The mis-interpretation of dear Gimli
 

We all know that Gimli got it pretty bad in the films as the scapegoat for and of a ton of the jokes. Why do you suppose they did this? Because of his height compared to Legolas and Aragorn at the Breaking of the Fellowship? I mean, he really only truly becomes a clown-like character after the Fellowship is broken.

Why do you think PJ did this? I will say some jokes Gimli cracks or takes are funny, but I think it was overdone to the point where it daunted his character. With relationships such as Pippin and Gandalf for some comedy, why do you suppose Gimli got it so bad?

Actually, no one knows that PJ suffers from Napoleon syndrome... :cool:

Oh, I suppose they felt they needed 'comic relief' & Gimli was the obvious choice. It was the most irritating thing about the movies for me. One of my favourite moments in the whole book is when Gimli leaps to the rescue of Aragorn & Eomer - 'Baruk Khazad! Khazad Aimenu!'.

PJ has him trip & fall into a puddle. 'nuff said.

Most of the clowning was by John Rhys-Davies and Jackson just went along with it.

I do agree that in The Fellowship of the Ring, Gimli was very well done. He had some parts that made me chuckle, he played a little comic relief, but I never lost the feeling that I had no idea who this dwarf was.

By TTT this is different, yes he still has his good parts, but he's brought down to ridiculous comic relief and is a completely different character. And from my understanding a lot of it was John Rhys-Davies' doing, who liked to 'clown' around a lot.

Now whilst I agree that Gimli's 'comedy' was often cringe-worthy, I'm going to have to seriously disagree on your last point - in the film, he doesn't 'trip & fall into a puddle' - looking at the scene again (I assume you're talking about Helm's Deep), when the wall explodes, Aragorn is thrown off the wall and knocked unconscious, and the Uruks come through the gap at him. Gimli then jumps onto them from the wall and kills a few, holding them off long enough for Aragorn to get back up and regroup the Elves. Gimli gets struck down into the water, but the Elves shoot the Uruks before they finish him and then attack. During the fighting, Aragorn helps Gimli out of the water. I don't see him doing anything stupid there. Sure, it was a bit different to the books but he still jumps into the fray and saves one of his friends.

You may be right. My brain had turned to mush by that point.

I think it was just elements of Gimli's Dwarven personality that strike us as funny. While legions of Uruk-hai are pouring into the Deeping Coomb, Gimli is taking pride at his one-by-one elimination. (The contest itself was kind of amusing, and it was direct from the book.)

His pride was a little insulted when Aragorn dryly remarked "I suggest you take some rest and recover your strength."

He was a bit annoyed that his Dwarvish stamina was failing him in Emyn Muil, hence his frustrated remarks "Keep breathing! That's key!...Breath!" and such.

His own dry humor in the throne room of Denethor ("Certainty of death! Small chance of success! What are we waiting for?") was just his own "bring it on" attitude.

What other comic relief are you talking about?

Falling off the horse, the dwarf tossing jokes, the drunken flatulence, the 'Shall I get you a box?' 'joke'.... He was repeatedly the butt of jokes.

Falling off the horse was done in a comedic style, but his dislike/distrust of horses was shown in the books. I don't recall any flatulance, but I do remember a belch or two...

hahaha, I will admit, I enjoy the drunken Gimli scene very much.

How many negative reputations you've got for that one this far? ;)
To add on the list: jokes about dwarf women and lots of stupid facial expressions (take the one when he sees the warg on top of him for example), for starters.

At least the dwarf women joke was referring to fact.... :p In one of the books of criticism I have read (and I will check), the author points out that Gimli does NOT joke.. he makes only one jest in the whole thing and that is when he finds the hobbits smoking in the ruins of Isengard.

However to be fair to the filmmakers once you have got through the native stamping grounds of Moria and Lorien, Legolas and Gimli are not essential to the plot. They are companions to Aragorn, representatives of their fading races (not something that was highlighted anyway in these action orientated film), but no significant twists rely on them as with Merry and Pippin. However you can't get rid of them.So what do you do with them? Legolas slips into pretty boy eyecandy and Gimli is the funny man....

