Lack of respect displayed by Gimli

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

You want to play nice. Fine, I can play nice. You want to take off the gloves and play rough. I can do that too. Believe me young man, you have not seen anything yet.

I prefer nice and civil. But be forewarned. Think about what you want to do with this direction.

Oh please...to think that testosterone can find its way through electronic pathways.

StW, you're a provocateur, short and sweet. I assume that the 'direction' above indicates that you will provide MatthewM and like diehard book fans with the 'Unified Theory of Tolkien,' like the physics Holy Grail of the Unified Theory of Gravity, would tie together the Books and the Movies in one sweeping theorem. Short of that, and the proofs that it would require, you then simply hold an opinion.

That's cool, but I wouldn't oversell it.

By the by, I'm glad that MatthewM has started this thread, as I overlooked another Jackson flaw (over five billions and counting) with the observation regarding Gimli and the Throne of Denethor II - one of over 26 Stewards to rule in the King's stead, and yet his seat is no better than a common stool. Oh, and hair colour? Forgot that one too. I figure that once I get the list to six billion, surely someone will then have the movies recalled. Until then I can only sit and scrawl...

[Sauron the White]

from Gwathagor

A gentle word turns away wrath, Sauron

Interesting that your observation is directed at only me. It seems to me that some here are intentionally attempting to provoke me. The calling names comes to mind.

Alatar writes

By the by, I'm glad that MatthewM has started this thread, as I overlooked another Jackson flaw (over five billions and counting) with the observation regarding Gimli and the Throne of Denethor II - one of over 26 Stewards to rule in the King's stead, and yet his seat is no better than a common stool. Oh, and hair colour? Forgot that one too. I figure that once I get the list to six billion, surely someone will then have the movies recalled. Until then I can only sit and scrawl...

And to think that it only took four years of time passing and probably 200 million viewers for anybody to notice it.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Interesting that your observation is directed at only me. It seems to me that some here are intentionally attempting to provoke me. The calling names comes to mind.

But isn't that what you want...attention? I've given up presenting arguments a while ago, as they seem to get ignored for more provocative ideas. And to think that you and I, StW, two older gentlemen, are posting in an internet forum where someone posted the words, "calling names." Now I know how John Rhys-Davies must feel.

And to think that it only took four years of time passing and probably 200 million viewers for anybody to notice it.

With a list as long as Jackson's flubs (and the subsequent requisite Book quote to be cited), I hope to be able to discuss some percentage of them before the sun burns out .

MatthewM, take the compliment when given: you're one in 200 million!

[Sauron the White]

Alatar... have you been appointed as head of the impartial and objective jury?

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

What's wrong with you people?

Some respect please even if you disagree...

PS. I just realised what is it in British parlance: manners, please.

Hehe, good one Nogrod!

[Sauron the White]

I do regret if I offended anyone by getting angry. I did feel that I was being baited and probably went a bit far with the play fair or rough remarks. Here is to getting back on track... and on topic.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

For those who are not aware of it, Alatar is one of the moderators. He has both the right and the authority to step in if discussions become rancorous. After all, I can't be around 24/7, and as I'm the only active mod here at the moment, I very much appreciate the help given by other members of the moderating team.

I am tired of the aggressive tone several members have been taking in defending their views and the bad manners they have shown in attacking each other. I am also tired of being tactful and discreet, of writing PMs that seem to get ignored, since those involved don't change the way they post. From now on, anyone who offends in public will be named in public.

I will be back to this thread later when I have had time to check it out in detail.

People, our rules and the way we expect you to post here are very clear - if you can't adhere to them and aren't willing to adjust to the standard of politeness that we have, please leave and find another forum on which you can post anyway you like. In colloquial terms, shape up or ship out - or you will be banned, for short or long.

[Meriadoc1961]

I agree that whether or not Aragorn was present in the throne room of Gondo was irrelevant. Gimli was being disrespectful by sitting in the Steward's chair. Aragorn suffered his banner to be flown during the height of the Battle of the Pelennor when it appeared the Men of the West would fall, and did so to offer encouragemnt and to remind the people what they were fighting for, but he immediately had it furled following the victory before the gates. He would not even enter the city except in disguise as a Ranger from the North, and he only did so then because he was needed to heal the maimed, the sick and the wounded for "The hands of the King are the hands of a healer, and so shall the rightful heir be known."

Aragorn, Lord of Gondor in exile, would not deign to sleep within the city's walls, the city of which he was King, while the War of the Ring was still being fought and waged, and yet we are supposed to believe that it was perfectly acceptable for Gimli to sit in the seat of the Steward of Gondor, the seat of one who had just died, while his heir's life was still hanging in the balance? I do not believe so. It was totally disrespectful. It is just another mark of shame upon our own society that has become so decadent and disrespectful that the coarsest of language and conduct is viewed as acceptable, and decorum and good manners are scoffed at.

Remember, too, that Frodo himself felt uncouth because he and those from the Shire did not observe the Standing Silence before dining. Frodo was embarrassed. And yet these men of Faramir's company did this even while foraying in the wilderness of Ithilien away from the city. If that was expected of them under those harsh conditions, do any of us honestly believe that the men of Gondor, the Guards of the Citadel of Minas Tirith, would have done or said nothing while a dwarf just kicked back and smoked while seated in the very chair of their just deceased fallen leader?

