Start speaking a new language in 3 weeks with Babbel 🎉. Get up to 60% OFF your subscription ➡Here: go.babbel.com/t?bsc=1200m60-youtube-parttimehobbit-aug-2023&btp=default&TH-cam&Influencer..parttimehobbit..USA..TH-cam
I see Gimli as the link to The Hobbit and Bilbo's original adventure being the son of Gloin, one of the 13 Dwarves in the original Thorin and Co. He serves many roles in the story, often adding a unique perspective on key plot points. However, I would look to The Hobbit for the most in-depth look at the Dwarves and who they are. Another interesting factoid is that Walt Disney's Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs was released the same year that The Hobbit was first published in, 1937. And they too mine for gems and gold and wear hoods and all but Dopey have beards. So, there is a mythology of Dwarves/dwarfs that predates Tolkien that at least superficially, they appear very similar. Also, isn't it kind of a general societal trope that short round bearded men are loud and overly masculine to compensate for their short stature? I call it the Yosemite Sam syndrome. They often are tobacco chewers or cigar smokers, quick to anger, never back down from a challenge,...you know the type. That may have a lot to do with how we expect Dwarves to behave.
Gimlis line in the films were he is standing on Balins tomb and he says."let them come, for there is one dwarf in Moria who still draws breath." Not a line in the books exactly. But I love it. Gives me chills.
Not "exactly" but he does get on the tomb and declare he's ready to battle the goblins so it is accurate to the books...even if it's an ABSOLUTE adaptation you can't have it be word for word
While they did a disservice to Gimli as a whole in the movies, John Rhys-Davies did an amazing little bit of acting when discovering the fate of the Dwarves in Moria. Gimli's grief was palpable.
Fun fact, the sword Narsil, the sword that cut the ring from Sauron's hand, was forged by dwarves. Later it was reforged by elves and renamed by Aragorn as Anduril, Flame of the West. So, one of the things that proves Aragorn's claim to the throne of Gondor is through the help of both elves and dwarves.
I love that Gimli in the books while in Moria, the fellowship hears knocking on rocks coming from deep within the mountains and Gimli is the only one who can tell what it is by sound alone. He cannot tell who's making the sound but he knows what's making the sound, it's a light working hammer and he knows it's not a natural sound. That's something the films never mentioned, Gimli has a lot of talent.
You cannot say Faramir was not tempted by the ring. In the book he doesn't want to even see the ring, because he knows he would be tempted and possibly fall to it if he did. He doesn't have superhuman willpower that allows him to resist the ring (like Aragorn has because of his heritage and upbringing), but he is wise enough to not give it the chance to tempt him in the first place. The movie version shows what would happen if Faramir didn't take this precaution: he would be tempted and fall just like any normal man who isn't Aragorn. It's an unnecessary change and I agree that it shouldn't have been made (because I'm not a fan of changing the originals in the first place), but it doesn't actually break the character of Faramir. I presume the change was made because the story made such a big deal of the corrupting influence of the ring but - because the Fellowship consists mainly of non-humans and a superhuman who can resist its influence - only one person was actually tempted and fell to it (Boromir, two if you count Smeagol in the flashback). I still think they should have left it how it was in the boon, but I understand the reasoning
It's not just the thousand plus year rivalry of Elves vs Dwarves that Gimli put aside with his friendship with Legolas, but a family rivalry as well. After all, it was Legolas's father who imprisoned Gimli's father in the Hobbit.
I think that was more on Gimli's mind than any long grudge. After all, he is of Durin's House, and the Dwarves of Durin's House were Elf-friends (at least with the Elves of Eregion, of whom Galadriel was one) at least at the time of the Making of the Rings. Basically, it was much more recent history than anything ancient.
Vocalize everything I’ve been thinking about this character for decades. He’s not just comic relief, he’s a deep, complicated, intense character that happens to have humorous elements. Love you Gimli! 🪓
For the last couple of decades, I've often thought about how incredibly much more impactful Gimli's "That still only counts as one!" line would have been, if he had otherwise been portrayed as a serious character, like in the novel.
I think that also it missed out on being a way to show the character development between Legolas and Gimli. Their dialogue could have been a lot more abrasive at the start, mellowing out across the three films, until you reach the dying beside a friend bit. You could still have the comedy, but less damaging to the authority of Gimli as a character
Nothing could save that line in its context, by the time PJ has let himself go so much as to have cgi Legolamb bouncing about and taking down a Mumakil single handedly like a demented Mario for the sake of a one-liner its so far gone from the tone of the books Battle of the Pelennor as to be unrecognisable anyway.
@@stefanlaskowski6660 It's hard to say when the Hobbit films "jump the shark" because most of the action scenes are like that, but Legolas jumping falling pieces of bridge like Mario just about takes the shark's biscuit.
My biggest gripe was his actions at Helm's Deep. Dwarf tossing? Really? Compare that to the book, where he sneaks out unseen, and as ´Eomer is about to get attacked, Gimli rescues him. Not just with his axe, but with his war cry. There were a bunch of orcs, and Gimli kills two. The rest flee. Maybe it's the fear of an attack they weren't expecting, but I always felt it was hearing "THE DWARVES ARE UPON YOU" from out of nowhere.... because that's a really scary thought to an orc. And communicates a look at the history of those two races. Orcs will attack a bunch of men, but when they hear the dwarves are there? uh uh. They're gone. Oh, and Jess: please, Please, PLEASE make a recording of all the songs in LoTR. You have a breathtaking voice, and I've never heard most of these songs actually performed.
