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.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by 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.

I must respectfully and heartily disagree with you. If Jackson cared about the books, he wouldn't have distorted Arwen's character, spent all of TTT at Helm's Deep, and made Denethor's death into a farce.

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.

Okay, though I disagree that Tolkien has one-dimensional characters (maybe some but not all), I see what you mean of character development taking place through actions. However, if PJ then wanted to reflect this in the movies, he would have to include important character development scenes rather than wasting time with unimportant gratuitous action or made up garbage.

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).

But a good portion of Legolas' antics and Gimli's buffoonery were invented, so how is this staying true to the books?

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.

The books were not an endless set of action sequences, so are you contradicting yourself there? Enlighten me!

I'm interested to hear more of your view on this subject.

[The Gaffer]

Okay, you asked for it

What I meant by "being TOO true to the books" was being too true to the map in the back and the sequence of events, not to the characters.

Most of JRRT's characterisation happens in his descriptions of the characters (not their actions strictly, but in what happens to them, what they look like, how they walk, how they respond to events, etc). To get that across, you'd have to have a whole bunch more space in the film, possibly make up some interaction between them which was absent in the books (i.e. be truly creative .).

Ergo, he didn't stay true to the books in terms of characterisation. If he really wanted to stay true to he would have had to cut a whole bunch more of the action and changed the sequence of events. That's why I used the term "ironically".

The Legolas/Gimli ninja/buffoon axis was of course invented to appease the 12 year-old market. Not sure what you mean by contradicting myself about that action set-pieces thing.

On the whole, though, they all did a damn fine job, especially the designers.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The Legolas/Gimli ninja/buffoon axis was of course invented to appease the 12 year-old market. Not sure what you mean by contradicting myself about that action set-pieces thing.

I'm twelve and that didn't please me.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I must respectfully and heartily disagree with you. If Jackson cared about the books, he wouldn't have distorted Arwen's character, spent all of TTT at Helm's Deep, and made Denethor's death into a farce.

And the Lorien elves turning up at Helms Deep!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

What I meant by "being TOO true to the books" was being too true to the map in the back and the sequence of events, not to the characters.
...
Ergo, he didn't stay true to the books in terms of characterisation. If he really wanted to stay true to he would have had to cut a whole bunch more of the action and changed the sequence of events. That's why I used the term "ironically".

I see said the blind man to his deaf dog... Okay, you and I define 'true to the book' in slightly different ways, but now that that's cleared up it's all good.

Most of JRRT's characterisation happens in his descriptions of the characters (not their actions strictly, but in what happens to them, what they look like, how they walk, how they respond to events, etc). To get that across, you'd have to have a whole bunch more space in the film, possibly make up some interaction between them which was absent in the books (i.e. be truly creative .).

Fair enough. In my opinion Jackson wasn't creative enough then, because 95% of the made up scenes truly sucked . I see what you mean about characterization though, and that's an excellent point. After 6 years in the making, I just expected something resembling Tolkien's characters to come through in the movies, not dumbed down action heroes.

The Legolas/Gimli ninja/buffoon axis was of course invented to appease the 12 year-old market. Not sure what you mean by contradicting myself about that action set-pieces thing.

This was when I misunderstood what I thought you meant about true to the book. I don't see how the ridiculous scenes where Faramir's character is maligned in Osgiliath (where he wants to take Frodo and Sam to Gondor) is 'true to the book' by any definition of the term.

As Telcontar accurately pointed out, there are many discerning 12-year-old movie viewers. Maybe Jackson wanted to appease the hormonal fangirl crowd? (And by fangirl I mean someone who is inclined to write a story about Aewieonowenen ShinyBlueEyes Princess of Rivindale. Maybe I've been MSTing a little too much recently )

On the whole, though, they all did a damn fine job, especially the designers.

The design was great anyway. Actually, the music, scenery and sets are almost solely responsible for making this a decent movie.

[Halbarad of the Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

As Telcontar accurately pointed out, there are many discerning 12-year-old movie viewers. Maybe Jackson wanted to appease the hormonal fangirl crowd?

Well, I feel that the Legolas/Gimli alterations, and even the Aragorn/Arwen alterations(as well as countless others) were made for film reasons. There are many and yet few of us who will read The Lord of the Rings all the way through and love it so much we will read it countless times again. The films were made with those people in mind. They added a lot of action for mainly, the males, the action hungry, beat 'em up, rough nd tough blood craving guys! They added a little bit of [simple] romance to the film, i.e. Aragorn and Arwen. It would have been simpler than developing the Gimli Galadriel thing, or even Faramir and Eowyn. Legolas was changed, obviously, to satisfy the fan girl section.(just admit it it's true, and not every girl is a fangirl!) With a number one joke made about Legolas' character being that he would spend more time doing his hair than fighting in wars! Gimli changed to a "this side" comical retard for the fact that Merry and Pippen were not there all the time, they needed someone to contrast the love/drama of Aragorn and the action/prettyness of Legolas. Although these changes were a blow to me and the rest of you Tolkien Gurus, I feel they were regretably neccessary to the success of the films to a broader demographic of non-Tolkien individuals.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The design was great anyway. Actually, the music, scenery and sets are almost solely responsible for making this a decent movie

I have to agree and disagree with you here, The music, the design, and sceanery were all definitely responsible for the success of the film, but I feel it is not even close to being "solely". The acting by almost everyone in the film was unparalleled! Even though Orlando Bloom and John Rhys-Davies had little to work with they still did an incredible job bringing the characters to life! The set peices, the music, the direction, the composition, the acting, the make-up, the special effects at WETA, the costume design, all of these things came together almost perfectly to create an incredible film series that may not, and could not, be 100% accurate with the Masterpeice of Tolkien, was still an excellent film series. I will proudly say I own all three theatrical versions of the films as well as all two extended versions that are out now, and I will definitely be getting the third!

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

As a LotR fan it is our so called duty to watch/buy the films. BUt also we can be very picky and point out every lapse in the films. But all in all they were great films.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Halbarad of the Dunedain

I have to agree and disagree with you here, The music, the design, and sceanery were all definitely responsible for the success of the film, but I feel it is not even close to being "solely". The acting by almost everyone in the film was unparalleled! Even though Orlando Bloom and John Rhys-Davies had little to work with they still did an incredible job bringing the characters to life! The set peices, the music, the direction, the composition, the acting, the make-up, the special effects at WETA, the costume design, all of these things came together almost perfectly to create an incredible film series that may not, and could not, be 100% accurate with the Masterpeice of Tolkien, was still an excellent film series. I will proudly say I own all three theatrical versions of the films as well as all two extended versions that are out now, and I will definitely be getting the third!

Okay, this is true. Maybe I'm a teensy tiny little bit too hard on the movies. But just a little bit. There was some fine quality acting, including John-Rhys Davies, that saved characters from being total Captain Obviouses to decenet characters.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Another Gimli critiscm. In the books dwarves are fine runners over distances. In the film however Gimli said they were natural sprinters wasted on cross-country.

[Halbarad of the Dunedain]

I have a Legolas criticism if I may post it here. Legolas, an elf, must be older than Aragorn or Gimli, and so must have some knowledge of Middle-Earth and yet, in Two Towers he says "The Uruk's are heading North-East! They are taking the Hobbits to Isengard!" Now maybe I'm just wiser than an elf, but Isengard would have been North-West from their Location! The direction Legolas has the Uruk's going is toword Lorien!

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

It depends how you are looking at it. That would be true if they had come from Minas Tirith.