When President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 even the just sworn in President Johnson waited a few days before anyone was allowed to touch and remove the rocking chair of the nation's fallen leader, JFK, from the Oval Office. If we in the United States could show such honor to the dead, I see not why a nation that had existed for millenia, with its ancient, high origins and purpose, would do any less.

What Jackson did with Gimli is completely crass and tasteless.

Merry

[Bêthberry]

Well, I've been biding my time waiting for an opportune moment to return to the topic at hand and I do believe that our Moddess has provided that.

I don't have time to review the scene MatthewM mentions where Gimli sits on the Throne of Gondor. Perhaps those who are more versed with the film can do that and comment on the tone, atmosphere, seeming purpose of that action in the movie. I will simply comment on the general possibilities of meaning.

We all know that directors and producers are free as interpretors and sub-creators to create the movie they envision. The problem with PJ's vision is that he and his team of writers have claimed on more than one occasion that they thought they were being faithful to Tolkien's vision. This opens up the can of worms which we dead just love to see wiggle, although we do prefer to see them wriggle through our posts rather than us.

LotR makes very clear that Gondor is a city marked by the rituals and splendor of an interregnum. The chapter "Minas Tirith" in RotK clearly shows Denethor sitting on his simple stone chair below the opulent unused Throne. Appendix A also states that the Ruling Stewards never sat on the throne itself. This is part of Tolkien's appreciation of how monarchies develope symbols of power and authority. There's no happenstance between Arthur's sword in the stone and Aragorn's blade that was unbroken, just as there was nothing meaningless in Elizabeth I's use of symbols in the various famous portraits of her. The symbols represent the Office and not just the person. Parliaments have maces that are symbolic. "The Once and Future King" still has resonance in England--the current Prince of Wales includes the name "Arthur" in his string of names. Perhaps countries which do not have a history and tradition of monarchy produce people who are less familiar with this kind of symbolic meaning. Or perhaps modern culture just deems them effluent of the past and not important.

The fact remains that the Vacant Throne held a meaning in Gondor and in the Legendarium, a meaning which is not established in the movies. So, that difference itself leads to questions, which MatthewM has rightly raised here, although we need to be careful if the Throne in the movies has the same meaning as it has in the books.

Was PJ simply not interested in this aspect of Tolkien's Legendarium, the role and attitude towards monarchy--was he more interested in the blockbuster action thriller aspects? Did he understand why the Throne was unoccupied in LotR? Or was he aware of it but decided in a modern age of democracy to downplay the significance of monarchy? Did he think that having Gimli sit on the Throne was a way to demonstrate to a modern audience that change was here at hand? Was he trying to imply some sort of Constitutional Monarchy?

I don't think we can simply transfer Tolkien's meaning of the symbol, the Vacant Throne, to the movies (except to note that here is one clear example where PJ's vision of LotR does not coincide with the text). But we can ask what PJ might have meant by having the dwarf sit on the Throne. Really, I would love to have someone ask PJ and his writers about this.

And it doesn't matter that the movies came out years ago and no one asked this earlier. People make all kinds of new observations about books that were published centuries ago. This is part of the fun of reading/viewing/internet discussion boards. Human beings create an infinite variety of ways to count dancing angels.

EDIT: Sorry, cross posted with Merry.

Originally Posted by Meriadoc1961, post # 48

If that was expected of them under those harsh conditions, do any of us honestly believe that the men of Gondor, the Guards of the Citadel of Minas Tirith, would have done or said nothing while a dwarf just kicked back and smoked while seated in the very chair of their just deceased fallen leader?

Umm, the Throne was not the chair of their 'just deceased fallen leader' Denethor; it was the ancient Seat of the Kings, untouched by the ruling Stewards, who sat in a plain stone chair at the foot of the empty Throne. But your comment does show that the actions PJ puts Gimli through need to be understood in movie terms because PJ does not deal with the meaning Tolkien gives to the Vacant Throne.

[alatar]

Sorry to all for my less than informative and evidential posts last eve.

Anyway, now I do have some 'evidence' as to why I think that Gimli shouldn't have stood on the Tomb of Balin. I'll disregard the whole 'respect' thing as I don't know that much about movie Dwarven culture. Sure, Gimli spends a lot of time kneeling before the tomb, but then maybe all bets are off once the Dwarf's blood (if they have blood, which is another assumption) gets hot.

I'll be referring to the attached images. In 'Gimli,' we see the Dwarf atop the tomb. Aragorn and Legolas - archers - are in front, and Boromir stands out there as well with sword and shield. Gandalf and the hobbits stand off to the other side. Gimli2 shows this from the front - what the orcs will see when they enter the Chamber of Mazarbul. Gimli3 shows Gimli after the affray has gone on for a few minutes. The Dwarf is still atop the tomb. Aragorn has switched from bow to sword, and at this time everyone is engaged. Gimli has taken one or possibly two hacks at orcs, and now is dodging the troll's attack.

