Why Legolas?

There's been a question nagging me ever since I saw the Fellowship a few years back for the first time. During the "Mirror of Galadriel" scene, Frodo looks in the water and sees (in order) Legolas, Merry and Pippin, Sam, and then the (possible) Scouring of the Shire. Now, I get why they're all depressed (obviously indicative of Frodo's potential failure and Sauron's success), but here's what bothers me: why Legolas? If I remember right, he had no purpose in the Scouring in the book, so why should he be shown in a scene about the Scouring?

To further add to this question is the lack of change in the Special Edition. Before buying it, I thought they would add shots of the others looking all glum, or at least give some reason for Legolas being there, but that was not to be.

So please, someone give me a good answer: why Legolas?

[radagastly]

Welcome to the 'Downs!

If you're referring to the shots I think you're referring to, then I understand your confusion. The gloomy stares at Frodo during the Mirror of Galadriel scene actually refer not to the Scouring of the Shire, but to an earlier scene in Lothlorien. When they first enter the edge of the woods, and are captured by Haldir and his cohorts, Haldir turns to Frodo and says, "You bring great evil here. You can go no further." Galadriel says the same thing inside Frodo's head a little later. Then later, Aragorn and Legolas are trying to persuade Haldir to take them in, to keep them safe from the orcs pursuing from Moria, and Frodo looks around at his companions, and they stare back at him as if it's his fault that they won't be let into safety in Lorien. I think it's meant to show a certain level of guilt and paranoia building in Frodo, a sign that the ring is taking hold of his thoughts. The same shots are repeated in the mirror, and then lead directly into seeing the EYE etc. It was a good idea, that didn't quite work for me. I don't know why.

[Gurthang]

Yeah, I also thought it was odd that Legolas was included. I believe that Boromir, and maybe Gimli, were shown when they were actually in Lorien, but they weren't included in the Mirror scene. Legolas and the Hobbits were chosen to be in the Mirror. But why? I really don't know. It would make more sense to show Boromir's disappointment, since he wants the Ring to go to Gondor. Legolas just doesn't seem the type to really blame Frodo for any of the events that might occur.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I'd noticed that too. If it was to do with Legolas and Aragorn trying to negotiate with Haldir, then why didn't they show 'Gorn?

I'd have preferred it if they showed Boromir in his place. I don't think the Boromir heel turn (wrestling terminology ) was subtle enough. I liked the scene on Caradhras where he picks up the Ring (which Frodo dropped....how exactly?) but I didn't like Galadriel's line - He will try to take the Ring - or Boromir's mad snuffling on the boat which, conveniently, only Frodo noticed. A bit forced, but it was still alright.

Maybe the Legolas shot was designed simply to get more Legolas in the film. Because he's hot stuff. Might just be that.

[Dûrbelethwen]

I do not know why either because I saw the Fellowship of the Ring extended version first, then the Two Towers theatrical version, then read the books ( I was in the middle of the Hobbit when the Two Towers came out) so I did not get emotionally attached to Legolas's character until the Two Towers, so his appearance would not have had any significant meaning for me.

[The Only Real Estel]

I assumed (once I saw the EE) that they reshowed Legolas' (and some of the others') expression that we saw earlier just outside of Lorien because they wanted to get the 'things that were' side of the Mirror's power across to us.

If you look at the book, doesn't it say something about 'one by one it will destroy them all' in that scene? So I think it should have shown the rest of the Fellowship as well as the hobbits and Legolas.

But if the scene was about corruption, it brings us back to Why Legolas? After Aragorn, he's the least likely to be corrupted!

[Boromir88]

I'd have preferred it if they showed Boromir in his place. I don't think the Boromir heel turn (wrestling terminology ) was subtle enough. I liked the scene on Caradhras where he picks up the Ring (which Frodo dropped....how exactly?) but I didn't like Galadriel's line - He will try to take the Ring - or Boromir's mad snuffling on the boat which, conveniently, only Frodo noticed. A bit forced, but it was still alright.~Eomer

I concur!

If you look at the book, doesn't it say something about 'one by one it will destroy them all' in that scene?~random elf

Firstly, welcome to the downs, I hope you enjoy it here. Now onto the thread...

I don't think that line's in there. It's said by Galadriel in the movies, but there's no mention of her saying anyone is being corrupted. We get a really strong sense that Galadriel knows what people the Fellowship is thinking (especially Boromir and Aragorn), and there is plenty of mention that it seems as if she's tested them with their very desires, but as far as saying everyone's being corrupted, I think that's just in the movies.

