How did the movie portrayals of LOTR characters differ from how you imagined them?

[Haarkla]

This thread is principally for those who read Lord of the rings before watching the movies.

How did the movie portrayals of LOTR characters differ from how you imagined them?

The Fellowship:

Gandalf, Gimli, Frodo, Sam & Pippin were very close to how I imagined them.

I imagined Aragorn as uglier looking, with an overly large nose, medieval peasant (straight, shoulder-length) hair, and clean-shaven. However, I like the idea of a bearded Aragorn, and now see him as bearded.

I imagined Merry as, well, more merry looking, with a round face and dark brown curly hair.

I imagine Legolas as taller, more graceful, more eldrich, more inhuman. However, Orlando Bloom did as good a job of portraying him as any human could. I have always seen him as blond.

The greatest difference was with Boromir, I see him as a middle-eastern racial type, muscular, with a mainly shaven head, except for a ponytail on the top of his head.

Other characters:

I imagine Bilbo Baggins with darker skin, longer hair and more disreputable looking.

I think of Galadriel as more beautiful, with much sharper features. But Cate Blanchett did an excellent job of portraying her.

I imagine Shelob as a totally different kind of spider. Some horrible combination of Tegenaria, Latrodectus and Areaneidae; not Porrhothele.

I imagine Faramir as similar to Boromir but slimmer.

[Kane]

1. Aren't you kind of... I don't know, a bit late?


And Gimli; Dwarf, as comic relief. He was a badass. You know it. Not a funny midget.

[Comet]

For some reason Strider always had an eyepatch in my mind. No idea why, but he just did.

[Spiryt]

Nobody was skateboarding or multishooting. :smalltongue:

As I read the books as ~10 years old mofo, I don't remember too well, but everything was quite a bit different in many parts.

I recall that Aragorn was definitely bearded in my mind, more than in movie.

[jlvm4]

Actually, my biggest problems were with the secondary characters. When they changed things around in TT and RotK, they had to change characters. I had two problems with it:

First, it took away the dichotomy in the two human approaches to war,

Rohan and Minas Tirith had two very different rulers and philosophies, neither of which involved an essentially crazy-man in charge of a kingdom. Denethor was many things, very flawed, but stupid and crazy were not among them. Not until Faramir came back, dying, the second time. To make him so took a lot away from the subsequent battle and I missed the character's presence. Sane and shrewd Denethor is worthy of Pippin's oath and our story.

Second, by changing Faramir's character and what he does in Ithilin, the movie made all humans corrupt and in need of saving (read by elves or wizards or hobbits) rather than a spectrum of beings from truly evil to truly good.

Faramir is one of the only (maybe the only) 'base' human (read non blood-numorean) to freely 'do the right thing' regarding the ring when given the choice. Moreover, he did this when his brother, seen by others to be the better man, did not. He is not pressured in any way, does not require further, concrete proof, he just does what is right and let Frodo go with what aid he can render. And Faramir does it knowing what the likely fallout will be at home. I always loved Faramir for that. That kind of bravery and heart is what made an essentially minor character my favorite one. To change his character as they did in the movie just serves as more evidence of 'all humans are corrupt' message spouted by the elves, etc throughout the movie. Anyway I'll stop now...:smallsmile:

Now the two problems come together in the battle for Minas Tirith. It was a heartbreaking few chapters to read in the book, especially given how much Faramir had done and how little his father appreciated. And then he kept going, even with his father's disapproval. Which if Dad's crazy, and you're well sort of forced into making the right choice, brings what was a stark contrast into a muddy middle.

Anyway, I loved the movies for the most part, with only slight character quibbles otherwise (I'm not a fan of dwarf comic relief). But the changes regarding Minas Tirith, Denethor and Farmir, ticked me off.

Sorry for the rant.

[Dacia Brabant]

The greatest difference was with Boromir, I see him as a middle-eastern racial type, muscular, with a mainly shaven head, except for a ponytail on the top of his head.


Huh, that's kind of an odd expectation from my perspective at least, considering Gondor generally seems to be modeled on the Franks. I pictured Boromir as being like Charles Martel, and I really liked Sean Bean's portrayal. Faramir and Denethor not so much, but then that was the fault of the screenwriters and director and not the actors.

Agreed on the elves needing to seem more alien and ethereal though, but I'm sure the budget would've been astronomical if they'd tried to do anything like the Avatar treatment. Even with just Gollum and Shelob it must've been quite costly.

But for my part I'd have to say Ian McKellen's Gandalf was the closest to my expectation and John Rhys-Davies' Gimli and Treebeard the furthest off--but again that was the screenwriters and director, I'm sure he'd have done better with a proper script.

[thorgrim29]

Gimli as comic relief was a very bad move in my book. Book! Gimli is a dour and ferocious warrior, possible the best of the fellowship pre Narsil having Aragorn. He's loyal, brave and able to go over his prejudice. Film! Gimli is a wacky small guy with a beard and an axe who speaks funny and is the butt of short jokes.

[AstralFire]

As someone who found the books so dry and boring I could not get through them, I went into the movies with no preconceptions on any of the characters at all. I still saw Gimli as a total badass, just a funny one. My two cents.

[Dacia Brabant]

As someone who found the books so dry and boring I could not get through them

I know that this is a common criticism of the Professor's writing style, and I know this is kind of off-topic but I don't think I've ever asked anyone why they feel that way about LotR. Would you expand upon that a bit?

I personally enjoyed the way he made use of language, along with the depth and detail of the world he created--a world that I thought was fairly well realized through his characters. But maybe it's been so long since the first time I read LotR and I've devoted a fair amount of my research to it, such that I can't see it the same way as someone who's new to the books.

[AstralFire]

I did like the depth and detail that was put into it - the animated Hobbit movie had me determined to read the books because of that. I am a world builder myself, I love finding out about the world. But there's no better way to put it than that his writing style is extremely dry. I lose track of the actual characters and any sense of immersion in the story, any sense of the emotion.

If I want to read a history, it should be something designed to be read as a history text, an encyclopedia, or a campaign setting. If I want to read a story, it needs to be constructed as a story. I feel like Tolkien's writing style matches the former, but without the benefits of having headings and such organization like I would get if I actually cracked open a textbook.

[Zevox]

Sine I saw the first movie before reading the books - it was what motivated me to read the books - most of the movie portrayals actually probably informed my imagining of the book characters. Though I did see Gimli as much less of a comic relief character than he was in the second and third movies, since he didn't really have much, if any, of that in the first, and of course it wasn't in the books.

That said, I was annoyed by the shift in the portrayal of Theoden to being "possessed" by Saruman rather than just manipulated by Wormtongue, and the consequent weird highly-aged appearance he had at first.

