Substituting Crying with laughter

[alatar]

My observation is that PJ took more time developing the charaters in FotR and much much less in TTT and RotK, where many characters, major and minor, become stereotypical 'one notes' (i.e. Gimli the joker, Legolas the skater, Aragorn = hope, etc). I welled up (as close to crying as I'm genetically able) the first few hundred times that I saw Boromir dying (after a while, you get used to it). This same death scene gets skipped when my kids watch it as it's a little to close to the real deal. Battle trolls smashing Gondorians helter-skelter is one thing (like a video game or cartoon), but Boromir lying on the ground near death while the teary-eyed Aragorn hovers over him is another.

PJ shot that scene well, and though I didn't time it, it runs far longer than the 'death of Gandalf' outside of Moria wake and is much much longer than any other death scene in the movie.

Theoden's son gets buried, but who is he?

PJ made us like Boromir by adding moments, especially in the EE version, where you got to know him. In TTT and RotK, not only are we not made to 'like' the characters as much - I'd bet that a dreaded poll would place Boromir above Theoden - PJ does not slow the pace down and 'zoom in' for a moment. Theoden's death doesn't linger; we see it and soon after we're somewhere else.

Also, as stated elsewhere, I think that PJ went for more laughs when he could add them in. My conspiracy theory is that he watched FotR with a live audience, noted when they laughed and decided to 'double' the number of laughs in TTT.

PJ got me with the horns of the Rohirrim, but with little else in TTT and RotK. My eyes were red and watery after seeing the Gandalf vs Witch-King scene on the EE DVDs, but that may have been due to the screaming .

Anyway, all of this scattered rambling can be summed up in that I too wish that PJ maintained the balance of laughter and crying (among other things) as he did in FotR.

[Glirdan]

Also, acting intense emotion is a lot harder than performing humor.

I can completely vouch for this statement. It is indeed a lot harder to act emotionaly, whether it be crying or just a very sad scene. It's really hard to cry because (take this from a Drama minor) you have to cry in between the word in order to make yourself audible. Of course, that can be fixed in a movie unlike in theater. Acting asd is actuallynot as difficult, but it can be hard to keep a straight face. How many times do you think they've had to redo a very emotional scene in any movie?

Now that I think about, I belive, just as Zali does, that even though he changed the movie a lot because of time limits, it still turned out (in my opinion) to be the best movie series that has been released to date.

I must also agree with her statement on that crying during a movie is seen as weakness. Now, I have a little question. Who cried during Titanic? Would you consider that weakness? If not, then why during any other movie would you consider it weakness? It really angers me when people say "Oh your such a wimp for crying during the Lord of the Rings!" There is no difference between crying in Titanic which is based on a real story and things did actuallly happen and crying in Lord of the Rings, which is an entirely fictional series, because people died.

Now I kind of went of track there, so to get back on... I must say that the comic relief moments they have in the books aren't needed such as the TT moment just before the battle. "Would you like me to describe it to you or would you like me to get a box?" I mean, come on. That's just insulting the Dwarf and we all know what happens when you anger a Dwarf. That was the cheesiest comic relief moment I've ever heard. There are also other such moments that weren't needed. It's those times when I wish PJ would have stuck with what was written in the book.

Now, among all this rambling, there is a point to my madness. I agree with this statement from alatar:

Anyway, all of this scattered rambling can be summed up in that I too wish that PJ maintained the balance of laughter and crying (among other things) as he did in FotR.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Glirdan

I can completely vouch for this statement. It is indeed a lot harder to act emotionaly, whether it be crying or just a very sad scene. It's really hard to cry because (take this from a Drama minor) you have to cry in between the word in order to make yourself audible. Of course, that can be fixed in a movie unlike in theater. Acting asd is actuallynot as difficult, but it can be hard to keep a straight face. How many times do you think they've had to redo a very emotional scene in any movie?

But as they are professionals, isn't that their job?

I must also agree with her statement on that crying during a movie is seen as weakness. Now, I have a little question. Who cried during Titanic? Would you consider that weakness? If not, then why during any other movie would you consider it weakness? It really angers me when people say "Oh your such a wimp for crying during the Lord of the Rings!" There is no difference between crying in Titanic which is based on a real story and things did actuallly happen and crying in Lord of the Rings, which is an entirely fictional series, because people died.

