Giggles

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Of course it was inappropriate, in the sense that one should not belch in front of a King, particularly when he is discussing affairs of state. But surely that's what makes it funny. I don't find belching funny per se. But "inappropriate" belching can be amusing, to me at least. A similar "gas-related" techinique was used in a recent episode of Doctor Who, and I found that hilarious (as did my kids).

To my mind, it also increases Gimli's appeal, particularly to the more rebellious members of the audience. The fact that he cares not for diplomatic decorum.

Why SpM, are you suggesting that there is no qualitative difference between Theoden and Blair, etc? Does Theoden deserve the disrespect that our modern politicians have earned?

I thought the Doctor Who stuff was designed to "decrease dramatic tension", part of the post modern irreverence which went with the Doctor's waving to the paparazzi and with earlier depictions of fearful aliens. Doctor Who makes fun of itself. Does Tolkien make fun of himself?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Does Theoden deserve the disrespect that our modern politicians have earned?

In that scene, as I recall, the audience is supposed to disagree with Theoden's approach, which is at odds with that suggested by Aragorn. Jackson's Theoden is not a wholly sympathetic character at the outset, but earns the audience's approval through his deeds.

In any event, I would not read Gimli's belch as showing contempt for Theoden, but rather for his proposed strategy. And he does so in a humorous fashion and in a manner which is consistent with his (film) characterisation.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Doctor Who makes fun of itself. Does Tolkien make fun of himself?

While I agree that Doctor Who does poke fun at itself, I did not see the gaseous nature of the aliens as being part of that. And even if it was, I doubt that many recent converts would see it as such. They would simply see it as an amusing, if rather crude, running gag.

Tolkien pokes fun at himself too, on occasion, in some of his Letters. Of course, he never pokes fun at his story, but then I do not believe that Jackson is poking fun at the story either. He is merely providing something mildly amusing, if crude. I have no problem with it.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

Of course it was inappropriate, in the sense that one should not belch in front of a King, particularly when he is discussing affairs of state. But surely that's what makes it funny. I don't find belching funny per se. But "inappropriate" belching can be amusing, to me at least. A similar "gas-related" techinique was used in a recent episode of Doctor Who, and I found that hilarious (as did my kids).

I found it inappropriate because it demeaned Gimli. He is a noble character who would show more respect. And before anyone says that he is different in the films, just think how awed he was in Galadriel's presence. Gimli was shown as hating Legolas at first, but he was never shown to disrespect him, so why would he do that to Theoden? I wouldn't have been surprised if PJ had shown Gimli whipping out a sheet of paper and playing the Middle Earth equivalent of buzzword bingo. Having him not show respect or listen to what was being said made him look like an oaf who just wanted to get stuck into chopping up Orcs.

Now if I was to belch in front of one of the Ministers then I have no doubt I'd find my P45 on my desk within the hour. It would indeed be inappropriate, but I bet nobody would be laughing at that inappropriateness! However, in a hypothetical example similar to that seen in Doctor Who (which I found hilarious too), if the Minister had deliberately let out a hearty belch, then everyone might laugh, albeit nervously. Possibly because they too wouldn't want to find their P45 on their desk, but also because instead of demonstrating disrespect (like I would be) he would indeed be behaving inappropriately. I am not going to try out this theory.

I have to say, I can hardly keep a straight face writing about this.

[mormegil]

Dare I tread these waters that so few have and agree with Saucepan Man? Unfortunately it is not an innate ability of mine to so eloquently elaborate on my ideas. I however feel that PJ characterization of Gimli was in order. PJ was faced with a rather daunting task of giving depth and personality to around 15 characters. (9 in the fellowship, Gollum, Denethor, Eowyn, Eomer, Théoden Sauruman etc...) and he had 3 long movies to do it in. The unfortunate part of translating a book to a movie is that you cannot give narrative or express the characters thoughts overly well. Tolkien had over 1000 pages in which to establish character depth and PJ had 9 hours. In PJ's defense he needed to show the beautiful friendship that develops between Legolas and Gimli (one of my favorite parts of the book) but to do it true justice he would have detracted from the main thrust of the story. I think one of the reasons Gimli was the comic relief was to develop this intimate friendship with Legolas...the box joke is hilarious in my opinion. Due to the fact that there has been much debate on the burping scene I will give my two cents. I didn't find it humorous but I'm not sure that it was meant to be such either. So I don't feel that it was thrown in to get a cheap laugh (albeit some find it humorous which is great with me) but I feel that more so it was put in, as has been recently discussed, to give the audience the feeling that "right now I don't like Théoden".