Okay, so for me, I would say that this 'come and get some' Dwarf would have been better positioned for battle directly in front of the tomb. You'll notice if you watch the scene that his 'count,' which becomes more important later, is slightly - if at all - above the individual hobbits. He could have been right behind Aragorn and Legolas, so that when they drop their bows he could add to the ground attack. But...

And now for the Seat of Denethor. In Gimli4, we can see the Dwarf happily planted on the black throne. Please look closely at his legs and his head in relationship to the throne. In Gimli5, we see that the Dwarf is so comfortable that he's lit up his pipe - hammer and tongs!

Now I will conjecture that all of this fuss about disrespect for the Seat of Denethor is for not. Why? Again, look at Gimli4. If that's a human-sized throne then I'll be a winged polar Balrog. So, my conclusion? The Army of the Dead stole the real throne and replaced it with the one we see. You also will note that the King's throne also is missing.

No wonder they were in a hurry to leave on the Pellenor Fields - had to get out of town before Aragorn discovered their prank. Aragorn cares not as he sees the obvious fakery. How else can you explain it?

[Meriadoc1961]

I would like to add another observation, especially to those who turn to Aragorn being in the room as somehow making it okay for Gimli to sit in the Steward's chair.

When Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli first came to Edoras they were forbidden from bringing any weapons into the presence of the King. Aragorn was loth to remove his sword, Anduril, because of its significance, and he told Hama that death would be the penalty for anyone who dared touch his sword. Aragorn would have been the first to keep Gimli out of that empty chair. But then again, had Jackson not tampered with the characters in the first place, then this would be a moot point: Gimli himself would NEVER have approached that chair, kicked back and lit up a pipe, if his character had not been tampered with!

Merry

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

And now for the Seat of Denethor. In Gimli4, we can see the Dwarf happily planted on the black throne. Please look closely at his legs and his head in relationship to the throne. In Gimli5, we see that the Dwarf is so comfortable that he's lit up his pipe - hammer and tongs!

Now I will conjecture that all of this fuss about disrespect for the Seat of Denethor is for not. Why? Again, look at Gimli4. If that's a human-sized throne then I'll be a winged polar Balrog. So, my conclusion? The Army of the Dead stole the real throne and replaced it with the one we see. You also will note that the King's throne also is missing.

No wonder they were in a hurry to leave on the Pellenor Fields - had to get out of town before Aragorn discovered their prank. Aragorn cares not as he sees the obvious fakery. How else can you explain it?

Oh great Mod alatar, on whose altar... ...
You have gone back to review the flick, which I didn't have time for. Does Gimli in the movie simply sit on the Ruling Stewards' black stone chair and not on the Vacant Throne? So that PJ completely omitted Tolkien's little bit of monarchial symbolism?

Do Kiwis not have Elizabeth as their titular head of state?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Oh great Mod alatar, on whose altar... ...

What!?! I'm not actually a mod; I just play one on TV...

You have gone back to review the flick, which I didn't have time for.

I considered it my penance.

Does Gimli in the movie simply sit on the Ruling Stewards' black stone chair and not on the Vacant Throne?

I'm not even sure that the 'vacant throne' was even there - truly vacant. Maybe Aragorn had it out being reupholstered perhaps?

So that PJ completely omitted Tolkien's little bit of monarchial symbolism?

All of that 'monarchy' stuff is lost on this 'Merican. Could you rephrase the question in regards to celebrity status (i.e. What would Brittany do?) ?

[Boromir88]

I'm not even sure that the 'vacant throne' was even there - truly vacant

I think if you look at Gimli4. up those steps at the top of the plateau(?) sits the white vacant throne of the king.

[Meriadoc1961]

"Umm, the Throne was not the chair of their 'just deceased fallen leader' Denethor; it was the ancient Seat of the Kings, untouched by the ruling Stewards, who sat in a plain stone chair at the foot of the empty Throne. But your comment does show that the actions PJ puts Gimli through need to be understood in movie terms because PJ does not deal with the meaning Tolkien gives to the Vacant Throne."

Bethberry, it is not the actual Throne of the King that is under discussion. It is Gimli seen sitting in the vacant seat of the Steward. I hope this clarifies things a bit better.

Merry

[Boromir88]

Point exactly is if Jackson chose not to change the location of the Last Debate to the "throne room" this discussion would not be taking place, as there would be no disrespectful dwarf sitting on a vacant steward's chair . Maybe they should have communed in the hallows where Denethor burns himself alive? Hmm..

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

All of that 'monarchy' stuff is lost on this 'Merican. Could you rephrase the question in regards to celebrity status (i.e. What would Brittany do?) ?

I think she would be gazing far too much into her Palantir. (But just because her name is Brittany, don't get confused with things Britainy.)

Originally Posted by Meriadoc1961

Bethberry, it is not the actual Throne of the King that is under discussion. It is Gimli seen sitting in the vacant seat of the Steward.

Yes. Exactly. And the Steward's chair is not as deserving of respect as is the King's Throne.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Point exactly is if Jackson chose not to change the location of the Last Debate to the "throne room" this discussion would not be taking place,

You obviously are aware that the heir to the British throne, first in line, collects porcelain thrones as a hobby.

[Meriadoc1961]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I think she would be gazing far too much into her Palantir. (But just because her name is Brittany, don't get confused with things Britainy.)



