Drinking Contest: Any Support From the Books?

[Snorri Swifthammer]

I disliked the new drinking scene in RotK:EE mostly because I thought they could do better for a laugh than sinking to the level of fart jokes. But the other thing that bugs me is the fact that Gimli loses the contest? Doesn't it strike anyone else as wrong that an elf could outdrink a dwarf?

Is there any text to support this idea? It seems to me that the defining characteristic of dwarves is their hardiness. When they were first created by Aule they were meant to be a race that could endure the darkness Melkor was spreading. It seems to me that their fortitude would extend to alcohol too. And I know that in the Hobbit, that the dwarves escape after the elven guards pass out drunk on wine.

Anything to suggest otherwise?

[Beanamir of Gondor]

Besides the four hundred screaming Legolas fangirls that would bomb PJ's house if Legolas passed out and PJ let Gimli win?

Anyway, when did PJ start caring about what happened in the book?

Sorry, that was a major dig. I know, it's all Fran Walsh's fault.

[The Saucepan Man]

Welcome to the Downs, Snorri Swifthammer. Do I detect in your name a vested interest here?

And I know that in the Hobbit, that the dwarves escape after the elven guards pass out drunk on wine.

Good point. I bet that Gimli could have outdrunk Galion.

Given that the EEs are supposedly meant to be a "bonus" for the Tolkien fans, it does seem strange that Jackson and co should include this totally gratuitous scene, which is clearly directed towards mass audiences rather than book fans, in the EE having chosen to omit it from the theatrical cut.

Then again, I did think that it was rather funny.

[Snorri Swifthammer]

Vested interest? Never!

Actually the interest is more in proving my friend wrong who seems to think elves should be immune to alll poisons (meaning they can't be drunk).

I found the scene funny too (Gimli's drinking song was great). That doesn't mean I think Legolas should have won though.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Snorri Swifthammer

Actually the interest is more in proving my friend wrong who seems to think elves should be immune to alll poisons (meaning they can't be drunk).

Well, you can prove your friend wrong by reference to Elrond's wife, Celebrian, who was poisoned by Orcs after being captured by them. The poison affected her to the extent that it required Elrond's skill to heal her, although he was unable to heal her spiritual wounds and she departed to the Undying Lands shortly thereafter.

[alatar]

I didn't like the scene. It was another that had me thinking, "PJ, you can waste time on this drivel but you felt the need to cut real LOTR book content."

Plus, the Hobbit suggests that elves can get smashed, and though Dwarves drink, I can't remember ever reading of one getting toasted (except by a dragon, of course).

[Snorri Swifthammer]

Originally posted by: The Saucepan Man
Well, you can prove your friend wrong by reference to Elrond's wife, Celebrian, who was poisoned by Orcs after being captured by them.

I completely missed that! Thanks.

[Neithan]

Yes. This scene, even more than others, made me grit my teeth. It is so wrong. When PJ made these movies he apparently decided that he could do away with the personalities of both Legolas and Gimli. He decided to make Legolas into an action hero/heart throb who, is apparantly unbeatable and almost to the level of a god (mummakil). And Gimli they reduced to the comic relief character (as if a Dwarf were anything to laugh at!).

[Ainaserkewen]

My own feelings aside about this scene, the real questions is whether or not an Elf could beat a Dwarf at drinking.

What evidence do we have? Elf guards get smashed in the Hobbit, although I'm inclined to think it was probably really strong wine and they had a lot with the intent on getting drunk. I also remember Legolas mention his fondness of wine at Isenguard so I've come to the conclution that the Elves of Mirkwood, Silvan and Sindarin alike probably really like wine. So I could argue that Legolas would have a high tolerance after how many centuries of grand Elven parties.

Facts aside, I love that scene. Only because if you watch the cast commentary with it, you'll learn that most of Gimli's antics are improv and Orlando admits to being a "light weight" when it comes to drinking. I think Dominic says something like "He has a little and he's yours."

it does seem strange that Jackson and co should include this totally gratuitous scene

It's all in good fun Saucepan Man, didn't you like seeing the characters in this particular setting? It's like good fanfiction, only...you know, not written or done by amatures.