For other characters, the differences tend to be more subtle. I imagined Eowyn would be more... graceful, I suppose. There was just something about her appearance, at least up until she disguised herself as a soldier, that seemed off to me.

I had also never imagined Eomer as a blond, or with hair quite that long.

The Army of the Dead I had imagined as more traditional white or gray ghosts, not the green ones the movie gave us. And of course I was annoyed at their being used as an instant win ticket at the Battle of Minas Tirith.

Faramir I had imagined as less... scruffy, I guess, and more noble-looking. Clean-shaven, shorter hair. And yeah, did not see the point of having him take Frodo hostage and all that.

Oh, and on a much-less-subtle-difference: Sauron as a friggin searchlight. Just... why? Ow. So stupid.

Zevox

[Dacia Brabant]

I did like the depth and detail that was put into it - the animated Hobbit movie had me determined to read the books because of that. I am a world builder myself, I love finding out about the world. But there's no better way to put it than that his writing style is extremely dry. I lose track of the actual characters and any sense of immersion in the story, any sense of the emotion.

If I want to read a history, it should be something designed to be read as a history text, an encyclopedia, or a campaign setting. If I want to read a story, it needs to be constructed as a story. I feel like Tolkien's writing style matches the former, but without the benefits of having headings and such organization like I would get if I actually cracked open a textbook.

I understand. But this is where my problem of having read most of his published notes comes up: I look at a volume of his History of Middle-earth such as Morgoth's Ring and say yes, this is a textbook and it's pretty dry--though interesting, that is if one wants to learn about elven vs. human beliefs on the nature of the soul and the problem of evil--while LotR reads like The Count of Monte Cristo by comparison.

I don't know, there's just a lot of memorable scenes to me like the trek through Moria or the march of the ents, and I find there's natural progressions from one story element to the next--at least until they split the party anyway. I'll freely admit that there are large sections of Frodo and Sam's journey to Mordor where nothing exciting happens, which is of course what one gets for subverting the monomyth by having the real heroes be a 3-foot-tall gentryman and his gardener.

But as always YMMV.

[valadil]

Haven't read the books in at least 10 years. Took me a while to even remember how I pictured the characters.

In my mind Legolas had dark hair. I know that's probably not canon, but it's the image I conjured up. Weaker jawline too. I don't really like the blond elves all that much.

Hobbitses were fatter. I think this is pretty much agreed upon.

Orcs and nazgul were both a lot more badass.

Ents had stronger trunks. Not quite sure what I mean by that. The movie ones were branchy and bent. I pictured something more like redwoods with faces.

Trolls were harsher looking and less round.

As inaccurate as the movies were, some scenes were perfect. The three way fork in the mines of Moria was exactly as I pictured it. Gave me goosebumps just seeing it.

[SurlySeraph]

I imagined Gimli as significantly more awesome and angry, Aragorn as heavily scarred, Eomer as a typical European knight, Ents as grey-skinned giants rather than actual trees, the mumakil as normal elephants, orcs as green, the armies of Mordor as much more diverse (rather than ORCS ORCS ORCS Haradrim ORCS ORCS), Isengard as waaaay smaller, and Legolas as much more quiet and introspective. Otherwise, it was pretty much how I imagined.

[JonestheSpy]

Faramir is one of the only (maybe the only) 'base' human (read non blood-numorean) to freely 'do the right thing' regarding the ring when given the choice. Moreover, he did this when his brother, seen by others to be the better man, did not. He is not pressured in any way, does not require further, concrete proof, he just does what is right and let Frodo go with what aid he can render. And Faramir does it knowing what the likely fallout will be at home. I always loved Faramir for that. That kind of bravery and heart is what made an essentially minor character my favorite one. To change his character as they did in the movie just serves as more evidence of 'all humans are corrupt' message spouted by the elves, etc throughout the movie. Anyway I'll stop now...:smallsmile:


I hate to tell you this, but Faramir and the other's of his family are Numenorean-descended as well, as are most Gondorians. The bloodline is a little mixed whereas as Aragorn isn't (Tolkien does get into some uncomfortable territory with the who "pure bloodlines" thing, at least from a modern perspective).

Otherwise, I agree with most of what folks have been saying. I thought Merry and Pippin should have been easier to tell apart - I always thought of Pippin with black hair and Merry as a blonde.

[Eloi]

I actually seen everyone as a lot younger. And I was expecting furrier halfling hobbit feet. And I didn't imagine the Eye of Sauron as a gigantic flaming vag- uely defined thing with a slit in the center. But everything else lined up to my imagination perfectly.

[Zevox]

I actually seen everyone as a lot younger.
If anything, Aragorn in particular probably looked younger than he should have. He was 98 at the time. Of course, he shouldn't have looked that old, given his ultimate lifespan was 220 years, but he still didn't look like he was almost halfway through his natural lifespan.

Zevox

[factotum]

Second, by changing Faramir's character and what he does in Ithilin, the movie made all humans corrupt and in need of saving (read by elves or wizards or hobbits) rather than a spectrum of beings from truly evil to truly good.


I watched the DVD commentary about that scene, where one of the writers said something like, "Hold on, we've been building this Ring up as a massive threat to anyone who touches it, and now we've got this guy who says if he found it by the road he'd leave it there? Can't have that!". Which to me simply means they totally misunderstood the basic nature of the Ring. Yes, if you possessed it and used it, it would eventually corrupt even the most stout heart, which is why Gandalf and Galadriel both refused it; however, in the books it did not corrupt at a single touch (Gandalf actually picked it up after taking it out of the fire in Frodo's house) or glance unless the person in question was particularly weak to its blandishments, like Smeagol and Boromir were.

Hence what amounts to Faramir's character assassination. Mind you, that bit still wasn't as bad as the ghosts attacking Minas Tirith. And let's not mention the passing of the Argonath and Boromir's death scene, both rendered in the book with extremely powerful, tight paragraphs, both messed up in the film...

[Eldan]

Hmm. Things which different from my perception...
Sadly, I've seen the movies two or three times now, and it's been a while since I read the books, so I can't even really remember anymore what I imagined the main characters as looking like.

Aragorn looked much more like a bandit in my mind. Dirty, grubby, untrustworthy. I mean, movie Aragorn didn't look too bad, but he became a "nice guy" too fast. In the book, I was genuinely surprised when it turned out he was the king.

The army of the dead: I can't remember what they were actually described as in the book, but in my mind, they didn't show up as undead. They were a cursed mountain people who lived in the mist, but not actually dead, just called such. Sneaky, cursed, backstabbing and evil, but not ghosts.

Ents really need more mass. Agreed.

