|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Apr 8 2007, 5:18pm
Post #76 of 97
(7358 views)
Shortcut
|
Peter Jackson just has that kind of sense of humour! However, I just watched Heavenly Creatures, so it seems he can avoid indulging his sense of humour if he wants to.
I think whether or not you mind Gimli's jokes etc. may be partly cultural. I think Kiwis and Australians, and many Brits too, have a higher tolerance for humour (even not-very-tasteful humour) mixed in with serious subjects. I read something recently explaining why it is that Brits tend to think that Americans don't "understand" irony (I've forgotten the example of irony they used, but it was a little black humour used as a reply to someone offering condolences for the death of a family member). It's not that Americans don't "get" irony, according to this explanation - it's just that they don't see it as appropriate in certain circumstances, whereas people from some of the other English-speaking cultures don't have a problem with it, and in fact often welcome it as a way of defusing difficult emotions.
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
ladyoftheredwoods
Bree
Apr 9 2007, 12:17am
Post #77 of 97
(7344 views)
Shortcut
|
I also seen Heavenly Creatures. I found some of the scenes very disturbing but it is a disturbing story.
I think Peter Jackson was born on Halloween. Maybe that explains some of his humour.
|
|
|
hasufel
Rivendell
Apr 9 2007, 4:45pm
Post #78 of 97
(7371 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, not really!
But I think the drinking game was a nice contrast and made the characters more likeable.
Same with Gimli blowing away the "dead" and stepping on skulls.
These were real people, elves and dwarves. Yet they all had different characteristics. We definitely saw that on the battlefield. Why not add some levity and playfulness as well during down time?
Gimli's character was much more crass and unpolished in the movies. But I do not think that book Gimli would have translated well to the big screen. It would have come off as too rehearsed I think.
Same with Aragorn I believe. His "kingly" manner in the books would not have translated to a likeable character.
Again, I am not saying that all these scenes and dialogue were perfect for characters like Gimli. I would have edited out some of the "noises" and the like.
But I was more disappointed that we didn't get to see the other side of Gimli with the other characters. He relationship with Legolas and Aragorn was pretty good. But I wish we could have seen him as more of the "protector" of the hobbits. And aftermath with Legolas and himself visiting Fangorn and the glittering caves would have been nice.
I felt that both of their storylines did not have a fitting ending.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Apr 9 2007, 5:10pm
Post #79 of 97
(7338 views)
Shortcut
|
Drinking games are part of old Germanic culture. And of Rohan's. Look what happened with Prince Baldor in the book when he got too boastful during a Rohirrim drinking game.
I met a Balrog on the stair
He had some wings that weren't there.
They weren't there again today.
I wish he would just fly away.
|
|
|
Aerin
Grey Havens
Apr 11 2007, 5:33am
Post #80 of 97
(7343 views)
Shortcut
|
At least in my case, I have no problem whatsoever with mixing humor with drama; in fact, that's what I like best. (I hate sitcoms, but I love dramas that mix in humor.) Despite being American, I also fully appreciate irony, thank you very much. Gimli's belch (which does NOT occur during the drinking contest, BTW) is NOT an example of irony, and, IMHO, is not even an example of humor. Most (though not all) of Gimli's "humor" is not witty, not ironic, and not clever. If it were, I would have no problem with it.
I actually like the drinking contest. The other humorous moments involving Gimli that I like are when Legolas offers to get him a box and when he is shamed into entering the Paths of the Dead. The rest just aren't funny; they're too crude and obvious.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Apr 11 2007, 5:23pm
Post #81 of 97
(7331 views)
Shortcut
|
It was just a thought. And I didn't mean to imply that American's don't appreciate irony, just that (in the opinion of a piece I read) that British people and Americans may have different tastes in when and where it should be used. I'm surprised that you don't read Gimli's belch in the Great Hall as ironic, though. That's how it comes across to me - it's Gimli's response to Theoden's "When last I looked..." A little discourtesy in response to a discourtesy he feels has been offered to his friend. There's no comment he could have made that would have made his point any better.
I like the examples of Gimli's humour that you mention, except for the drinking game which to me is the most "crude and obvious" of the lot. (I must have imagined the belch - there's a fair bit of dribbling at least, though, isn't there?)