Can you imagine a dwarven war cry being scary? Me neither. Many things from books are not transferable onto the screen. That's the simple truth. Dwarves in general are not scary to the orcs of Middle-Earth in any special way, what makes you think that? They never had any issues with attacking them.
@@May04bwuDwarves are pretty tough and broad. Strong and with good arms and armor and booming voices. I can imagine a war cry being fearsome. They are probably thought of as being trouble to fight by orcs, having been their fearsome rivals in their mountain home turf. But no the dwarves accompanying Bilbo do not give the impression of being particularly feared by orcs.
12:40 Yes! I do would love to hear her recordings! I doubted that singing was her own because it was so professional-alike that I guessed it was drawn from some cut scenes. I'm mesmerized!
8:00 to 8: Something important to mention is that he doesn't want to treasure it just for its beauty, but also, as he puts it, as a symbol of friendship between elves and dwarfs, which to me signifies that he plans on attempting to change his people's stance on elves on his return. He is basically saying that if he comes back home, he'll talk about the elves he met in a positive light to establish a friendship. Which, by the way, is why I think she gives him the strands of hair: she understands that Gimli's motivation behind the request is different from Feanor's. Gimli's word alone that "Elves are really good people, y'all" might be ignored by others, but Gimli coming back with 3 strands of hair and saying "Lady Galadriel gave me this because she's cool with dwarfs" is totally different.
I think, too, that not only was Gimli's motivation different, but he didn't even want to make the request for a strand of hair in the first place; he only spoke his desire when pressed upon it. I think that his humility touched her as well.
Gimli was very proud of his culture and when Galadriel referred to Moria by the proper dwarven name of Khazad-dum. It really opened his eyes that not all the elves were ignorant of his culture and one of the most influential elves in the history of middle earth respected and honored it. Combine it with her beauty and grace and its no wonder his attitude turned around. And when she gifted him her three hairs it opened Legolas's eyes to see that he had many misconceptions and prejudices against the dwarves. That Gimli was worthy of something that the mighty Feanor was denied.
This is the first time I’ve stumbled on your page and I was completely blown away when you actually sang what Gimli sang to Sam. You have a beautiful voice!
After Helms Deep where he talks to Legolas about the majesty of the caverns, touched me deep-ly (sorry for the Pun), and his retort "Do you cut down groves of blossoming trees in the springtime for firewood?" Pure awesomeness. Your singing voice is beautiful.
The War in the North video game people were so moved by that line that they tried to show a similar cavern in the northern dragon mountains where the Dwarves had found great natural beauty and only worked their artifice to frame in rather than pave over it. The game's art doesn't quite carry it, but it's still a very good attempt.
I love their story in the appendices, where they go on a road trip together then sail west together near the end of Gimlis life. I can imagine a barely aged Legolas caring for a very elderly Gimli, so sweet.
I understood Elrond's position on oaths a lot better after I read the Silmarillion, in which he and his twin brother Elros were held captive as small boys by Maedhros and Maglor, the last surviving sons of Fëanor. Fëanor's infamous oath drove the Noldor and especially his sons to repeated mass murder of other elves in pursuit of the Silmarils, to the point that even Maedhros and Maglor were sick of their crimes. It made perfect sense that Elrond was allergic to the entire idea of oath-swearing.
To be fair, Maedhros and Maglor were fundamentally decent people (unlike some of their brothers). They spoke the oath in haste, and were bound by it, but outside of that they often did things they felt were right. I don't doubt they were sick of their crimes from the very first, but were bound to follow through (and in the end they do fulfil it, despite the torment they endure in the fulfilling, with Eärendil's Silmarill beyond the scope of the oath having left the confines of the world, and the other two deep in the earth and sea where none might hold or take or keep them from the Fëanoreans were any of them still left embodied outside the Halls of Mandos). I think this only adds to your point.
Damn, that's a great point. I've never made that connection. But then again, I've only read the Silmarillion once, recently, and didn't reread LotR after that.
@@theyellowjesters, correct. Maedhros and Maglor killed the (presumably Elven) guards watching the two remaining Silmarils after the Valar defeated Morgoth and dug them from his iron crown. Both brothers found to their dismay that the Silmarils burned their hands, which in Maedhros's case was especially bad because he had only one hand left. Maedhros jumped into a fiery chasm somewhere while Maglor threw his into the sea, so both jewels were lost forever. Earendil continued wearing the third Silmaril on his brow while crossing the sky every night in his great ship the Vingilot.
Gimli's great strength is the love he bears for his fellow members of the company. He really cares for them and he's truly in touch with his feelings. When he scolds them it's his way of showing how much he cares for them. Also, when Aragorn's company rides through Dunharrow Gimli rides at the back and he can feel the fear of the dead at his back. This does not mean that he is cowardly but, rather, that he is brave enough to bear this fear that others might not have to suffer it.
I am 51 so I was very much into the books well before the movies. I read The Hobbit when i was about 8 and read the trilogy around 11 or 12 and must've reread it almost anually. I was impressed buy Peter Jackson's film adaptations but you are spot on about Gimli. He stuck out like a sore thumb as a crosseyed clown. Not the character I imagined as I read him. Far more serious. Good take Jess.
47. Dad read The Hobbit to me to sleep before I could read. Peter Jackson did a great job. But movies are going to movie. When they came out, dad and I saw them in theatre. We knew full well that this was going to happen. How can you capture the nuance that Tolkien wove in written word? Can’t happen. Poor Gimli.
