Just finished reading the Fellowship of the Ring.
Why the frick did Hackson make Gimli comic relief? In the book he's done more and is more honorable than Legolas, his eyesight is even keener whereas in the movie its like Gimli is just a fat drunken pig who gets treated like a joke by everyone. Legolas is dropping arrows on the ground and shit
Whats the deal?
because he needed to inject some life and humor into those dull, boring books
> entire whimsical character
> don't even bother to put him in your 12 hours of directors cut
That was the right decision.
> entire whimsical character
Reddit the character
Why not make Legolas the comic relief then? He was a pussy through part 1 of the books anyway
>t. hasn't read through a whole book since his special needs classes when he was 12
Legolas is the pretty boy that gets the female audience interested. Try to keep up.
A lot of the humour in the movies is fricking painful though, especially in the extended editions.
>I just got done reading a book for 12 year olds
You need to be 18 to post here kid.
>If you haven't read a significant book at the correct age(defined by me andy tiny dick), then you're never allowed to read it
it's just an earlier version of woke isn't it? Hackson bringing the trilogy 'up to date' with what the modern audience expects, so we get Gimli as you say, Legolas skateboarding, Filmomir, etc etc.
(still me) and I would just add that Art never chases the viewer, Art follows the muse not the dollar. Tolkien took a lifetime to write the books because he wanted them done right, damn whatever anybody else says
>Tolkien took a lifetime to write the books
Tolkien began what would become The Lord of the Rings in 1937, and the first book was released in 1954. 17 years is quite a short lifetime.
yeah I'm speaking figuratively about the lifetime he spent on his collective works but thanks for bringing in the stats angle nerd.
He wrote all three books as one, so 17 years for three books (1000) pages, seems somewhat reasonable.
I could write 1000 pages of fantasy crap in 3 years, max. Rowling wrote what probably 3000 pages in 8 years.
The timeframes that you set for the shit you’d spew on ms word and jk rollings slop compared to what Tolkien did with lotr is precisely the point.
>I could write 1000 pages of fantasy crap
Sure, but you cant write something of LOTR quality that quickly
Go ahead
He was doing other shit like fleshing out multiple languages and other backstory.
>Jokes on you, I was speaking figuratively all along
>17 years to write the first book
So that anon was right
All the books were written as one but published seperately because of printing costs
Jackson's first trilogy is bad for the same reasons the Hobbit trilogy are bad. It's literally just nostalgia. They're all junk compared to the books.
The cartoons are closest to being accurate, solely by having a bunch of songs.
Anti dwarf racism
Book Gimli is the best character, Tolkien obviously loved dwarves so Gimli had the best dialogue. His parts with Galadriel in the book are some of the most beautiful exchanges I’ve ever read.
I don't like Gimli-as-comic-relief either, but I forgive the films because they had a big fricking task trying to get the mainstream public to give a shit about some homosexual fantasy story about walking and midgets and wizards and a magical piece of israeliteelry. It was an achievement that so many normies took it seriously and got emotionally invested. I believe Gimli was made comic relief because it's a way of relaxing the audience into acceptance, a sort of "if I make fun of myself first I can control the narrative" thing. Like how Gimli says "We dwarves are natural sprinters! *pant pant*" it keeps the audience from going "lol look at the stumpy dwarf try to run."
tl;dr normies would make fun of a short dwarf anyway so might as well do it first
Remember this logic when the trans kweenz rule middle earth
Honestly don't know what you're getting at anon. Trans kweenz will be used as comic relief to gain acceptance?
The extended editions really did my guy dirty. He's still a Chad in the theatrical ones.
All the characters were greatly reduced, perhaps save Gandalf, and Aragorn was not exactly reduced but his purpose was made less in keeping with the book (heir finally coming into his own) and more fitting for just a great big hero (humble guy is the best after all). To me Merry and Pippin have the biggest discrepancy, their journey from simple folk unknowing of their peril into important pieces of the grand scheme is much more meaningful in the books.
Gimli is a force of nature, even in the movies. He is so insanely overpowered he can kill enemies that are literally created for war and murder as if it was a game! He has iron will and fear is something he can just ignore if needed, still his heart isn't just cold. He loves his clan, family and friends and he can be passionate. He can be funny and charming and he recognizes beauty in all things. He can be humble and he can be proud. He overcomes outdated stereotypes that have hold back countless of his kind and dares to go his way as he pleases.
He would laugh about your weak trolling. While sitting on the corpse of a real troll he crushed with his naked balls.
Yeah the Tolkien fanboys are moronic. They also claim that Jackson turned Denethor into a psycho even though he is way more unhinged in the book.
Book denethor was based because he had a palantir all along and outplayed Gandalf with it. In the movie he is just a literal schizo.
How did he outplay Gandalf?
He knew of Gandalf’s intentions the entire time and BTFO’d his secret plan even though in the end he still succumbed to despair when the army he saw via palantir arrived to Minas tirith, it wasn’t from simply losing his mind.
he didn't see shit, he only saw what sauron allowed him to see and was buck broken as a result
Yes Sauron showed him the army but he knew Gandalf found Aragorn and was attempting to install him as king of Gondor. Possibly Sauron showed him this to try and divide the west.
Right, so sauron used his misgivings about aragorn against him and convinced him kill himself and murder his son. He sure outplayed Gandalf (who had suspected Denethor had a palantir anyway).
He outplayed him during those few pages but then succumbed to despair before he could fully deal with Gandalf.
In other words, he did one pretty cool thing before doing a whole bunch of lame things
Yes
That's not "Gandalfs plan" though, that is just the heir of Numenor finally achieving his right, which Denethor as a steward of Gondor should welcome, but having become crooked in mind he would rather keep the power to himself than give it to whom it belongs .
>to whom it belongs
>T. Shit stained northern ranger
>Book denethor was based because he had a palantir all along and outplayed Gandalf with it.
He literally got played by Sauron since he only showed him things that would lead to despair.
>Yeah the Tolkien fanboys are moronic.
Didnt say that. I say that Gimli is fun either way. Obviously movies don't tell stories 100& the same way as books do. Changes are made. And both works are good. No need to hate either.
Maybe, but in the book the narrative structure allows you to understand his fall from a defensive of Westernesse into his final demise, while in the films he just seems like a fricked up guy, ergo the film Denethor is rightfully perceived as more crazy
>short Scot is funny man
What they did to Gollum was worse.
In my opinion Gollum is probably the character most true to the book of all
Jackson is obviously a hack, but it’s also time to admit that Tolkien was a homosexual. Incredibly boring writer and incredibly overrated by man-children.
IDK pretty feisty dorf
When we saw this in theaters in 2002, it was the pinnacle of technology. Now its 2023 and movies look the same, if not worse. The cinematography and moviemaking technology hasn't advanced like it did from the 1980s through the 2000s. After 2000s and the YouTube area, time stands still and innovation stopped.
If anything, the dialogue and scriptwriting has severely regressed in new movies.