Yes. Something like in the current movie trand every action Main Hero (here represented by Aragorn) must have two sidekicks, who would have to be a nice lass (here represented by Legolas) and a funny fat cop (here represented by Gimli). :D

Humor is something the films desperately need, and how much of it is there beyond Gimli? Precious little. Merry and Pippin supply some comic relief in the first one, and Gollum gives you a bit at a couple of points, but there's not much else. I don't have a problem with Gimli being the butt of jokes. Better him than, well, just about any other major character.

Gimli is one of my favourite characters (in the book) & I'd rather he had been treated with the respect he deserved. I don't go along with this idea that one character can be thrown to the 'wolves' to provide comic relief - it wasn't inevitable that one character had to be turned into a joke. The BBC adaptation didn't do it, & was all the better (& more effective) for it.

I wish those who defend the changes made to the story in the movies 'for dramatic reasons' would listen to that series to see how it should be done. Tolkien's story can be dramatised as is & work - if Tolkien is trusted. The problem was that the movie makers didn't trust Tolkien - where his work survives the transition the movies work, where the writers think they can 'improve' his work they fall flat on their face.

For the record, I have heard the BBC adaptation, and it's outstanding, though parts of it -- such as the Nazgul, the Orcs, and Gollum -- make me cringe.

The BBC adaptation was made for radio. You can more or less transpose a book to radio without having to change much. It can be like reading the book aloud, with different actors in different roles, and adding sound effects. It's totally different for a movie. Pacing is different, story arc is different, what works or doesn't work is different. People often get offended at some of the major changes PJ and Co. made: "I can't believe they changed that! Why'd they do that?" Well, it wasn't just 'cause they felt like it, in most cases, anyway. PJ, Walsh, and Boyens won an Oscar for their screenwriting efforts, so I'd say they know a bit more about the craft and about the process of adapting books to film than we do.

Having said that, that of course doesn't give them the license to do whatever they want with LOTR and get away with it because of their superior knowledge. We're obviously still free to question changes, and it may well be that PJ and Co. are wrong in some areas.

And also, davem, while I would agree that PJ and Co. do well when they stick to the book, some of the films' greatest moments come in their departures. The lighting of the beacons in ROTK springs to mind immediately. The first encounter with the Black Rider. The death of Boromir. The exorcism of Theoden. Shelob's spectacularly suspenseful sting of Frodo. The plunge at Mount Doom. Regardless of what you think of those scenes' infidelity to the books, they certainly played well on screen, didn't they? It's not that they're better than the books; it's just that they work better in a movie than the way the book had it. And I don't think it's blaspheming Tolkien to admit that.

I thought Gimil was alright. He seemed to be stout, brave, yet lively, unlike the rather dark elves.

The only Gimli joke I didn't like was falling of the horse in TTT then saying "That was deliberate!"

The Beacons scene was impressive - unfortunately it was completely illogical not to have lit them & summoned aid before, so it made no sense. The exorcism if Theoden was just silly - Theoden was not 'possessed' by Saruman, but psychologically broken by Wormtongue. The whole 'demonic possession' thing was a daft idea. There was nothing suspenseful about Shelob at all - Shelob is 'an evil thing in spider form', not a big spider. And the Mount Doom scenes (Frodo & Gollum in fisticuffs at dawn :rolleyes: ) just annoyed me.

Ooh could be a quintet for the radio thread then - I have started to prepare and certainly the structuring is something I would like to discuss. Personally I think the radio Gollum is superior so I would like to hear your reasons. The sound effects are the cringe bits forme - Legolas' bow sounds like a flabby elastic band and Gollum is being tortured with an empty stapler ;)

If they had wanted to introduce ME they should have done it in a non-joking way, the current "ME information" is that "see, see, we have these freaky bearded women here too! OMG!" :rolleyes:

But admitted, that scene is not totally horrible. :)

I thought John Rhys Davies did one of the greatest performances in the movies as Gimli. I thought MOST of the humor was good and necessary and seemed to fit.

