Giggles

[Beanamir of Gondor]

Amen to that, Nimrodel! I was doubly disappointed in the fact that, not only did the uncharacteristically jealous Sam ask for another nice @#%* shiny dagger, Galadriel didn't even give him the box with earth and the nut!

Ahem. Back on track, about the comic relief. Instead of being angry with Gimli in TTT (he at least gave us a break from the endless, endless Arwen-Aragorn theme) I was disappointed that Sam's great one-liner to Gollum was absolutely NOT funny: "Oh, you're hopeless. Go to sleep!" It was absolutely overshadowed by "po-ta-toes", which I didn't think was the funniest line in the chapter Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit, and of which I have become absolutely sick of hearing every time anyone serves boiled, mashed, or stewed potatoes, invariably with a little "precious!" giggled after it. The utter disdain with which poor Sean Astin was forced to mutter the line "you're hopeless" only added to my distaste for TTT, my least favorite movie...

I suppose, as a Chopin fanatic, I am somewhat of a purist when it comes to any artistic media. Some of the licences taken with characters were OK with me--for instance, Sean Bean's Movie!Boromir. I liked him because he was a little friendlier than Book!Boromir (and admittedly a little shallower). But I must dare those angry saucepans--which are getting closer by the second--to say that the artistic licence taken with Gimli was a bit extreme in the Edoras Elf-Dwarf Drinking Game. That, to me, was a travesty.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

I perceive angry-sounding saucepans in the distance....

Oh not angry. Merely slightly agitated.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Let us not deny the right of "Others" to voice their dissident opinions even if they might be in the minority.

Quite so. And that is why I voice my (dissident, as far as this forum is concerned) opinions on these kinds if threads.

I don't deny that there are those that find such instances distasteful or out of place. I am merely observing that they generally seem to have achieved what they were intended to achieve.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

So,Saucy, you are of course correct to repeat (ad nauseum ) that the movies were popular. But I would like to point out that such a method was not Tolkien's. He managed to write one of the most popular books of the last century without this kind of pandering to a mass audience.

I agree wholeheartedly. But this is the problem with judging Jackson by Tolkien's standards. Jackson's approach and intentions were different in many significant respects, and understandable (in my view) by reference to today's "mass market" approach to films such as these.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Is this kind of creative purpose possible only in literature and not in the movies?

Not necessarily, but generally so with "blockbuster" type films. As I suggested, that gets us back to the question of whether it was "right" in the first place to adapt Tolkien's work as "blockbuster" films. Should the “masses” (and I include myself in that) be given what they want, or should artists be seeking to “refine” their tastes. The latter may well be a laudable aim, but an unrealistic one, I would say, when we are talking about action films made specifically for the mass market.

Originally Posted by Neithan

As a 19 year old male I am offended by that, and I can't remember when I actually thought that kind of humor was funny.

Well as a 30-something male, I still find it funny. But each to his or her own.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Quite so. And that is why I voice my (dissident, as far as this forum is concerned) opinions on these kinds if threads.

. . .

I agree wholeheartedly. But this is the problem with judging Jackson by Tolkien's standards. Jackson's approach and intentions were different in many significant respects, and understandable (in my view) by reference to today's "mass market" approach to films such as these.

Not necessarily, but generally so with "blockbuster" type films. As I suggested, that gets us back to the question of whether it was "right" in the first place to adapt Tolkien's work as "blockbuster" films. Should the “masses” (and I include myself in that) be given what they want, or should artists be seeking to “refine” their tastes. The latter may well be a laudable aim, but an unrealistic one, I would say, when we are talking about action films made specifically for the mass market. ...

Of course we always welcome your "dissent"voice, Sauce. Some of us, however, don't think "popularity" is always the most logical way to extend the debate.

I think any artist has the right to develop his or her own interpretation of another work, no less than any reader or viewer does.

The issue, I suppose, is how that secondary work is described or presented. If it is marketed as, "Tolkien's Lord of the Rings" comes to the screen!", then I think, yes, we have quite a legitimate right to consider how valid or effective that statement is, as it suggests some kind of faithful rendition of the original work.