Theoden being so obviously cursed also annoyed me.

And was Sauron actually described as wading over the battlefield with a mace? I really doubt that. For me "the power of the ring was too great" doesn't' mean "and then he got super strength". It means that he crafted such large armies with it that they couldn't be defeated.

Then, the dwarves. Before Lord of the Rings, I read and heard mostly of fairy tale or norse/germanic dwarves. Sneaky artificer-types, leaving in deep and secret caves, adapt at crafting and magic, not warriors. To me (especially since I hadn't read the hobbit when I read LotR), Gimli was an exception. He was a true warrior amongst a people of craftsmen. I know that since then, Gimli basically became the number one dwarf in everyone's mind, but is it really necessary that every dwarf is stout, muscular, bearded, a drinker and axe-fighter? I mean, why axes in a mine? Why not pick-axes or hammers?

[ninjalemur]

And was Sauron actually described as wading over the battlefield with a mace? I really doubt that. For me "the power of the ring was too great" doesn't' mean "and then he got super strength". It means that he crafted such large armies with it that they couldn't be defeated.

If I recall correctly, wasn't Sauron essentially a fallen angel? I would think he would be more then a match for a few elves.

[Eldan]

Not necessarily. In the Silmarilion, his main strengths were described as his silver tongue, his shapeshifting power and his craftsmanship. I think he got his ass handed to him in the few fights I can remember.
And, well, those weren't just any elves. Those were Gil-galad and the human kings. Per the Tolkien equation of Royal blood = Prophecy = ass-kicking, they were very hard to beat. And the Numenorians had taken him prisoner before.

[Axolotl]

The only one who really differed was Faramir other than that the films were very much in line with how I imagined the charcters and the story as a whole.

As for Gimli being comic relief, I honesty never noticed that.

[Eloi]

Wow, you guys are taking Sauron being turned into a flaming yonic symbol pretty well. I mean, why doesn't it just look like an eye? There is no way the current design wasn't intentional.

[SmartAlec]

I watched the DVD commentary about that scene, where one of the writers said something like, "Hold on, we've been building this Ring up as a massive threat to anyone who touches it, and now we've got this guy who says if he found it by the road he'd leave it there? Can't have that!". Which to me simply means they totally misunderstood the basic nature of the Ring. Yes, if you possessed it and used it, it would eventually corrupt even the most stout heart, which is why Gandalf and Galadriel both refused it; however, in the books it did not corrupt at a single touch (Gandalf actually picked it up after taking it out of the fire in Frodo's house) or glance unless the person in question was particularly weak to its blandishments, like Smeagol and Boromir were.

Looking at the movie, I wonder if they didn't actually get it more right than you might think. If Faramir's got one desire, it's that Gondor be saved, and that's certainly what the Ring plays on - just as it plays on Gandalf's wanting to complete his mission, Galadriel's wants to preserve the Elves and Smeagol's plain old greed. In the books, all three of those characters felt the the tug. And it doesn't corrupt Movie Faramir straight away - The Ring is well within in his grasp, but he continues to maintain that 'The Ring will go to Gondor', even intending to send it away to Denethor.


The army of the dead: I can't remember what they were actually described as in the book, but in my mind, they didn't show up as undead.

And was Sauron actually described as wading over the battlefield with a mace? I really doubt that. For me "the power of the ring was too great" doesn't' mean "and then he got super strength". It means that he crafted such large armies with it that they couldn't be defeated.

Then, the dwarves... I mean, why axes in a mine? Why not pick-axes or hammers?

The Army of the Dead were indeed ghosts. In the book, they're described as not even striking physical blows - they simply terrify the Corsairs into flight.

As for Sauron, I remember reading that they mixed a bit of Morgoth into the character. The prologue and the many scenes with the giant flaming eye were part of their attempts to establish Sauron as a villain - the never-seen threat/ that he is in the books doesn't translate well into movies.

On the case of Dwarves, I think I remember reading that axes were favoured as weapons when walking about Middle-Earth precisely because they're useful as tools as well as weapons. A hammer or pickaxe is certainly better if you're intending to travel underground (and Dain's 200 in the Hobbit did use giant hammers), but if you're above ground, an axe can cut firewood.

[Innis Cabal]

Wow, you guys are taking Sauron being turned into a flaming yonic symbol pretty well. I mean, why doesn't it just look like an eye? There is no way the current design wasn't intentional.

The eye is not a yonic symbol for startes. Nor was it intended for that purpose. There is an old illustration of Sauron looking like the Eye, and its what the people from the movie went with. Its an iconic image of Sauron.

[Eloi]

As for Sauron, I remember reading that they mixed a bit of Morgoth into the character. The prologue and the many scenes with the giant flaming eye yonic symbol were part of their attempts to establish Sauron as a villain - the never-seen threat/ that he is in the books doesn't translate well into movies.
Fix'd.

But anyway, I agree, we were robbed of the rather tense atmosphere prevalent in the book due to the mystery of what or who the main antagonist was and the limit of their power.


The eye is not a yonic symbol for startes. Nor was it intended for that purpose. There is an old illustration of Sauron looking like the Eye, and its what the people from the movie went with. Its an iconic image of Sauron.
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb21710/common/skins/common/blank.gif
Looks pretty Yonic to me, but I digress.

[Spiryt]

If we're already talking about such things, movie was just too damn literal - giant flaming eye, looking for something like big damn prison reflector for one. :smalleek:

But those are the rules of the X muse, I guess.

[Eloi]

If we're already talking about such things, movie was just too damn literal - giant flaming eye, looking for something like big damn prison reflector for one. :smalleek:

But those are the rules of the X muse, I guess.

Y'see, thats why you have to imply symbolism. Its kind of hard to think what else a dull red pulsating semi-sphere with a slit subtly stretching to stimuli would be. So even the symbolism-that-isn't-intended is too literal.
However his spiky armor looked awesome. It had soooo many spikes of evil it wasn't funny.

[Drascin]

Well, I read the books first when I was about nine or ten years old. I have to admit my first image of Bilbo was pretty much Yoda but non-green :smallredface:. Took me a couple years and many re-readings to get it into my head that hobbits actually looked simply human. But even then, other than Sam most of the hobbits in the movie were pretty different to how I had imagined them.

Aragorn also looked a lot less rugged and dangerous-looking than I'd pictured him. Frodo himself was on record saying that Aragorn looked like a ruffian, who was I to argue? :smalltongue:

And of course, the whole changing Theoden and Faramir thing had me calling bull**** to myself for the whole second movie.