I realize many of you disagree, but it worked for me. I had a lot of problems with those films, but Gimli wasn't one of them! I thought that only he and Gandalf and Sam (and maybe Pippin) were the only actors that were close to perfectly realized--though I had some quibbles with Gandalf(not due to the performance, however.).

I quite like the dwarf women thing because it crated such an nice moment between Aragorn and Arwen fits well with how they handled that relationship - which although not quite "by the book" was handled well as I recall.

davem, in response to your points...

The whole point was that Denethor was being completely illogical - any reasonable commander would have summoned aid immediately. It's the viewer's first sign that Denethor's mind is failing to make sense.

He's not saying that these scenes are accurate - what he's saying is that DESPITE being inaccurate, they are still good scenes.

So an evil thing in spider form is suspenseful...yet a big spider is not? Are you saying that audiences will laugh with scorn when Shelob appears, but as soon as someone tells us she's an evil thing, everyone will be shivering in their seats?

And Shelob technically is a big spider. That is, as the book states, her form.

You can't just have Gollum quietly slip off the edge - this is the movie's climax; here the story of the trinity of hobbits reaches its conclusion. Frodo and Gollum fighting on the edge and both falling is a sign of how far they have both mentally fallen - the Ring has deranged them both to this point. The key difference is that when they stumble, Frodo holds onto the edge - though he 'falls', he is not beyond redemption, in this case Sam pulling him back up, but Gollum makes no attempt to save himself - he's too busy drooling over the Ring. He has fallen to the point of no return, as illustrated by his ultimate incineration. He sees the Ring as his own redemption - but it doesn't save him; he just dies because of it.

The anticlimax works in the book. It wouldn't work on film.

Radio is a completely different media to film. With radio, there is little to no constraint on running time, so almost everything could be included. Also...where in the radio version do we get the brilliant scenery, high quality costumes and props, fight sequences and realistic CGI of the movies?

I wonder whether PJ and/or Rhys-Davies didn't succumb to stereotyping in Gimli's case. Dwarves have been "comic relief" characters since the 11th century, at least; Tolkien takes his dwarves more seriously than they usually are taken, as he does with his elves - he gives them a dignity and gravitas you don't really see elsewhere. They remind me more of the smith-gods of Greek and Norse myth than of the typical dwarves of, say, medieval romances. PJ is said to have "captured the spirit of Tolkien", and with regard to some characters and settings that's justified; but with Gimli I would say the problem was precisely that he completely failed to even perceive the "spirit".

Radio is a completely different media to film. With radio, there is little to no constraint on running time, so almost everything could be included. Also...where in the radio version do we get the brilliant scenery, high quality costumes and props, fight sequences and realistic CGI of the movies?

Different but not without it's own issues -each has it's own advantages and problems - but as for the CGI I think that backfired for me in that I saw so much stuff about how it was done that it made it impossible to suspend my disbelief and so teh Balrod and Shelob were so unscary......

Well that's not their problem :) haha you chose to see how it was made! I personally think the CGI was well done and suspenseful and not over done like a lot of movies nowadays seem to be.

But having the beacons lit by Denethor's order adds to the effect on Denethor by incresing his sense of hopelessness & despair - he's asked for aid & none comes...

Which again proves CT is correct when he says the book is unfilmable. Audiences can only take from the movie that Shelob is just a giant spider - unless they've read the book. The main reason she isn't frightening, btw, is that we see her too clearly (same with the Balrog). We should only glimpse part of her.
Yes it would - in exactly the way it does in the book.

In your head.

But don't you think that the other characters, f.ex. Aragorn and Legolas, are also over the top? With Aragorn's hearing and Legolas's sight... :rolleyes: Or so many other moments in the film that are just as bad...

There is much more than on Gimli. Anyway, the film ain't a comedy...

