Giggles

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Why exactly is there so much 'mass-produced' comic relief in the films? When I read the book I do smile quite often, and sometimes I do laugh out loud. But most of the humour is a nice, pleasant sort; the sort that fills you with a warm glow.

The main point here is that it is not a comedy. Yes, it should be funny in places but why are some scenes crammed with pointless or ridiculous humour? The Battle of Helm's Deep is possibly the worst for this, with the well-documented Dwarf jokes.

I think it is just such a shame because the humour really works in places. One of my favourites is Sam's brilliantly delivered line "Rosie Cotton dancin'!" This takes place in one of the saddest, most poignant scenes, and it suggests how well this lovely sort of humour complements the real emotions which the story is getting at.

This is brought down so much by Gimli's boring, unimaginative and above all unfunny brand of humour (to say nothing of the character stabbery). This kind of humour doesn't belong amongst Tolkien's kind of humour. Does anyone disagree with this view? And can anyone supply good reasons for why this humour was added? My initial guess is to do with getting a quick response from the casual cinema-goer, involving a compromise of the overall dramatic quality of the scenes affected.

[Boromir88]

I think I will direct my thoughts towards Gimli, who is the biggest comic relief character in the film.

A lot of things with Gimli I do find funny, like some of his lines. In FOTR I thought he was funny, and an accurate portrayal towards the book. For example, grunting at Aragorn "recover my strength!" Or the small part about Dwarf Women in TTT. A bit of a more stretch, after Legolas' Mumak slide, "that still only counts as one," got a laugh from me after the disgust of the scene. But, I think with Gimli is that Jackson overused him as the "comic relief." This is my biggest complaint with Jackson, was it just seemed like he couldn't let go of something once he started. Ok, we get it, Gimli is funny, but pleast stop, we can see that by now. And it's blatant diversion from the books that get me a little mad. Like making Gimli look like an out of shape dwarf, that was only slowing down Aragorn and Legolas. I don't see why Jackson did this, it just seems like Jackson intentionally deviated from the books.

Some other examples would be the Steward punching bag. Again, this is another thing Jackson beat into our heads. With the scumbag portrayal of Denethor, I can see where Gandalf might hit him a couple times. Especially when he's telling everyone to flee, but I think just one would do the trick, to get Denethor back to his senses. But no, he hits him in the face, jams it in his stomach, and as Denethor bends down whacks it over his head and knocks him out. This and further scenes of Denethor's beating just makes it seem like Gandalf looked for any reason to beat up the guy, and of course this got laughs because everyone saw it as Gandalf beating up the mean, nasty, cherry-spitter. That's another thing I can't understand, why make Denethor a totally rude slob? Again, JACKSON we get the point! Denethor is crazy and shouldn't be in power.

To sort of sum up these rantings...A lot of the comic relief, I found funny, but it's just I think Jackson overused it. Just seemed like he didn't think we would get it, and beat these concepts into our heads.

[Lalwendë]

I think what got to me in the portrayal of Gimli was that at times the humour was just toilet humour, and that doesn't have a place in Tolkien. Gimli is supposed to be a Dwarf, one of a noble race on Middle Earth, not just a butt of jokes. When he belched after Theoden had spoken I found it distasteful - not that I'm squeamish about that kind of humour at all, just that Gimli wouldn't have done that kind of thing as it was disrespectful. I did get a bit fed up with the 'short' jokes, although when they were well delivered they were amusing, such as the "shall I get you a box" line at Helm's Deep, which was very Morecambe & Wise, though again probably not appropriate for the situation.

The humour which was brought out with the Hobbits was well written and as gentle as it ought to have been. I liked how humour was delivered through simply filming different characters pulling faces, laughing or behaving 'hobbity'. This was subtle and gentle. And Merry and Pippin made a good comic pairing, although on occasions when they needed to be serious it was hard to divorce them from their double act routine.

As to why the humour was brought across in the way that we saw it, I think again it was down to the 'need' to pull in a big audience, and for those sections of the audience more used to the "I'll hit you over the head until you laugh, dammit" comedy of the Farrelly Brothers, the more crude gags work a treat.

Having watched TT with a family sat by me, I can say that the 11 year old boy who was in the seat next to mine was guffawing like a donkey at the burping. Yes, it's sad really, they did put this humour in to get a quick response, and I wonder how many people felt like cringing when they saw it?

[Bêthberry]

Lalwendë makes the astute observation that much of PJ's humour seems of the kind to appeal to the 9 to 19 (or is it 99 ) male demographic. This would appear to be the audience group which PJ thought would be most interested in a movie of Tolkien's work and so he appears to have catered to their favoured type of bodily humour.

Also worth considering is the role of humour in George Lucas, whose original Star Wars provided so much of the visual and special effects inspiration for LotR. The original Star Wars blended humour and adventure in a light-hearted way that was consistent with characterisation and action. I think PJ strove to emulate this use of comedy but in the end was not able to integrate it seemlessly. So we get a sort of cleaned up Rablasian hilarity rather than a witty humour, which was Tolkien's forte.

