I think you're reading too much into it. What about the phrase implies to you that Gandalf is using a "common reference" and not just being descriptive?

@Quasi_Stomach if he's being descriptive - what is he describing? Perhaps my assumption is misguided he's referring to another bona-fide magic user "Conjurer" who is "cheaper" than him somehow (can one "sell-out" in middle-earth 🤔). In either case, I'm curious if there is a reason other than "that's the idiom the screenwriter settled on."

It seems to me that hobbits usually consider Gandalf a conjurer of cheap tricks - he's remembered for fireworks, fancy smoke rings, and being a nuisance that makes respectible Bagginses go off on wild adventures. I doubt even Bilbo usually thinks of him as a powerful being capable of killing a Balrog. Gandalf says this as he's displaying some of his true power, in contrast to the old friend and pyrotechnic he's often taken for.

@Nolimon - that's not an interpretation I'd considered, but it's certainly intriguing! I'd be inclined +1 an answer that might turn up with a premise like that 😉

@PeterVandivier I don't think it's an idiom. Are you maybe coming at this from a second-language perspective and assuming it's an idiom just because you haven't heard the phrase? I'm pretty sure it means exactly what it says on the surface. Gandalf is saying he is not a magician who does cheap tricks (which Nolimon mentions, is how the Hobbits may see him based on his performance so far), but is an actual practicer of Magic™ as Bilbo should know full well from his previous experience (in The Hobbit)

The top answer on the dupe makes direct reference to Frodo being mistaken for a "traveling magician", indicating that such things do indeed exist in Middle-earth

@Quasi_Stomach - English is my first language. While I don't have an advanced degree in the language or it's construction, I feel pretty confident that even if the full phrase doesn't qualify as an idiom, then it's at least fair to call it an interesting turn of phrase and inquire as to whether it's a bad screenwriting choice in an otherwise very cohesively constructed script.

@Valorum - while it's your prerogative to close, I can't say that I agree. That magic is exclusive to the Istari is not the premise of my question. Indeed the Magic™ ring that Gandalf bears was not forged by an Istari - but rather by an elf.

For posterity (and since I can't answer a closed question), the reference to "travelling magician" can be found here although it is modified with the suffix "of unknown power and purpose" which implies to me that the cheap label may not apply. As well - at the end of Chapter 9 (in Bree), Butterbur warns Frodo against "...any more... conjuring, or whatever..."

@Valorum How does "traveling magician" imply sleight of hand and conjuring of cheap tricks? In Middle-earth, that could very easily mean people that do actual magic and travel a lot.

Agree w/ @Quasi_Stomach's assessment - the hobbits (barring Bilbo ostensibly) knew Gandalf as the fun fireworks guy who comes around every so often, not a bad ass demigod.

@NKCampbell Actually, it was Nolimon who made the original observation, I was just agreeing with Nolimon!

@Quasi_Stomach strictly speaking, I’m not sure the question “do sleight of hand artists exist in middle earth (and if so how common are they)” is really answered here or in the linked dupe. My question seems to have sparked a bit of a flame war though so not 100% certain it’s worth editing to try and “fix” 🤷🏻‍♂️

@PeterVandivier Having people misunderstand you, or skeptically trying to get at your underlying question is hardly a flame war. I'm sorry if my comment sounded like a "flame". I was just trying to clarify your question (which is part of what comments are for). We've all seen too many questions which are designed just to make a point or to literally incite an argument, so hopefully you will understand when we are immediately skeptical of questions which start with a questionable premise, especially when the OP rejects any attempts at a frame-challenge.

@Quasi_Stomach I’m familiar with the “show effort” principle of SE. I asked a brief question because it felt clear and concise. Clearly I don’t grok the SFF community yet but I’ve edited the OP in response to the comments in the spirit of persistence.

@null - if it’s a crap/dupe question, I’m happy to delete it

I was trying to let it season to the point where that becomes clear, but as noted, clearly I’m missing something about the preferred flavor of construction for thus particular SE community

So - tbh, I’d prefer if a mod just made the call and deleted it or gave some clear feedback. Right now I’m still just a bit pissed about the unilateral close - but clearly that’s backed by the down votes so... maybe I’ll just goo.gl/images/Z8ae97