The book wasn't a comedy but it had its comic moments like that gossipy old Gondorian lass and "There ain't no eaves at Bag End and that's a fact." :D I think the film was right to have some comic relief and I found the Gimli's talk of bearded Dwarven women humorous or maybe that's just me :p

I don't feel that Gimli got the short end of the stick, nor do I feel that he was used as a scapegoat. I feel that there was a bit of added comic relief for him but nothing that made me angry or cringe.

The long and short of it is, the movie is not as good as the book. It probably never could be. But, it is (probably) true that if they had stuck closer to the book, as davem obviously wishes they had, the movie would have at least been almost as good as the books. That being said, I don't know that this exactly deserved such a heated debate.

Anyhow, about Gimli - yes, his character was badly abused, and all in order to make some comic relief. I personaly feel that there are plenty of humorous parts in the books and there could have been several jokes drawn out of those parts. Gollum and Sam are hilarious to read about. Gimli and Eomer have a few funny exchanges. Aragorn even jokes once or twice, as does Legolas, and Gandalf even. Merry and Pippin........they were quite often in the books.

I think over all it would have been better if there had been other people sharing the jokes, rather than Gimli being the brunt of most of them. But often in movies now adays, I've noticed, there is one jester - one fool - who makes most of the laughs. It can be all very well and good in some movies, but I think in this case, it just didn't fit.

-- Folwren

I think just about all the characters suffered becasue it was an action focused movie - the noble Elrond turned in to a peevish and slightly creepy dad, Legolas was a dumb blonde on the level of Griselda Grantly, Aragorn was shy of his destiny, even a souped-up Arwen had her doubts, Frodo was running scared rather making a self sacrifice...Gimli became a funster, Denethor noblest lord of Gondor had fewer table manners than a baby, Faramir ....aieeeeee .... Even Eowyn who was more truly represented was made a lousy cook.

I think only Boromir seemed the same or almost improved on film - but then he is a "doer" more than a thinker and closest to my mind of an "action hero"..

That's what I mean.

I believe that the movies were an interpretation of the books. And to an extent that they can't be comparend. But I don't think that all of the characters suffered, they were just portrayed differently when the story was transferred from book to film.

I would say he seemed the same. Some argue that he was more "humanized" in the movies, and this does seem true in such parts as the tear in Lothlorien, opposed to the book where he quickly glances and turns away. In both book and movie, he weeps after trying to take the Ring. However, I agree that he seemed the same and was adapted greatly on film by Bean.

I had to comment. But this thread isn't about Boromir, so continue on with the Gimli debate...

By the way, I just have to say, that although the movies fall short from the books, they are definitely masterpieces in their own.

It is interesting though that the more complex and ambiguous characters (Boromir, Eowyn) get through relativelyunscathed while the more straightforward personalities are either simplified or altered. Really Boromir and Eowyn are very alike - but that indeed is a matter for another thread - if it doesn't exist may be I should start it!

It does ..and I posted on it a lot .... :o but it was a while ago
here

I certainly don't disagree with you and CT that the book is unfilmable. It is. That's why all these changes are required if you want to make a movie version. You can't convey the meaning of a dark form wreathed in flame and shadow in a film like you can in a book. You can't convey the meaning of an evil thing in spider-form in a film like you can in a book. And so, when you make your movie, you have to turn those into monsters, essentially.

But yeah, that's why the movie will never be able to touch the book, is because of stuff like that. Stuff that film will never, ever, ever be able to capture.

But that's the point. I've never thought of LotR as a 'fantasy' novel (I'm not a fantasy fan & find most fantasy juvenile & pointless as well as unreadable), yet the movies are fantasy movies - possibly why I dislike them. Fantasy novels are full of giant spiders & giant fiery demons & the like. LotR is not like that. The point of Shelob (& the only way in which she is bearable to me) is that she is 'an evil thing in spider form'. Reduced to a 'giant spider' she is just another D&D type 'monster'. It is the 'explanation' of her true nature (which as you say can only be communicated by a narrator) which gives meaning & depth to the encounter & raises it above the level of 'sword & sorcery'.