My memory could fail me, too, but I seem to recall that Sam was not often used for humour in the movie, but that Tolkien did often use Sam to occasion the odd joke or two.

[Lalwendë]

Another thought occurred to me this morning. I think that the essential differences in humour between certain characters, such as the differences between humour portrayed by the Hobbits and that portrayed by Gimli, may reveal that different writers may have had control over certain characters or scenes. I noticed that the humour of the Hobbits and the Ents was quite similarly written, gentle in style and delivery, while the humour of Legolas/Gimli is more linked with action scenes and involves more one-liners. After FotR, the groupings of Legolas/Gimli and Merry/Pippin are more or less separate from each other, and the difference is more marked in the humour, so I think it may have been at this point that the scriptwriting diverged.

[Boromir88]

I think the main problem with the humour of the movies, is just that Jackson overused it, and sort of stretched his bounds. In FOTR, there wasn't so much humour, a couple funny parts between the hobbits, some funny lines by Gimli. Boromir swordfighting with Merry and Pip...etc

In TTT, we get a lot of these "one liners" as Lal would refer to them. And the whole scene with him slow, and dragging down Aragorn and Legolas. I do find the dwarf women to be particularly funny, however.

In ROTK, Gimli is established as a soft, emotional, crybaby dwarf, scared of a black cat. This Jackson didn't do to show more personality in Gimli it was solely used for people to laugh at the chubby dwarf whining.

Lal, I don't think it was so much that since the Fellowship broke, and in TTT and ROTK you run into seperate storylines that Jackson decided to change some of the humour as. I tend to give him less credit and just an example of him shoving ideas down our throats. It's sort of like Jackson said "well this made them laugh in FOTR, so if I take it a step farther and do this..." or "A lot of people laughed at Gimli for running so bad, so let's just make him whine at everything." "I know people will laugh at Gandalf hitting Denethor, so let's just not hit him but beat him senseless." It's like Jackson couldn't let go of an idea, once he got it, and he "over-extended" or "overused" it.

I know in the books Gimli does show emotion at times (I believe in Balin's Tomb and at Amon Hen). But, these are extremely sad, moving, and emotional times (especially for Gimli in Balin's tomb), and it adds more depth into Gimli's character. However, PJ just seemed to use Gimli's whining for laughter. Atleast that's how I saw it. (Not so much in FOTR as in TTT and ROTK).

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

It seems to be used in lightening the mood - in places where the mood shouldn't be lightened. Fellowship cannot be let off here. When Merry and Pippin are captured, Aragorn should be devastated. Instead he makes a smart action-film quip, a winning smirk, and off he goes.

When Denethor loses his wits it should be a moment of high drama as Gandalf realises that it's up to him now. Instead, he assaults the Steward in a comic fashion and shrugs his shoulders as if to say "Bloody hell, more work!"

The comedy is implicit throughout most of the book; it didn't need to be forced. Treebeard's manner of speaking just is funny; you don't need to write jokes for stuff like that.

[The Saucepan Man]

Actually, I shall refrain myself from droning on about how popular and successful the films were. Y'all know my position in that regard. I shall merely limit myself to observing that surely anyone who saw the films in the cinema cannot deny that these moments generally elicited the intended reaction from large sections of the audience (myself included - albeit, admittedly, against my better judgment on occassion ).

This takes us back, I think, to the question of whether it is "right" to tinker with well-loved characters in order to enhance audience appeal (at least among those to whom these moments are primarily targetted).

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I shall merely limit myself to observing that surely anyone who saw the films in the cinema cannot deny that these moments generally elicited the intended reaction from large sections of the audience (myself included - albeit, admittedly, against my better judgment on occassion ).

This takes us back, I think, to the question of whether it is "right" to tinker with well-loved characters in order to enhance audience appeal (at least among those to whom these moments are primarily targetted).

Actually, from my experience, "generally elicited" is not a totally fair observation. When I saw the movies, not everyone in the audience did enjoy these 'audience moment', Sauce. I heard titters of ridicule amongst the laughter and sometimes titters of ridicule when there wasn't laughter as well. Let us not deny the right of "Others" to voice their dissident opinions even if they might be in the minority. There might even be a 'subgroup' of the movie going audience who went in order to ridicule the cheesy aspects of the movies.

However...

Rather than simply swallow and regurgitate the defense of popularity, I think we ought to ask about the role and nature of the audience in the artist's conception and composition of the work.

Throughout history, there has always been a subtle tie between the artist's vision of and for his or her work and the need to have that work appeal to other minds. In the Western World, when artists and writers had private benefactors or patrons to support them, the works themselves were not so directly dependant upon audience approval in the sense of mass appeal. (They were dependent upon the approval of what amounted to censure boards, the king's opinion, and various other factors.) The commercialisation of art in the last century, particularly film but also literature, has I think changed the relationship between artist and audience because it has changed the nature of audience.