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
Aerin
Grey Havens
Apr 11 2007, 7:34pm
Post #82 of 97
(7372 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It would take an awfully broad definition
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
of "irony" to construe Gimli's belch as ironic. In fact, the definition would have to be so broad as to be meaningless. Countering rudeness with rudeness is not an example of irony. I don't accept that Theoden's remark was rude, crude, or in bad taste in the first place. But if Gimli had a problem with it and wished to respond, he could have used words, and even irony. However, I don't see Gimli's belch as a deliberate response to Theoden anyway; in the movie, he just comes across as clueless, boorish, and oblivious to the discussion going on around him in his eagerness to chow down.
|
|
|
hasufel
Rivendell
Apr 11 2007, 8:53pm
Post #83 of 97
(7332 views)
Shortcut
|
Gimli's belch was not ironic or some type of gesture towards King Theoden.
However, I completely disagree that Gimli comes across as clueless or oblivious to the discussion.
I see a dwarf who is eating while listening to the discussion at hand. And he got some gas from eating too fast!
I would love to see you go through three days and nights pursuit on no offd or rest. Then ride to the great hall and fight insurgents.
Finally food is offered to you.
Do you think a belch might slip under these circumstances?
I think Jackson and his team wanted these characters to appear real in our eyes, not fantasy. That can be a hard sell when you know that dwarves and elves do not exist!
|
|
|
Aerin
Grey Havens
Apr 11 2007, 10:23pm
Post #84 of 97
(7335 views)
Shortcut
|
Gimli to appear "real," he might have refrained from making him into a cartoon character. Realism clearly is not Jackson's intent here. It's quite transparently a case of adolescent gross-out humor, for which we know PJ has a soft spot.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Apr 12 2007, 3:09pm
Post #85 of 97
(7335 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think the acting in this scene
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
bears out my claim that Gimli is reacting to Theoden's rebuke to Aragorn: "When last I looked, Theoden, not Aragorn, was King of Rohan." You can see by Aragorn's face that he feels the rebuke, and you can hear in Gandalf's ironic stress on his next line, "Then what is the King's decision?" that he felt it too. I think Gimli's belch here is the equivalent of Legolas' defence of Aragorn at the Council of Elrond: "This is no mere Ranger...you owe him your allegiance." Gimli in his own dwarvish way is saying to Theoden "Fool, have you any idea who you are pulling rank on?"
Whether or not you are willing to accept a belch in this context is no doubt a matter of taste. Which I think is more or less where we came in...
;-)
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
hasufel
Rivendell
Apr 12 2007, 3:51pm
Post #86 of 97
(7335 views)
Shortcut
|
I do not see Gimli as a cartoon character at all.
I see him as a loyal companion willing to do anything for his compadres.
I see him as a fearless warrior in battle.
I see him as someone who enjoys life.
I believe the following are all examples of his "realism".
1. Trying to destroy the ring at the council.
2. Thinking the spies of Saruman were just a whisp of clouds.
3. Outward display of emotion about his fallen countrymen in Moria.
4. His resolve against the goblins in Moria. In fact he was the only one in my memory that looked ready to fight without apprehension.
5. His anger about Gandalf dying.
6. Trying to protect and school the hobbits about the scorceress.
7. His sadness about gandalf and the decision to go into Moria.
8. His high school type behavior when talking to Galadriel, and his desciptions of her on the river.
9. His snoring.
10. His inclusion in going after Merry and Pippen without hesitation.
These are some examples from the first movie alone.
He is a short rather ugly individual with a big heart. Aragorn, Legolas, and Boromir are royalty and act in a much more dignified manner. Gimli is the blue collar type warrior who is no where near as polished as the others. He is much closer to the hobbits than any other characters.
You say it is Jackson's soft spot for adolescent humor? I say it is Jackson staying true to the characters and what they represent.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Apr 12 2007, 4:03pm
Post #87 of 97
(7319 views)
Shortcut
|
Drinking games are part of old Germanic culture. And of Rohan's. Look what happened with Prince Baldor in the book when he got too boastful during a Rohirrim drinking game.
I think I'd better look at that drinking game scene with a different eye from now on!
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
Aerin
Grey Havens
Apr 12 2007, 5:08pm
Post #88 of 97
(7318 views)
Shortcut
|
a long list of examples where movie-Gimli is portrayed as a buffoon, but what would be the point? If you are willing to simply ignore or explain away aspects of PJ's characterization that don't fit your conception of Gimli, fine.
What you list are not specifically examples of "realism," anyway. And please don't confuse being down to earth with being a boor; they are not the same thing at all. Also, please don't confuse PJ's adolescent humor with how Tolkien actually portrayed Gimli. PJ is being true to himself here, but not to Tolkien's character.
|
|
|
hasufel
Rivendell
Apr 12 2007, 5:39pm
Post #89 of 97
(7340 views)
Shortcut
|
a long list of examples where movie-Gimli is portrayed as a buffoon, but what would be the point? If you are willing to simply ignore or explain away aspects of PJ's characterization that don't fit your conception of Gimli, fine.
