Death to Legolas

Remove all ads!

What is up with the Legolas obsession a large number of people have on this website? If I remember correctly (but I did read the novels a loooooooong time ago) he was a pompous jerk in the books like every other elf, and in the movie his character is not developed at all. He is just joe elf. He also looks like a pretty boy pansy, if I do say so myself.

 

Maybe so, but the way he MOVES is absolutely uncanny. There was one scene in FOTR that took my breath away, and the trailers for TT promise no less. Apparently the actor worked with a movement coach to perfect that style.

 

A pompous jerk? The fact that he extended friendship and life to wizard, man, halfling, and one of the elves most dispised "friends", the dwarves proved otherwise. He stood with Gimli even though a hundred and five men of Eomer's party would have no problem with impalling them where they stand. When he, Gimli and Aragorn where after the orcs/Uruk-hais to rescue Merry & Pippin. He stood watch over the sleeping Gimli & Aragorn without even asked. He wanted to keep on running into the night without stopping just to reach the halflings even as Gimli & Aragorn had wanted to rest. And that's only from the first 3 chapters of "The Two Towers". I just finished "Fellowship of the Rings" and just into the 4th chapter of "The Two Towers" and already Legolas have proved to be an elf of better character.

 

I agree nior. It's just the movie image of Legolas is something totally different from the book.

[ December 02, 2002, 06:59: Message edited by: Frog ]

 

Holy crap, I completely forget all the events you describe. Maybe its just me, but the sleepyness of Tolkien's writing style makes it hard for me to remember... well, anything about his novels, besides that Tom Bombadil bastard. God I hated that guy.

In any case, I recant, I completely forgot his character in the books. HOWEVER, my opinion remains that in the movie he gives a distinct impression of being an aloof, arrogant elf, and since the movie is the reason for the recent flood of "I love Legolas!" posts, that is the version of Legolas I am reacting to.

 

Well, if we're just talking about the movie, I guess I liked him for his cool moves. You know the way he handled the cave troll in Moria, the way he saved Gimli by pulling the dwarf's beard (also Moria), and who can forget him shooting the Uruk-hais in the Great River (especially the two orcs for one arrow). And there's a cool sequence of him in TTT's trailer.

[ December 02, 2002, 07:08: Message edited by: nior ]

 

I couldn't agree more with Forashi!
I don't think I've ever seen a movie this faithful to its inspirational source: it is Tolkien brought to life!
And Legolas was never arrogant. He is an elf! Elves are beautiful, skilled in many ways and far better that humans, so if he ever was arrogant he had a reason...But he wasn't. In his worst attitudes he was at best responding to an ancient racial hatred between dwarves and elves. Beautifully, Legolas and Gimli who represent both races reconcile and understand that friendship (and the fellowship) is more important! This is the main message of these two characters: everyone is important in their own way, no matter what differences between them...

Riva

PS - The actor is fine...

 

Teenie, you are jealous.

I thought all the actors did an excellent job. I would, however, say they were cut out of some VERY important scenes that should have been in there from the start. At the very least, Sam should have nailed that one idiot in the nose with an apple. That was a MOST important scene.

I can't think of an actor that does not do an excellent job, in the movie.

Um.

Maybe Sean Bean when he's dying. In the book, you kind of felt bad when Boromir dies.

But for the Love of all that is Good and Holy, I was ready to kill Boromir just to shut him up; in the movie. I was like, "Ok. You can die now. Now. NOW. NOW!".

I'm expecting Faramir to do well, strictly because he's not supposed to die. When Sean Bean dies on screen, you want it to be filmed from across the river...

 

I agree, although his best move is when he takes an arrow from his quiver then stabs it in the throat of one uruk-hai and nocks it and shoots another with the same arrow.

And in the new extended version he shoots not three orcs but like eight which is a really cool sequence.

 

Thanks for reminding about that scene, but I thought he stabbed the orc in the eye (I can't really remember).

Looks like Legolas was admired for his skills rather than his attitude in the movie. I hope that in TTT we would be able to see his character developed.