[Mad Baggins]

When I first heard about the drinking scene, I disapproved, but when I saw it in the movie I have to admit it was rather funny. All in all I didn't mind (although they could have put a more useful scene in... short epilogue, anyone?) but Gimli's comment about swimming with little hairy women did catch me off guard.

[Mister Underhill]

That scene seems to be Jackson's homage to Spielberg: the drinking contest is very reminiscent of a similar scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark (which of course starred Rhys-Davies) in Marion's bar in Nepal, and the "little hairy women" line echoes Quint's toast, "Here's to swimmin' with bow-legged women!" from Jaws. Maybe someone who has listened to the director's commentary can offer more insight...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Neithan

When PJ made these movies he apparently decided that he could do away with the personalities of both Legolas and Gimli.

Legolas and Gimli had personalities in the book ... !!?



*Ducks flying DVD EEs*

Originally Posted by Ainaserkewen

I've come to the conclution that the Elves of Mirkwood, Silvan and Sindarin alike probably really like wine.

I would agree with your conclusion. Although it is another point against the scene being accurate in book terms, as it portrays Legolas as having no concept of the enjoyment of alcohol (poor dear).

It's all in good fun Saucepan Man, didn't you like seeing the characters in this particular setting?

As I said, I did enjoy the scene. But it was gratuitous (to the plot).

[Neithan]

Legolas and Gimli had personalities in the book ... !!?

Very funny. At least in the books they were more than a stuntman and a clown!

And another thing, is it just me or was PJ much more fond of Elves than Dwarves ("That still only counts as one"). I have a problem with him incorporating his personal preferences into the movies (especially since I don't share them).
This scene was indeed gratuitous, but I would have shrugged it off if Gimli had won, which he obviously should have.

[AbercrombieOfRohan]

Legolas and Gimli had personalities in the book ... !!?

It was another that had me thinking, "PJ, you can waste time on this drivel but you felt the need to cut real LOTR book content."

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)

[Ainaserkewen]

as it portrays Legolas as having no concept of the enjoyment of alcohol (poor dear).

Yes, but wasn't it delightfully silly when he says his fingers are tingling, almost as if he's making fun of the whole event?

And another thing, is it just me or was PJ much more fond of Elves than Dwarves ("That still only counts as one").

I wouldn't say "more fond of". A lot of people seemed to like the up-played rivalry between those two and the fact that Gimli seemed to take it more seriously. Legolas's character wouldn't work as the guy who's secretly jealous and always wants to get the upper hand. Gimli only loses once really in the movies with the infamous drinking screne and he initiated it, he wanted to prove that he was better than Legolas at something. In the movies they never tell you who won the orc killing contest but the books have Gimli win by one and that further developes the relationship between the Dwarf and the Elf.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Neithan

At least in the books they were more than a stuntman and a clown!

Touche!

[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.....

[alatar]

Originally Posted by AbercrombieOfRohan

:
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)

So the EE stuff was more for the cast and crew than for us, as the pirate scene was all about PJ.

[Snorri Swifthammer]

It is not just about the cast and crew don't forgot the others that benefit, like legions of Orlando Bloom fan girls and the D&D club that was determined to prove that Saruman is at least 5th level by having him cast a Fireball.

[Esgallhugwen]

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

Let me clarify a little something, (unless I've lost my mind, which wouldn't be too far from the truth) In the EE edition of the Two Towers, though they leave Legolas in the lead, a scene comes back to Gimli sitting upon an Uruk whilst smoking his pipe Legolas walks up with a smug look upon his face, "final count 22 (or something or other)", Gimli looks up at him, "well thats not bad for a pointy eared Elf Princeling but I'm sitting pretty on number 23", Legolas then gives a look of distaste and shock and drawing back his bow leashes an arrow right between Gimli's legs, "23" he smirks.

"He was already dead!"
"He was twitching!"
"He's twitching because he's got my axe imbedded in his nervous system!" jerks the axe around and Uruk twitches comically.

Now aside from the fact that they probably wouldn't have actually known what a nervous system was back then it is clear that Legolas actually shows some jealous attitude towards the Dwarf besting him to which he tries to equal the score by shooting a dead twitching orc. *Tsk tsk how childish*

But getting back to the drinking situation, I believe that Elves and Dwarves can hold there own when it comes to their own drinks of culture. Having said this since wine is known to be stronger then ale Legolas could have very well bested Gimli at an ale drinking game, only because he would be more accustomed to drinking a stronger more effective beverage.