I know that many of us feel that PJ should have created the movies just for us, but sadly New Line Cinema disagreed with him and wanted a movie that appealed more to the masses. That's not to say there isn't a great deal of appeal to us but it's not made specifically for us. I fully realize that the popularity defense has been used and hated but it's a definite reason as to why.

I hope this makes some sense and I appreciate the intelligent and lively debate.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

We should not find it funny because it is not funny.

Is scratching your head funny?

Is abusing someone who is in trouble funny?

No. So belching in front of a worried King is not funny either.

Or maybe someone can tell me just why on earth that so-called 'humour' is funny.

[Amrod the Hunter]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Or maybe someone can tell me just why on earth that so-called 'humour' is funny.

Do you realize that you just said that you said you don't understand humour at all?
All people need to laugh sometimes (except you,maybe) and that's why PJ made Gimli the way he made him.The other characters like that were Merry and Pippin but Gimli with his dwarver accent was (as PJ sees it) a great choice for a funny character.
That's his choice,and you don't need to agree with it,but you can't say that movies don't need humour.Merry and Pippin were same in the books,so Tolkien also knew that the readers need humour.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

We should not find it funny because it is not funny.

Effectively, you are saying here that if you do not find it funny then no one should. By what standard or authority do you seek to make that claim?

Is scratching your head funny?

Is abusing someone who is in trouble funny?

Either could well be, depending on the circumstances. I seem to remember that Stan Laurel turned scratching his head into a comic art form. And Blackadder frequently abused Baldrick (both physically and verbally), whether he was in trouble or not, to great humorous effect. As indeed did Basil Fawlty vis-a-vis Manuel.

Or maybe someone can tell me just why on earth that so-called 'humour' is funny.

I did. But if you don't find it funny, that's fine by me. I do not necessarily expect you to find something funny just because I do.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Is abusing someone who is in trouble funny?

I realize that it is a different genre, however one of the classic TV shows of all time is the 3 stooges and there was constant abuse. Not a perfect example due to genre differences but it does illustrate that physical abuse if used properly can be humorous.

In reference to Gandalf "beating" Denethor, I would like to add that I actually didn't find it comical but I don't believe that it was scripted for the express purpose. The simple fact of the matter is that Gondor was being besieged and Denethor in his madness was telling all his soldiers not to fight and essentially to give up and die. This madman needed to be stopped and diplomacy wasn't the answer, also to simply hit a person once in the face will not stop them. I think Gandalf needed to incapacitate Denethor long enough so that he could restore order among the troops. Again, I don't think that was put in for a chuckle.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Sorry for not being clear Amrod. I meant humour. So-called humour. 'Humour'. The word humour said with the inverted commas sign made with your hands. As in, humour that is not really humour. Fraudulent stuff. The kind of stuff that was in The Lord of the Rings films too much for my liking.

Don't need humour.....I say.

Anyway, Saucepan and mormegil. I apologise for using that rotten example of abuse. I don't know why I said that. Abuse is, of course, one of the funniest things in the world. So I take back that point. Apologies.

However, I am committed here to saying that some things are not funny. A group of thugs could throw stones at an elderly woman and find the whole occasion hilarious. This can only be funny on a very high level of realisation about the absurdity of human behaviour. Taken at face value though , in an everyday situation, this abuse of the old woman is not funny. Yet the thugs think that it is.

Tell me, am I unjustified in thinking this? Is there, then, a standard of humour?

[The Saucepan Man]

Taken at face value though , in an everyday situation, this abuse of the old woman is not funny.

But we are not talking about everyday situations here. Or even real life situations, necessarily. Lalwendë made a similar conflation. Few of us would find Basil Fawlty's treatment of Manuel funny were we to witness it happening in real life.

Perhaps that is the reason why you do not see the humour here. LotR (the film) is not a comedy sketch, but a serious story interspersed with moments of humour. You might find a Dwarven warrior belching in front of a King in a comedy sketch funny, but not in what should be a serious film adapted from a well-loved epic story. So it may well be that I do not take the LotR films as seriously as you do (or, at least, as you feel the story ought to have been taken).