[Eloi]

Aragorn also looked a lot less rugged and dangerous-looking than I'd pictured him. Frodo himself was on record saying that Aragorn looked like a ruffian, who was I to argue?
Frodo is a hobbit, he probably finds any world-travelling non-Hobbit mysterious or rough looking.

[jlvm4]

I hate to tell you this, but Faramir and the other's of his family are Numenorean-descended as well, as are most Gondorians. The bloodline is a little mixed whereas as Aragorn isn't (Tolkien does get into some uncomfortable territory with the who "pure bloodlines" thing, at least from a modern perspective).


I knew that, in fact, your comment about Tolkien and "pure bloodlines" was what I meant when I said blood-numenorean (though I guess it came out a little confusing). So even Faramir had numorean blood, it was 'tainted' and therefore considered base by default. So when he continues to make the right choices, it is still a non-numorean doing it.

[Zevox]

Wow, you guys are taking Sauron being turned into a flaming yonic symbol pretty well. I mean, why doesn't it just look like an eye? There is no way the current design wasn't intentional.
No, it was in no a yonic symbol. It was a pretty accurate portrayal of how Tolkien described it (at least up until they stuck it on top of Barad-Dur like a friggin searchlight...). The eye is slit so as to resemble a cat's - or the popular portrayal of a dragon's - to make it more inhuman and strange. Here's how Tolkien described it in "The Mirror of Galadriel" chapter of The Fellowship of the Ring:


The Eye was rimmed with fire, but was itself glazed, yellow as a cat's, watchful and intent, and the black slit of its pupil opened on a pit, a window into nothing.
The movie focused more on the firey part of the description and mostly ignored the yellow glaze, but the black slit of the pupil is completely a part of the original, and is supposed to invoke the cat imagery just as the yellow color did.

Zevox

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Ok, I'm reading this and thinking you need to re-read the books because much of what folks seem to have a problem with WAS in the books.

[Eldan]

True. Any guy twice your size looks threatening, I'd guess.

[Eloi]

No, it was in no a yonic symbol. It was a pretty accurate portrayal of how Tolkien described it (at least up until they stuck it on top of Barad-Dur like a friggin searchlight...). The eye is slit so as to resemble a cat's - or the popular portrayal of a dragon's - to make it more inhuman and strange. Here's how Tolkien described it in "The Mirror of Galadriel" chapter of The Fellowship of the Ring:


The movie focused more on the firey part of the description and mostly ignored the yellow glaze, but the black slit of the pupil is completely a part of the original, and is supposed to invoke the cat imagery just as the yellow color did.

Zevox

I suppose you have some convincing arguments, I say its yonic, you say it a cat eye, so lets compromise:
Its representative of a puddy-cat's eye.
How about that?

[Innis Cabal]

There's no need to compromise. An eye be it cat, bat, rat, or human is not a yonic symbol. Its not even a misattributation. For someone who is arguing against the character because its not at all a sublte icon inserted into the movie, your mangaling what imagery and iconography is actually infused in the Eye.

Not only that, but its in the book. Its been in illustrations of the book for a great deal of time. Did they focus one part and not the rest? Absolutly. But it looks good up there on that silver screen, and thats what your shelling 10 bucks out for. The masses are not looking for some hidden message inserted into an enigma wedged inside of a puzzle. They're looking for entertainment. A massive eye of flame and misfortune gives them that. So thats what the director and everyone one down is going to work with.

Does it mangle the whole mythos that good Mr. J.R was working towards? Maybe, but mythos dosn't sell tickets nine out of ten times. And a director isn't going to feed himself on the reviews of two art mags while someone else just made a bill on Toy Story 4: Are You Bored Yet? and is eating lobster like they're going out of style.

[Eloi]

There's no need to compromise. An eye be it cat, bat, rat, or human is not a yonic symbol. Its not even a misattributation.
I was joking, I'm sure they didn't even remotely mean to make it look like that, but it looks like that to me.

For someone who is arguing against the character because its not at all a sublte icon inserted into the movie, your mangaling what imagery and iconography is actually infused in the Eye.
Me? The whole "Sauron is a Yonic symbol" (put in a more NSFW <or this forum's censon> way) is a common observation online.

[Dienekes]

Then, the dwarves. Before Lord of the Rings, I read and heard mostly of fairy tale or norse/germanic dwarves. Sneaky artificer-types, leaving in deep and secret caves, adapt at crafting and magic, not warriors. To me (especially since I hadn't read the hobbit when I read LotR), Gimli was an exception. He was a true warrior amongst a people of craftsmen. I know that since then, Gimli basically became the number one dwarf in everyone's mind, but is it really necessary that every dwarf is stout, muscular, bearded, a drinker and axe-fighter? I mean, why axes in a mine? Why not pick-axes or hammers?

Sil describes (if memory serves), that the original dwarven warriors did use pick-axes and that over time they switched to more efficient weapons of war axes. However, even with this description there are more dwarves shown using swords than any other weapon. Also they're the craftsman that made the best of blades, Narsil and Angrist. He also describes them as being great warriors, however, I think he describes every race as being great warriors so it's hard to put much stock into just how warlike they were.

As to the yonic symbol, I never once thought of that during the many times I've watched the movies. And now I fear whenever I see it I'll think of it, thanks for that.

As to characters, when I read I only have sketchy thoughts of what said characters are supposed to look like. So Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli for all intents and purposes could be how I see them, they sure didn't contradict any thoughts I had on them. In personality, they changed Aragorn and Gimli a bit, both changes I'm ok with. Gimli's comic relief helped relax some tension in the movies and he was still made to be a badass warrior. Not as badass as 00Legolas which I think was a misstep on Jackson's side. I still don't understand why he added elves to Helm's Deep, he must really love the elves. Giving Aragorn tension in reclaiming the throne I'm not sure was a good choice or not, but it worked.

Of the Hobbits, of course I pictured Merry, Pippin, and Sam to be fatter and maybe for Merry and Pippin to get lean by the end. Sam will always be fat to me. As for personality, was Frodo really such a git to Sam in the books?

For the minor characters, the Balrog is not at all how I pictured it. It is however, way cooler. I like that they gave more scenes to Arwen, I remember the first time I read the book that when Aragorn finally wed her at the end my first thought was "who is this now?" Grima was always a little old white bearded man for me. I honestly did not picture Easterlings nor Haradrim as they are presented but both looked interesting. Other than that, I pretty much agree with above posters on character depictions.

Also, I'm one of the few who actually was hoping to see the Scouring of the Shire at the end of the third. Though I will admit it being dropped was probably better for streamlining the film especially when one of the largest complaints I hear is that it had too many endings already.

[jlvm4]

I still don't understand why he added elves to Helm's Deep, he must really love the elves.

