Giggles

[Bêthberry]

Lalwendë makes the astute observation that much of PJ's humour seems of the kind to appeal to the 9 to 19 (or is it 99 ) male demographic. This would appear to be the audience group which PJ thought would be most interested in a movie of Tolkien's work and so he appears to have catered to their favoured type of bodily humour.

Also worth considering is the role of humour in George Lucas, whose original Star Wars provided so much of the visual and special effects inspiration for LotR. The original Star Wars blended humour and adventure in a light-hearted way that was consistent with characterisation and action. I think PJ strove to emulate this use of comedy but in the end was not able to integrate it seemlessly. So we get a sort of cleaned up Rablasian hilarity rather than a witty humour, which was Tolkien's forte.

My memory could fail me, too, but I seem to recall that Sam was not often used for humour in the movie, but that Tolkien did often use Sam to occasion the odd joke or two.

[Lalwendë]

Another thought occurred to me this morning. I think that the essential differences in humour between certain characters, such as the differences between humour portrayed by the Hobbits and that portrayed by Gimli, may reveal that different writers may have had control over certain characters or scenes. I noticed that the humour of the Hobbits and the Ents was quite similarly written, gentle in style and delivery, while the humour of Legolas/Gimli is more linked with action scenes and involves more one-liners. After FotR, the groupings of Legolas/Gimli and Merry/Pippin are more or less separate from each other, and the difference is more marked in the humour, so I think it may have been at this point that the scriptwriting diverged.

[Boromir88]

I think the main problem with the humour of the movies, is just that Jackson overused it, and sort of stretched his bounds. In FOTR, there wasn't so much humour, a couple funny parts between the hobbits, some funny lines by Gimli. Boromir swordfighting with Merry and Pip...etc

In TTT, we get a lot of these "one liners" as Lal would refer to them. And the whole scene with him slow, and dragging down Aragorn and Legolas. I do find the dwarf women to be particularly funny, however.

In ROTK, Gimli is established as a soft, emotional, crybaby dwarf, scared of a black cat. This Jackson didn't do to show more personality in Gimli it was solely used for people to laugh at the chubby dwarf whining.

Lal, I don't think it was so much that since the Fellowship broke, and in TTT and ROTK you run into seperate storylines that Jackson decided to change some of the humour as. I tend to give him less credit and just an example of him shoving ideas down our throats. It's sort of like Jackson said "well this made them laugh in FOTR, so if I take it a step farther and do this..." or "A lot of people laughed at Gimli for running so bad, so let's just make him whine at everything." "I know people will laugh at Gandalf hitting Denethor, so let's just not hit him but beat him senseless." It's like Jackson couldn't let go of an idea, once he got it, and he "over-extended" or "overused" it.

I know in the books Gimli does show emotion at times (I believe in Balin's Tomb and at Amon Hen). But, these are extremely sad, moving, and emotional times (especially for Gimli in Balin's tomb), and it adds more depth into Gimli's character. However, PJ just seemed to use Gimli's whining for laughter. Atleast that's how I saw it. (Not so much in FOTR as in TTT and ROTK).

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

It seems to be used in lightening the mood - in places where the mood shouldn't be lightened. Fellowship cannot be let off here. When Merry and Pippin are captured, Aragorn should be devastated. Instead he makes a smart action-film quip, a winning smirk, and off he goes.

When Denethor loses his wits it should be a moment of high drama as Gandalf realises that it's up to him now. Instead, he assaults the Steward in a comic fashion and shrugs his shoulders as if to say "Bloody hell, more work!"

The comedy is implicit throughout most of the book; it didn't need to be forced. Treebeard's manner of speaking just is funny; you don't need to write jokes for stuff like that.

[The Saucepan Man]

Actually, I shall refrain myself from droning on about how popular and successful the films were. Y'all know my position in that regard. I shall merely limit myself to observing that surely anyone who saw the films in the cinema cannot deny that these moments generally elicited the intended reaction from large sections of the audience (myself included - albeit, admittedly, against my better judgment on occassion ).

This takes us back, I think, to the question of whether it is "right" to tinker with well-loved characters in order to enhance audience appeal (at least among those to whom these moments are primarily targetted).

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I shall merely limit myself to observing that surely anyone who saw the films in the cinema cannot deny that these moments generally elicited the intended reaction from large sections of the audience (myself included - albeit, admittedly, against my better judgment on occassion ).

This takes us back, I think, to the question of whether it is "right" to tinker with well-loved characters in order to enhance audience appeal (at least among those to whom these moments are primarily targetted).

Actually, from my experience, "generally elicited" is not a totally fair observation. When I saw the movies, not everyone in the audience did enjoy these 'audience moment', Sauce. I heard titters of ridicule amongst the laughter and sometimes titters of ridicule when there wasn't laughter as well. Let us not deny the right of "Others" to voice their dissident opinions even if they might be in the minority. There might even be a 'subgroup' of the movie going audience who went in order to ridicule the cheesy aspects of the movies.

However...