[ December 02, 2002, 11:13: Message edited by: nior ]

 

Obviously here we once again have the types of persons who don't care wether the movie is good or bad, it just has to suck because blaming the movie seems to make the reader more "elite". Give it off will you. I dare you to give me one example of what happened *differently* in the movie compared to the books where Legolas would appear more arrogant and uncaring. I have pretty good idea of wether you'll find one or not. Legolas was never arrogant. Not in the books, nor in the movie.

Especially those who've watched the Exteneded Edition DVD know what the case is in reality, the amount of complete devotion to what Tolkien originally did in his books is amazing to say the least. Nothing was changed in EE DVD compared to the cinema version, for those who don't know it, only stuff has been added. Specifically the type of stuff that interests the fans, the ones who are familiar with the books. Every part of the movie save for some things that are to come in TT and RoTK, is completely the same as in the books. If the parts where some emotional sides of the characters, or stories (Tom Bombadil) have been left out, it's only because there's been no time to include them (no time meaning the movie would then take far too long). And READ: LEFT OUT. Not changed, but LEFT OUT. There's a real damn big difference. Even though Gimli is a tough dwarf, it really puts a tear in my eye to see the part where Galadriel grants him 3 of her hair in EE DVD, just like in the books.

As for the fighting, Tolkien himself describes Legolas's fighting style as it appears in the movie, being precise and fluent and completely controlled in the elvish manner. Only he's not an R.A.Salvatore, so you readers may not remember it. If you read the books real well, if you watch the movie without prejudices learned from the elitisicm or friends who count themselves as such, if you don't assume what your falsely led imagination tells you but cannot be seen in the film.. then I'm sure you'll see the masterpiece for what it is. Watch the documentaries, know how much was done differently from modern-day movies simply to become closer to the dream.

I praise Jackson, I really do. And there aren't many directors I can say that of. Actually, I can't think of one other. And I do have a very large experience of movies and directors.

[ December 02, 2002, 11:24: Message edited by: Forashi ]

 

I think they could have pulled out some other better actor to play Legolas than Orlando Bloom. He's a useless prettyboy and all the girls at my school really fancy him.

 

I think Orlando Bloom was right for the role. Fair and nimble, just as an elf should be. And I liked Sean Bean's acting too... even when his dying scene bothered ejsmith . I think the only major detour P. Jackson made was having Arwen to take Frodo to Rivendell. But despite that, it was still beautifully made.

BTW, here's some reasons why Legolas should not be judged to be a pompous jerk (in the movie). He was the first one to openly acknowledge Aragorn's royalty. And in the trailer of TTT, when Gandalf revealed himself to Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas, you would see that man and dwarf were standing while the son of an elf lord was actually kneeling and bowing his head in respect.

 

He's kewl.

Slightly off topic:
I'm just about to finish book 1 of 6 and have found that the film misses out so much. And the events that happen in the book appear in the film they happen under very different circumstances than those described by Tolkien.

And what's with the film giving the impression that gandalf returns to frodo after a day or so when actually its about 30 years. Okay, so nothing very interesting happened in that period but it should still be made known.

 

I think that a lot of what could make him seem aloof or arrogant in the movie has to do with the fact that the man was trying to portray an elf. A being that is more otherworldly than not, calm and peaceful and just....elvish, damnit. And I think Orlando Bloom did a wonderful job in protraying that character, looks or not...He acts like a Tolkien elf should act. But there are some who, perhaps, cannot describe what it is that makes him so, and simply see him as aloof. Oh, and yes, I have a terrible crush on Legolas. It got worse after reading the books . I think the only thing that really bothered me about the movie was the whole Arwen thing. She really only pops up in the book in passing, and while I could see them putting scenes between Aragorn and Arwen in order to clarify their love (instead of discussion scenes, which is how the book did it) I still think that the only reason they had her taking Frodo to Rivendell was a cool way to introduce a fairly expensive actress. I personally think they should have stuck with the books version. Of course, it may be because I really don't care to much for Liv Tyler.

[ December 02, 2002, 18:23: Message edited by: dragonjewel13 ]

 

I don't agree, Intentioner... If you want to include such details, then you can't forget about Tom Bombadil and everything around him (the old willow, his wife, etc). Come on! The book "The Fellowship of the Rings" has material for a six hour movie, probably more... You have to cut some things...