I think it had to do with a conscious choice by Jackson to make humans need to be 'saved' by an outside force because they were all 'corrupt'.

In the book, the Rohirrum go to Helm's Deep because it can be defended by few, which is what they have. Theoden's recovery was too close to the final battle to do anything else and more importantly, the Riders of Rohan knew what the likely outcome could be and chose to try, even if they would pay with their lives. That effort at redemption (not the right word, but the best I can do), like the fight for Minas Tirith, shows the worth of humanity as a race, that they could be equal partners in the war against sauron. They couldn't destroy the ring, but they could resist.

Jackson, I believe, fell in love with the stereotypical idea of the elves: aloof, superior, etc. And he changed the plot in several places with that in mind. Legolas is suddenly super-fighter, the elves (rather than humans) come to the rescue at helm's deep, no human can encounter the ring without being corrupted by it (while elves like Elrond and Galadrial can turn it down). To be superior to humans, the elves have to succeed where plain old human's can't.

[SmartAlec]

I think it had to do with a conscious choice by Jackson to make humans need to be 'saved' by an outside force because they were all 'corrupt'.

The draft of the movies that went to film had Arwen arrive at Helm's Deep, with a force of Elves and Anduril. A later draft kept her at Rivendell, but much of the Battle of Helm's Deep had already been filmed by then. Shooting extra scenes with Haldir was a way of salvaging as much battle footage as possible.

This is also why the Arwen scenes in Rivendell are a little strange, and why although they're led by Haldir, the elves don't look like they're from Lorien.

[WalkingTarget]

Skipping the eye-symbolism discussion...

Gimli looked about right and when he's being gruff it's spot on. The comic relief was unfortunate, though, for the reasons others have said. Note that in The Hobbit Dwarves used mattocks or swords, but Gimli's battle cry included specifically "Axes of the Dwarves", so make of that what you will in regards to weaponry.

Aragorn had the right attitude, for the most part (they moved his character arc - his self-doubt about being king, the romance with Arwen, and whatnot - from the appendices into the time of the main plot). Physically, though, Mortensen wasn't tall enough, in my opinion. "Strider" is named such for moving about quickly on his "long shanks" and is supposed to be about 6'6" (the Numenoreans were tall) where Viggo is only about 5'11" (according to IMDB).

Hobbit feet should be furrier. The hair on the tops of their feet was supposed to be like that on their heads. That and their thick soles is why they go without shoes. I can forgive them supposing to be a bit fatter before the journey since it's hard to get details like weight-loss right during production (especially when scenes are filmed out of order). I also note that of the 4 main hobbits, Pippin (the youngest) was played by the oldest actor and Frodo (the oldest) was played by the youngest. That's also partly due to the contraction of the timeline (Frodo's 33 at the beginning and 50 when they leave Hobbiton in the book, he's an unspecified age at the beginning of the film and there's not nearly that much time before they set out). I like the update on Frodo and Sam's friendship in the film from gentleman/servant (and eventually officer/batman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_%28military%29)) to simply friends, but I did note it. Merry and Pippin got some of the same "comic relief" treatment that Gimli got, but more for bumbling/pranks than for simply being short and hairy.

Elves are tricky. For one thing, they looked inhuman in the wrong way. Tolkien's elves are essentially "perfect" humans (i.e. without disease or infirmity of age) and the great human heroes from past ages could be mistaken for elves occasionally (or, at least I think I remember that happening to Turin at least once). Giving elves distinct, exaggerated points on their ears kind of throws that off, but people expect "elves" to have them. The elves should be inhuman in that, well, they're "perfect" (no blemishes, age lines, etc) which that's a tough quality to put into a casting call, and in that they exude a sense of being ancient without looking it (something in the eyes, apparently). I like how they handled that with Galadriel, though (any time you can see her eyes close enough to tell they'd set up a lot of Christmas lights on a frame so that she has a lot of reflections, like stars, instead of the one light you see for everybody else). Elves were also dark haired in the majority and typically grey-eyed (as opposed to blond-blue that the movies show).

I agree with others on the subjects of Faramir and Denethor. I'll note, though, that I liked the portrayal of Boromir and Faramir as brothers (enough "family resemblance" to be believable, even if they're not really supposed to look that similar - but especially I like how they laugh the same way in the flashback scene in Osgiliath, that was a nice touch).

I agree that the "possessed by Saruman" version of Theoden was unnecessary. I also posit that Bernard Hill was too young. Theoden was in his 70s, Hill was only in his mid 50s. I think that Richard Harris would have been awesome for the part, except for the whole thing where being that old makes it so he probably wouldn't have been able to physically do things the role required. That being said, I liked Hill's portrayal when taking the films on their own merit.

Eowyn was... not martial enough. She was too obviously terrified during her fight with the Witch-king. A problem with direction more than the actress, though.

Eomer was pretty much exactly how I imagined him, as was Grima (but I like Brad Dourif in just about anything).

Ian McKellen was good as Gandalf. When I heard that Christopher Lee was playing Saruman, though, my first thought was "That's perfect". That role needs somebody with a good voice and I can't imagine anybody playing him better (though I had some quibbles with his characterization, but nothing major - again, fault the director not the actor). The kung-fu wizard scene was unnecessary, though and I miss the Scouring of the Shire.

Ents were too tree-like, not enough like giants with tree-ish tendencies. I liked them anyway, though. I was annoyed that the ents didn't decide to go to war on their own, but that gave M&P something to do other than be baggage for a whole movie.

The Mumakil were too big. They're supposed to be bigger than modern elephants, but come on.

Then there's Gollum. The biggest thing I missed in the second and third films were his luminous/reflective eyes. I see why they dropped that feature in exchange for having his eyes be more "normal" in order to allow the audience to relate to him better (though they then ran the risk of making him too sympathetic). It's another area that I like well enough when just considering the films, but notice as distinct from the book. I like Smeagol in the movies, I pity him, at best, in the book.

[Eldan]

I think it had to do with a conscious choice by Jackson to make humans need to be 'saved' by an outside force because they were all 'corrupt'.


There's also tendencies of that in the book, I'd think: the Ents and their army of trees swallowing parts of the orcish army, Gandalf drumming up support... both are not human.

As on the Oliphants: completely agreed. In my mind, they were pretty much normal elephants, not much taller, and then exaggerated in the re-telling. Remember: the book is supposed to be on Frodo's passed down and translated notes and diaries, so I'd expect some legend-like qualities.

And I must say: I liked the hobbits, with the exception of Frodo himself. But that, I guess, is more how he was played and written than how he looked. I just think he was, in parts, too mean or too whiny.