54. Me too! I read the books repeatedly growing up. I confess the last time I read them was before the movies came out. Back in the days when I read the books before watching the movies.
I had much the same experience with the books as you did. I read them every summer from the age of 11 or twelve until into my 20’s and after that, I have shared them often with my kids. Even today, I listen to the books while doing housework. 52 last April.
I think the characterization of Gimli is one of the shortcomings of that great trilogy. My best guess as to "why?" is that PEter Jackson felt he needed some "comic relief" in the storytelling, and that fell on to Gimli. One of the best passages, I believe, from the book is where he, Aragorn and Legolas follows the orcs across the Rohan plains. There is a passage where he describes how much it hurts him to think of the two hobbits being at the mercy of orcs. Gimli and the dwarwes are loyal to a fault: If you hurt one of theirs, they will hunt you to the ends of the earth (as Azog found out a few hundred years previously).
"All debts paid. Nothing Forgiven, Nothing Forgotten" I also have a bit of an issue with some of the 'comedy' parts in the Hobbit films, about the only bit of 'Dwarf funny business' that comes close to the book version is the Unexpected Party.
Didnt the elves sometimes hurt dwarves, but dwarves didnt still hunt them to the end of the world to destroy them compleately. Didnt Azog find that out sixty years earlier tho, when that was how much earlier Hobbit took place in compared to Lord of the Rings.
There are four hobbits in the movies already, two of them rather mischievous. Isn't that enough comic relief? Why did Jackson additionally need a dwarf for comic relief?!
@@jout738 *"Didnt the elves sometimes hurt dwarves, but dwarves didnt still hunt them to the end of the world to destroy them compleately. "* Yes and no. In the First Age, King Thingol of Doriath commissioned the Dwarves of Belegost to convert the treasures of Nargothrond into many pieces of jewelfy. The greatest piece the dwarves made was a necklace of silver and opal called the Nauglamir. Thingol then had the Dwarves of Nogrod add the Silmaril that had been recovered by Beren and Luthien to the Nauglamir. Once complete, the dwarves demanded the necklace as a dwarven heirloom stolen from Nargothrond, but Thingol not only refused to give them the necklace, he insulted them. The dwarves then attacked Thingol, which led to a battle in Menegroth between the elves and dwarves. The dwarves eventually escaped with the Nauglamir, but were subsequently ambushed by elves who retook the Nauglamir. Only two dwarves returned to Nogrod where they convinced the rest of the city that Thingol had refused to pay them for their work and attacked them. The Dwarves then assaulted Doriath and sacked Menegroth, killing many of the people living there. This is about the only major confrontation between elves and dwarves in all of Middle-earth's history, and I think it's fair to say sacking an entire kingdom over an insult and then holding a grudge about the whole incident for literally thousands of years qualifies as "hunting to the ends of the earth." *"Didnt Azog find that out sixty years earlier tho..."* Azog was killed in Third Age 2799, the events of _The Hobbit_ take place in Third Age 2941 - 2942, just over 140 years later. *"...when that was how much earlier Hobbit took place in compared to Lord of the Rings."* You can't use the nonsense in the Hobbit trilogy to discuss Tolkien lore. The LotR films are bad enough regarding the finer points of the lore (like skipping the 17 years that passed between Bilbo's 111th birthday party and Frodo leaving the Shire with the One Ring), but the Hobbit films are complete garbage when it comes to the lore.
The "Scottish Dwarf" trope likely comes from a book called "Three hearts and Three Lions" While I'm pretty sure that book didn't have any influence on LOTR, that book *did* have an influence on Dungeons and Dragons, which went on to influence fantasy in general much like LOTR did, and I think Gimli having a Scottish accent in the movie is sort of this coming full circle.
D&D's creation really was inspired by a mishmash of fantasy races from many different sources and I really think has ended up being the blueprint for our modern pop culture understanding of fantasy creatures. Dwarves weren't the only victims, I would argue elves and even orcs have had more of their current perception drawn from there than from Tolkien's books.
@@jakerockznoodles lots of creatures got shafted. Orcs, gnomes, kobolds, goblins. Luckily D&D is the kind of game where you can change the lore these around if you want. There's a channel called "Map Crow" that has an especially cool interpretation of kobolds, for instance.
Schön, dass Du den wahren Charakter von Gimli so treffend heruas arbeitest, seine reine, von Herzen kommende, Verehrung für Galadriel und seine störrische Loyalität hast Du wunderbar beschrieben. Danke
Imagine for a moment if Legolas was the humorous one of the Three Hunters. Not in a broad slapstick way, but more like a deadpan, overly observant, slightly ADD character taking in as much of Middle-earth as possible while the more serious warriors had to remind him to keep focus. That being said, it's really because John Rhys-Davies is a damn good actor and handles comedy well that film!Gimli is still enjoyable to watch even with his characterisation being off from the books.
full agree. if the whole trio of gimli-legolas-aragorn were all chivalrous, well-spoken scholars it would have been more bland for a movie. in the books its okay because the dialogue is so well written
@@aluminumbeluga I get what you mean, but that's not quite what I meant either. If they were as well spoken and princely as each other, you could still have the chemistry of Viggo, Orlando and John Rhys-Davies, and Tolkien's dialogue, to create distinction. But I meant, what if Legolas was explicitly the humourous one in a snarky fish-out-of-water way, as a thought exercise.