Yes. Exactly. And the Steward's chair is not as deserving of respect as is the King's Throne.

Bethberry,

Gandalf pointed out to Pippin that even the Steward of Gondor had a greater lineage than the King of Rohan, and was of higher and nobler blood. He was desended from a greater House of Men. And Aragorn, the exiled Lord of Gondor, paid respects to that subordinate king's wishes by removing Anduril from his side. Aragorn even bowed to Theoden. So the "Steward is less than the King" argument is not valid, particularly in this situation.

Denethor may have been only a Steward, but it came to him by birthright, just as a kingship does. He had all the power of the king during the king's absence, which in this case had been hundreds of years. He WAS the ruler of Gondor, and that in itself made him worthy of respect...and it was not shown to him or his office by Jackson having Gimli sit in his seat, kick back, and light up his pipe.

Merry

[Sauron the White]

Okay... lets approach this from a different tact. Forget for a minute about whose office was higher, who was in power and who was not, whose lineage was the more prestigious or lengthy, or what was the exact import of the various offices or thrones.

This was in the middle of war. The city had just been attacked by a couple of hundred thousand orcs, trolls, Nazgul and Grond thrown in for good measure. Large portions of it were destroyed and burned. Several sections of the city were probably largely uninhabitable. Lots of good people died in its defense. And then we realize that this is but a blip, a bump in the road. All means nothing if Frodo runs into serious opposition in Mordor and fails to complete his task.

With all this on the plate of Aragorn, Gandalf and group, is it logical to stand on manners and ceremony at this most crucial of times? During World War II lots of major buildings all over Europe were turned into war rooms where meetings were held and I would bet that the previous occupants would be shocked if they could see soldiers putting their feet up on that highly polished mahogany table or putting a cigar out on the family china. But it happened and it was not because anybody wanted to urinate upon or disrespect on the family or national crest or flag.

It was wartime plain and simple. That kind of urgency has a brutal and immediate way of cutting through all the social nicities of normal life and rendering them all pretty meaningless.

I am not British but I read and have seen newsreels where during the bombing of Britain during WWII, the Queen (who I guess is now the Queen Mother) would visit bombsites the next day, sometimes even the same day to meet with people and keep spirits up by purchasing some little item or food product in the nieghborhood to show the people that normal life should go on. I was not there. But I have to imagine that the conduct of those neighborhood people in meeting the Queen in a bombed out store may have been just a tad bit different than a formal presentation to the Queen at a formal event at the palace. At least that is what the old newsreels showed.

Same here with Gimli on the throne.
This so called lack of respect appears to be making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

One person's mountain is another person's molehill and vice versa. That's forum culture! Mountain or molehill is a matter of perspective - from which vantage point does one see it? You have every right to call it a molehill in your opinion, and another has just as much right to say it is a mountain for her or him. Neither should be disrespectful of the other person's right to see a matter as important or unimportant.

[Sauron the White]

Estelyn... yes. I accept that and understand that. My molehill and mountain reference was to what started the complaint --- the actions of Gimli. Gimli did not break up the stewards chair for kindling. He did not wipe his muddy boots upon the edges of the chair to clean them. He did not place a chamber pot underneath it. He did not carve his initials into it with the edge of his axe. He did not do anything that was a serious or gross breach of respect.

What did he do? He sat in a chair during a meeting in that room in the middle of a war council planning important strategy. The fate of the Free Peoples was hanging in the balance with important decisions to be made and be made rather quickly.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Okay... lets approach this from a different tact. Forget for a minute about whose office was higher, who was in power and who was not, whose lineage was the more prestigious or lengthy, or what was the exact import of the various offices or thrones.

This was in the middle of war. The city had just been attacked by a couple of hundred thousand orcs, trolls, Nazgul and Grond thrown in for good measure. Large portions of it were destroyed and burned. Several sections of the city were probably largely uninhabitable. Lots of good people died in its defense. And then we realize that this is but a blip, a bump in the road. All means nothing if Frodo runs into serious opposition in Mordor and fails to complete his task.

With all this on the plate of Aragorn, Gandalf and group, is it logical to stand on manners and ceremony at this most crucial of times? During World War II lots of major buildings all over Europe were turned into war rooms where meetings were held and I would bet that the previous occupants would be shocked if they could see soldiers putting their feet up on that highly polished mahogany table or putting a cigar out on the family china. But it happened and it was not because anybody wanted to urinate upon or disrespect on the family or national crest or flag.

It was wartime plain and simple. That kind of urgency has a brutal and immediate way of cutting through all the social nicities of normal life and rendering them all pretty meaningless.

I am not British but I read and have seen newsreels where during the bombing of Britain during WWII, the Queen (who I guess is now the Queen Mother) would visit bombsites the next day, sometimes even the same day to meet with people and keep spirits up by purchasing some little item or food product in the nieghborhood to show the people that normal life should go on. I was not there. But I have to imagine that the conduct of those neighborhood people in meeting the Queen in a bombed out store may have been just a tad bit different than a formal presentation to the Queen at a formal event at the palace. At least that is what the old newsreels showed.

Same here with Gimli on the throne.
This so called lack of respect appears to be making a mountain out of a molehill.