If the secondary work is marketed as "Peter Jackson's Interpretation of LotR", then we can compare the two works for their differences and discuss how those differences change the story. The degree of "faithfulness" to the original becomes part of the discussion but would not be a defining aspect of the comparison.

Clearly, there was more brewing in Jackson's imagination than just his love of Tolkien. His concept of film also went into his vision, a concept in large measure devoted to his admiration for Lucas and the Star Wars trilogy. I think it is as legitimate to explore the relationship between Jackson and Lucas as it is between Jackson and Tolkien. To my mind--and this is just my humble opinion--Jackson does not see farther when he stands on either giant's shoulders.

As I have argued elsewhere, Lucas' use of humour is coherent with his characterisation, plotting, action, etc. I cannot now think of any line which made me groan. With Jackson, there are many. Now, is this a failure on Jackson's part or does it represent his own particular kind of humour? And perhaps my criterion of artistic unity or wholeness or coherence is, well, just too darn old fashioned. But my point has always been that Lucas' humour (as well as Tolkien's humour) enhances the story. (I would say this also about Speilberg's Indiana Jones blockbusters.) But Jackson's use of humour gets in the way of his own depiction of the story. I don't think he is as good a blockbuster filmmaker as Lucas or Speilberg. Or at least not yet.

Life is short. Art is long. Time alone will tell. imho

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Of course we always welcome your "dissent"voice, Sauce. Some of us, however, don't think "popularity" is always the most logical way to extend the debate.

Agree with Bêthberry. It's quite possible that The Saucepan Man and I have already had this discussion (was that a pan sailing by my head? ), but my riposte regarding 'popularity' has always been that the movies as created are exactly one point of data. What can you predict with one value?

We have no idea how more or less popular the movies would have been if specific scenes were added, deleted, changed, etc. There is no way of knowing what the correlation is between Dwarven flatulence and box office gross - whether positive, negative or none.

I'm not wearing PJ's shoes (I do wear shorts, though), and so I don't know why he chose to do what he did. It just seems to me that instead of shooting high, he went the safer route - for this specific issue - of Hollywood as usual.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by alatar

There is no way of knowing what the correlation is between Dwarven flatulence and box office gross

You weren't....punning were you?

Seriously, there is nothing wrong with some gross-out humour, but in the right film, and in the right context. Tolkien would not have made humour out of a Dwarf eructating in front of a noble king as that kind of thing is orcish behaviour. If Gimli had been shown to do the same in mixed company, say in the drinking contest, then it would have been in the right place, but as it was I cringed because it made Gimli, a fantastic character, seem like a mere buffoon It spoiled his characterisation, just that one moment.

[Nimrodel_9]

Originally posted by Morsul
I understand your concerns...I do however believe that the humor is there to attract more of an audience we here at the downs understand the minute details and humor and enjoy it imagine however if you will how most of todays population would react to this type of humor....*yawn*.. a movie is made to make money with a limited audience this is more difficult.

True. I have a few family members and friends who are fans. When I ask if they have read the books I usually get, "There are books?"

[Holbytlass]

I'm 32 and a mother of 4, and 'potty' humor still cracks me up!
However, I was also shocked by Sam asking for a dagger and Gimli f*rting.
Both instances were uncharacteristic. Sam would never be ungrateful for what he had been given.
After winning back Erebor, I am sure Gloin was held to Noble statis (or more), therefore, Gimli would definitely know proper manners around Nobility and Royalty.

As far as the other humor, it didn't bother me too much. I hate to sound like a simpleton, but I think the movies would be boring if everything was exactly like the books (yes I read them and love them both). Sure some parts were too much and I agree with every instance that has been stated so far...short jokes, one liners, Gandalf beating the h*ll out of Denethor and so on. But on the flip side, I probably would go nuts if the movies were solely artistic. But where is that fine line that seamlessly blends the two? I certainly don't know, so therefore, hats off to Peter Jackson for doing the best he could and I say... IGNORANCE IS BLISS.