@@aluminumbeluga "if the whole trio of gimli-legolas-aragorn were all chivalrous, well-spoken scholars it would have been more bland for a movie" They are not portrayed that way in the book.
Years before the live action movie when the Internet was young there were speculations on the Tolkien Usenet boards about casting for a movie. There was widespread variation in the proposals for the characters, but as I recall about half of the posters picked John Rhys-Davies for Gimli, and I agreed then and now. I think they overdid his makeup. to the point of handicapping his performance. The TNG Klingon forehead job restricts the range of expression. All he needed was a wig, a nose, a beard, and regular movie makeup.
In the book, nobody but _nobody_, could willingly harm it. That's the answer to the question why not ask the eagles to help get a small contingent to take the Ring to Mordor. What happens when Frodo riding in front of Gandalf freezes and then claims it as it takes him? Gandalf would have to half destroy him to take it by force, and then he would be taken. Not an eagle, not Elrond nor Galadriel could have harmed it. In the book, Frodo had already seen that his little fire didn't harm it, and when challenged to toss it into his fire, inadvertently slips it into his pocket instead. Ask PJ why the dwarf was able to. His usual answer to why he changed things is "to save time and move the main story along. For instance, when Faramir kidnaps the hobbits and takes them away from their purpose? When Aragorn falls off a cliff?
I was really gutted to see how they (ab)used Gimli to be the comic relief character every modern movie needs nowadays. He's so much more than that. Also dwarven culture is much more rich and complex. I can look past it and still enjoy the movies, but it was still a true shame.
I think THE HOBBIT kinda half redeemed them. The non-speaking characters were clowns (Bombur...deserved better), but Dwalin, Balin, Nori, Thorin, and even Bofur had pathos and personality to spare. From them you really got a sense of how diverse and rich Dwarf culture was. And seeing Erebor, even in decay, you could see how sophisticated it was to boot. But even Tolkien underdeveloped the Dwarves. He didn't get anywhere near as close to finished with their language as he did with Elvish.
It gets worse in The Hobbit, of course. Tolkein's Dwarves are a sophisticated, well mannered culture with a depth of history, not to mention skill. I cringed at the portrayal in both film stories. I havent decided whether what Peter Jackson did to the Dwaves is worse than what he did to Faramir.
I can def understand where you are coming from but I am kind of glad they put some humor in there. The movies could have gotten pretty dreary without it. Luckily most of the worst Gimli stuff is only in the extended editions. I totally see why it left out of the real versions lol.
I see the conversation between Gimli and Elrond as being two wise ones whose words are both true even though they also contradict. Wisdom calls for discerning between contradictory advice that are both good. It's like the Elves tell Frodo and Sam just outside the Shire, that advice can be a dangerous gift, even from the wise to the wise because all roads may go ill.
yes! and upon reread, I thought Elrond references a vision of Aragon taking the Paths of the Dead . That is another major breaking point of the fellowship. Even Gimli feels the fear of the Paths of the Dead and doesn't seem to judge those who didn't go with Aragon. He has to force himself to stay true to his word, which to me strengthens his character.
I have to say that the competitive nature of Gimli and Legolas in the movies is much closer to how men bond. I wouldn't however begrudge a lady thinking the book version was deeper in meaning.
They are very similar characters. Both share a deep understanding of the things they love/admire in the world around them. If you were to ask either of them a question, they would think before answering to the best of their ability. Neither are they prone to Idle banter. And both show a deep wealth of lore, that creeps to the surface now and then. But you'd never hear them claim to be great lore masters.
Thank you very much for this! The portraying of Gimli as a comic relief in the second and third movie almost destroyed the experience for med, and that is a feat considering how well done all the films are!
Gimli has always been my favourite character of the Fellowship. I love his friendship with Legolas. His adoration of Galadriel. His rivalry with Eomer. His rhapsody about the glittering caves. He is poetic and steadfast and as solid as a rock. And his forgiveness of Eomer for picking Arwen over Galadriel is perhaps the most beautiful writing in the whole book. His being comic relief was my least favourite part of the films, along with the flattening of Denethor's character.
Agree. His arguments with Eomer always makes me chuckle but the conclusion of their "rivalry" is lovely. I feel it is understood that they are both too wise to take to arms over such a silly argument so they simply agree to disagree. _"You have chosen the Evening; but my love is given to the Morning"_
I find it funny how the stereotypes of fantasy elves and dwarves turned into “elves = upper class Londoners and dwarves = either lower class Scottish highlanders or rural Irish folk.” The ways British classism can sneak into everything is quite… extraordinary 😂
Funnily enough this actually comes from American fiction, being popularized by D&D which was inspired by the likes of Robert E. Howard and other primarily American pulp authors. This is why the Mindflayers look like Cthulu; because Gygax was a pulp fiction fan.
@@grimjoker5572 that’s partially what I was meaning. I wasn’t accusing the people of Great Britain of creating this. Instead I was pointing to how historical stereotypes about the ways different classes/ localities supposedly behave in British media influenced other cultures. (And even though the US won’t like to admit it) American culture is heavily influenced by Britain, so that’s why it’s “extraordinary” that British ideas of class seeped into the USA’s characterization of the different fantasy races. Also, when I likened the elves to “upper class Londoners” I wasn’t necessarily saying they act like the real people. I was more so referring to how the stereotype of the posh wealthy sophisticate has been used as an analogue to eleves in the more tropey fantasy media. I’m sorry if I made it seem like I was equating actual Londoners to eleves.