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. And I use the word pander deliberately.

Tolkien did have a sense of audience, but it was a very different kind of audience. (I will interject here that according to his biographer, Tolkien was socialable enough to enjoy the usual "noisy, brash, and boorish" acitivities of certain aspects of undergraduate life when he was first a student at Oxford. It wasn't that he was a snob about humour.) Tolkien, however, wrote, in the first instance, to satisfy his own conception of mythology, faery, and linquistics/philology. He then had an intimate group of 'readers', most of whom were 'listeners' as a sounding board. These men were, of course, the members of the Inklings. His own son, Christopher, also was crucial to Tolkien as a reader of the typescripts, as the Letters written while Christopher served during WWII, show.

So, Tolkien was able to create a work of art with huge, massive appeal but he did so without deliberately and consciously appealing to a mass audience. Like all writers, he did harbour a wish to be kindly regarded, to be popular, to be read and enjoyed. Yet this was not the overwhelming impetus of his writing. He hoped his work, once published, would be successful. But he did not compose that work in order to be successful or popular.

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

[Lalwendë]

Rather than simply swallow and regurgitate the defense of popularity, I think we ought to ask about the role and nature of the audience in the artist's conception and composition of the work.

I think Bethberry makes a very good point - Tolkien did not necessarily have an audience in mind when he wrote. Yes, he was asked (commissioned?) to produce a follow-up to The Hobbit, but he clearly was not required to produce a specific type of work beyond it being a novel in format. I often wonder just whether this could happen today. Truly innovative fiction is seemingly all too often limited to first novels and I have the feeling this may have a lot to do with marketing; publishers may demand that a successful work be followed up by 'more of the same'. This is very much akin to the phrase in music "that difficult third album" - the writer is somehow 'stuck' between the need to be creative and the need to make money for the 'investor'. Where this side of marketing doesn't hold sway, then another type often restricts the writer, and that's the requirement to 'fit in' with a particular genre which is selling well, hence the racks of generic fantasy, chick lit, crime etc.

Anyway, Tolkien seemingly did not have to operate under these constraints and yet his work has achieved phenomenal popularity. I still think PJ could have achieved the same with the films, that he did not have to make the changes made to garner 'popular appeal' as his films would have had this anyway.

[alatar]

Gimli started out okay in FOTR, as there was some balance between his comedic and serious moments. For example, his reflection on Galadriel's gift showed a character that was starting to grow/change.

When rewatching that scene I thought, "if only he would have burped!?!" (I suspect that he will in the 25th anniversary edition ).

By TTT things started spinning out of control and by ROTK we have the short Clown who couldn't utter more than a punchline. I'd accept the drunking and body counting accountant if - even by accident - we got a scene in ROTK in which Gimli wasn't a caricature. The scene in TTT where Gimli tells Legolas to 'let <Aragorn> be' was great as Gimli appeared to be thoughtful - not sure how it slipped it.

As others have noted, I assume that PJ sat in a theater during the showing FOTR, saw what got the giggles and thought, "we need more of that!" And from information regarding the size of the Witch-King's mace and the clay on Gimpy Gothmog's face, the staff/writers may have thought that they were way over the top and so PJ would reject what they had submitted in jest, but...

And I would agree with others that as a viewer I should be permitted to have a serious or 'tear-jerking' or sad moment that is not interrupted after 10 seconds by some giggle.

[Neithan]

Lalwendë makes the astute observation that much of PJ's humour seems of the kind to appeal to the 9 to 19 (or is it 99) male demographic.

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.

I shall merely limit myself to observing that surely anyone who saw the films in the cinema cannot deny that these moments generally elicited the intended reaction from large sections of the audience

Yes, but I don't care. It wouldn't make any difference to me if every other person in the world thought it was funny. I think that Jackson's humor is stupid, in poor taste, and an insult to my intelligence. I didn't laugh at the added humor once, but I laugh at Tolkien's humor quite a lot.

Every great work of art in history was done on the artists own terms. Once the artist relinquishes his/her own artistic vision to the demands of "the public" it ceases to be artistic at all.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

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

[Nimrodel_9]

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

Hark! I hear them too!

I agree with much of what has been said. Gimli's humor was funny in the beginning, but toward the end it was no longer funny. Like telling the same joke over and over. What bothered me the most, though, was on the rare occasion when someone would say something that wasn't true to the character. Like were Galadriel gives Merry and Pip daggers and Sam rope. (I was rather put out that he didn't get the little box containing the dirt and mallorn seed, but without the Scouring of the Shire, it wouldn't really fit anyway. ) After receiving her gift Sam replies, "Thank you my lady. Have you another of those nice, shiny daggers?" (Or something of the sort.) When I heard him say that, I was like, NO!That's not Sam! It was disrespectful and not at all the Sam we know.

[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

[Morsul the Dark]

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.

[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.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I hate to sound, well, ignorant but what ignorance are you talking about?

