LotR (movie versions) Legolas and Gimli

[HammerFist]

In the book version of LotR, these two characters actually don't have as much definition as you'd think (or I'd like!). I know for a mation picture, they'd have to change this. I have no problem with that, I have a problem with how they went about doing it.

The role of Legolas was given to a kid who turns out to be a heartthrob, and girls everywhere are fawning over him, while the guys all think "cool, Legolas just shot an arrow through 2 orcs" or "Did you just see how he surfed down the stairs shooting arrows?" or "Legolas just stabbed a dude with his arror, then knocked it and shot another orc!"

Which is all well and good, until they get to Gimli.

Gimli has about the same role in the books as Legolas: Supporting character to Aragorn, almost a backgroung character. To make him "shine" more in the movie version, Gimli has become comic relief. Comic relief!

This proud dwarf falls off horses, gets jabbed while snoring in Lothlorien, and a few jokes (so far) about being "tossed" (I'll leave this one up to your imagination).

Does this bother anybody else?

 

[shilsen]

Nope, doesn't bother me. It's just part and parcel of adapting to a different medium, and for the purposes of the movie, I think the changes work fine. They do serve to differentiate the characters a lot from each other and from everyone else in the movie, and also characterize them effectively in a medium which can't afford to spend time doing so as the book did. I love Gimli and Legolas in the book, but that doesn't stop me from finding the former funny (nobody tosses a dwarf ) and the latter cool in the movie.

 

[Mouseferatu]

To say nothing of the fact that, despite all Gimli's comic relief moments, he kicks all sorts of rear when it finally gets down to it.

Frankly--and no offense intended to Mr. Tolkien, who was writing in a different time and for a different audience--I found the characterizations of many of the characters of the novels to be sorely lacking in depth. I'd have been disappointed if they hadn't made some changes to the characters in the movies, even if the different medium hadn't forced the issue.

 

[ergeheilalt]

Another fact to consider is the over all story. Lord of the Rings is a great book, but very bitter sweet ... I mean very bitter. Had there been no comic relief in these films, the story would have seemed to be forever plummeting downward. Having little laughs through out the movie makes sure that the audience isn't brought down too much, and also high lights the most tragic/suspenseful parts.

While you're sitting there laughing at the dwarf who can barely see over the crenellations, you take your mind off the great story - instead of feeling "oh no, something bad happened ... again".

Not to mention, dwarves are just innately funny.

Erge

 

[FraserRonald]

I'm not going to knock the characterization of Gimili in the movie, but I do feel he had an important role to play in the books. I find it odd that one might consider his representation in the books as without definition. Here's my take on it.

Gimili is the everyman. I have heard people describe the Hobbits as the everymen, but I would say they are the paragons. They are a rustic, peaceful people, apparently without crime, greed or war. I can't speak for other people, but that is about as far from the 'everyman' as I can imagine. Gimili, on the other hand, has flaws like prejudice, greed and violence, but he becomes a hero in spite of these things. He is the one that always makes big boasts (about running, following Aragorn anywhere, what have you) and then is forced to live up to these boasts even though he doesn't want to. I would say that part of Gimili's reasons for forcing himself to take the Paths of the Dead was loyalty and friendship, but also a part of him didn't want to have to eat his own boast.

That's a character I can identify with.

 

[The Serge]

Actually, Gimli's also pretty funny and grumpy in the books as well. There are a number of times that Aragorn has to rebuke him for making an inappropriate comment. He also has a keen sense of humor in the books, particularly when compared to Legolas (relatively... He, like most of the characters aren't especially funny or lighthearted... especially TTT and TRotK).

I'm pleased with the characterizations in the movies to date. I'll even like Faramir if they play up his desire to earn his father's love and respect in the TRotK which will balance out his behavior in the film (which, to many, was antithetical to his character as portrayed in the book and a 'serious' diversion).

 

[Barendd Nobeard]

I have heard people describe the Hobbits as the everymen, but I would say they are the paragons. They are a rustic, peaceful people, apparently without crime, greed or war.
emphasis added

Well, except for the Sackville Bagginses. I think some hobbits may be greedy; it's just the the ones we see in-depth are not very greedy.

 

[FraserRonald]

Well, except for the Sackville Bagginses. I think some hobbits may be greedy; it's just the the ones we see in-depth are not very greedy.

True, but the Sackville-Bagginses stand out due to the contrast with the other Hobbits--them and Ted Sandyman. Hobbit society, as a whole, is illustrated as about as idyllic as possible, a few bad apples notwithstanding.

In any case, the Hobbits on which the story focuses, in my opinion, are not everymen in the sense that they do not reflect the character of the majority of people.