Gimli is also diplomatic, able to defuse a tense situation with well judged humour, unlike Legolas early on. Gimli is crucial in Legolas growing up, or at least growing in character, in the wider world i feel.
John Rhys Davies can absolutely do the warrior pet thing too though. The man CAN do serious, and he can do reverent and respectful. He's a preacher and theologian of sorts!
It's exactly what happened. He brought to the set and his character what he considered to be his classic hollywood experience, he always angles his experience of making the movies to his LA experience. And just like it was with Ian McKellen or Christopher Lee, PJ and Walsh weren't really in a position to tell these veteran actors how to play the character. The crew probably rolled with his take and it worked for the movie, at the expense of book Gimli
One thing that occurred to me is that the whole idea of the "Dwarf as servant/helper" to the heroes is completely flipped in The Hobbit where our hero is a servant and helper to the Dwarves. The thing about Gimli is he both exemplifies Dwarvish virtue better than any other Dwarf yet subverts Dwarvish vice. I think he understands well enough what Thorin learned at his deathbed. He is not greedy. He just loves that which is beautiful. This is shocking to the Elves, and it is shocking also that Galadriel judged Gimli worthier than her own kinsman Fëanor (especially if you take the position that Fëanor did nothing wrong…) Yes, I agree Gimli was worse than Faramir. By ruining Gimli, the films ruined the entire Dwarvish race. The Hobbit trilogy gave us a slightly better grasp on the serious element to Dwarves, but they were weird and over-the-top also. Further, if you need a comical character, why Gimli? The hobbits generate the most comedy in the books, especially Sam and Pippin. Sam is excellent in the book at being funny yet feeling real at the same time. Why not emulate that? Also, I do not agree that Gimli's core character in the book does not directly conflict with his character in the film. They lose his sense of chivalry, honor, and loyalty, which is core to any Dwarf of Dúrin's Folk. Even in The Hobbit, Thorin did risk his own people to save Bilbo long before he was useful to them and nearly got eaten because of it. But Gimli's whole thing is loyalty and honor. Yet in the films he suggests, among other things, that Aragorn break his promise and not free the Oath-breakers. Yes, Dwarves are known to have trouble with forgiveness and things, but his argument was not "they don't deserve it until they've defeated Sauron" but rather "they're useful in a fix, despite the fact that they're dead". Further, in Lothlórien, in the book, Gimli is polite and honorable yet is horribly mistreated by what I can only call "racist" Elves, which is why his apparent forgiveness of them once he meets the kindness of Galadriel means so much. In the films, Gimli is the "racist" Dwarf and the Elves are calm and cool, which gives the hair-gift much less significance. Personally, I think it might have helped if they had not used so many facial prosthetics and the weird accent, and rather just let him act. I am sure if they had just made him usually soft-spoken with a less pronounced Scottish accent and kept a brief scene in the extended cut with him arguing with Elrond about taking oaths, as well as had Celeborn and the other Elves be rude and suspicious about him being a Dwarf, and maybe had a few more scenes where he defends Galadriel, audiences could have managed it. He is something of the down-to-earth viewpoint character when hobbits are not around anyway, since he is surrounded by affairs in which historically Men and Elves have taken a greater part anyway, which makes him more relatable.
@@lieutenantoin929 No idea. However, there exists a Reddit group of 6.1 thousand people who hold to that position. Why they hold this view or if every one of them is a genocidal maniac, I do not know.
@@matthewbreytenbach4483I agree. Legolas would have to be a different kind of comedy and more of the type making constant quips, but that would be less of a character assassination.
I think that the accent is a huge part of his characterization, they just butchered that too. Tolkien puts a lot of emphasis on the Jewish influence of his dwarves and the accent is supposed to reflect their insular culture-not entirely comfortable being so close to outsiders who are historically as likely to persecute as be friendly.
The dwarves of Middle-Earth have always been one of my absolute favorite fantasy depictions. I used to re-read the portions of LotR that featured Gimli, and loved the relationship that he developed with Legolas. However, the movies are more of a result of the tropes that have developed since the time of Tolkien and the current state of D&D and modern fantasy at the time of the movies. I would look at Paul Anderson as one of the primary sources for how modern fantasy dwarves are depicted, as well as the mass media fantasy from Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance of the 80s and 90s.
Gimli's and Legolas's relationship is one of my favorite themes in the book. Maybe #1 for me. It's one of Tolkien's most powerful anti-racist statements, and one of the great examples of close male platonic cameraderie. Especially powerful because they are equals, compared to Frodo and Sam, who are master and servant. The very last event/entry in Appendix B, The Tale of Years, is Legolas building a ship and taking Gimli with him sailing to Valinor. Jackson ferked all of that up completely. I hates it.
@@Slug002 Where do you find that definition? Here's a definition from Boston University: Anti-Racism is the practice of actively identifying and opposing racism. The goal of anti-racism is to actively change policies, behaviors, and beliefs that perpetuate racist ideas and actions. The National Action Committee defines it thus: Anti-racism is the active process of identifying and eliminating racism by changing systems, organizational structures, policies and practices and attitudes, so that power is redistributed and shared equitably. Not sure why you're all snotty about this when you're dead wrong.
@@zzodysseuszzHe got annoyed with people reading too much into it, like assuming it's all about his war experiences, or saying that Sauron is allegory for nuclear war. Doesn't mean there's literally no relation to things in the real world, that would be silly.