What do you mean what is the point? That is the point isn't it? I think that Jackson had a certain mindset for his "Gimli". He was a great warrior who has no fear. He is fiercely loyal. And he is boorish, crude, and painfully honest. He was rarely right in his judgement, but he was not there for his intelligence.
I go back to the EE line when they are leaving the great hall. Paraphrasing - "I wish I could get a legion of dwarves, fully armed and filthy!"
In Jackson's interpretation, dwarves were boorish and filthy and crude. But they were also fearless, loyal, and strong.
You are correct that Jackson's characterization of Gimli is quite different from Tolkiens. But I think that Tolkien's "Gimli" would not have translated well to the big screen. But hasn't it been discussed ad nauseum about book Gimli vs movie Gimli, book Aragorn vs movie Aragorn etc...
You are doing Jackson a disservice by saying that all the "boorish" qualities of his Gimli are just adolescent humor. In my opinion, Jackson had a Gimli in mind and developed that character's good and bad qualities in depth.
It was not for cheap laughs, but to complete the character.
|
|
|
Aerin
Grey Havens
Apr 13 2007, 12:14am
Post #90 of 97
(7323 views)
Shortcut
|
Jackson's conception of Gimli have to include "boorish, filthy, and crude"? These qualities do not automatically go hand in hand with the other, admirable qualities you mention, nor are they necessary for "realism," nor do they remotely describe Tolkien's Gimli. This is exactly what I object to -- PJ's evident conception of Gimli as boorish, filthy, and crude. On top of that, PJ makes him a buffoon, with several unfunny jokes and references to dwarf-tossing. He has trashed a noble character. There's NO reason to think that Gimli would not have translated well to the screen unless he were boorish, filthy, and crude. After all, PJ did not find it necessary to make Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, or the hobbits boorish, filthy, and crude. There's just no explanation other than the desire to cater to immature adolescent tastes.
|
|
|
hasufel
Rivendell
Apr 13 2007, 2:12am
Post #91 of 97
(7343 views)
Shortcut
|
I have no idea why Jackson's conception of Gimli has to include the "dark" side of him.
That is really only a question that Jackson himself can answer.
I think he had a complete character in mind for Gimli, good and bad.
I do not think it was his intent to "trash" a noble character, but to give him a more realistic personality.
The Gimli in the books had a much more pensive eloquent feel to him. That reads very well. I enjoyed Gimli in the books very much.
But when average Joe sees Gimli on screen, it is hard to swallow that his character would exhibit that side. Let's face it, he is a funny looking ugly being.
These movies needed, in their eyes, to be believable to the public as well as people who loved the books.
I think that was a part of the motivation to Gimli's change. It was not a sophomoric attempt at cheap laughs.
He decided to go with a fearless extremely loyal warrior, who also is not very smart and can be boorish.
Aragorn was much more hesitant in the movies, Boromir was more likeable in the movies. Many have said they felt sorry for Boromir in the movies, but very few would say that after the books.
Jackson did change every major character in the movies vs the books. To me he did worse with Faramir and Denethor, far worse.
I can understand why you would have preferred he stick with a Gimli that was more like the books. But really, in my opinion, Gimli was a very likeable character in the movies. His good qualities were not overshadowed by boorish or crude behavior, not even close.
And much of his "bad" behavior was in the extended versions, so his true vision of Gimli is in the theatrical versions.
I do not see what is so bad about the dwarf tossing. It was two scenes. And I actually thought the scene with Aragorn at Helms Deep was cute and well done.
|
|
|
Aerin
Grey Havens
Apr 13 2007, 4:48am
Post #92 of 97
(7339 views)
Shortcut
|
your willingness to discuss this and explain your take on Gimli. But I'm still not sold on the necessity to make these particular changes to Gimli's character. You're right that PJ made significant changes in most characters. I am still bothered by Aragorn's self-doubt., but I actually prefer PJ's Boromir to the book version, I prefer PJ's Elrond to the book version, and I have no problems at all with the changes to Faramir. I do think that Denethor also was made into a caricature; that's another example where PJ missed the mark. He could have been a much more complex, interesting character, but PJ made him a two-dimensional nutcase.