But if the scene was about corruption, it brings us back to Why Legolas? After Aragorn, he's the least likely to be corrupted!

I will be up for a debate over that!

[SunniGadi]

Everyone in the fellowship was corrupted, because they were mortals and they had their mortal needs and wants. I can only think of one thing to put Legolas in that scene; to give Orlando more air time. He doesn't have a real big air time/speaking part in Fellowship, and so maybe they just tried to get him in a bit more, to show that he was "a part of the group" and not completely detached, because he wasn't. He was just a big observer in Fellowship and then acted upon his observations in Two Towers.

I was really sad they didn't put the falling of the Shire in the movies and the glory Merry and Pippin got for saving everyone. Or that Pippin and Merry grew when they were with Treebeard....or Tom Bombadil...

[Lush]

Why Legolas? Because he looks good while pouting.

Seriously, remember that a bit later on in the movie, when Boromir is dying, there is a wonderful close-up of Legolas looking distressed. I think these moments in the movie are a means of bringing us closer to Legolas' somewhat neglected character. I think they are a nice touch on Peter Jackson's part.

[Kath]

Legolas' somewhat neglected character

The character is neglected because the actor doesn't act! He doesn't stand there looking sad and stricken by grief at Boromir's death, he looks like he's trying to remember whether he turned his hair straighteners off!

As to why he was in the mirror, yes he probably was there just to put him in the film more. Or they may have filmed all the members of the Fellowship, but even in the EE didn't have time to put them in, or they just plain forgot. Or maybe it was to do with the inherent sadness of the Elves.

[Lush]

The character is neglected because the actor doesn't act! He doesn't stand there looking sad and stricken by grief at Boromir's death, he looks like he's trying to remember whether he turned his hair straighteners off!

I disagree. He doesn't have a whole lot of range, but then again, I don't think the screenplay gives him enough room. I think he does well with the material provided for him, especially since he's often the one getting stuck with the lamest lines. Overall, I think he does a nice job of portraying an Elf.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lush

I think they are a nice touch on Peter Jackson's part.

Originally Posted by Lush

Overall, I think he does a nice job of portraying an Elf.

Hmmm. Really? nice

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

Pleasing and agreeable in nature: had a nice time.
Having a pleasant or attractive appearance: a nice dress; a nice face.
Exhibiting courtesy and politeness: a nice gesture.
Of good character and reputation; respectable.
Overdelicate or fastidious; fussy.
Showing or requiring great precision or sensitive discernment; subtle: a nice distinction; a nice sense of style.
Done with delicacy and skill: a nice bit of craft.
Used as an intensive with and: nice and warm.
Obsolete.
Wanton; profligate: “For when mine hours/Were nice and lucky, men did ransom lives/Of me for jests” (Shakespeare).
Affectedly modest; coy: “Ere... /The nice Morn on th' Indian steep,/From her cabin'd loop-hole peep” (John Milton).

These definitions leave out mincing but they do provide some nice opportunties for consideration.

[Lush]

Sadly, the latest definition of nice, in which "nice" is equated with "sweet!" (as it was used in "Dude, Where's My Car?" and "Napoleon Dynamite") and pronounced as "niiice" is not included on the online dictionary. Shame.

[ninlaith]

I think that scene was added for the enhancement of the rings power. Like one of our fellow downers said previously in this thread "one by one it will destroy them all". I think that meant it will destroy them all as a fellowship and as a race. Each race "good", as opposed to evil, race was represented in the fellowship, Elf, man, dwarf, and hobbit. In Galadriel mirror each race and each friend was revealed to him as a prospect of whom may be taken by the ring. And by the way we actors do our best with our work so it's not nice to bash us. We do the best we can with what we have. Besides if Orlando Bloom was such a bad actor he wouldn't be getting as much work as he is. A pretty face doesn't mean everything.

[Parmawen]

Originally Posted by Lush

I disagree. He doesn't have a whole lot of range, but then again, I don't think the screenplay gives him enough room. I think he does well with the material provided for him, especially since he's often the one getting stuck with the lamest lines. Overall, I think he does a nice job of portraying an Elf.

That's true. All of Legolas' expressions are "minorly concerned" or "very concerned" with varying degrees of "extremely concerned", but they don't really allow room for much else, especially since he's stuck with a lot of boring exposition. and how are you supposed to make that interesting? I love it though, because in the movie he sounds like a walking dictionary. ("There is a fell voice on the air," "This is Aragorn son of Arathorn," etc.)