I was just rereading LOTR (after reading the Silmarillion) and the conversation between Elrond and Gimli struck me as Elrond trying to make sure they didn’t go down the road Feanor’s sons went down with their oaths.
Male bonding is different than it was in Tolkiens’ day. Performative “ball-busting” is what most men of Gen x and millennials grew up with and so the nature and growth of Gimli and Legolas’ friendship was changed to reflect how modern audience members would expect two budding besties to act like. I’m sure they expected men to be their primary audience. The fact that Gimli was the only dwarf and all of the other elves are portrayed with such elegance meant they couldn’t make Legolas into a frat boy version of an elf and so Gimli had to always be the butt of the joke. Having said that, they always portrayed him not having a fragile ego or feeling threatened or bothered by looking silly in a situation and I think that also shows a lot of dignity and grace of another kind.
Random... A while back the TH-cam algorithm recommended your channel to me and I randomly clicked. I've only seen the movies once, haven't read the books and never considered myself much of a fan, but your discussions are getting me interested again. The internet is weird. But, thank you!
Damn you're right. Haven't read the books in over 20 years but now that you mention it I seem to recall Gimli being just as poetic as Aragorn in many instances.
It's true that what we see in the movies is a little bit exaggerated when compared to the books, but the truth is that by the time we get to him Denethor is basically insane. The main difference between the book and the movie is that the book provides hints that he wasn't always like that and eventually provides an explanation of what drove him insane. Once you realize that he was using a Palantir, and thus presumably subjected to the same pressures that Saruman was, you can't help but notice that as bad as he's become he's still held up better than the wizard did.
@@hkpew Book Denethor is not insane, broken yes, but not insane. He has Gondor prepared as best it can be, book version had lit the beacons long before, called in the reinforcements available from the coastal and other Gondorian fiefdoms, hell he even slept in his armour as a sign and morale boost to his people that Gondor was ready and prepared to defend itself at any moment, and he still holds regular council with his Captains and doesn't make suicidal tactical decisions. It's despair, loss and a building sense of inevitable doom and the fall of Gondor (compounded through his palantir use) that eventually causes his mental collapse, but he is by no means insane, nor does he for the most part in the book act insane. Its only in the films he is reduced to a pantomime caricature of a villain, he may as well have a moustache to twirl.
Frodo was the worst because he was the main character. Jackson made him a wimp. He’s as tough as hell in book. Faramir is the second worst assassination.
Loved the singing! I havent seen enough of the films to comment but i completely agree on the subtlety of gimli in the book. His physical endurance on the run in rohan also in the mountains is also notable.
While the contrast between the book and movie are big. The Gimli from the movies is still my favorite of the two. As a kid growing up with these movies and not have read the books. Gimli came across as a character who was able to be funny at times, even if it was at his expense. Then turn it around and be a fierce warrior who stood by his friends. As for his friendship with Legolas in the movies, to me it was a friendship built on the premise of brothers in arms. A respect for others who were going to uphold their word and hold true.
Hear, hear!! Gimli was quite a profound character in the book. Also, re. dwarves' norse origin, how much cooler would have been a book-faithful Gimli speaking with a Scandinavian accent. And wow is no one else going to bring up her rendition of Gimli's song? That kind of authentic sounding chant-singing is really hard to get right; composition and performing. But you nailed it! It actually stopped me in my tracks.
Staying true with Tolkien, Gimli should actually have a Yiddish accent, because he modelled the dwarven tongue Khuzdul on Semitic languages. Gimli should sound like Mel Brooks. 😅
@@revylokesh1783 The Semitic language family is a rather broad one, so without me personally knowing which of the languages Tolkien drew from when creating Khuzdul, I'd say it's fair that Gimli could have any sort of accent. However, given the Norse and *Germanic* (i.e. around Central Europe) origins of dwarfs in real life mythology, it's fairly astute of you to suggest Yiddish.
@@revylokesh1783 Yiddish isn't actually a semitic language, it's a westgermanic language with traces of slavic and romance languages and some semitic influences.
Jess, your characterization of dwarves in modern fantasy - with the exception of being the butt of jokes - is how Bilbo perceived his companions during much of their journey. When they made their escape from the elves' dungeons, Bilbo was afraid that the "dwarvesh racket" his friends made would give all of them away, and that they would be captured and put back in their cells. If modern fantasy writers are following Tolkien's lead, they are following the lead found in The Hobbit.
I'm quite surprised that no one else has commented on this. One of my most vivid and fond memories I have of reading The Hobbit as a child is the dinner with the dwarves at Bilbo's house. It's definitely one of the seeds that led to the current portrayal of dwarves. Much more exaggerated, almost caricatured, but along the same lines.
@@Humdebel I can see not reading all of the writings proceeding Rings, all save The Hobbit. Although, I am biased as that describes me. Actually, not quite. I have read the first edition of the silmarillion twice. And I have a passing familiarity with his published letters. The other stories, however, remain a mystery to me for the most part.
As I recall, the "dwarvish racket" line was somewhat ironic; it was only a "racket" by comparison with the extreme stealthiness of hobbits, but the narrator noted that a human walking by would have noticed nothing. So to Bilbo, it was dwarvish racket, but it was still far quieter than humans.
Gimli is one of the most emotional and identifiable characters in the whole story. The part where he describes the caves at Helm's Deep is beautiful. You can really feel the impact that beauty had upon him.
