Quote:
|
Where we differ is that I think I have seen made for TV movies with 'odd-buddy relationships' that have more characterisation that Legolas & Gimli.
|
Actually, I quite agree with you.
Where we still differ (I think) is in this: I tink that the buddy movies you refer to typically rest wholly upon the "odd friendship" relationship. If this is to be the
whole point of the story, then it must be
really well done. It is most often not. Also, such movies typically suffer from other problems - like poor writing, poor direction, etc.
Now in
The Lord of the Rings the odd friendship motive is about as far from being the center of the story as it could be. It is not as well developed because it does not need to be. Tolkien doesn't pick up a single, commonly used device and base the whole book on it.
To me it seems that criticizing the Legolas-Gimli relationship for not being more fully explored is rather like criticizing a movement from a Mozart symphony for not having a long enough development section. Yes, for some - like Haydn or Beethoven - the development is of central importance and much of the strength of the movement lies therein. For Mozart it is simply a technique used to pass from exposition to recapitulation. And in that capacity, it works perfectly.
This is also where I think it's useful to bear in mind Card's point. Those buddy movies are surely character-driven. So it's not unjustified to demand that they really deliver on the characterization. But Tolkien's works have a lot more to offer than a single "odd couple" type relationship.