[Holbytlass]

When I read, watch, or hear (as in music) something I take it at face value. If it is meant do be 'deep' than I get thoughtful, if it's meant to entertain I laugh and so on... of course, many things can be both.
When I read LOTR, I do stop and think and wonder. That's what is so great about a book, it is at the reader's pace. When I watch LOTR I just want to be entertained. In fact, there is no stopping for deep thought- at least not at the theatre.
I guess the point is that I feel sorry for those who are uptight about the film not being the 'extra-special something' the book is. But how can it be?! A replica can never be the exact greatness that the original is. But we can still appreciate the replica.

Ignorance is bliss for those who haven't heard about the book therefore they aren't banging their heads against the wall because the movie didn't measure up.
Bliss is also for those of us who can seperate the two-book for the genius it is, movie for the entertainment

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I see what you mean.

But I must disagree about that replica comment. Granted, the films are not replicas but I would argue that exact replicas (or at least as near to exact as atomically possible) are just as good as the originals. But that's a whole different debate (and I'm obviously just trying to be difficult! )

A relevant question which arises is this: Is ignorance bliss? (In the case of the films, of course!) I mean, we can talk about how out of character some of the humour is, but there is an equally valid criticism of some of the humour in the films: that it is just plain unfunny. Thoughts?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

A relevant question which arises is this: Is ignorance bliss? (In the case of the films, of course!) I mean, we can talk about how out of character some of the humour is, but there is an equally valid criticism of some of the humour in the films: that it is just plain unfunny. Thoughts?

I would posit that ignorance is bliss. My sister, who never read the books, thought that the films were just wonderful - she didn't have the books running through her head as did I while sitting in the theater. She accepted the the movies at face value - though she did have more than a few questions for me as PJ didn't explain everything.

And ignorance is also bliss in that if one could only go back to the day before first reading the LOTR. I still enjoy reading them after 25+ readings, yet the first time had the thrill of not knowing what was coming next. Does Gandalf really die? Will Aragorn become King? Is Frodo really dead?

I enjoy being on the other side, but one can't help sometimes looking across the fence.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Yes, yes, but what about the people who had never read the books, and who see Gimli falling off a horse and think "This is so not funny..."

?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

I mean, we can talk about how out of character some of the humour is, but there is an equally valid criticism of some of the humour in the films: that it is just plain unfunny. Thoughts?

I think it is possible to set up criteria that are consistent with the film itself without reference to the books.

For example, to me, Aragorn's dream of Arwen, where he is woken by the affectionate snog from the horse, is not funny as it makes a farce of the romance. I suppose many people are uneasy with taking high romance seriously, and so they think it is funny to undercut the romance that way. But this is not consistent with other depictions of the romance in the movies. So, to me, it is a cheap shot, used just to get a laugh at the moment but not really to tell us anything about the romance.

Is this what you mean by unfunny, Eomer? Are you wanting to try to establish some kind of definition/explanation of humour? Big job!

[Holbytlass]

Oooh, Eomer, you are a difficult one!
But see, that's my point about replicas and blissful ignorance. Even anatomically correct replicas that are as great as the originals can be dissected and its flaw(s) found by an expert. And isn't that what we are here for (in this forum)? All of us are to some degree an 'expert' above those who have never read the books. We are chipping away at the movie, finding its flaws. Even myself, right now. And I reiterate, that those who haven't read the book are not doing this. At least not to the extent that we are. Which comes to your question about just plain old unfunny stuff in the movie. I think the people to answer your question best are not going to be here at all.
I myself will have to watch the movie again for any examples.

[Keeper of Dol Guldur]

While I agree that Gimli's humor was a bit over-used, I do like the idea of him being relatively down with the idea of joking during battle. He's a professional soldier, and a dwarf, and while dwarves are good guys for the most part, we learned in the Hobbit that they're pretty gritty, down to earth fellows, who aren't exactly experts in the field of subtle humor.

So stuff like Gimli complaining about the Emyn Muil "and after that, it gets even better!", and then grunting "recover my strength" are great. Sarcasm really works for dwarves.

His overstating his abilities in Lothlorien was also pretty funny, showing a bit of pride before the elves completely surprised everyone. Even Legolas. "Here's one dwarf she won't ensnare so easily" really plays into how easily she ensnares him, which is hilarious.

The stuff about dwarves being natural sprinters was funny ... I always liked the idea of him hyping dwarves to be capable of these amazing feats, only to be out-performed by Aragorn and Legolas ... what would a cocky fellow do? Try to salvage his reputation a little, I'd say.

The part about dwarf women was funny, but it was more Aragorn's bit at comedy than Gimli's, and fits in more with the scene in Fellowship where Boromir is teaching the hobbits how to use their swords.

The bit with Legolas being sarcastic right back at him and asking about getting him a box was HILARIOUS. Here's Gimli, saying dwarves are so great, who can't even see over a human battlement.

