Gimli

[Halbarad of the Dunedain]

Even from Minas Tirith it would be north west, the only way it would be north east is if it was from Helm's Deep or farther west than that.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I think it would be from Minas Tirith to. I'l check later but I'm almost certain.

[Halbarad of the Dunedain]

No, Minas Tirith of Gondor was extreamly far East of Orthanc and quite far east of Rauros even. They traveled from Rauros to Fangorn which is a north western direction. There are few places that are south west of Orthanc that are worth mentioning and none in Tolkiens stories came from there. Therefor when Legolas says north east to Isenguard, the direction the orcs would really be going is almost straight back at the three hunters.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

Another Gimli critiscm. In the books dwarves are fine runners over distances. In the film however Gimli said they were natural sprinters wasted on cross-country.

Also, it was Aragorn that lagged behind (though he didn't complain in silly ways *cough*movei*cough*), and Legolas and Gimli had the most endurance.

Maybe I'm, not too hard on the movies. Gimli is so excellent in the book, and his friendship with Legolas a wonderful thing. Jackson either spoiled or ignored every opportunity. (I'm grumpy, I thought I had a day off today and I don't. Bah )

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

I'm twelve and that didn't please me.

Sincere apologies! No offence intended. What I meant was those people, many of whom I'll admit are well older than 12, for whom action and comedy are the only viable modes in film. I'll use the term "dorito-chugging multiplex livestock" in the future.

In my opinion Jackson wasn't creative enough then

Yes indeedy.

ridiculous scenes where Faramir's character is maligned in Osgiliath

Well, on second viewing I thought this was handled quite well. Clearly, his dilemma was exaggerated to make it more dramatic, but it was reasonably true, unless you can think of a way of representing a character's thought processes on film (in the book, the dilemma was resolved by Faramir himself, of course). What really sucked was when he just suddenly said "off you go, then" a few minutes after the insane ring-waving scene on the battlements. That made no sense at all given what had gone before.

(That's a great example of where I thought the films didn't do well: plot lines would be set up with great care only to be resolved with a perfunctory ten-second scene. Like Aragorn spending 2.5 films going "I do not desire to be king" only to turn around and go "oh all right then")

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I'll use the term "dorito-chugging multiplex livestock" in the future.

Lol!

The same sort of "lengthly build-up hasty resolution" was applied to Gimli and Legolas' friendship. 2.9 movies were spent outlining how they didn't get along, then 1 line each at the Black Gate shows how they now became friends. I thought that was really too bad, since their friendship is one of the most powerful in LOTR, surpassed only by Frodo and Sam.

[Durin1]

The plain, simple fact is that there are just too many ridiculous (and avoidable) aspects of the movies that make them, although not quite average, well below the "greatness" that many people profess them to be. There is just too much pandering to the "majority" of people who have never read LoTR before, not to mention the painfully excruciating dumbing down that is almost a prerequisite of films that have been adapted from books.

IMO the majority of the acting is pretty average if not atrocious. Orlando Bloom can't "act" to save his life; JRD took an ill-fated decision to produce a laughable Scottish accent; Viggo doesn't convince as a great leader of Men; Liv Tyler with THAT stupid tone of voice; Ian McKellan's annoying facial expressions; Elijah Wood's acting skills aren't great either. And so on and so forth.

What makes it even worse for the actors is the poor quality of writing and direction, along with some peculiar (to put it politely) "logic" in introducing their own spin on things. This is not to say that I would have liked the movies to have religiously followed the books, of course not, but there are just too many "mistakes" that undermine what should have been a great spectacle. I agree that the music, costumes and camera work are excellent but they cannot cover over all the cracks.

To name but a few :

The council of Elrond (if that's what you call it)
Orcs believing they are Spiderman climbing up the pillars of Khazad-Dum
Gandalf's unbelievable stupidity, not to mention the subservient nature of his attitude towards Saruman in the beginning
Legolas - the Elf
More Legolas - the last action hero
Gimli
Arwen
Elves at Helm's Deep
Gollum, Frodo and Sam in RoTK
Elrond's delivery of Narsil/Anduril to Aragorn
Denethor's "madness"
etc etc etc

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Also, it was Aragorn that lagged behind (though he didn't complain in silly ways *cough*movei*cough*), and Legolas and Gimli had the most endurance.

I wouldn't say that but in the movie it makes it look like it all happened in one day. To be in Rohan after 3 days from Tol Brandir is an Acomplishment but in One day? I don't think so.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Durin1

The plain, simple fact is that there are just too many ridiculous (and avoidable) aspects of the movies that make them, although not quite average, well below the "greatness" that many people profess them to be.
SNIP
etc etc etc

I pretty much agree with the gist of this, although I think one way to have produced a better trilogy of films would have been to have a script consultant who hadn't read the books but knew how to make great films.

I agree with what you say about the acting too, though again, they didn't get enough dialogue to really show what they could do. Sam was the pick, I'd say.

Gimli's accent was pish, right enough.

[Nurvingiel]

Sam was wonderful! *tears up*

Pish? Um... I thought John-Rhys Davies did a great job, especially given the material. Maybe pish is good...

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I agree. I think Sam's character was most alike his character from the book.

[Durin1]

Sam???

