Drinking Contest: Any Support From the Books?

[radagastly]

AbercrombieOfRohan said:

I think on one of the commentaries (Cameras in middle-earth?) Jackson said that one of the reasons he included the scene was because howard shore has a cameo appearance in it and he was really keen on having it in the movie. (He is one of the drunken rohirrim)

True enough, though I think it also says that in the final edit of the drinking scene, the shots that included Howard Shore ended up on the cutting room floor anyway. I enjoyed the scene, though I agree there was probably some other more Tolkien-related content that could have been included instead. For example, the scene of Sam getting past the watchers at the gate of Cirith Ungol was filmed, but did not make the final cut of the EE. I would like to have seen what P.J. did with that. Or he might have expanded the Houses of Healing scenes to include more of Faramir's and Eowyn's dialogue. Interspersed with Liv Tyler's singing it would have made quite a lovely scene, instead of feeling rushed and too brief as it did.

I enjoyed the drinking game, however I agree it would have been more believable if Gimli had won.

[Turin]

I remember from the FoTR EE the excellent scene where Gimli is reminiscing with Legolas after he received strands of Galadriel's hair. It was a nice poignant moment....

However, since that scene, the rest of the interaction between Legolas and Gimli has been simply farcical. Didn't PJ realise that it is not against the Law to show proper serious moments?

The drinking game is no different.

Firstly, it IS gratuitous, and I hated (and still hate) this scene. Yet another one of those cringe-inducing moments where I exclaimed: "Geez, not another comic-relief moment for Gimli? I bet I know who's gonna win THIS contest! Is this supposed to be funny? etc etc.

The fact is that the book is not devoid of humour, and is very witty in many places, especially between Gimli and Legolas. Why couldn't they use subtle, witty humour to portray the two characters, using material from the book????

... then again, I think, PJ, subtlety and wit don't go together very well!

[Neithan]

Well said Turin!

Originally posted by Ainaserkewen
In the movies they never tell you who won the orc killing contest

Maybe not but if I remember correctly they left off with Legolas far ahead, and if you were to ask a movie fan who had not read the books who they thought won the contest then I would be willing to bet that they would say Legolas. Gimli was portrayed as the jealous guy who couldn't keep up and it drove me crazy. I think that Gimli's character was treated even less fairly than Faramir or Elrond.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Turin

... then again, I think, PJ, subtlety and wit don't go together very well!

I don't disagree. There is a reason, however. Subtle wit does not (or at least is not perceived to) have the same broad appeal of obvious humour, running gags, slapstick etc.

There certainly is a great deal of very well done gentle humour in the book. But would it have had the mass appeal of Dwarf-tossing jokes? We don't know for sure, but the production team and those backing the films clearly thought not. And the films have been extraordinarily successful, albeit not entirely so with committed fans of the book. So their decision is justifiable on that basis.

[Lalaith]

Well Mr S, I'd say that Book-Gimli had quite a strong personality but I concede the point about Legolas.
Nice point about the elvish guards, Snorri, I'd forgotten that.

To me that drinking scene felt like an out-take to amuse the crew at the LotR wrap-party, not part of the proper film at all.

[Essex]

We must also remember that is was strong wine drunk in large quantaties that made the wood-elf gurards drunk...

Luck of an unusual kind was with Bilbo then. It must be potent wine to make a wood-elf drowsy; but this wine, it would seem, was the heady vintage of the great gardens of Dorwinion, not meant for his soldiers or his servants, but for the king's feasts only, and for smaller bowls, not for the butler's great flagons.

But on the other hand, we can see in the Hobbit that the Dwarves like their ale.

So they carried out the pots of coins, and such food as was un-touched and looked fit to eat, also one barrel of ale which was still full. By that time they felt like breakfast, and being very hungry they did not turn their noses up at what they had got from the trolls' larder. Their own provisions were very scanty. Now they had bread and cheese, and plenty of ale, and bacon to toast in the embers of the fire.

I mean a barrel of ale for breakfast!! So for me the Jury's still out on this one.....

[Turin]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I don't disagree. There is a reason, however. Subtle wit does not (or at least is not perceived to) have the same broad appeal of obvious humour, running gags, slapstick etc.

There certainly is a great deal of very well done gentle humour in the book. But would it have had the mass appeal of Dwarf-tossing jokes? We don't know for sure, but the production team and those backing the films clearly thought not. And the films have been extraordinarily successful, albeit not entirely so with committed fans of the book. So their decision is justifiable on that basis.

Good point, though one I have thought about. Obviously what you say is purely speculative, and I am inclined to disagree on a couple of points:

1. I think those backing the films would not have had THAT much influence in terms of determining how a character was to be portrayed. I think the production team made the decision for the dumbed-down, mass-market appealing type of slapstick humour on their own, obviously believing that it "added" to the story in some way. I don't rate the writers and I blame them for not having sufficient talent or vision in producing more subtle humour.

2. As for the films being successful. that doesn't mean a thing. Plenty of films have been successful but of poor quality (Titanic, Pearl Harbour etc). People didn't go to see the movie because they wanted to see some farting and burping from a stupid-looking dwarf; they went because they had heard of this book called LoTR and wanted to know what all the fuss was about.

Is it better to have subtle, witty humour that adds to the film's appeal (which, IMO, WOULDN'T be detriment to its success), or sell your soul for some crap, cheap humour that spoils a good scene? I know which one I would prefer!

I think that is the problem: too often Hollywood's perceptions of peoples' intelligence is patronising, leading to the movies being undermined somewhat.
Who knows, maybe the films would have been better for it?

[Lalaith]

Not only is Gimli made into a buffoon but his strength and skills as an adventurer and warrior are undermined. He can't hold his own in the drinking contest, he's constantly lagging behind during the chase of the Three Hunters, he falls off horses and so on. What is most dangerous on a mission of this kind, he thinks he can do things when he can't.
The "short" characters (hobbits, dwarves) are in the film generally far more foolish and useless than they are in the book which begs the question of why they were sent on the quest in the first place.

[Turin]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Not only is Gimli made into a buffoon but his strength and skills as an adventurer and warrior are undermined. He can't hold his own in the drinking contest, he's constantly lagging behind during the chase of the Three Hunters, he falls off horses and so on. What is most dangerous on a mission of this kind, he thinks he can do things when he can't.
The "short" characters (hobbits, dwarves) are in the film generally far more foolish and useless than they are in the book which begs the question of why they were sent on the quest in the first place.

True!

Which is why I have always said that the portrayal of hobbits, especially of Merry and Pippin wasn't all that good. For some reason, from the outset they are made to appear childish and immature. Certainly in the book, Merry comes off as a strong character, especially in the first book ("It all depends on who you can trust... we'll stick together through thick and thin" etc).

PJ exploited people's perceptions of short people throught the use of slapstick humour for Gimli et al.

[Neithan]

Certainly in the book, Merry comes off as a strong character, especially in the first book ("It all depends on who you can trust... we'll stick together through thick and thin" etc).

Yes, that made me mad too. I don't mind the little changes that they had to make, but I couldn't stand it when they changed the characters. They screwed up Gimli, Legolas, Merry, Faramir, and Elrond just to name a few.