Gimli

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

In the movies to me it seems like Gimli isn't really a great warrior and has success more by luck that skill. The scene that really shows this for me is in Moria at Balins tomb while Gimli is rushing about and the Cave Troll is behind him and it takes two swipes, isses both times and kills two orcs that looked as if they were about to kill Gimli. Now if thats isn't luck I don't know what is. I think of Gimli as a truely great warrior, not the hustling, bustling character we sometimes see.
What do you guys think.

[Nurvingiel]

Well, I don't like most of Gimli's portrayal in the movie. He was given too many stupid lines and made into a buffoon character completely unecessarily. His character in the book was not comic relief, I don't see why he should have been in the movie. I also thought of Gimli as a great warrior, and that doesn't completely come accross in the movie because that's not what Jackson's focus was with his character.

That being said, there are some battles where he displays great skill. Moria was ridiculous for pretty much everyone involved, not just Gimli. However, at the battle at Helm's Deep Gimli is awesome. (Actually, now I think I'm thinking of the book, I almost said he won the contest by only one axe stroke. The book is much more strongly embedded in my mind than the movie, which I forget large chunks of.)

I think there isn't anything at Helm's Deep that suggests Gimli is not a great warrior, except that dreadful "Nobody tosses a dwarf" moment (which I just unfortunately remembered).

Gimli's character being portrayed as a buffoon takes away from the few moments Jackson has him displaying real skill in battle. A definitely see your point Telcontar.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

And at Helms Deep where you see two men dragging him away.

I know what you mean with the comic releif aswell. Merry and Pippin did that job well enough.

[Nurvingiel]

Aw nuts. And there was also the stupid scene with the armour not fitting him. Why would he take mail from the Rohirrim? He already had high quality Dwarven mail.

That scene is made fun of brilliantly here.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

That was great!

[Halbarad of the Dunedain]

I think all of the characters in the fellowship got a bit of a downgrade. Those in particular are Legolas and Gimli. Jackson, I don't feel, was trying to mae a film for LotR fans. He was making an entertaining film on a book. He did not wish to nor did he need to stick too close to the book. Obviousky he didn't in many cases and here presented in Legolas and Gimli.
Legolas, as presented by Jackson, is almost an ADD suffering elf. He never stops pointing ot the obvious; "This forest is old!"~TT really, I thought these tall, dark, aged, scary trees were rather fresh looking! "A diversion"~RotK Wow! Thanks for showing up to the plan late Legolas! Not only was he given worthless lines he was also given worthless action buff sequences. To satisify the elf loving, action craving, teen girl demographic PJ changed Legolas into a arrow slinging, Oliphant slaying, horse slinging action hero! There was no depth to his character! Where are the gulls that call him to the sea? Where is the elvan diviness about him? Where is the feeling that he is older than almost everyone else in the film!?(Excluding Elrond and Galadriel and a few others... you all know what I mean!) Legolas just seemed to be turned into a teenage stereotype day dream image.
As for Gimli, he was turned intoa comical sidekick! Always behind the shadow of Aragorn or Legolas, he was just there to spit out occasionaly humorus lines. Gimli was not the hardened, stone wall, warrior type I saw in the books. Of course John Rhys-Davies played an excellent Gimli, PJ just didn't give him anything to work with! In the film they do not even point out his love for the mountians or the metals. When he is in Moria he is as blind as the rest, almost unkowing about Khazad-dum befoer andalf the wise explains it all to the fellowship. Where is the joy at seeing the Glittering caves? Where is the true ax weilding power!? The warrior instinctivness that a warrior dwarf should have!?
In the films, Legolas and Gimli wre given the shaft! Even in most of the film posters you don't see them, I have a theatrical RotK poster on my wall, and as I look at it I see six characters in it, five worth being there. The emphisis in PJ's film was on Gandalf, both the grey and the white, on Aragorn, the ranger and the king, Frodo and Sam, the real main characters... taking the ring to mordor, Gollum along side Sam and Frodo, for good or ill. And finally onthe poster is Arwen. Arwen? What part did she play in the book? Sitting at the table of Elrond in one chapter? She is hardly mentioned in the book but in the film she is a movie poster character! Who cares about the quality and trueness of all the real characters says Jackson, we need an over glorified love story, lets take character from Leg. and Gim. and give it to Arwen!
I love the films they are very entertaining, and in parts somewhat of a review of Tokiens Masterpeice. I prefer the books though, from Hobbit to bok 12 of the HoME, I prefer every word in those books to these films. Yet that should go without saying shouldn't it?

*Edit: And of course Jackson HAD to remove the badger sceans! I just loved those parts of the book! Damn you Jackson! Haha... nice link Nurvingiel! Very funny!*

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Also there was no reason to why the friendship between Legolas and Gimli's was strange. There was no dwarf-elf backgorund at all.

[Nurvingiel]

It was hardly mentioned at all. Only lip sevice at the Black Gate. But that's better than nothing!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

and at helms deep,
gimli: legolas, 2 already!
legolas: i'm on 19
g: i'll have no pointy-ear outscore me!

(taken from TTT subtitles DVD)

but gimli was turned into too much of a comic buffoon,

[The Gaffer]

I think this thread has put its finger on what bothers me most about the films. Ironically, it's about PJ being TOO loyal to the books.

People often slag Tolkien off for having one-dimensional characters. There's undoubtedly some grounds for these criticisms, but to my mind, the effect is that you identify with them all the more. It's as if you fill in the gaps with your imagination, and therefore simple events such as Gimli's love for Galadriel become all the more significant. What I'm saying is that the character development happens in your mind as you interpret the events being relayed.

IMHO PJ tried to stick too closely to the plot line of the story, knowing that the film would get slagged off mercilessly wherever it deviated. As a result, there was no room for meaningful character development, which doesn't happen in film if you don't devote time to it. Hence we got some buffoonery from Gimli and Legolas' ninja antics (though I did laugh at the "that only counts as one" line).

Lots of people I know have criticised the films for seemingly like an endless sequence of action set-pieces. "And then this happened, then this, and this, etc". I would have liked to have seen less battles and more characters. It's not as if the material wasn't there: Gloin's story, for example.