Giggles

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by alatar

There is no way of knowing what the correlation is between Dwarven flatulence and box office gross

You weren't....punning were you?

Seriously, there is nothing wrong with some gross-out humour, but in the right film, and in the right context. Tolkien would not have made humour out of a Dwarf eructating in front of a noble king as that kind of thing is orcish behaviour. If Gimli had been shown to do the same in mixed company, say in the drinking contest, then it would have been in the right place, but as it was I cringed because it made Gimli, a fantastic character, seem like a mere buffoon It spoiled his characterisation, just that one moment.

[Nimrodel_9]

Originally posted by Morsul
I understand your concerns...I do however believe that the humor is there to attract more of an audience we here at the downs understand the minute details and humor and enjoy it imagine however if you will how most of todays population would react to this type of humor....*yawn*.. a movie is made to make money with a limited audience this is more difficult.

True. I have a few family members and friends who are fans. When I ask if they have read the books I usually get, "There are books?"

[Holbytlass]

I'm 32 and a mother of 4, and 'potty' humor still cracks me up!
However, I was also shocked by Sam asking for a dagger and Gimli f*rting.
Both instances were uncharacteristic. Sam would never be ungrateful for what he had been given.
After winning back Erebor, I am sure Gloin was held to Noble statis (or more), therefore, Gimli would definitely know proper manners around Nobility and Royalty.

As far as the other humor, it didn't bother me too much. I hate to sound like a simpleton, but I think the movies would be boring if everything was exactly like the books (yes I read them and love them both). Sure some parts were too much and I agree with every instance that has been stated so far...short jokes, one liners, Gandalf beating the h*ll out of Denethor and so on. But on the flip side, I probably would go nuts if the movies were solely artistic. But where is that fine line that seamlessly blends the two? I certainly don't know, so therefore, hats off to Peter Jackson for doing the best he could and I say... IGNORANCE IS BLISS.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I hate to sound, well, ignorant but what ignorance are you talking about?

[Holbytlass]

When I read, watch, or hear (as in music) something I take it at face value. If it is meant do be 'deep' than I get thoughtful, if it's meant to entertain I laugh and so on... of course, many things can be both.
When I read LOTR, I do stop and think and wonder. That's what is so great about a book, it is at the reader's pace. When I watch LOTR I just want to be entertained. In fact, there is no stopping for deep thought- at least not at the theatre.
I guess the point is that I feel sorry for those who are uptight about the film not being the 'extra-special something' the book is. But how can it be?! A replica can never be the exact greatness that the original is. But we can still appreciate the replica.

Ignorance is bliss for those who haven't heard about the book therefore they aren't banging their heads against the wall because the movie didn't measure up.
Bliss is also for those of us who can seperate the two-book for the genius it is, movie for the entertainment

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I see what you mean.

But I must disagree about that replica comment. Granted, the films are not replicas but I would argue that exact replicas (or at least as near to exact as atomically possible) are just as good as the originals. But that's a whole different debate (and I'm obviously just trying to be difficult! )

A relevant question which arises is this: Is ignorance bliss? (In the case of the films, of course!) I mean, we can talk about how out of character some of the humour is, but there is an equally valid criticism of some of the humour in the films: that it is just plain unfunny. Thoughts?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

A relevant question which arises is this: Is ignorance bliss? (In the case of the films, of course!) I mean, we can talk about how out of character some of the humour is, but there is an equally valid criticism of some of the humour in the films: that it is just plain unfunny. Thoughts?

I would posit that ignorance is bliss. My sister, who never read the books, thought that the films were just wonderful - she didn't have the books running through her head as did I while sitting in the theater. She accepted the the movies at face value - though she did have more than a few questions for me as PJ didn't explain everything.

And ignorance is also bliss in that if one could only go back to the day before first reading the LOTR. I still enjoy reading them after 25+ readings, yet the first time had the thrill of not knowing what was coming next. Does Gandalf really die? Will Aragorn become King? Is Frodo really dead?

I enjoy being on the other side, but one can't help sometimes looking across the fence.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

I mean, we can talk about how out of character some of the humour is, but there is an equally valid criticism of some of the humour in the films: that it is just plain unfunny. Thoughts?

I think it is possible to set up criteria that are consistent with the film itself without reference to the books.

For example, to me, Aragorn's dream of Arwen, where he is woken by the affectionate snog from the horse, is not funny as it makes a farce of the romance. I suppose many people are uneasy with taking high romance seriously, and so they think it is funny to undercut the romance that way. But this is not consistent with other depictions of the romance in the movies. So, to me, it is a cheap shot, used just to get a laugh at the moment but not really to tell us anything about the romance.

Is this what you mean by unfunny, Eomer? Are you wanting to try to establish some kind of definition/explanation of humour? Big job!