However, I don't see why *any* character should have suffered the fate that PJ inflicts on Gimli. I don't buy the argument that it was necessary to make him crude and stupid in order to please the "average Joe" -- surely it's not necessary to make a movie that even the stupidest, crudest viewer can relate to. What percentage of the audience could that account for? Wouldn't the movies have been plenty successful without this kind of catering to the lowest common denominator? For me, Gimli's attractive characteristics were *totally* overshadowed by the crudeness. The character was destroyed. And the problems aren't confined to the EEs. (In fact, I've hardly watched the EEs at all; my impressions of the movies are based almost entirely on the theatrical editions, which I much prefer to the EEs)
As for dwarf-tossing, it's a contemporary reference -- kind of a wink to modern audiences who are aware of this pub "sport" -- and it has no place whatsoever in a movie that is trying to be at all faithful to the source material or which aspires to any kind of "realism" in its portrayal of the characters. It's a glaring anachronism and a joke that completely takes us out of the movies. It's just offensive, and it cheapens the movies.
|
|
|
hasufel
Rivendell
Apr 13 2007, 2:49pm
Post #93 of 97
(7359 views)
Shortcut
|
|
couple differences on characters
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am going to try and keep this short. 
Aragorn - I would say that I liked movie Aragorn better than book Aragorn. He seemed more human and likeable to me. Book Aragorn seemed rather ego driven and put himself on a pedestal, in a way. But I definitely think that there was too much self doubt in movie Aragorn. They could have had one scene bringing it up, Gandalf/Elrond, Arwen/Aragorn, or Aragorn/Elrond at the grave site. They didn't need all of them to keep hammering the point home.
Boromir - I definitely liked movie Boromir better. He was a character I wished didn't have to die so early in the trilogy.
Gandalf - I liked Gandalf in the books better. I understand where Jackson was going when he had Gandalf appear weak and old at times. But I much prefer a Gandalf that steps aside than one who screws up.
Gimli - I prefer book Gimli overall. But I thought some of his speeches were a little too hokey in the books. To me the perfect Gimli would have been a combo of book and movie versions.
Faramir - I didn't dislike Farmair in the movies, I thought he was good. But I didn't like the fact that he seemed to have excuses when questioned by Denethor. Book Faramir did not. I think both Faramir and Denethor suffered because of time constraints. Both needed more airtime to develop their characters. I think Jackson didn't because he wanted to use that time to complete the story. Faramir might be the one character that blossomed in the EEs.
Denethor - Overall I would have to say that I really disliked movie Denethor. While I thought Gimli's good and bad side were portrayed, Denethor was all negative. I also thought that Noble might have overacted a bit.
Merry - I preferred book Merry. He was much more intelligent and helpful in the books. In the movies he was more of a straight man for Pippen. But he would be number 2 as far as increased understanding of the character by the EEs, especially ROTK.
Elrond - I would agree that movie was aa little better than book.
But I do noty want to go for pages, so I will stop there.
As far as the overshadowing, to each his own I guess. for the record, I am not trying to impose my will on you or change your mind. But it seems to me that the bad characteristics are a very small percentage of Gimli on screen. Maybe 90-10, or 80-20? I am guessing that those instances really got to you and stuck in your mind. Maybe the memory of his good side that was portrayed is my first memory and yours is the opposite.
I brought up the EEs because the couple Gimli scenes that seem top bring up the most disgust is the drinking gam and the paths of the dead. I was not trying to say that the boorish behavior was soley in the EEs.
I do agree that the "dwarf tossing" was not necessary. But at the same time it was literally a couple sentences in a total of almost 10 hours of film. I do not care what was said in a couple sentences or even a couple of scenes. It cannot take you out of the entire trilogy, or cheapen it.
Same thinking with Gimli's boorish behavior, in my opinion. We are talking about 10 hours of film here, in which he was a main character and got a lot of screen time. If you count up the boorish scenes I would guess that it is very little compared to overall screen time.
|
|
|
Aerin
Grey Havens
Apr 13 2007, 6:56pm
Post #94 of 97
(7326 views)
Shortcut
|
difference in our reactions is summed up by your statement, "what was said in a couple sentences or even a couple of scenes...cannot take you out of the entire trilogy, or cheapen it." The problem is that these are not "all or nothing" reactions.
The phrase "take you out of the entire trilogy" is meaningless, because being "taken out of" a movie refers to any moment while watching a movie in which one is not completely absorbed in the events on the screen, but is distracted by thoughts about the movie as a movie. In other words, it refers to any moment when one cannot suspend disbelief, but is distracted by thoughts about how the movie was made. For some viewers of any movie in the Trilogy, this might not happen at all; for others, it might happen repeatedly. So it's not a matter of being taken out of the Trilogy as a whole; it's a matter of how often one's ability to simply enjoy the movie is interrupted by something on the screen.