You mean if you choose to ignore his West Country/American accent? (I have to admit, I can't).

Sam's role is a simple one. He is a support to Frodo. His character is most likened to the book because of this fact. In addition, Sam is blessed with some great lines in the book, some of these are said in the films, although not quite as often as I would have liked.

[The Gaffer]

Yes, he does have some great lines, and I'm sure that's a factor. However, Sean Astin's performance far outstrips Frodo's. It would have been easy to play Sam for the goon like they did in the cartoon version.

I don't think Sam's role is a simple one, though. IMO he's the most important character in the book.

[Durin1]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I don't think Sam's role is a simple one, though. IMO he's the most important character in the book.

Sorry, what I meant was that it was a clear-cut function in terms of the audience realises that he is obligated to stick with Frodo through thick and thin. I agree that this makes him one of the most important characters in the book. Also, I don't think we should underestimate the fact of how valuable Sam is to Frodo's attempts to cross over Cirith Ungol and forward to Orodruin. Frodo would never have had the opportunity to destroy the Ring if it wasn't for Sam.

[Nurvingiel]

*pokes everyone*
However brilliant Sam was, this thread is supposed to be about Gimli! Maybe there is simply nothing more to say on his character in the movie. I know you can't convey as much material in a movie than a book, especially the subtleties of Tolkien (which I feel was too much for Jackson). Despite these barriers, I think Gimli's character could have been better done in the movie. John-Rhys Davies played him very well, given some decent scenes he would have been as awesome as Sam.

example:
Instead of the ridiculous 'Dwarf tossing' scene at Helm's deep, they could have used that time to show Gimli fighting his way out of the Glittering Caves. Then they would have been able to include this element at the end of the movie, even only in brief mention, which would have added another layer to Legolas and Gimli's friendship.

[Durin1]

I agree, we have seemed to digress somewhat from the original scope of the thread.

I always thought that it was a good moment in the book when Legolas speaks to Eomer and Aragorn about his concerns for Gimli's well-being. Only after the victory delivered by Gandalf and Erkenbrand do we know that he is safe, athough wounded with a blow to his head; not that this seems to have bothered Gimli! Maybe PJ could have included that subtle but poignant scene in TTT? Especially Aragorn's: "never have I seen an axe so weiled" [paraphrased] line.

We also seem to forget that although Legolas and Gimli play a game to see how many Orcs they kill, it should not be forgotten that it is still a dangerous "life and death" game all the same, regardless of how they seem to banter about it. Legolas' reactions when Gimli wins is to be more glad that his friend is safe than that he has lost.

But as you say Nurvingiel, it's probably too subtle for PJ He seemed content to have a skateboarding elf and "letsuseasmanyshortjokesaswecanagainstGimli" strategy.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Durin1

I always thought that it was a good moment in the book when Legolas speaks to Eomer and Aragorn about his concerns for Gimli's well-being. Only after the victory delivered by Gandalf and Erkenbrand do we know that he is safe, athough wounded with a blow to his head; not that this seems to have bothered Gimli! Maybe PJ could have included that subtle but poignant scene in TTT? Especially Aragorn's: "never have I seen an axe so weiled" [paraphrased] line.

Those additions would have worked well in the film, I agree! They would have been perfect. This thread has made me truly realize that Gimli is one of my favourite characters.

But as you say Nurvingiel, it's probably too subtle for PJ He seemed content to have a skateboarding elf and "letsuseasmanyshortjokesaswecanagainstGimli" strategy.

*gags*

[The Nameless One]

I don't think his character in the "movie" was portrayed as bad as everyone thinks. His portrayal in the "books" is totally seperate from the movies. The gimli from the books was an awesome character and deffinately was not ment as comic relief. But since the movies are just a different perspective and vision of Peter Jackson, I think that keeps it seperate from the books. I've come to respect that he is just putting his own twist on the books to please a wide audience of people. If it was just for the diehard fans, it would have been a box office flop and we would be the only ones injoying it. Gilmi as a comic relief makes sense to the adverage viewer because he's short, fat looking, and talks funny. I thought "movie" gimli very well done. Just as "books" gimli was very well done in different context. The two are seperate. An iterpretation and what really is are not the same. I love the comic, fun loving, bummbling, interpretation as well as the awesome, powerful, layed back, wise origonal version of Gimli. Both were beautifully done by two brilliant minds.

[The Nameless One]

Oh yea...there was one thing I didn't like. The fact that Gimli never got any one on one fight scenes with any enemies. I wanted to see some cool ax welding from gimli where he is the focus of attention for at least one scene. I hope he's the one that fights the Captain of the Corsairs one on one cause Legolas seems to get all the glory all the time. PJ vs. Gimli...thats a funny thought

[Durin1]

I think it is a defunct excuse that it is "PJ's interpretation". It is all very well to put your mark on a movie that has been adapted from a book, but even without the "die-hard" fans to take into consideration, a better portrayal could have been achieved.

I have been to see the films with friends who have never read LoTR. They fedback that Gimli was a bit crass and the humour predicatable and below-par. For them it was irritating and annoying to have Gimli the constant butt of all the so-called jokes.

However, I do agree that more one-to-one fighting scenes with Gimli could have been included.

Question: WHY should a portrayal in the book be totally seperate to the movies?