I've also wondered about that scene as well, and I think it was just the mood and meaning behind it. At the time when the scene occurs (not the mirror one, but the one with Legolas and Aragorn talking) Frodo is feeling doubt and confusion, and it's emphasized by the fact that his companions are talking ABOUT him, not TO him, and the shadowy doubt that they could be against him. While we know that Legolas is least likely to take the ring, perhaps the ring made Frodo suspicious of even him, thus putting Legolas in the mirror? I always thought Legolas looked very angry in that scene, but maybe I'm wrong. Also, is the mirror affected at all by who's looking in it? Because, if so, then it makes sense that Frodo's suspicion could take over and portray Legolas as Frodo's mind sees him (albeit tainted by the ring). If not, then I have absolutely no clue why they have that scene with Legolas.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Lush

Sadly, the latest definition of nice, in which "nice" is equated with "sweet!" (as it was used in "Dude, Where's My Car?" and "Napoleon Dynamite") and pronounced as "niiice" is not included on the online dictionary. Shame.

Lush, the Leggy-Bopper. Somehow, I think I've always known...

[Mister Underhill]

Legolas. In a mirror. It makes perfect sense when you think about it.

[Lush]

I don't think I've ever tried to hide the fact that I'm a hardcore Leggy-Bopper. One of the many and the proud.

Originally Posted by Bandito Bill

There's been a question nagging me ever since I saw the Fellowship a few years back for the first time. During the "Mirror of Galadriel" scene, Frodo looks in the water and sees (in order) Legolas, Merry and Pippin, Sam, and then the (possible) Scouring of the Shire. Now, I get why they're all depressed (obviously indicative of Frodo's potential failure and Sauron's success), but here's what bothers me: why Legolas? If I remember right, he had no purpose in the Scouring in the book, so why should he be shown in a scene about the Scouring?

To further add to this question is the lack of change in the Special Edition. Before buying it, I thought they would add shots of the others looking all glum, or at least give some reason for Legolas being there, but that was not to be.

So please, someone give me a good answer: why Legolas?

I think it is because Legolas seems to be too perfect in the movie. For some reason they make him shine more than anyone else in the movie, and this is just another piece of the oddness of having Legolas so popular for no particular reason. They make him too powerfull in everything, so why not make him even more popular in the movie !

[Legolas in spandex]

Ah geez, I've actually wondered that myself, but there is propably no deep or "good" reason other than that is the way the director saw it because , I dunoo, maybe he had been talking to Orlando Bloom all day so that's what came to mind. If I have to give a good reason though, maybe they were in order of those who would be least able to help him in his greatest time of need. That may be a bad answer, but that's all I got.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

The question Why Legolas? is also relevant in the battle at the Black Gate. It looks as though Aragorn is about to be crushed by the troll, and we get a couple of shots of Legolas-in-slow-motion doing a classic Noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!

Why Legolas?

[Flame_of_Udûn]

I'm not sure why Legolas was in the mirror but I have some thoughts on the Legolas / Aragorn / Boromir death scene. After watching the director's commentary for FOTR, it seems like PJ wanted to make Legolas (immortal elf) look surprised and not able to comprehend death. This can be seen after Gandalf's death as well.

i think that legolas being in the mirror seeing that frodo failed represents all the elven kind which sauron hates and he wants to destroy them remember it was the evles fault that sauron made his ring

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

I'd have preferred it if they showed Boromir in his place. I don't think the Boromir heel turn (wrestling terminology ) was subtle enough. I liked the scene on Caradhras where he picks up the Ring (which Frodo dropped....how exactly?) but I didn't like Galadriel's line - He will try to take the Ring - or Boromir's mad snuffling on the boat which, conveniently, only Frodo noticed. A bit forced, but it was still alright.

I also disagree with the above statement. This is straying from the topic, but Boromir never turned "heel" or bad. He was just influenced by the Ring. It was the Ring that played on his thoughts. I could go on about this. The scene in the boat is good, seeing as how it is the same way Boromir acted in the book. His eyes were fixed on Frodo, and Pippin notices. It wasn't forced.

[The Only Real Estel]

Originally Posted by MatthewM

I also disagree with the above statement. This is straying from the topic, but Boromir never turned "heel" or bad. He was just influenced by the Ring. It was the Ring that played on his thoughts. I could go on about this. The scene in the boat is good, seeing as how it is the same way Boromir acted in the book. His eyes were fixed on Frodo, and Pippin notices. It wasn't forced.