[Reverent-One]

the elves (rather than humans) come to the rescue at helm's deep,

Really...? I thought it was Gandalf and the rest of the Rohirrim that saved the day at Helm's Deep in the movies. The elves helped, certainly, but in the end their help still would have been for nothing if the humans couldn't finish the job.


no human can encounter the ring without being corrupted by it (while elves like Elrond and Galadrial can turn it down).

Except for Aragorn and Faramir. Yes, Faramir, even if it took him a bit longer, he still never tried to claim the ring himself and let Frodo go.

[hamishspence]

in the book, it suggests that Denethor and Faramir (but not Boromir) are the most "Numenorean" of the Gondoreans.

"He is not as other men of his time, Pippin, and whatever be his descent from father to son, by some chance the blood of Westernesse runs nearly true in him; as it does in his other son Faramir, and yet did not in Boromir whom he loved best. He has long sight. He can perceive, if he bends his will thither, much of what is passing in the minds of men, even of those that dwell far off. It is difficult to deceive him, and dnagerous to try."

My guess is that Tolkien's view was that "Numenorean blood" meant extra powers- but not necessarily improved morality- remember that the Numenorean kings were corrupt before Sauron came to them and made them worse.

[Haarkla]

Huh, that's kind of an odd expectation from my perspective at least, considering Gondor generally seems to be modeled on the Franks.
Initially, I over estimated the size of the main map, and thought of Gondor as an exotic land similar to Turkey or Persia. I quickly learnt better, but still think of Gondor as a Mediterranean country, and its inhabitants as dark haired and olive-skinned. I think their are more similarities between Gondor and Rome, than the Franks.



Astralfire:
I still saw Gimli as a total badass, just a funny one.
I agree.

[JonestheSpy]

The draft of the movies that went to film had Arwen arrive at Helm's Deep, with a force of Elves and Anduril. A later draft kept her at Rivendell, but much of the Battle of Helm's Deep had already been filmed by then. Shooting extra scenes with Haldir was a way of salvaging as much battle footage as possible.


I also got the impression from various sources that Jackson wanted the elves at Helm's Deep so that the uninitiated audience could see them doing something tangible. In the books we know they actually do quite a lot off-stage, but if all you knew were the movies it would be easy to complain "If they're so great, why don't they get off their asses and fight some?"

I thought it was one of the changes Jackson made that worked fine - possibly the last big alteration he made that wasn't a total screw-up (aside from not including 'Scouring of the Shire', which would have taken at least another hour of screen time to to justice to).

[SmartAlec]

I think their are more similarities between Gondor and Rome, than the Franks.

Byzantine Empire, perhaps?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Byzantine Empire, perhaps?

Last vestige of a once great empire... The semi-autonomous provinces seem to be a bit like the themes... Might work.

[druid91]

It saddens me that they skipped my favorite part of fellowship of the ring, the shortcut through the old forest, and cut out Tom Bombadil. Who I imagine would have been played by that guy who played luke skywalker.

Otherwise the characters they presented fit pretty well with my imaginings.

[Dacia Brabant]

Initially, I over estimated the size of the main map, and thought of Gondor as an exotic land similar to Turkey or Persia. I quickly learnt better, but still think of Gondor as a Mediterranean country, and its inhabitants as dark haired and olive-skinned. I think their are more similarities between Gondor and Rome, than the Franks.

I have kind of a long answer for this so I'm going to spoiler it in case not everyone wants to slog through several paragraphs of Early Middle Ages stuff. tl;dr answer: might want to look up "swarthy" and Tolkien's usage of it.


I certainly could be wrong about this but from everything I know of Professor Tolkien I find it unlikely that Gondor would have been his Rome. He wrote that while he respected the Mediterranean traditions and mythic sources, he also felt they are greatly overemphasized in Western culture and literature and he wished for his myth-making project to emphasize the Anglo-Saxon, Norse, Germanic and Celtic myths as points of contrast to the Greco-Roman.

I actually think it more likely that Mordor is his Rome, the great conquering power who enslaved and used as fodder many different sorts of "lesser men" (his words, not mine) in its invasions of Britannia and Germania. Mordor conscripted the men of Harad and Umbar, the Easterlings, the Variags of Khand, etc. into fighting its wars, much like Rome did with, well basically everyone from Hispania and Italia to Egypt to Armenia. Even though this analysis isn't charitable to Tolkien's views on race, at least he did pity them for being forced into fighting for a brutal empire, though his sympathies certainly were with Northern Europeans--which is to say, with Gondor, Rohan and the Shirefolk.

But this doesn't get at why I think Gondor is more likely his Francia and not, for instance, Byzantium like was mentioned above. The Franks are credited with turning back the Umayyad, another invasion from the Mediterranean into the heart of Europe, and with restarting much of the civilization that existed in Roman Gaul. Being a Teutonic people they also were distant cousins of the Danes, who surely have to be taken for Rohan, and the Danes had linguistic and cultural ties to the Angles and Saxons much like Rohan discovered it had with the (English) Shirefolk. While Byzantium did its part as well as a bulwark protecting the hinterland from invasion, I just don't think Tolkien would have turned to them as his inspiration for this when he had something within his own Western Roman Catholic tradition to look to from the time period he was most interested in.

I know this is all circumstantial, I can't point to one specific thing that says Gondorians are Franks and the Battle of the Pelennor is the Battle of Tours or anything like that, but then Tolkien hated analogizing anyway. It's just my gut feeling based on where his sympathies were and that Carolingian France was the big game in town at that place and time.

(There is the issue of Numenor, Gondor's parent country, being inspired by Atlantis but that really is a whole other set of mythological pieces that don't quite fit this puzzle. Although I have known at least one scholar who argued that the Atlanteans were ancestors of the Norse, which would fit with Tolkien's myth--but I'm not going to make that argument.)

[ThePhantasm]

I didn't imagine Aragorn like Viggo Mortensen at all, and still don't, really. The raspy, whispery voice in the films didn't seem Aragorn-esque to me.

I didn't imagine Gondor as such a... depressed place. Minas Tirith was full of constantly depressed, sad people in the film. That wasn't the feel I got from the characters in the books, or even from Boromir's proud speech in the first film.

I didn't imagine Theoden as the way he was depicted in the film, but now I can't get that out of my head.

Ian McKellen IS Gandalf.

Cate Blanchett IS Galadriel.

Hugo Weaving IS Elrond.

Sean Astin IS Samwise.

Sean Bean IS Boromir.

Most of the rest of the casting was alright too. Oh, and Wormtongue was perfect in the films... really the films are pretty good, except for the ridiculous dead people swarming over elephants scene in ROTK, and Legolas' action hero take-down of a Mumakil.

[Eerie]

By far, the biggest blunder of the movie is Frodo. Frodo in the book is an adult person. FFS, he is 50 years old!