The actual kill-game was fine, the part at the end where Legolas showed a little jealousy was sweet, after all, he had just sarcastically shot down Gimli's hyping dwarves, and here the little guy has outperformed him!

The drinking game was alright ... a little much, but it did serve to repair any negative first impressions Eomer, Gimli and Legolas had perfectly well.

I thought Gimli's lines before entering the Paths of the Dead were spot on, but the part inside, where he was blowing away the mist and treading lightly on skulls was a little much. Still ... Aragorn and Legolas had the luxury of being a few feet above the mist, Gimli was neck deep in it.

His burping and Denethor's sloppy eating I look at in one simple way; hey, it was pre-middle ages. People were slobs back then. Table manners and all that didn't really get refined into the codes of conduct we know until Victorian times. Even Aragorn mowed down the stew Eowyn gave him. And not to mention the fact that, has anyone really watched people eat and drink closely? It's probably the grossest thing to watch ever (albeit the most fun thing to do, I love eating).

[Boromir88]

For example, to me, Aragorn's dream of Arwen, where he is woken by the affectionate snog from the horse, is not funny as it makes a farce of the romance. I suppose many people are uneasy with taking high romance seriously, and so they think it is funny to undercut the romance that way. But this is not consistent with other depictions of the romance in the movies. So, to me, it is a cheap shot, used just to get a laugh at the moment but not really to tell us anything about the romance.

Bethberry, that was intended to be for laughs? Interesting, I never knew.

Holbytlass

Even anatomically correct replicas that are as great as the originals can be dissected and its flaw(s) found by an expert. And isn't that what we are here for (in this forum)?

Very true, and there are those who read Tolkien's books to pick it apart and try to find flaws in it. Saying all the characters are too static, they're too predictable, the wording is too biblical and so on. I think most of us here can say that we disagree with those types of critics, but they state their opinions, and then are able to support it, and that's all we can really expect and we must respect others opinions. We all have different preferences.

Ignorance is bliss for those who haven't heard about the book therefore they aren't banging their heads against the wall because the movie didn't measure up.

For the most part I would tend to agree with you. However, there are those who are strictly film critics, who have no prior reading to the books, who can pick a part the movies. There are a lot of editting mistakes, the people in charge of making sure there are no "mistakes" in the film missed a LOT. There are times when Jackson shows he can be a really great director (using foreshadowing, some brilliant shots on Minas Tirth and Edoras, good use of emotionsal/tear-jerking moments...etc), then there are times that he just slips back to his previous mediocre days...(using humor when there should be none, no reasoning behind the decapitation of the MoS, turning Denethor into a punching bag). I agree that this is a very entertaining movie, one that I've watched many times, and Jackson chose it to be that way. I'm afraid in todays day and age we've sort of lost track of them great time movies that didn't have to sho murder, and blood, to be great movies, or entertaining movies. Jackson tried to balance the movie between readers and non-readers, teenagers that want to see war and fighting, and old farts like me that prefer the old time movies. In doing that, of course to me it seems like the movies did not reach their potential that they could have been.

[Bêthberry]

Boro:

Quote:
For example, to me, Aragorn's dream of Arwen, where he is woken by the affectionate snog from the horse, is not funny as it makes a farce of the romance. I suppose many people are uneasy with taking high romance seriously, and so they think it is funny to undercut the romance that way. But this is not consistent with other depictions of the romance in the movies. So, to me, it is a cheap shot, used just to get a laugh at the moment but not really to tell us anything about the romance.

Bethberry, that was intended to be for laughs? Interesting, I never knew

This gets back into that ole Canonicity thread. I have no idea if PJ intended it to be humorous or not. But I know many people besides myself who do find that appallingly hilarious. Chaqu-un à son jeste.

Holbytlass wrote:

Even anatomically correct replicas that are as great as the originals can be dissected and its flaw(s) found by an expert. And isn't that what we are here for (in this forum)? All of us are to some degree an 'expert' above those who have never read the books. We are chipping away at the movie, finding its flaws. Even myself, right now. And I reiterate, that those who haven't read the book are not doing this. At least not to the extent that we are. Which comes to your question about just plain old unfunny stuff in the movie. I think the people to answer your question best are not going to be here at all.

If I may interject here: Any anatomy asks to be analysed. One that is correct leads to examination of satisfaction, in hopes of finding such excitement again. One that is flawed leads to analysis of disappointment.

But, frankly, while you are entitled to your theory that only those who know the books engage in dissection, let me say that I attended the movies with three people who had not read Tolkien. All three of these people found some measure of pleasure in the movies (as I did, infrequently), but their enjoyment was prematurely interrupted by things they found risible. Maybe this gets back to that old saying that life is a tragedy to those who feel but a comedy to those who think. If viewers felt a distance, were not emotionally drawn to the movies, then perhaps they just automatically began to deflate the images.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

There can be no such thing as an exact atomic replica of anything, so it's pointless talking about that. Regardless of this, Jackson was not trying to make a near-replica of the books. But his task did not involve a fundamental incompatibility in the way the humour could work. He could have made a much worse film with better humour. It's just a shame that some of the humour was so bad.