I think a massive issue for Gimli is how much of the two towers is lost in the movie. Like yes the movie is phenomenal but the book is up there as my all time favourite. I think even though the quippiness across Rohan at the start is very similar you don't get that same feeling of fire from Gimli where he is so determined to catch the orcs he wants to run all night. The relationship between Gimli and Eomer (which serves the books as a pretty banterish relationship) is entirely missing in the movie which is the backdrop to Legolas and Gimli's growing close (obviously the loss of Boromir and the hobbits has already made them much closer). Legolas taking the time to set Gimli at ease by having him ride with him (while present in the movie not as impactful) shows the two of them interacting in a whole new light, But at Helm's Deep when they think Gimli and Eomer have been overun after the fall of the deeping wall there is a real sense of oh crap they've been separated and Legolas shows how torn he is not to have Gimli by him. The relief Legolas shows in there reunion is really sweet, with Legolas worried about Gimli's wound and Gimli only worried about the glittering caves. Without Eomer around in the movie they just kind of roll his stuff into Legolas. I do really love the movies and the books but thank you for drawing attention to Gimli's deep and complex character. Dwarves are far too often seen as the boisterous and comedic characters but their steadfast loyalty and kindness often get overlooked by this. We know that the dwarf rings never could turn the Dwarven kings to evil (more gready though), and the fact that Dain won't sell Bilbo out despite them knowing each other pretty loosly. Just such a wholsome race!
Gygax, I think the modern Dwarf owes more to Gygax than Tolkien. "Dwarves can move very quickly over short distances." That line is the opposite of the Gimli of the book, who has more endurance than anyone, but does not more quickly.
I watched the movies before reading the books and getting into reading the books, he really stuck out to me bc he was so thoughtful and his character and culture was so rich and interesting, he became my favorite very quickly!
I'm sure a lot of film Gimli's characterization came from John Rhys-Davies himself, as well as the simple fact that trying to undertake something like Lord of the Rings and make it accessible to a general filmgoing audience in 2001 - itself a massive undertaking because this is an audience that would hold fantasy films to the standard of dumbed down schlock that had been the norm in the genre since like the 70s - requires a certain bit of compromise. One needs to incorporate a bit more comic relief than what's in the books, and Gimli was a natural fit for that, since he helps bring out some levity from Aragorn and Legolas. PLUS, John Rhys-Davies was allergic to all the prosthetic makeup he had on and was constantly breaking out in rashes and whatnot, so I imagine a lot of his short and to-the-point one-liners, as well as some of the goofier takes were a product of them wanting to get as much of him as possible before swapping him out with his double.
Oh also, I'm sure the tropes existed before it, but on the subject of where the 'classic' Dwarf comes from, Discworld definitely comes to mind, as well as maybe a general public perception due to things like Snow White, which perhaps affected a lot of early post-tolkien fantasy writers and DnD players' characterizations of dwarves as, well, kinda fun-loving. Also, Norse Mythology tropes from people who maybe don't know about the Svart/Dokkalfar but have general ideas about vikings. Gimli kinda has basic Thor vibes - the mirthful, charismatic warrior who loves battle and food/drink in equal measure.
What a gorgeous singing voice. Although, I imagine Gimli sounded somewhat different. 🙂 Now I read the books for the first time about 15 years before the movies came out. So movie Gimli was not the image in my head character-wise, even if his look was right. But even given that, I enjoyed the portrayal. Yes, I was a little sad that movie audiences wouldn't see the majesty of book Gimli. But I never felt his character got assassinated like Faramir's. He was still a very likable character, and that is a result of the charisma of John Rhys Davies. Great video Jess. The fair use messages made me giggle. You are definitely following the spirit of the law. You're using small clips as an illustration of the story you're telling. I really enjoy your channel. It's interesting to see how someone who came to the story through the movies first views the story as a whole. As for a future video, how about the criminal underuse of my favorite female character in the book, Rosie Cotton. I realize that by cutting out the Scouring of the Shire, a lot of her presence is lost as well. But that's no reason to turn her into a mute. They had a lovely actress playing her, but it couldn't have hurt the movies to give her some lines. She was what kept Sam going while Sam kept Frodo going, so her presence is important to the story. So making her more than just a pretty barmaid would have given more depth to Sam.
Thank you for this channel. As a recovering lit major, I appreciate that you can focus your observations from a broad knowledge of Toliien's worlds on the topic. Each of your videos says what it needs to support your point. You have kept this through all your changes of venue and circumstance. Now for your presentation. I listen to (too many) TH-cam videos. I have spent many years in theater. You have the gift of a voice whose diction is clear, rhythm well-paced., and sentences well-inflected. That makes what you say readily available to your listeners. Please keep it up.
Most changed character: Gimli vs. Faramir is a good question. It's tough to decide. The way Gimli was used to provide comic relief was certainly unfair to the character, but some of that was less due to Gimli himself being changed than in the way other characters reacted to him and treated him. And in some ways that cuts deeper precisely because, as you point out, he's the only example of his people that we get any significant exposure to in the story, so the entire race is cheapened by his treatment. But Faramir loses his main claim to fame - that he was one of the very few who was learned and wise enough to both understand what the ring was and unequivocally reject the temptation to take and use it. He does end up doing the right thing in the end and is totally redeemed by the end of the movies, though. So you're probably right - Gimli probably gets the worst of the movie treatment. Of course, if we're just talking how much the character is changed Aragorn probably deserves to be in the mix as well. But in his case it can at least be argued that the movie version is the deeper character, so it's harder to claim that the movie mistreated him. As far as characters being turned into comic relief, Gimli wasn't the only one to suffer that fate. Merry and (especially) Pippin get the same treatment. And in Pippin's case that's partly true to the books. Pippin was the youngest of the hobbits, and still not fully an adult by hobbit standards. But he isn't the total oblivious idiot he's made out to be in the movies, and Merry in some ways comes across as the most capable and responsible adult in the group at the start of their journey.