The only reason that I cried during Titanic was that the movie seemingly would never end . Please, James, sink the boat so that I can go home! Anyway, what I liked in FotR was that Aragorn could cry - Frodo's not as masculine, and so he's more likely too. Here's a real tough guy, a virtual killing machine in the Hollywood stereotype, yet he still can shed tears (or at least well up) for his fallen brother. That to me was cool.

Now I kind of went of track there, so to get back on... I must say that the comic relief moments they have in the books aren't needed such as the TT moment just before the battle. "Would you like me to describe it to you or would you like me to get a box?" I mean, come on. That's just insulting the Dwarf and we all know what happens when you anger a Dwarf. That was the cheesiest comic relief moment I've ever heard. There are also other such moments that weren't needed. It's those times when I wish PJ would have stuck with what was written in the book.

I actually liked that bit of humor. You're facing an overwhelming force, and things may go bad, and so you joke a bit to ease your anxiety. I would prefer more moments like this (if I had to get so many humor moments) than the dreaded 'dwarven drinking scene.'

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Boromir

Either, when there should be crying/tears jokes are being spouted off, or there just is no time for crying.

First you have to define, what the situation is, when a viewer should cry. Is it when someone dies, when an actor shows a sad emotion or perhaps when something really good happens to a character? Are there moments when the audience should cry, or are the director and actors just offering emotional impulses for the viewers to take or dismiss? Even if the impulses are accepted, people's reactions to them are different depending on many factors, like how well they can relate to the characters, how many times they've seen the film, their current mood, with whom they're watching the film and whatnot. Also, in LotR's case - what if you hadn't read the books before the film? Or what if you had? In any case, different people consider different moments on screen worth of tears, whether they are tears or sadness or joy, and I personally don't feel that PJ would have been "shy" when dealing with emotions in RotK. For example, when I watched the movies for the first time, I didn't shed a tear during FotR and the only thing in TTT that made my eyes a bit watery was Gandalf and Eomer riding down the hill to Helm's Deep. It was RotK that really gave me a new kind of a viewing experience.

TTT and ROTK there really is no room for emotion. It's like Jackson went with the laugh over the tear and is that necessarily the right thing to do? Should the movies have been more emotional (I guess I should say the last two). Not as in happy/laughter, but as in sadness/crying.

I don't feel that there is laughter in the films just to amuse the audience or to create a happy atmosphere, but it's a chance for the viewers to take a breath. Without a little lighter moments every now and then, the films would be very tough to watch. Showing in detail the horror of a war would be rather anxious, and although the wars are a big part of the Lord of the Rings, I've never got a feeling of anxiety from the books, so I'm glad that the movie makers weren't carried away with glumness (of course, it wouldn't even have sold as much, I guess...)

Also, I wouldn't necessarily classify crying with sadness. I cry more easily when something happy happens, and if the scene is visually beautiful and it's combined with a good score, it's all the better. Therefore, to me the litting of the beacons and the arriving of Rohan's army are two of the most emotional moments in the trilogy.

However, I agree that there's a certain feeling in FotR that the other two films lack. FotR's atmosphere is more Middle-earthesque - it's closer to what it was in the books than TTT and RotK's, but I think it's not as much due to the amount of jokes or humorous moments but the quality of them. For example, I loathed Gimli's burping scenes with many other of his "funny" moments in TTT and RotK, but his line in FotR, "If anyone was to ask for my opinion, which I note they’re not...", was humorous in a way that would be more appropriate for a decent dwarf. Perhaps PJ and his team stayed true to the books in FotR because it was the first of the three, but after seeing that people liked it, they felt more confident to adapt the story telling to more commercial.

Originally Posted by Alatar

My observation is that PJ took more time developing the charaters in FotR and much much less in TTT and RotK

I agree, but on the other hand, it's understandable. In FotR you are sent to Middle-earth with nine strangers to journey with them to destroy a ring. Of course, you must be told, who your companions are. When traveling miles and miles slowly towards the destination, you have time to get to know them, but in the heat of a battle there's not time to start discussing their backgrounds, relationships and such. It's not an excuse to make the characters act like stereotypes, though. So, I guess that to me the films are emotional enough, but I would have loved to see more different sides of the characters.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

Originally Posted by alatar

But as they are professionals, isn't that their job?