As for the Gimli examples, I agree with Keeper when he says that some of it was funny. However, the burping, blowing away the ghosts, lines such as "Let him rot!" and the falling off of horses were just unfunny.

Agree with BB about the other horse joke, involving Aragorn. I too saw it as a way of joking about the sorrow felt by 'Gorn and Arwen. As to an in-depth analysis of the nature of humour......may I be excused?

[The Saucepan Man]

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.

Now now Bb. As you know, I have never sought to claim that popularity is the only consideration in matters such as this. But it is a relevant consideration. If these moments of humour work for the majority of audiences (and my experience suggests that they do), then surely that goes some way towards justifying their presence.

It is all very well to talk of the qualitative aspects of these humorous moments, but this is very much a subjective matter. They do not appeal to many participating in this thread, but they do (in general) appeal to me. And they similarly appeal to many who have seen the films. It seems to me that it is difficult on subjects such as this to express much more than one's own subjective opinion (and, of course to point out how well these moments went down with "the masses" ). Eomer of the Rohirrim is well advised to decline Bêthberry's invitation to attempt a definition of "humour", but I will attempt a very rudimentary one. "Humour" is that which people find humorous . And the more people that find something humorous, the better the humour is. If a certain instance of humour works for its audience, then it is "good humour" in my book. Although that is not to say that it will necessarily appeal to me. For example, I have never understood the appeal of Friends but, given how popular it was, the writers were clearly doing something right.

It has been said that the more - um - rudimentary humour in the LotR films seems out of place. But is it really? Or does it only seem out of place because those posting here are intimately acquainted with the literary work on which the films are based? That is certainly the reason for my limited reservations over some of the humorous moments. But Jackson's motivations, intentions and objectives were, as I have said many times before, quite different in many respects from those of Tolkien. And the medium of film is a markedly different one from the medium of literature. In this regard, it seems to me that Holbytlass's comments are well made. It is only the likes of us, Tolkien fans all, that analyse these moments of the films down to the nth degree and find this kind of humour out of kilter with Tolkien's style. Of course, it will not appeal to everyone, whether or not they have read the books, but there is little, if any, humour that has truly universal appeal.

I find the comparison of Jackson's style with the styles of the likes of Lucas and Spielburg an interesting one. There is of course a subjective element attached to the question of whether they are (or were, when at the same stages of their careers) better directors, but they are good comparators as their "blockbuster" films appealed (in their time) to the same kinds of audiences as the LotR films do now. Jackson certainly has his moments that do not appeal to me. He is overly unsubtle in some of his direction and perhaps too ready to appeal to the "lowest common denominator". But neither Lucas nor Spielburg is without his clumsy moments. Both have a tendency to cloying sentimentality, Spielburg especially, which is not to my taste. And this is something that I find happily absent from Jackson's films. Lucas also seems to have a tendency to employing overly-cute creatures. Witness the Eowks and Jar-Jar Binks. Both mistakes in my opinion, but that's just my view. And neither is averse to using obvious humour on occasion, although perhaps their styles are not quite as crude as Jackson's.

I originally made a quick (glib) comment on this thread, hoping to get away with it. No such luck, with the likes of Bb and co around. So I suppose that I had better elaborate on my views concerning Jackson's use of humour.

The first point to make is that Gimli's wisecracks and flatulence are not the only forms of humour employed throughout the films. There are some wonderfully gentle moments of comedy, particularly those involving Gandalf and Sam.

But let’s look at Gimli. Now let's face it. He is not the most developed character in the book. In a film, even three very long films, there is scant time available to develop those characters who are not central to the plot, so he was never going to get even the (limited) measure of development that he gets in the book. So it seems to me that Jackson looked to focus only on the main aspects of his character that are apparent from the book. In this regard, there's his developing friendship with Legolas (and the associated theme of reconciliation between Dwarves and Elves), his skill in battle and his humour. Jackson incorporates each of these themes in the films, devoting as much time as he is able to each.

Ah, but doesn't he "warp" the humorous element of book Gimli's character? Well, yes he does. He makes Gimli and Legolas a bit of a double act, with Legolas playing the straight man to Gimli's wisecracking clown. The refined Elf and the unrefined Dwarf. A double act comprised of two opposites. It's a tried and tested formula (R2D2 and C3PO anyone?). And it works well with the theme of their developing friendship. An attraction of opposites. But why make Gimli's comedy (at times) so unsubtle and obvious? Well partly, I think, to accentuate the contrast with his film partner, Legolas. But also, in my view, because otherwise few would remember him. With Orlando Bloom's looks, there is no such danger with Legolas. But a gently humorous Gimli would not stick in the minds of many among the audience for this film (ie those who did not know him from the books). He would simply be the short bearded bloke who, along with everyone else, kills lots of Orcs. Rather than making him look silly, I think that his humour makes him a very appealing character to many who have gone to see the films. After all, what do they care of noble Dwarven lineages etc?