*A little trivia*:I did enjoy both those scenes, the drinking one however I was slightly taken aback by since it was not in the book even though I knew the reasons why it was put into the movie. And it is funny to note that Legolas is a far better drinker then Orlando even little Elijah can apparently hold his liquer better then the Brit.

[Snorri Swifthammer]

originally posted by: Esgallhugwen
But getting back to the drinking situation, I believe that Elves and Dwarves can hold there own when it comes to their own drinks of culture. Having said this since wine is known to be stronger then ale Legolas could have very well bested Gimli at an ale drinking game, only because he would be more accustomed to drinking a stronger more effective beverage.

Ahh, but to reference some quotes from further up in this topic, Elves drink bowls of wine at their feasts, while dwarves are drinking barrels of ale for breakfast. I think in that case the alcohol tolerance should favor the dwarves.

Plus considering Dwarf culture, they are probably trying to brew their ale to be potent.

[Neithan]

O.K., lets think about this. Dwarves were designed by Aule to withstand the world as it was when Morgoth ruled it before the coming of the Elves, while the Valar waged a war to protect the Elves from Morgoth. Besides that the defining characteristic of Dwarves is their toughness, they can not even "fade" and become wraiths as other mortals can. Elves though tougher than Mortal Men are defined more by their agility, stealth, and so on. Surely a Dwarf would win a drinking contest.

[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.

[mark12_30]

It was worth a chuckle or two. Since there was no threatened duel between Gimli and Eomer over Galadriel's beauty versus Arwen's beaty, somehow Eomer encouraging Gimli in a different sort of duel was okay.

And it brought the three of them back together peacefully, after their rather rough introduction. Besides, I enjoyed the chance to actually watch and listen to Karl Urban deliver a line, instead of being living wallpaper.

[Turin]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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.


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.

I too would certainly not describe the movies as poor quality - they were good, altough not, IMO, masterpieces as Essex describes them. I was merely trying to point out that successful films in general do not necessarily denote quality.

The question of mass appeal is again speculative. Basing my feelings on a non-book reader's perspective, I would still argue that people who came to watch the movie may have acclaimed the films moreso if there was less slapstick and better witty humour.

I am pretty sure that the financial backers would not have lost anything in terms of commercial success if the movies portrayed characters such as Gimli more seriously.

[Rumil]

I reckon that Legolas, used to the incomparable vintages of Dorwinion, had secretly swapped a few pints of the uncouth Rohirrim real ale (probably including a dead rat or two) for a refreshing glass of mineral water.

At least I'm assuming it was real ale, can't have been lager , surely, can it ?

[Esgallhugwen]

So in the end this no longer becomes a fact of who could down the most ale but of how the seriousness of certain characters was undermined.

Lets all take into account here that this was supposed to prove if Elves or Dwarves could outdrink one another, now it has become yet another annoying thread about the capability or incapability of PJ and of corporate weasels film making processes.

Yes we are comparing film characters to book characters, but instead of trying to stay on topic we have strayed into talk of how Gimli and the other "little people" have been taken advantage of in the use of humour. I couldn't agree with you more about how bad I've felt that they've used Gimli as comic relief in a hard situation, because he should have been shown as a more serious character then he was, rather then a bearded clown. However I did laugh because after all it is humour and it was funny. I've also learned to take these things in stride. Book Gimli is book Gimli, and movie Gimli is movie Gimli. Two distinct beings in my opinion and I have learned to seperate them, quite the same with other characters as well.

I know this is not my thread, but instead of adding another topic about the films integrity, (which there are already many of) let us please try to get back onto track.

Though the thread starter disliked the drinking scene in ROTK EE the thread name does read,

Drinking Contest: Any Support From the Books?

not

Drinking Contest: How they messed up Gimli's character....again

[Assasin]

PJ would probably be dead by now if he made Leggy pass out, with fangirl scratch marks all over him. You would think that Gimli would be able to beat Leggy, but, I think elves are always eager to find something else that they can beat dwarves in.