Well, yeah, but that doesn't make it easy (I, like Glirdan, act and hope next year to start an acting major). Acting intense emotion is much more rewarding when you finally hit it just right than when you deliver a joke that makes the audience laugh, though, so in the end, it balances out. And Glirdan is right: it is harder than you'd think to keep a straight face, especially if this is the tenth time through, and you and/or the other person in the scene are still forgetting lines.

Originally Posted by alatar

The only reason that I cried during Titanic was that the movie seemingly would never end . Please, James, sink the boat so that I can go home! Anyway, what I liked in FotR was that Aragorn could cry - Frodo's not as masculine, and so he's more likely too. Here's a real tough guy, a virtual killing machine in the Hollywood stereotype, yet he still can shed tears (or at least well up) for his fallen brother. That to me was cool.

That's very true. Sometimes in LOTR it's not so much that something incredibly sad is happening (though often enough it is) as that the characters are devastated and in tears over something. I guess it's an empathy impulse. If Aragorn is crying, you know it's serious.

Originally Posted by dancing spawn of ungoliant

Also, in LotR's case - what if you hadn't read the books before the film? Or what if you had? In any case, different people consider different moments on screen worth of tears, whether they are tears or sadness or joy, and I personally don't feel that PJ would have been "shy" when dealing with emotions in RotK.

I remember vividly that one of the (ten) times I saw FOTR in the theater, I was sitting next to this woman in her fifties, who, it was obvious, had never seen the movie or read the book before. She kept gasping when Frodo got hurt (any one of the times that it looked like he was dead), and then started sobbing when Gandalf fell. Her teenage daughter was looking kind of embarrassed, and I heard her whisper out of the corner of her mouth "Don't worry, mom, he comes back." For this lady, the real emotional impulse came from the fact that she was fond of Gandalf and didn't know he came back later. Watching that scene the first time I saw it, the emotional impulse came from the (re)acting that the remains of the Fellowship did, because I knew what was coming. I still got a little teary-eyed, but much more out of just watching everyone onscreen cry.

I agree, also, with Dancing Spawn's assessment of humor in the movies.

The role of humor in a comedy is to make the audience laugh because that's the whole point. That's where shallow, vulgar humor finds its home, unfortunately. The role of humor in a film like LOTR is definitely to allow a small relaxation before diving into darkness again. Just like there are different kinds of crying, there are different kinds of laughter. Where PJ went wrong was trying to inspire the kind of laughter that a comedy inspires: shallow, situational humor (which is good enough in its place), and not the sigh of momentary relief and quieter, almost nervous laughter that it should inspire. I actually found Gimli's "box" scene to be fairly close to what comic relief in that moment should be...at least in my opinion.

[Goldberry101]

I thought that there was a little too much humor in the second two movies. For example, in the fight at the Black Gate, after they talked with the "ambassador" Gimli makes a smart remark like he had a hundred times throught the movie. This kind of ruined the scene because you had just started to feel sad and worried but then he lightened it all up. This is kind of off subject, but I like in the books how he has that part before it tells that Frodo got away from the tower. In the books, the last you hear of Frodo is that he had been carried away by the orcs, which fit with the mouth of souron telling them that he was captured. However, in the movie he gets away before that so that takes a lot of the sadness out. I would almost say there is too much humor and misplaced scenes in the last two. I know its hard because of the way the books were written, but I still think that you shouldn't have known Frodo had escaped till after the conversation with the mouth of sauron

[Essex]

It depends what your point of view is regarding the Hobbits. If you feel depely for them, as I have reading the books for the past 25 years or so, then there are many places in the books and movies where you will well up.

I cry every time book Aragorn gets down on his knee to the hobbits on the fields of Cormallen, and I CRIED LIKE A BABY when movie aragorn and all of minas tirith bows to the hobbits in the movie, because I am so proud of 'my' hobbits after all they have gone through.

But I'm not sure if I would have had these deep feelings for the movie if I hadn't read the books.

PS Finding Neverland is very good, but not QUITE the tear fest I thought it would be.

[sassyfriend]

Just a question losing Gandalf was a very sad moment in the movie but Aragorn and Legolas didn't cry but in the book they all broke down and wept so why was that changed? I know Aragorn has to lead them on like Gandalf said for him too but just curious why didn't those two cry?