As far as Jackson's use of characters for humour goes, I was more concerned over his treatment of Merry and Pippin. Throughout the first film and for much of the second, they were used simply as a comedy double act. That was practically their only contribution. And, to my mind, there is certainly far more to them in the book than simply two clowns who like their mushrooms and pipeweed. The lack of any clear reason for them joining Frodo and Sam (and the absence of A Conspiracy Unmasked) means that (initially at least) we miss their bond of friendship and loyalty to Frodo and their immense courage in the face of unknown dangers. And the films failed to make any real attempt to distinguish between them, whereas, in the books, they are very sharply delineated. Of course, Bilbo apart, they are my two favourite characters in the book, so I am bound to find this rather annoying. As far as non-book readers are concerned, they make a very good comedy double-act and the set-up works very well. They become memorable and well-loved characters despite the limited time available for character development. Indeed, I have seen few complaints on the Downs concerning their treatment in the films, but there we have it. We concentrate on that which concerns us most. At least they got to prove themseves as more than mere clowns in the latter half of the second film and during the third film (although Merry was rather short-changed in the theatrical release of RotK).

Finally, I cannot let these comments pass:

Originally Posted by Boromir88

However, there are those who are strictly film critics, who have no prior reading to the books, who can pick a part the movies. There are a lot of editting mistakes, the people in charge of making sure there are no "mistakes" in the film missed a LOT.

Generally (as I have sought to establish elsewhere in this forum), the films were very well-received by professional film critics. The editing mistakes are, I would say, par for the course on a massive project such as this. And they are really only noticed by those who have a particular inclination to notice such things (or who have watched the films many many times).

Originally Posted by Boromir88

... there are times that he just slips back to his previous mediocre days

I have not seen a film by Jackson that I would describe as mediocre. Gross, low-budget, amateur and unsubtle are words that I would associate with his early films, but not mediocre. And Heaveny Creatures was a wonderful film, with very little evidence of the "heavy-handedness" with which he is otherwise associated.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

If a certain instance of humour works for its audience then it is 'good humour'? I must disagree, sir. Any sexist, racist or whatever else kind of joke told in a circle of, say, 20 people may elicit loud laughs from everyone, but it would still be bad humour.

As to the non-book reader's memory of Gimli as the quiet kinda subtle character, that may have to be a necessary consequence of such a film with many characters. This is still arguably better than having the non-book reader remember Gimli as the short clown.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Eomer

I must disagree, sir. Any sexist, racist or whatever else kind of joke told in a circle of, say, 20 people may elicit loud laughs from everyone, but it would still be bad humour.

The exceptions that prove the rule.

Seriously though, that would be "good" humour as far as it's audience is concerned (in the sense that it would work well as humour for that audience). Open it up to a wider audience and it would not necessarily work so well. So it would not be as "good" as humour that had a broader appeal. It's all subjective, you see, and you can only get some kind of objective view when you judge it by reference to the breadth of its appeal. But doesn't that mean that the more popular the humour, the better it is? Perish the thought!

Originally Posted by Eomer

This is still arguably better than having the non-book reader remember Gimli as the short clown.

Arguably indeed. I would rather see Gimli fondly remembered as the short clown than generally overlooked.

[Holbytlass]

I found it, the one unfunny thing in 'Fellowship' (in my opinion). I was disappointed because everything humorous seemed to fit at least character-wise and in context to the situation, I am sure others would disagree but I was looking for pure unfunny. So I began to think that the unfunny stuff was only in 'Two Towers' and 'Return of King' because so much of the movies were battles, to give comic relief.
Of course it was Gimli (poor Gimli!!). The scene where the Fellowship is bedding down at Lothlorien, the elves are singing the laments for Gandalf, Sam tries to do his bit then Gimli snores and Aragorn hits him. That's not funny.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by TheSaucepanMan

Eomer of the Rohirrim is well advised to decline Bêthberry's invitation to attempt a definition of "humour", but I will attempt a very rudimentary one. "Humour" is that which people find humorous. And the more people that find something humorous, the better the humour is.

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Seriously though, that would be "good" humour as far as it's audience is concerned (in the sense that it would work well as humour for that audience). Open it up to a wider audience and it would not necessarily work so well. So it would not be as "good" as humour that had a broader appeal. It's all subjective, you see, and you can only get some kind of objective view when you judge it by reference to the breadth of its appeal. But doesn't that mean that the more popular the humour, the better it is? Perish the thought!

For shame, SpM, even in jest, to employ the term under discussion in the definition. I would have thought better of a loyer, but then I guess that is your humour at work.

The problem with your suggestion that the only objective view is that determined by majority or mass appeal is that it grants this specious 'objectivity' to the tyranny of numbers. We accept the rule of the majority in democratic votes, but I don't think we assume it necessarily follows that we are often persuaded that the best party won.