Well, actually, the dear old soul is now departed--bless her gin-soddened heart.

But LotR is not The Dam Busters or The Longest Day or The Great Escape or Midway or Saving Sargeant Ryan or Sophie's Choice or Schindler's List. It is feigned history cast in the form of fantasy. It has elves and dwarves, giant eagles, gigantic spider monsters, talking trees and hobbits. So it has a style and ethos different from the mode you mention--and after all newsreels of the time were highly propagandistic. It partakes of the old epic warrior code rather than the modern anti-heroic one.

The very fact that it is so different from such historical realism is what makes LotR so attractive for many. And when PJ's interpretation (which he is allowed) does not encompass that, it highlights the absence of high fantasy.

[Gwathagor]

Well said!

[Sauron the White]

from Bethberry

The very fact that it is so different from such historical realism is what makes LotR so attractive for many. And when PJ's interpretation (which he is allowed) does not encompass that, it highlights the absence of high fantasy.

Yes, I understand your point and sympathize who approach it from that perspective. I can understand why some did not approve of the anti-hero/conflicted hero tinge that Aragorn received. I felt - that for the purposes of a film - the changes worked for with the modern audience - after all, Jackson was not selling tickets to the audience of D W Griffiths or even the WWII era.

My point about the Queen in WWII Britain was simply that in wartime allowances are made even among the royals in terms of relaxing ceremony and the pomp and circumstance of it all. And that was the condition depicted in ROTK.

In such times, actions which may otherwise be considered as breaches of manners or even disrespectful are allowed given the emergency circumstances everyone found themselves in.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by alatar

MatthewM, take the compliment when given: you're one in 200 million!

Indeed!

Glad to see the topic has gotten back on track. I do not have the time to read all the lengthy posts right now, but when I do I will be back!

[Meriadoc1961]

There was PLENTY of room for Gimli to have sat down elsewhere. It was not as if they were holding their meeting in a cramped room! And for Jackson to have had Gimli sitting in that chair at that time of mourning just further shows how he does not get Tolkien. The characters are everything. And Gimli sitting in that chair was out of the character that Tolkien had created. Gimli would not have done it.

Merry

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

My point about the Queen in WWII Britain was simply that in wartime allowances are made even among the royals in terms of relaxing ceremony and the pomp and circumstance of it all. And that was the condition depicted in ROTK.

In such times, actions which may otherwise be considered as breaches of manners or even disrespectful are allowed given the emergency circumstances everyone found themselves in.

Well, yes, I suppose your point about the Royal Resolve does deserve more than a throw-away line.

I think the two examples, Her Majesty the Queen Mother's forays into the bombed out areas of London, and PJ's depiction of Gimli in the throne room, actually have opposite meanings, not the same meaning as you suggest.

First of all, Her Majesty had begun the habit of making tours into the public domain soon after the Abdication of Nauty Edward and subsequent Coronation of Shy George. These provincial tours were designed to bring the new king more into the public eye and help eradicate the perceived scourge of the Abdication. So they were a form symbolic role playing, something the former Duchess of York was exceptionally gifted at, particularly with her great social ability of 'connecting' with people. Even before the war, she was engaged in "Majesty-making."

And this is what the tours of bombed London were designed to continue--to instill in the British people a sense of steadfast, brave and unflinching continuation of the stiff upper lip, of British resolve and the British way of life in the time of, in the words of her Bulldog, "their darkest hour". In creating this symbolic role of Mother and Grandmother, she was maintaining and perpetuating Royal Authority and Royal Resolve and thereby gave hope and encouragement to her subjects. The chaos and disaster of war did not diminish the Royal Presence or the sense of Social Order, but magnified it.

The newsreels ate it up.

PJ's flippant positioning of Gimli does not do this. It does not lend authority and credence to The New Hope but rather reinforces the condition, as you said earlier, that normal life was rendered meaningless.

Originally Posted by StW

It was wartime plain and simple. That kind of urgency has a brutal and immediate way of cutting through all the social nicities of normal life and rendering them all pretty meaningless.

Perhaps the difficulty PJ faced was the cynicism of contemporary culture over heroism in war--or over just plain war. But the grace and presence of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, born a commoner, told a different tale. Pity that PJ could not have imagined that.

[Sauron the White]

When a film like this is made, there are many scenes which end up on the cutting room floor because of time. Even in the extended edition they could not put in everything they wanted to. It is a little known fact, but there were several minutes filmed before we see that war council being held. Here is a secret transcript:

Aragorn: Okay, everybody present and accounted for?

Gandalf: Everybody except Faramir the new Steward.

Gimli: Hrumph, hrumph, hrumph.

Legolas: last time I see him he was playing footsie with a fellow patient in the Houses of Healing.

much snickering ensues.

Eomer: Hey, thats my sister you are chuckling about. Chill out.

Aragorn: Thats fine (experiencing much relief since Faramir has taken the problematic Eowyn off his hands) but he is represented by this letter.

Aragorn then reads the note from Faramir:

Sorry I can't drop in to help plan the invasion of Mordor. I would normally not miss it for the world but am nursing some old athletic. Enjoy the throne room, feel free to use it any want you want. Oh - and maybe Gimli could fill my chair for me?
ps. Ale is in the ice chest.
==========================

So there we have it.