And I`m not even talking about the fact that Elijah Wood is a bad actor. Dominic Monaghan would be a better pick to play Frodo.

[hamishspence]

Remember that 35 is "coming of age" in hobbit terms though (equivalent of an 18 year old?) so 50 might not be all that old. More like a 20something human.

And Frodo was 35 as of Bilbo's party- so he should look young then.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

Being a Teutonic people they also were distant cousins of the Danes, who surely have to be taken for Rohan, and the Danes had linguistic and cultural ties to the Angles and Saxons much like Rohan discovered it had with the (English) Shirefolk.


I agree with most of what you said, apart from this minor point: I think it's been established that the Rohirrim are intended as Anglo-Saxons who retained their ability to fight on horseback, to the extent that Tolkein gives them all Anglo-Saxon names (Theoden, Theodred, Eomer, etc). Of course, that's only a minor point because the Danes and the Anglo-Saxons were peoples with very close ties, both in terms of descent and in terms of fighting against and integrating with each other (don't forget that England had four Danish kings due to Viking invasions, and that it is only through fighting the Vikings that England came into being as one nation-state at all).

[ThunderCat]

Faramir is one of the only (maybe the only) 'base' human (read non blood-numorean) to freely 'do the right thing' regarding the ring when given the choice. Moreover, he did this when his brother, seen by others to be the better man, did not. He is not pressured in any way, does not require further, concrete proof, he just does what is right and let Frodo go with what aid he can render. And Faramir does it knowing what the likely fallout will be at home. I always loved Faramir for that. That kind of bravery and heart is what made an essentially minor character my favorite one. To change his character as they did in the movie just serves as more evidence of 'all humans are corrupt' message spouted by the elves, etc throughout the movie.That's funny, I thought he came across as a very strong character. I don't see his decision to bring the ring to Gondor as an act of corruption, I see it as an act of loyalty to his father and his country that he would have performed without anything influencing him. It seems to me that no matter what, if he came across a weapon that could save Gondor, he would take it, and if the morality of the taking was in question, he would let his father decide, because he's still struggling with the feeling of not being good enough.

And he shows an incredible strength of character by going against not only the law and his family, but also his own beliefs, to do the right thing. And he does it while the ring is tugging at him to keep going. Every other character who resisted (except Bilbo, and he gave in eventually) have done so knowing what the ring was trying to do, and have only managed to stick to what they originally intended to do. Faramir is the only one who's actually changed his previous course of action in the opposite direction of what the ring wanted him to do. That's something no elf in the story ever does.


Aragorn also looked a lot less rugged and dangerous-looking than I'd pictured him. Frodo himself was on record saying that Aragorn looked like a ruffian, who was I to argue? :smalltongue:

By far, the biggest blunder of the movie is Frodo. Frodo in the book is an adult person. FFS, he is 50 years old!I think the issue with both these choices is that the way they're described in the books doesn't work very well visually. The books call for them to be pretty ordinary and/or not very attractive, which is fine for a book where we're mostly learning about them through words, but it's just not commercially sound to portray them visually like that.

Frodo is supposed to seem innocent and vulnerable, the story's woobie, and casting a middle aged and none too cute man for the part would have made that portrayal harder. In the same way, Aragorn is supposed to be a noble hero people can admire, who'll attract the segment of the female viewers who aren't into Legolas, and making him ruggedly handsome is a good middle way.

[Eloi]

I think the issue with both these choices is that the way they're described in the books doesn't work very well visually. The books call for them to be pretty ordinary and/or not very attractive, which is fine for a book where we're mostly learning about them through words, but it's just not commercially sound to portray them visually like that.

Frodo is supposed to seem innocent and vulnerable, the story's woobie, and casting a middle aged and none too cute man for the part would have made that portrayal harder. In the same way, Aragorn is supposed to be a noble hero people can admire, who'll attract the segment of the female viewers who aren't into Legolas, and making him ruggedly handsome is a good middle way.

Exactly, as bad as it sounds, I doubt the majority of the public could sit through a 9 hour movie with the main protagonists being ugly.

[Eldan]

I can very much confirm that. My mother said she only kept watching the movie because of Viggo Mortensen. Which is strange, because she was the one who gave me the books when I was little, and she loved them.

[Dacia Brabant]

I agree with most of what you said, apart from this minor point: I think it's been established that the Rohirrim are intended as Anglo-Saxons who retained their ability to fight on horseback, to the extent that Tolkein gives them all Anglo-Saxon names (Theoden, Theodred, Eomer, etc). Of course, that's only a minor point because the Danes and the Anglo-Saxons were peoples with very close ties, both in terms of descent and in terms of fighting against and integrating with each other.

It may have been a minor point but it's a good one. You made me rethink one of my assumptions about the Rohirrim that they couldn't be Anglo-Saxons since they were a cavalry army and I seem to remember reading that the Viking Danes before they took to the sea were expert horsemen (wish I could find the citation), while Anglo-Saxons were mostly infantry. Also the Eastfold and Westfold of Rohan are locations in Norway.

But the language and naming conventions definitely are more along the lines of the Kingdom of Wessex, and those were very important to Tolkien so I'll agree with your point.


(don't forget that England had four Danish kings due to Viking invasions, and that it is only through fighting the Vikings that England came into being as one nation-state at all)

Oh I could never forget that. Those are my ancestors. :smallsmile:

[Dragero]

Well, I imagined Tom Bombadil to be....

Oh wait
:smallfrown:

[Ravens_cry]

As important as Tom is to the LoTR universe, I think his inclusion in the movies would have just slowed everything down considerably.
I guess my biggest gripe was Gimli's relegation to comic relief status.
Other then that as far as characters are concerned? Not bad, not bad at all, though Elrond was bit Agent Smith at times.
I admit, though the movie is more then laughable, Tom Hurt's voice acting in the old rotoscoped milking-the-giant-cow, 'animated' Lord of the Rings really influenced my perception, rough, yet noble, austere, but epic.

[Deca]

Well, I imagined Tom Bombadil to be....

Oh wait
:smallfrown:

Well to be fair, imagine the reaction of someone who had never read the book if the movie had had Tom Bombadil in it. It would seem a bit silly and would devalue the seriousness of the main plot.

[druid91]

I think Toms ridiculousness could have been offset if they did it right, I mean that whole part of their journey was slightly off, I mean they were nearly eaten by a tree. I think that with the terrifying things that they were facing Toms singing and general oddness would have been acceptable.

[factotum]

The only bit I regret about the loss of Bombadil is that it also meant they lost the bit on the Barrow Downs, which I thought was great--reminded me of Victorian ghost stories!