The other problem is that aesthetic appreciation is often a matter of education. Not in the sense that high brow art must be beat into us, but in the sense that very often it takes one courageous artistic vision to suggest an idea which others cannot yet grasp. Slowly, though, they come round. After all, Tolkien's work was first derided by fellow academics because it flew in the face of the ruling style of the moment, modernism. But times change and his work is now generally regarded and the subject of university courses. Does this mean that at first Tolkien was a bad author, using bad humour? Or does it mean that in fact the general understanding of his art has changed.

I could as well name other writers who at first were vastly popular and well regarded, who have now fallen into the dust bin of history, ready to be recycled some day perhaps by some intrepid interpreter. Popularity is as fickle as teen heart throbs.

Minority interpreters do not have to fall in line with the majority. Nor should the majority brow beat the minority into submission. What they should do is listen to each other, and learn from each other, see where there is common ground and where there are differences of perspective. But to be told "You're in the wrong because more people agree with me", well, that amounts to plain ole bullying.

It seems to me that you take the subjectivity of humour and out of that argue that the most 'objective' approach is to accept that of the majority. I also argue that humour is subjective. Where I differ is that I think it is possible to consider some properties of art which create humour. Sometimes it is the daring inconsistency or unusual nature of the event, the implausibility, which draw out our laughter. (Here, bodily functions are easily seen as funnier than stolid, solemn mental gymnastics because they 'bring people down to earth'.)

Comedy, I think, is meant often to be a breaker of barriers (tension, false pride, arrogance, ignorance etc), bursting the balloon of pretension and self-blindness. (Heck, just look at what happened here with the various interpretations of the Death of Crystal Heart thread. ) Maybe comedy also is designed to show up the different perspectives which we all bring to bear on an event. Thus I think it is valuable to consider the context of Jackson's various bits of comedy. Is he asking us not to take Middle-earth seriously? Or take it just as a bit of a romp? Or is he just wanting to regale us with funny moments for the sheer fun of laughter? Did he simply want to make the most number of people laugh? Okay, I guess. But how does that sit with the other aspects of his movies? And since when is the filmaker's intention the final, absolute word?

I take your point about Lucas' and Speilberg's sentimentality. For me, the high point of Lucas' art was the original Star Wars, possibly extended to the two sequels. Jar Jar Binks and a plethora of improbable aliens show me the fraying limits of his vision. It is by the measure of the first SW that I consider Jackson's movies, because his movies bring to my mind so clearly Lucas' finest achievements.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

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.

It's true. You can't judge Jackson by Tolkien standards, because the two are separate entities. Example: the song Mrs. Robinson. Yesterday I listened to two versions... Simon and Garfunkle's and Frank Sinatra's. Both excellent in their own right, and completely uncomparable. I mean... all you have to do is listen to the first few chords and you automatically think "What? This isn't Mrs. Robinson as I know it!" But that doesn't mean that it's not Mrs. Robinson, and that doesn't make it bad. It just makes it different. Right Saucie?

But at the same time, some of the comedic lines in the Movies could effectively go in all of those "What they would never say" threads that keep springing up. I mean... honestly now, how many of you ever in your right mind imagined Gimli, proud and noble Dwarf that he is, drunkenly muttering that "It's the Dwarves that going swimming with little hairy women." I wasn't offended, per say, but I certainly thought that that line was completely... well... unfunny. If I'd been hanging out with a group of guy friends and one of them said something that (a) lame, (b) uncultured, (c) potentially offensive... I'd smack him. And yes, Keeper, because I know a rebuttal is coming, I understand that this is pre-Middle Ages, things were uncultured, people were slobs, and men were men. That doesn't make the line any less unfunny.

[Lalwendë]

Humour is all about personal taste, so I don't think quality judgements are always possible. Why do I think it's about personal taste? Well, humour often arises from our own experience of the world - here's an example: I find Pauline from the League of Gentlemen hilarious because I've had the misfortune to meet many such women; the line 'dole scum' makes me laugh because this is how they truly do view unemployed people. And having been unemployed and on the receiving end of their bile, this term is deeply and darkly satirical to me. But many other people find it utterly unfunny as they do not necessarily have that experience, or, having had it, they find themselves unable to laugh about it in retrospect. By the same token, certain types of jokes make me pull a face like I'm sucking a lemon because they make fun of things that I'm sensitive about.

As to PJ's use of comedy, I did find some of it good, in fact most of it was good, apart from what he did to Gimli. He played on Gimli's height and appearance a little too much, which I found to be cheap humour, much in the manner of the playground bully endlessly poking the 'speccy-four-eyes' or 'duracell' kid. After too many of these jokes I'd had enough. The "shall I get you a box" was delivered excellently by Orlando Bloom (perhaps he has a hidden talent for comedy), as it was very deadpan and subtle, but the remarks by Aragorn to Eowyn seemed merely snide, the kind of thing people say behind their backs.