True on the "influencing" topic - I don't think too many of us would disagree with you there.

But in film there's a pretty big difference between Boromir's eyes being "fixed" on Frodo & Boromir leaning heavily on the boat sniffing and gasping up a storm. And if Pippin notices his behavior in the books, surely his more obvious behavior in the movies would not have gone unnoticed by all but Frodo. I think that's what Eomer was trying to say there.

Not a scene that bothers me terribly (Galadriel's give-away does more), but I can definitly see where Eomer is coming from.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Boromir did turn bad, because he tried to attack Frodo; and he did turn heel because the marks were scared of him and hopeful that Frodo could escape the danger. TORE explains it: Boromir's eyes should have been fixed on Frodo, but I always pictured him as looking grave and determined here; not as some shivering wretch, like he is depicted in the film.

[The Only Real Estel]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Boromir did turn bad, because he tried to attack Frodo; and he did turn heel because the marks were scared of him and hopeful that Frodo could escape the danger.

Hmm. I guess when I say he didn't "turn bad," he was just under the influence of the Ring; I mean he didn't turn permanately to the "Dark Side" (mixing movies here, I know ) - like say, Saruman.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Even good people can be bad. Like, you might have been bad yesterday. It's not as drastic as pledging allegiance to Melkor or anything, but it's still being bad.

And confound it! Won't someone answer my question about the Black Gate: Why Legolas?

[The Only Real Estel]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Even good people can be bad. Like, you might have been bad yesterday. It's not as drastic as pledging allegiance to Melkor or anything, but it's still being bad.

And confound it! Won't someone answer my question about the Black Gate: Why Legolas?

First off: How did you know that about yesterday!?

Seriously though: I think there's a difference between "being bad" & "turning bad." Being bad would seem to be a sort of mistake that happens, while turning bad insinuates turning your back on the known good & choosing to be bad for the foreseeable future. I don't think Boromir chose that.

Of course I'll answer your Legolas question: I haven't a clue.

Jackson wanted someone to do his "Nooooo" line to make it more dramatic, and Legolas was the best one for it because...hmm. Sorry, I can't even make up a stretch for this one.

I doubt there's any significance behind it, though. Jackson probably chose the name "Legolas" out of a hat for the scene for all I know.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Two words which can be used to explain any question about Legolas: Hot stuff.

The only reason. And I know you too well, TORE, to guess that you are bad more often than not.

[Boromir88]

As one of the ultimate Boromir lovers and supporters, Eomer's got a point. He broke his oath of protecting and helping Frodo along the way as long as he remained in the Fellowship. There was no oath binding the Fellowship together for eternity, but there certainly is an expectation to protect and help the Ring-bearer while in the Fellowship...But in a twisted and freaky quirk Boromir does end up helping Frodo.

Umm ya how about Legolas? I'm not Leggy bopper like Lush, but I have to agree that he's in the mirror for show...in fact that's really his only purpose in the movies.

[Flame_of_Udûn]

About the black gate scene with Legolas's slow motion NOOOOOOO, it just seemed like a natural fit for the movies. Throughout the trilogy PJ builds on a deep friendship between Legolas and Aragorn that isn't seen with the others.

Some examples are:

FOTR:

1. At the council of elrond, Legolas stands up for Aragorn when Boromir questions what a mere ranger would know of such matters.

TTT:

1. Legolas seems to take the fall of Aragorn during the warg attack especially difficult. In addition, Legolas is also the one who gives Aragorn the evenstar upon his return.

2. During the battle of helms deep, Aragorn and Gimli need to be rescued via rope and Legolas (single handedly) pulls them up and out of harms way. It is also important to note the discussion between Aragorn and Legolas just before the battle, as it builds on the depth of both characters and their understanding of each other.

ROTK

1. At the enterance to the Paths of the Dead, Aragorn fearlessly enters the cave first, followed by Legolas....then a reluctant Gimli. After exiting the mountain, the corsair ships are seen on the horizon, and Aragon says he has failed. Then, Legolas puts his hand on Aragorn's shoulder and tells him something to the affect of: All is not lost.

2. Although this is after the slow motion NOOOOO, Aragorn's coronation featured an strange one-armed hug between Aragorn and Legolas.

I'm sure there are other examples, but that's all I got for now.

[MatthewM]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Boromir did turn bad, because he tried to attack Frodo; and he did turn heel because the marks were scared of him and hopeful that Frodo could escape the danger. TORE explains it: Boromir's eyes should have been fixed on Frodo, but I always pictured him as looking grave and determined here; not as some shivering wretch, like he is depicted in the film.