[Xondoure]

Aragorn was taller, Boromir had darker hair, Frodo was a little less melancholy up until the third book, Denethor was less courtly and had a more military air (Grand Moff Tarkin for a reference point) and for some reason Merry and Pippin were almost identical in my mind. Other than that I quite liked the movie portrayals. Of course, most of the various other characters were pictured differently in my mind, but the versions the movie offered didn't seem offsetting if that maskes any sense.

[Haarkla]

Well to be fair, imagine the reaction of someone who had never read the book if the movie had had Tom Bombadil in it. It would seem a bit silly and would devalue the seriousness of the main plot.
Only if you did it wrong.

The only problem with including Bombadil is that the movie would have been 4 hours long.

[Eloi]

Only if you did it wrong.

The only problem with including Bombadil is that the movie would have been 4 hours long.
Perhaps longer.
Making the entire thing 10-12 hours long. I don't think I even stay awake that long.

[Oslecamo]

The only problem with including Bombadil is that the movie would have been 4 hours long.

Let's put it this way.

LOTR has enough material to make a movie trilogy... For each book.

With one movie per book, either you need to make the plot advance really fast and nobody understands anything, or you simply cut out the less essential parts and tie up the rest togheter as good as possible. I prefer the second.

[Mordar]

I guess my biggest gripe was Gimli's relegation to comic relief status.

QFT. Gimli is the character most different from my envisioning onscreen (though not from a physical appearance standpoint). I've often said that I was very disappointed that Gimli, even if they *had* to make him the comic relief, deserved a "feature fight" and clever/character appropriate comic relief. [Of course, given the presence of Merry and Pippen in the films, they had *NO FREAKING NEED* for Gimli to be the annoying sidekick that all producers seem to think is necessary*]

We see Aragorn, Legolas, Gandalf, Legolas, Boromir, Legolas, even Sam (with Shelob and when ascending the tower to rescue Frodo) and that elf...what was his name...oh yeah, Legolas...have battles that really highlight their skill and, for lack of a better word, badassery.

Gimli is always relegated to a secondary role. When discussing this with my non-geek significant other, she pointed out the fight at Helm's Deep outside of the gatehouse...and I responded "When Aragorn has to throw him over to the bridge and they fight back-to-back?" - that's the perfect example of how Gimli is treated. Sidekick all the way. Even Balin's Tomb, the perfect opportunity for a enraged dwarf warrior to shine...and we get a bunch of shots of Frodo hiding from the cave troll and that darn elf taking it down.

As far as the humor elements, fine...the killcount conversations, the armor at Helm's Deep not fitting, even Legolas making the box comment...those play. But the bit about him huffing and puffing during the run and being a natural sprinter...well, if that's in the books, I apologize in advance...but here's a great chance to show why the three could catch up and recover Merry and Pippin (Strider's size and experience in long distance travel, Legolas' light frame and speed/grace of foot, and Gimli's inexhaustable stamina)...but instead we get another stupid joke.


Other then that as far as characters are concerned? Not bad, not bad at all, though Elrond was bit Agent Smith at times.

From the moment I saw Elrond, all I was waiting for was "You hear that, Mr. Frodo-son? That is the sound of inevitability. The sound of your death."

- M

* - The most egregious of these sidekicks was, IMO, Malack from Conan the Destroyer. Not the greatest movie, but a lot of fun to watch. However, even the 13-year-old me that saw it at the theater realized Conan would have put up with Malak for about 7 seconds and then either left him in whatever dive he found him, or beaten him senseless, and then left him. Then there was the Wayans brother in the D&D movie...not that removing him would have made it much better, but it would have made me happy to not see yet another innane sidekick in a fantasy movie...

[faceroll]

As important as Tom is to the LoTR universe

Wut.
Tom is totally unimportant. He is a minor player from a forgotten age. He serves as a literary device for the plot of lotr, but his relationship to the universe of middle earth is virtually nothing outside of the trilogy.

[J.Gellert]

I imagined Faramir nicer (to Frodo at least, and if I recall correctly, he was?) and Boromir in heavier armor and with short hair.

[Xondoure]

QFT. Gimli is the character most different from my envisioning onscreen (though not from a physical appearance standpoint). I've often said that I was very disappointed that Gimli, even if they *had* to make him the comic relief, deserved a "feature fight" and clever/character appropriate comic relief. [Of course, given the presence of Merry and Pippen in the films, they had *NO FREAKING NEED* for Gimli to be the annoying sidekick that all producers seem to think is necessary*]

We see Aragorn, Legolas, Gandalf, Legolas, Boromir, Legolas, even Sam (with Shelob and when ascending the tower to rescue Frodo) and that elf...what was his name...oh yeah, Legolas...have battles that really highlight their skill and, for lack of a better word, badassery.

Gimli is always relegated to a secondary role. When discussing this with my non-geek significant other, she pointed out the fight at Helm's Deep outside of the gatehouse...and I responded "When Aragorn has to throw him over to the bridge and they fight back-to-back?" - that's the perfect example of how Gimli is treated. Sidekick all the way. Even Balin's Tomb, the perfect opportunity for a enraged dwarf warrior to shine...and we get a bunch of shots of Frodo hiding from the cave troll and that darn elf taking it down.

As far as the humor elements, fine...the killcount conversations, the armor at Helm's Deep not fitting, even Legolas making the box comment...those play. But the bit about him huffing and puffing during the run and being a natural sprinter...well, if that's in the books, I apologize in advance...but here's a great chance to show why the three could catch up and recover Merry and Pippin (Strider's size and experience in long distance travel, Legolas' light frame and speed/grace of foot, and Gimli's inexhaustable stamina)...but instead we get another stupid joke.



From the moment I saw Elrond, all I was waiting for was "You hear that, Mr. Frodo-son? That is the sound of inevitability. The sound of your death."

- M

* - The most egregious of these sidekicks was, IMO, Malack from Conan the Destroyer. Not the greatest movie, but a lot of fun to watch. However, even the 13-year-old me that saw it at the theater realized Conan would have put up with Malak for about 7 seconds and then either left him in whatever dive he found him, or beaten him senseless, and then left him. Then there was the Wayans brother in the D&D movie...not that removing him would have made it much better, but it would have made me happy to not see yet another innane sidekick in a fantasy movie...

Gimli huffing and puffing was indeed in the books. I agree that he should have gotten at least one moment of destructive mayham, but hey, hopefully we'll get plenty of awesome dwarf moments come the Hobbit.

The dwarves are actually my least favorite of the races due to certain failings on Tolkien's part that I don't believe I can discuss on these forums. As characters they are very very good but the problem is how they were created and why they act like they do.