Perhaps that scene will be added to the super duper six hour 25th Anniversary edition of ROTK?

[Sir Kohran]

I believe having John Rhys Davies sat in Denethor's throne was a reference to the movie's early days of production, when John Rhys Davies was indeed going to play Denethor.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, born a commoner

Well, technically true insofar as she was not herself a peer of the realm- but she was an earl's daughter, not a grocer's! She was a 'commoner' in precisely the same sense as Diana Spencer.

[MatthewM]

Sitting in the Steward's chair is still a big deal, even if it's not the vacant chair of the Kings. The Steward's chair is just as important, in my opinion, given its history and rule over Gondor.

By the way --- they do show the vacant throne of the Kings in the films. They never do a direct shot on it, I think, but it is there, above the Steward's throne.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Well, technically true insofar as she was not herself a peer of the realm- but she was an earl's daughter, not a grocer's! She was a 'commoner' in precisely the same sense as Diana Spencer.

Oh, exactly! And both seemed to have a sharper grasp of optics than some of the peers around them.

Originally Posted by MatthewM

Sitting in the Steward's chair is still a big deal, even if it's not the vacant chair of the Kings. The Steward's chair is just as important, in my opinion, given its history and rule over Gondor.

Certainly the Stewards were the de facto rulers and commanded great authority, power, influence, fear, respect--all that goes with ruling.

Yet I wonder, does LotR dismiss the distance between the two seats? Does the Steward's chair mean the same thing in LotR as the Throne?

[davem]

Just posted this as Lal - so have deleted it & am re-posting under my own name.

Humphrey Carpenter gave a talk a long time ago at the Church House bookshop (around the time The Sil was published) & he mentioned writing to Tolkien about a musical play of The Hobbit he planned to put on at a school he was working at. Tolkien replied that 'he thought the whole idea was complete nonsense & a very silly thing to do, but who was he (Tolkien that is) to stop Carpenter doing it? Carpenter later went to meet him & says Tolkien made clear that he 'strongly disapproved' of translating his work into any other medium. Tolkien also expressed disapproval of the changes Carpenter proposed making to TH, but, & this is interesting, he made no attempt to dissuade Carpenter - & even suggested tunes for the songs. According to Carpenter, most of them were in the form of Gregorian Chant. Anyway, Tolkien was persuaded to go along to see the production & afterwards Carpenter asked him what he thought of the adaptation. Tolkien told him, & apparently it took some time - at the end of which Carpenter looked down & noticed that Tolkien had drunk all Carpenter's wine....

So, it would seem that while Tolkien strongly disapproved of adaptations of his work he felt that it was not his place to stop anyone doing it, & was even (if they were sufficiently respectful) happy to help (if you can call the suggestion of Gregorian Chant for the tunes of a school musical 'help').

Btw, a recording of this talk is available, along with one from Priscilla Tolkien & another from Raynor Unwin - they are all absolutely fascinating http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000XTB8Y0. I've just listened to it & it is wonderful. Carpenter & Priscilla were talking just after the Sil was published, & Raynor the day after UT appeared. There's a question & answer session where he's bombarded with questions about future publications & what might appear. He mentions plans for Barbara Strachey's Journeys of Frodo, & that Shippey's Road to Middle-earth would hopefully be appearing soon! Priscilla's reminiscences are wonderful - & if anyone's interested Tolkien's favourite composers were Sibelius & Wagner.
__________________

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

With all this on the plate of Aragorn, Gandalf and group, is it logical to stand on manners and ceremony at this most crucial of times? During World War II lots of major buildings all over Europe were turned into war rooms where meetings were held and I would bet that the previous occupants would be shocked if they could see soldiers putting their feet up on that highly polished mahogany table or putting a cigar out on the family china. But it happened and it was not because anybody wanted to urinate upon or disrespect on the family or national crest or flag.

It was wartime plain and simple. That kind of urgency has a brutal and immediate way of cutting through all the social nicities of normal life and rendering them all pretty meaningless.

I am not British but I read and have seen newsreels where during the bombing of Britain during WWII, the Queen (who I guess is now the Queen Mother) would visit bombsites the next day, sometimes even the same day to meet with people and keep spirits up by purchasing some little item or food product in the nieghborhood to show the people that normal life should go on. I was not there. But I have to imagine that the conduct of those neighborhood people in meeting the Queen in a bombed out store may have been just a tad bit different than a formal presentation to the Queen at a formal event at the palace. At least that is what the old newsreels showed.

Same here with Gimli on the throne.
This so called lack of respect appears to be making a mountain out of a molehill.

Let me reassure you that even in the depths of WWII the Great British sense of class and status was upheld. One of the most interesting things to see in the Cabinet War Rooms is the suite of offices deep in the cellars of Whitehall where the civil servants worked. Bear in mind that this place was intended to be the last refuge of Churchill, his cabinet and heads of the services, and even though the worst didn't come to pass, it was still at the centre of some hair-raising incidents.

Yet even through all this, notions of status were maintained. Civil servants were allocated desks, chairs and even sizes of the bits of carpet (bits because they only got a square of it) that would sit under their feet according to their rank.

I shouldn't imagine things were very much different in the dens of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Roosevelt.