No, that's wrong. He didn't turn "bad". I agree with The Only Real Estel. Someone who turned "bad" is Saruman. Saruman was once working for the good side and turned bad when he started to help Sauron. You saying that Boromir turned "heel" by trying to take the Ring from Frodo is completely false, and you might as well say that Pippin turned "heel" by looking into the Palantir when he knew that he shouldn't. He disobeyed GANDALF for crying out loud! Boromir and Pippin never fought for the side of the enemy. Saruman did. Saruman turned bad, Boromir did not.

Everyone does things they aren't proud of, and we consider them bad. Doesn't make you a bad person!

And to your "shivering wretch" comment- this is directly from The Fellowship of the Ring:

“Merry and Pippin in the middle boat were ill at ease, for Boromir sat muttering to himself, sometimes biting his nails, as if some restlessness or doubt consumed him, sometimes seizing a paddle and driving the boat close behind Aragorn’s. Then Pippin, who sat in the bow looking back, caught a queer gleam in his eye, as he peered forward gazing at Frodo.” (p. 373)

Boromir was muttering to himself and biting his nails . He was also restless. Being restless is when you move around a lot and are a little out of whack. Obviously, the scene in the movie is not too far off from what Tolkien said. Also, Boromir peered at Frodo, he did not make it so known- it could have been only for a little while and only Pippin noticed. I'm sure all 3 boats weren't side by side here. The closest they got was most likely when Boromir in his restlessness paddled behind Aragorn's.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Fair point about Boromir on the boat.

I maintain that the story throughout the first film was leading towards Boromir's turn, though. Even if it was only for a few crucial moments. The events led to Boromir's turning bad at the end. It was a twist. So what if the heel turn didn't last until the end of his career?: look at Ric Flair.

The heel can regret his actions later when he turns back face, just like Boromir did. If you want to get really picky I could change it to say that Boromir displayed heel mannerisms, even though he didn't fully turn heel.

*Sincere apologies to all non-wrestling fans*

[MatthewM]

All your WWF talk brings back memories to when I used to watch it years ago!

In the first film, PJ also makes Boromir's lust for the Ring occur earlier than it really should have- when Frodo drops the Ring at Caradhras and Boromir picks it up and is lured by it. Whereas in the books, it is after the Company enter Lothlorien that the lust kicks in. PJ makes it a bit more apparent.

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Fair point about Boromir on the boat.

If you want to get really picky I could change it to say that Boromir displayed heel mannerisms, even though he didn't fully turn heel.

We'll settle on that, but I still hold that it was the Ring that influenced Boromir towards "heel mannerisms", and that Boromir himself never turned bad.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Oh, there's no doubt that you're absolutely right there, Matthew. It's just that, the Ring can stand for anything, can't it? I mean, for every bad deed that we commit, there's always (or at least usually) influence there.

It wasn't enough for Tatanka to blame his heel mannerisms on the lure of the Million Dollar Man's cash, now was it? I guess we have to wonder where do we draw the line between being influenced to do bad, and actually turning bad. Because we're all ready to say that Saruman turned bad, but wasn't he heavily influenced?

It's another topic, anyway.

[MatthewM]

Professional Wrestling is different than Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings. Firstly...the "Million Dollar Man" and his cash wasn't nearly as powerful as The One Ring. Not to mention the fact that Professional Wrestling is fake. Of course LotR is fiction, but to be honest I believe LotR is more real than that.

The One Ring can surely stand for anything, but it is all together EVIL. Nothing in it is good. Anything it is used for will eventually be corrupted. To Boromir, the Ring presented itself as good to have because that is what he wanted to use it for- The Good of Gondor and the race of Men. In his quick madness (which passed almost instantly after Frodo had gone) he knew what he did was wrong and he redeemed himself. Saruman is a completely different story. He was influenced, true- but he willingly joined in aiding the Dark Lord, for much time. He could have resisted, being a great wizard and maia, but he didn't. He was given a chance to redeem himself when Gandalf and company talked to him at Orthanc after the destruction of Isengard. He failed to comply, he failed to redeem himself of his actions. He had turned EVIL.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Professional wrestling is less real than a children's story book? Ha!

[MatthewM]

Hey now, The Lord of the Rings is not a "children's story book"! Tolkien himself said it was not aimed towards children like The Hobbit was. It is darker and deeper.