Rather than simply swallow and regurgitate the defense of popularity, I think we ought to ask about the role and nature of the audience in the artist's conception and composition of the work.

Throughout history, there has always been a subtle tie between the artist's vision of and for his or her work and the need to have that work appeal to other minds. In the Western World, when artists and writers had private benefactors or patrons to support them, the works themselves were not so directly dependant upon audience approval in the sense of mass appeal. (They were dependent upon the approval of what amounted to censure boards, the king's opinion, and various other factors.) The commercialisation of art in the last century, particularly film but also literature, has I think changed the relationship between artist and audience because it has changed the nature of audience.

So,Saucy, you are of course correct to repeat (ad nauseum ) that the movies were popular. But I would like to point out that such a method was not Tolkien's. He managed to write one of the most popular books of the last century without this kind of pandering to a mass audience. And I use the word pander deliberately.

Tolkien did have a sense of audience, but it was a very different kind of audience. (I will interject here that according to his biographer, Tolkien was socialable enough to enjoy the usual "noisy, brash, and boorish" acitivities of certain aspects of undergraduate life when he was first a student at Oxford. It wasn't that he was a snob about humour.) Tolkien, however, wrote, in the first instance, to satisfy his own conception of mythology, faery, and linquistics/philology. He then had an intimate group of 'readers', most of whom were 'listeners' as a sounding board. These men were, of course, the members of the Inklings. His own son, Christopher, also was crucial to Tolkien as a reader of the typescripts, as the Letters written while Christopher served during WWII, show.

So, Tolkien was able to create a work of art with huge, massive appeal but he did so without deliberately and consciously appealing to a mass audience. Like all writers, he did harbour a wish to be kindly regarded, to be popular, to be read and enjoyed. Yet this was not the overwhelming impetus of his writing. He hoped his work, once published, would be successful. But he did not compose that work in order to be successful or popular.

Is this kind of creative purpose possible only in literature and not in the movies?

[Lalwendë]

Rather than simply swallow and regurgitate the defense of popularity, I think we ought to ask about the role and nature of the audience in the artist's conception and composition of the work.

I think Bethberry makes a very good point - Tolkien did not necessarily have an audience in mind when he wrote. Yes, he was asked (commissioned?) to produce a follow-up to The Hobbit, but he clearly was not required to produce a specific type of work beyond it being a novel in format. I often wonder just whether this could happen today. Truly innovative fiction is seemingly all too often limited to first novels and I have the feeling this may have a lot to do with marketing; publishers may demand that a successful work be followed up by 'more of the same'. This is very much akin to the phrase in music "that difficult third album" - the writer is somehow 'stuck' between the need to be creative and the need to make money for the 'investor'. Where this side of marketing doesn't hold sway, then another type often restricts the writer, and that's the requirement to 'fit in' with a particular genre which is selling well, hence the racks of generic fantasy, chick lit, crime etc.

Anyway, Tolkien seemingly did not have to operate under these constraints and yet his work has achieved phenomenal popularity. I still think PJ could have achieved the same with the films, that he did not have to make the changes made to garner 'popular appeal' as his films would have had this anyway.

[alatar]

Gimli started out okay in FOTR, as there was some balance between his comedic and serious moments. For example, his reflection on Galadriel's gift showed a character that was starting to grow/change.

When rewatching that scene I thought, "if only he would have burped!?!" (I suspect that he will in the 25th anniversary edition ).

By TTT things started spinning out of control and by ROTK we have the short Clown who couldn't utter more than a punchline. I'd accept the drunking and body counting accountant if - even by accident - we got a scene in ROTK in which Gimli wasn't a caricature. The scene in TTT where Gimli tells Legolas to 'let <Aragorn> be' was great as Gimli appeared to be thoughtful - not sure how it slipped it.

As others have noted, I assume that PJ sat in a theater during the showing FOTR, saw what got the giggles and thought, "we need more of that!" And from information regarding the size of the Witch-King's mace and the clay on Gimpy Gothmog's face, the staff/writers may have thought that they were way over the top and so PJ would reject what they had submitted in jest, but...

And I would agree with others that as a viewer I should be permitted to have a serious or 'tear-jerking' or sad moment that is not interrupted after 10 seconds by some giggle.

[Neithan]

Lalwendë makes the astute observation that much of PJ's humour seems of the kind to appeal to the 9 to 19 (or is it 99) male demographic.

As a 19 year old male I am offended by that, and I can't remember when I actually thought that kind of humor was funny.

I shall merely limit myself to observing that surely anyone who saw the films in the cinema cannot deny that these moments generally elicited the intended reaction from large sections of the audience

Yes, but I don't care. It wouldn't make any difference to me if every other person in the world thought it was funny. I think that Jackson's humor is stupid, in poor taste, and an insult to my intelligence. I didn't laugh at the added humor once, but I laugh at Tolkien's humor quite a lot.

Every great work of art in history was done on the artists own terms. Once the artist relinquishes his/her own artistic vision to the demands of "the public" it ceases to be artistic at all.