So the argument of "It was wartime!" doesn't hold up in regard to the higher echelons of society. Given that, even in the fantasy world of Gondor I think it would have been grossly disrespectful for someone 'common' to plonk his bum on the Steward's Chair.

However, and perhaps sadly, it's consistent with the role and character of Gimli as written by Jackson's team, as it's just one in a line of things that would be disrespectful to most, including standing on an ancestral tomb and belching at King Theoden. Maybe this is just how Jackson's team views Dwarves? As a rough 'n' ready race of people not interested in social niceties, and one which can provide a seam of cruel teenage humour, referring to the dwarf tossing and bearded lady jokes?

As for what the Steward's Chair may signify I'm reminded of the Speaker's Chair in the House of Commons - and interestingly, the Speaker historically fulfilled the role of the Crown's representative in Parliament, a role which only diminished with the English Civil War and the rise of (or more accurately, slow waking of) democracy. Though there are a number of roles from the Order of Precedence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_o...land_and_Wales that you could possibly equate with the Stewardship.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Yet even through all this, notions of status were maintained. Civil servants were allocated desks, chairs and even sizes of the bits of carpet (bits because they only got a square of it) that would sit under their feet according to their rank.

I shouldn't imagine things were very much different in the dens of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Roosevelt.

So the argument of "It was wartime!" doesn't hold up in regard to the higher echelons of society. Given that, even in the fantasy world of Gondor I think it would have been grossly disrespectful for someone 'common' to plonk his bum on the Steward's Chair.

Thank you for giving us that insight of England during wartime! That is exactly right - "it was wartime" is not a valid reason for the disrespect shown by PJ's Gimli.

[Quempel]

Originally Posted by davem

Just posted this as Lal - so have deleted it & am re-posting under my own name.

Humphrey Carpenter gave a talk a long time ago at the Church House bookshop (around the time The Sil was published) & he mentioned writing to Tolkien about a musical play of The Hobbit he planned to put on at a school he was working at. Tolkien replied that 'he thought the whole idea was complete nonsense & a very silly thing to do, but who was he (Tolkien that is) to stop Carpenter doing it? Carpenter later went to meet him & says Tolkien made clear that he 'strongly disapproved' of translating his work into any other medium. Tolkien also expressed disapproval of the changes Carpenter proposed making to TH, but, & this is interesting, he made no attempt to dissuade Carpenter - & even suggested tunes for the songs. According to Carpenter, most of them were in the form of Gregorian Chant. Anyway, Tolkien was persuaded to go along to see the production & afterwards Carpenter asked him what he thought of the adaptation. Tolkien told him, & apparently it took some time - at the end of which Carpenter looked down & noticed that Tolkien had drunk all Carpenter's wine....

So, it would seem that while Tolkien strongly disapproved of adaptations of his work he felt that it was not his place to stop anyone doing it, & was even (if they were sufficiently respectful) happy to help (if you can call the suggestion of Gregorian Chant for the tunes of a school musical 'help').

Btw, a recording of this talk is available, along with one from Priscilla Tolkien & another from Raynor Unwin - they are all absolutely fascinating http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000XTB8Y0. I've just listened to it & it is wonderful. Carpenter & Priscilla were talking just after the Sil was published, & Raynor the day after UT appeared. There's a question & answer session where he's bombarded with questions about future publications & what might appear. He mentions plans for Barbara Strachey's Journeys of Frodo, & that Shippey's Road to Middle-earth would hopefully be appearing soon! Priscilla's reminiscences are wonderful - & if anyone's interested Tolkien's favourite composers were Sibelius & Wagner.
__________________

I have to agree with STW on one issue...even if Tolkien, his children or his estate disapproved of adaptations of LoTR, it's too bad. He had no rights, his children have no rights and his estate has no rights to those changes. none. He sold those rights and thus sold all creative input on how the story was to be interpreted and changed. So if Tolkien was alive and did not like that Gimli sat in the stewards chair, he had no right to force PJ to make it his way. He freely sold those rights. Once he sold those rights, the story was no longer his, it belonged to the persons he sold the rights too. We may complain about how Tolkien would have hated Gimli sitting on the stewards chair, but that's all he could do was complain.

And I don't have a problem with Gimli sitting on the chair. I would guess in real life that yes many others have sat in the Speakers Chair in the House of Commons...it just doesn't get written about. I would guess that many have sat in the Presidents chair in the oval office, and it just doesn't get written about. I would dare say if QEII walked into the House of Commons and wanted to sit in the speakers chair the speaker would say no. To harp on if it's proper or not is pretending that the real behind the scenes of government is what the public sees, when it is not. The pomp and circumstance is what the public expects, it is what is shown. The real nitty gritty of real government is done in just the way it was shown in the movie, very much everyone grab a chair lets discuss this, and often times it is only the end results with the whole properness is what the public sees. This is the way I see the Gimli scene, very much an inpromtu scene to discuss the survival of all the free peoples of ME, and if I was a member of that society I would be really mad if the war conference on how to save me was held up because the Steward was mad some Dwarf sat in his chair.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Quempel

I have to agree with STW on one issue...even if Tolkien, his children or his estate disapproved of adaptations of LoTR, it's too bad. He had no rights, his children have no rights and his estate has no rights to those changes. none. He sold those rights and thus sold all creative input on how the story was to be interpreted and changed. So if Tolkien was alive and did not like that Gimli sat in the stewards chair, he had no right to force PJ to make it his way. He freely sold those rights. Once he sold those rights, the story was no longer his, it belonged to the persons he sold the rights too. We may complain about how Tolkien would have hated Gimli sitting on the stewards chair, but that's all he could do was complain.