As for "cheapening," again, this is a matter of degree. Any one directorial decision that cheapens a scene for a viewer contributes incrementally to cheapening the whole movie. The question is how much these incidents affect one's enjoyment of the movie as a whole. Some viewers, like you, may be able to "compartmentalize" negative reactions to certain moments, so that they don't color your overall viewing experience, but other viewers may feel that their overall satisfaction with the viewing experience is diminished by such moments.
I probably should note that for me, having criticisms of the movies does not mean I don't like them or enjoy them at all. In fact, FOTR is my number-one all-time favorite movie. I liked TTT less, but still enough to see 9 or 10 times in the theater, and even though I was very disappointed by ROTK, I stlll saw it three times in the theater and bought both sets of DVDs. But I find the whole adaptation and filmmaking processes fascinating, and I enjoy analyzing the decisions made by the filmmakers and their consequences for viewers.
|
|
|
hasufel
Rivendell
Apr 13 2007, 10:43pm
Post #95 of 97
(7343 views)
Shortcut
|
The phrase "take you out of the entire trilogy" is meaningless, because being "taken out of" a movie refers to any moment while watching a movie in which one is not completely absorbed in the events on the screen, but is distracted by thoughts about the movie as a movie. In other words, it refers to any moment when one cannot suspend disbelief, but is distracted by thoughts about how the movie was made.
Meaningless? That is a tad harsh don't you think? The words "take out" and "cheapen" are yours, not mine. I view the trilogy as one story, in three parts. The books are the same to me. It is one long story or epic. Do you not feel the same way?
I thought we were talking about Jackson's Gimli and how his personality was changed for the worse. But in order to truly judge that character, you have to look at the entire body work to say if it was a success or a big mistake. Going by your previous words, it would appear that you were referring to his Gimli in all the films.
Now, if you want to dissect Jackson's Gimli down to each individual movie, we can do that.
But if you are saying that a cheap laugh like "dwarf tossing" in the first part (FOTR) cheapened that part, how does it not cheapen the whole thing? FOTR is 1/3 of the entire project!
I probably should note that for me, having criticisms of the movies does not mean I don't like them or enjoy them at all. In fact, FOTR is my number-one all-time favorite movie.
But yet you felt taken out of the movie and it was cheapened? It must not have been that distracting, because for it to be your favorite of all time how much could your viewing been diminished?
But I find the whole adaptation and filmmaking processes fascinating, and I enjoy analyzing the decisions made by the filmmakers and their consequences for viewers.
Absolutely! There are many things about the trilogy that I did not like. But there are many many more that I thought were great. I enjoy breaking it all down. I really enjoy hearing, watching and reading about the trouble and attention to detail that went into the creation of "middle earth" on the big screen.
The geek observation list is a true testament as to how much attention was paid to detail by Jackson and his crew.
I truly feel like he took me to middle earth. Some of the people I met where not as I thought, but I still got to meet them. Some of the places were not exactly as I pictured, but I enjoyed going there all the same.
And that is also why I want Jackson to take me to the Lonely Mountain. His directions might be unorthodox, but I know I will arrive at my destination.
|
|
|
Aerin
Grey Havens
Apr 14 2007, 12:20am
Post #96 of 97
(7350 views)
Shortcut
|
"Meaningless? That is a tad harsh don't you think? The words "take out" and "cheapen" are yours, not mine. I view the trilogy as one story, in three parts."
I simply think you misunderstood what I meant by being "taken out of the movie." Being "taken out of the movie" is a brief incident that happens during the movie, not an all-or-nothing reaction to the entire movie. But the more times it happens during a movie, the less I enjoy the movie overall. By definition, the only way I could be "taken out of the entire Trilogy" would be if there was never a single instant during the entire Trilogy during which I was not distracted and could just enjoy the movie. I doubt if anyone in the world who saw the movies would go so far as to say they were never absorbed by any part of the Trilogy movies for even an instant. That's why I say it's a meaningless statement.
"I thought we were talking about Jackson's Gimli and how his personality was changed for the worse. But in order to truly judge that character, you have to look at the entire body work to say if it was a success or a big mistake. Going by your previous words, it would appear that you were referring to his Gimli in all the films."
I don't see any contradiction. IMHO, Jackson's conception of Gimli was a big mistake. That said, some aspects of it were worse than others. Overall, it diminished my experience of all three movies, but not so much that I didn't still enjoy them, especially FOTR. I'm just saying that I would love FOTR even more if it were not marred by the dwarf-tossing joke (which, of course, was repeated in TTT, as well). Actually, Gimli's portrayal is one of the reasons I don't like TTT as well as FOTR; it's much worse in the second movie.
The "creation of Middle Earth' is for me the best thing about the movie Trilogy — better than the storytelling, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
