodo, I would use this Ring from a desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.

Lmfao he's as dull as can be. Gandalf is a shitty cliche character and a demigod he's a mary sue.

>he's a mary sue
Explain in detail, please.

Exactly. Even Gandalf knew he couldn't do it.

>gets killed
>Reincarnated
>saves the day

Are you agreeing or disagreeing? He could do it physically, yes, but he's a character with enough awareness to know that it would end up being worse.

he cant die you retard did you even read any tolkien books? thats the fuckin point of being immortal

I'm saying Gandalf couldn't do it.

Even Gandalf agrees.

What about this makes him a Mary Sue? I feel like you're parroting a phrase you don't understand. If you're trying to say that he's a character that can do everything without making any mistakes - you're wrong. If you're trying to say the reasons for his skill and knowledge aren't explained - you're wrong. If you're trying to say everyone likes him for no reason - you're wrong. If you're trying to say he single-handedly saves the day - you're wrong.

So, what are you trying to say, exactly?

Are you actually retarded or are you acting this way for attention? At this point, it seems to be both.

He could've done it - just like Saruman could've done it and was actively trying to get the ring for that reason.

But neither of them would have destroyed the ring.

They literally couldn't have done it. Gandalf agrees.

Ah, okay, so you agree, he could use the ring, but not destroy it. That's exactly right. Now, back to my original post, where I said;
>same thing would happen to Dumbledore

Doubtful.

>dumbledore gives ring to harry in evnvelope
>tells him to throw it in Mt Doom
>Harry takes Cloak of Invisibility
>Flies to Mordor
>Tosses Envelope in

Job done!

How does Harry, being human, withstand the temptation of the ring? Remember, Hobbits are not human, and care little for glory and power, whereas humans crave it.

Unless it's a hobbit carrying the ring, the temptation would probably be too much.

Dumbledore would WEAR THE ONE RING CAUSING END OF DAYS

Couldn't even resist wearing the cursed resurrection stone ring.

He doesn't even know about the ring.

Gandalf the Grey gets shat on by Dumbledore no question. As for Galdalf the White? Eh, he still has no real feats. Dumbledore just has greater magical fighting ability.

Gandalf the White has the big G on his side, Dumbledore's a faggot.

Case closer.

The ring wants to be found, and would probably make its presence known - but I thought this was a battle between Gandalf and Dumbledore, why does Harry Potter get involved? And if he was unaware, wouldn't he question things like 'why am I in a different fictional universe" or "what's in the envelope"?

Harry's a good lad. He wouldn't open the envelope.

>How does Harry, being human, withstand the temptation of the ring?
You can't. It always win eventually, and IIRC Tolkien said it pretty much instantly corrupts anyone inside the mountain where it was made because it's the most powerful there.

Dumbledore. Easily.

Gandalf got his staff broke by a dementor kek.

It's spelled Ringwraiths, actually.
That was in the film and not the book.