.

Which is to completely miss the point of my post - which was that EVEN THOUGH Tolkien 'strongly disapproved' of adaptations of his work into other media he was still willing not only to assist the adaptors, but also to go along to see said adaptations & Carpenter notes that he saw Tolkien smile with approval as well as frown at some aspects of the adaptation.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Quempel

We may complain about how Tolkien would have hated Gimli sitting on the stewards chair, but that's all he could do was complain.

Of course... but I don't recall anyone arguing that the changes to Gimli's character were illegal, do you?

I'd also guess that most people here do realize that a completely faithful adaptation would have been impossible.

Surely the question is not whether Jackson et al had a legal right to alter the story, but whether particular decisions they made were good or bad?

There's another, more general question here, too: if you adapt a book for the screen, are you obliged to remain faithful to the original at all? In a moral and artistic sense (and a please-the-fans sense), I believe you are– in most cases. After all, you're working with someone else's creation. I'm saying this not because I'm one of those who think Jackson totally butchered the story, but because STW has stated the opposite view, i.e. that a film version should be treated as entirely separate from the source material.

[Boromir88]

The real nitty gritty of real government is done in just the way it was shown in the movie, very much everyone grab a chair lets discuss this, and often times it is only the end results with the whole properness is what the public sees.~Quempel

Actually, customs, traditions, symbols, and minor "nice-ities" are very important to abide by when visiting foreign countries; just ask Richard Nixon. Being "proper" may seem trivial, and insignificant, but it's common courtesy to respect the laws, symbols...etc of other nations.

In one account, Saladin and the Fall of Jerusalem (something that is also portrayed in the movie The Kingdom of Heaven). When King Guy and Reginald of Chatillon are captured and brought before Saladin, Saladin hands a cup of water iced in snow to Guy. Guy hands the cup to Reginald, and Reginald drinks. This is an insult to Saladin who says "Tell the King, it was he, not I, that gave that man drink." and he slew Reginald. Another version of the story is Reginald was killed by Saladin's guards after leaving the tent. Either way, to insult the traditions, laws, symbols of a person in power, is an insult to the person in power and something you don't want to do.

Let us not forget that within LOTR, Aragorn offers parley with Saruman's Uruk-hai, and also lets the Mouth of Sauron deliver Sauron's "terms." Or how about when Hama asks the 4 travellers to fork over their weapons before entering Theoden's hall (because those are Theoden's orders) and Aragorn tries to overrule Theoden's orders? Hama, and the other guards, did not like that challenge to their King's authority and were ready to cut down Aragorn et all if they did not hand over their weapons.

So, even when dealing with horrible, evil, characters such as Saruman and Sauron, there is a certain "properness," "courtesy," "etiquette,"...whatever you want to call it that everyone follows. It is a sign of respect, an acknowledgement towards the people's customs, sovereignty, laws...and so on. It may seem contradictory, but there are also "Rules of War," and it being a "wartime" is not an excuse to do whatever you want.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Quempel

And I don't have a problem with Gimli sitting on the chair. I would guess in real life that yes many others have sat in the Speakers Chair in the House of Commons...it just doesn't get written about. I would guess that many have sat in the Presidents chair in the oval office, and it just doesn't get written about. I would dare say if QEII walked into the House of Commons and wanted to sit in the speakers chair the speaker would say no. To harp on if it's proper or not is pretending that the real behind the scenes of government is what the public sees, when it is not. The pomp and circumstance is what the public expects, it is what is shown. The real nitty gritty of real government is done in just the way it was shown in the movie, very much everyone grab a chair lets discuss this, and often times it is only the end results with the whole properness is what the public sees. This is the way I see the Gimli scene, very much an inpromtu scene to discuss the survival of all the free peoples of ME, and if I was a member of that society I would be really mad if the war conference on how to save me was held up because the Steward was mad some Dwarf sat in his chair.

Speaking as someone who works at the heart of Government, "everyone grab a chair" may happen in everyday team meetings but it most certainly does not happen in formal situations or when meeting someone several ranks above and especially not when meeting a Minister. Of course, if they request that a casual attitude is to be taken then you comply, but it's still a very 'stiff' kind of relaxation

I'd actually venture to say that they try to portray a friendly and casual attitude (the open necked shirts on MPs and whatnot) but behind the scenes, ideas of rank and propriety are still observed. And certainly where I work, you simply do not sit at someone else's desk until you have asked permission, woe betide you dare to fiddle with the settings on someone's chair

And in Tolkien's world things were even more formal. The Oxford colleges are bastions of the Establishment with their 'High Tables', JCRs, SCRs, Dean's Gardens, etc etc...

This is why Monty Python with it's Ministry Of Silly Walks and so on is all so deliciously funny