However, I do agree that Arwen's presence is excessive, especially the love scenes with Aragorn... Doesn't happen like that. And that has implications in future events.

 

One thing that bothers the hell out of me that no one ever brings up is Aragorn's sword deal. He doesn't have it with him in Bree. Its setting on a slab collecting dust like some old relic in Rivendall. Second, in the extended version, he denies it's use when Legolas tells him it could be reforged! WTF!!!! In the book he not only reforged it but gives it a new name.

 

Intertioner of the Damned, it's not 30 years, I can't remember the exact number of years (probably 8 or 9) but I think Frodo was only 33 when they left the Shire. And I actually liked P. Jackson's version of having him leave the Shire in a much shorter time, it makes more sense as it emphasizes the importance of what evil may come. And having Merry and Pippin joining them by accident instead of the planned one in the book was actually a nice twist.

Frog, I agree with you. Aragorn renamed the reforge sword Anduril (sp?), and iirc, he used the broken one while fighting the ring wraiths in Weathertop. And he showed it to Boromir during the council at Rivendell because it was in Boromir's dream. But it was still done beautifully.

 

You are still wanting far too many details in the movie. The fact that it took decades for Gandalf to arrive back from his journey of investigating the possibility that Frodo should have the one ring is in no way relevant to the story.

The choice of getting Liv Tyler to cast in the movie as Arwen seemed a strange one to me as well. But I do think that portraying the bond between Arven and Aragorn is quite important enough to be deserving of that attention. And that chase-scene was a good idea. It very much added to the general feeling of desperate run against time and the evil that is involved in Frodo getting wounded. I certainly don't think Liv Tyler was in the movie so they could have something expensive in it. Who would be stupid enough to buy an expensive actress in a movie simply to give her so small amount of time to appear on-screen and even then not use her name and picture in every advertisement. No my friend, that was not why she was there.

As for Narsil become Andúril, it is hardly relevant that the exact timeperiod concerning the forging and using of the sword is exactly the same in the movie as in the books. What do I mean by this? Well I think you can figure its role out by just thinking a bit. I won't say anything more for fear of spoiling, but I'm quite sure my guessworks as to when and how Andúril will emerge is correct. Simply a matter of changing the time-of-events relative to others. You can expect some things to change in the future two of the films as well. But as Jackson said, no book can ever be made to be exactly the same as a movie.

As far as Orlando Bloom goes by the way, did you see the documentary? It was actually quite a risk to choose him for the role since his experience within the actual film industry was like, none. Yet his dedication for the role was among the greatest in the cast. He practiced his fighting moves, bowmanship, boat-rowing, and the Sindarin language of the elves(!) to a superb level with a dedication all of the staffs member praised. In other words, he did NOT take his role lightly. And as a result, he did NOT do it anywhere near below or equal to, average. But excelled in it.

Edit: In the cinematic version, Boromir actually seemed so much a bad and useless person I was actually glad he died. In the EE DVD, I almost cried because of it. There it is made clear that he was not a traitorous coward, but an immensely strong warrior with nothing but good as his aim and intent, but his very strength of will and determination to defeat his enemy and save his people came to be his downfall. And eventually, he did't fall to the ring though close it was. Sean Bean did an excellent work in his acting. And I never once got bored in the death scene. I guess it depends on the attitude you watch it with.. The thought that "oh my, I have better things to do than watching a very important person say his last words" was hardly in my mind at the time. And it wasn't much lengthened from the books, save for him getting his sword back in to his hand before he died.

[ December 03, 2002, 09:20: Message edited by: Forashi ]

 

Anybody, who says anything bad about Boromir should be whacked with Crom Faeyr. Sorry, just kidding. The movie was VERY WELL done, but the only thing that itched me majorly off was Arwen. I do not understand, why they 'expanded' her role. Yikes, we were SHUDDERING with my bestfriend, when she was on-screen. I feel really bad about that. And she is going to be in TTT, when she should not be. About the Legolas-thing. It's really annoying, when i go to ff.net and about some 8000 LotR what there are some Legolas praising stuff. Makes me puke. He was good in the movies, but his HAIR IS NOT BLONDE. That's all, I think.