Drinking Contest: Any Support From the Books?

[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.

[Essex]

Turin, a few points on your post:

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).

Of course it means 'a thing'. The movies are masterpieces, put together with love and care and plenty of hard work. That's one of the reasons that made it successful. (Oh yes, and nerds like me going to see each one at the cinema plenty of times)
PS Pearl Harbour successful are you sure??????
PPS Titanic, not my cup of tea, but a well crafted story, again with a stunning 'story line' to work from.

they went because they had heard of this book called LoTR and wanted to know what all the fuss was about.

I would say that the majority of people went not because they wanted to see what the fuss was about, but for the excellent reviews from fans and critics alike to the movies.

too often Hollywood's perceptions of peoples' intelligence is patronising

absolutely, but this film wasn't made by hollywood. It was made lock, stock and barrel by Peter Jackson. I think what we see here is Jackson's humour, not Hollywood's.
PS The Tolkien Reading world and his dog seem to have put down Gandalf's staff breaking as the worst new bit in the ROTK EE. I would say it's the face Gimli pulls as he's treading on the skulls in the paths of the dead. That 'humour' REALLY made me cringe. ugh!

[Neithan]

I would say it's the face Gimli pulls as he's treading on the skulls in the paths of the dead. That 'humour' REALLY made me cringe.

Yes, I didn't care for that either but I would put the staff and this drinking scene higher on the list.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Turin

As for the films being successful. that doesn't mean a thing.

Well, I expect that their success certainly meant something to those who produced them, since they will have made a lot of money out of them.

Of course, Tolkien was not motivated by the desire to make money from his books, although he certainly welcomed the income in his later years. Had he set out with the intention of profiting from them, they would have been very different books indeed. But then he would have been a different person. Nevertheless, I think that we do inevitably have to take commercial considerations into account when considering the films.

Plenty of films have been successful but of poor quality

I would certainly not describe the LotR films as being of poor quality. We can certainly debate the extent to which they adhere to Tolkien’s style, themes and values, and I can understand those who react against them (to whatever degree) in consequence of their difference to the book in this regard. But “poor quality”? As films? As compared with other films of the same or similar genre? Well, it’s a matter of opinion I suppose. But I would not describe them in those terms and neither, I suspect, would the majority of those who have seen them.

I tend to think that, had the films adhered more to Tolkien’s style and his original story, they would still have been popular, but moderately rather than extraordinarily so. They would not have had the mass appeal that they have generated. Which, given the funding required to make them, could well have made the difference between success or failure in financial terms. On that basis, I can understand many of the decisions that were made (the “dumbing down, as you decribe it, although I dislike that term and do not think that it fully or fairly represents the approach taken in the films). Certainly, I can understand why the production team and the backers (who would have been involved, given their financial interest) decided to “play it safe” in many respects, particularly as they rather went out on a limb in deciding/agreeing to make three films and film all of them together over a single period.