True, although they did not really convey Pippin is a hobbit version of a teenager in the films. I would say Gimli is the worst adapted character because for Faramir, Aragorn, Merry, and Pippin, similar points were conveyed. Pippin gets his coming-of-age character arc, as does Merry, even if we lose some of his intelligence and leadership abilities. Aragorn does prove that there is strength among Men. Faramir ultimately does prove himself a better man than Boromir. Gimli becomes friends with Legolas, I suppose, but we do not really learn much of the actual significance of him as an Elf-friend.
I might have agreed with you on Aragorn once, but the more I re-read the more I appreciate his emotional arc. Honestly, I don't think a single character was changed for the better.
@@netpackrat You could also have mentioned Glorfindel. But both Imrahil and Glorfindel were pretty minor characters in the books. They both serve to deepen the world by hinting at how much bigger it is than what we are directly exposed to, but that's the sort of thing that really has to be left out of a movie adaptation of a book in order to get the length down to a manageable level. Tom Bombadil is a much more consequential character who was also omitted, and I can't really fault them for that one, either. On the other hand, Tolkien somehow managed to completely overlook Figwit! There's no mention of him in the books at all, not even in the appendices! (For the humor impaired, that's a joke.)
@@juryrigging I just reread what I wrote above, and I think I worded it poorly. Movie Aragorn isn't deeper. But because of the way they changed him he does have a clear character arc in which he comes to accept who he is and embrace his destiny. Book Aragorn has already done that long ago. He's spent almost his entire life - and remember, he's in his 80's - planning and preparing himself for the events in the story. By the time we meet him in the book he is about as prepared for what is to come as anyone could be, and while he may have some doubts about his ability to succeed he has none about what his main goal is and he's going to give it his best effort. To me it seems like book Aragorn doesn't so much become the king over the course of the story as he is revealed to already be the king. If you want to see how he became the king you'd need to find the story of his previous decades learning from the elves, being a ranger, travelling the world (we know he has spent time in both Rohan and Gondor back when Denethor and Theoden were young men), and working with Gandalf. And that's a story I'd love to read, but we only get hints of it in the book.
you are magnetic! your narration and text makes very hard, almost impossible to skip ahead. AMAZING!!! what is imost impressive about your video is that you dont need the support of graphics to make the narration more interesting.
Excellent video Jess, I liked the level of detail you bought to describe Tolkein's dwarfs to counter New Line's movie dwarfs. This is the third episode I've watched and I'm hooked. 😊
In case no one else has mentioned it. I think that, "Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs," was an incredibly important film in it's time and may have done more than other sources to forge the modern notion of dwarves. Though Tolkien obvious picked the name. =)
Tolkien didn't get anything from Disney. He'd been writing stories about dwarves decades before the Snow White movie. In fact, "The Hobbit" came out the same year as "Snow White", much to his annoyance. Tolkien hated the way Disney made the Seven Dwarfs into comic bumblers, so if that's your idea of "the modern notion of dwarves" then it was Peter Jackson who has perpetuated it, not Tolkien. His sources for dwarves (including many of their names) go back centuries before Snow White and other familiar fairy tales were collected (mostly in the 18th and 19th centuries) to ancient Norse mythology.
I think perhaps you misunderstood me. I didn't say Tolkien derived his idea of dwarves *from* Disney--I said that he thought Disney distorted the ancient stories of dwarves with his comic characters in "Snow White". Tolkien knew the mythology. He loathed Disney.
I don't think it did, though. Yes, Snow White was a huge movie in its day, but the way it portrayed dwarves has very little in common with the common modern fantasy dwarf stereotype. The seven dwarfs were not just short, but small; the fantasy dwarf stereotype is short but broad and muscular, capable of hacking opponents in half. The seven dwarfs were not fighters. They did not drink alcohol or have large capacity for food and drink. They didn't have accents; they sounded like typical American cartoon characters. They served as comic relief, but in a quite different style from what you see in the fantasy dwarf. I really think the portrayal of dwarfs in Snow White had almost zero impact on the portrayal of dwarves in fantasy.
There is a long belief that movies need a comic relief. Goes back to silent movies. The character assassination of Dr Watson in the Sherlock Holmes movies of Basil Rathbone is almost as bad as what was done to Gimli.
The Gimli and Legolas relationships reflect well on their characters in their respective movie and book. With Gimli being so manly and brutish in the movie, he wouldnt be able to get along with someone like book legolas and would find him "Hoity Toity" He would want someone he can bash heads with and be rude with, someone that can match his wits, which this legolas does. Guys will get it, its hard to explain. Rudeness is a love language. Which movie legolas does seemlessly.
Never thought of Gimli as humorous. I always thought what was done to him was a travesty. Except for before the Paths of the Dead. "An Elf go underground where a Dwarf dare not! Oh, I'd never hear the end of it!" THAT was a decent synopsizing for the script.
Where the film version lost me was: "Nobody tosses a Dwarf!" and "Not the beard!" in quick succession - I might have forgiven one, but not both! But, if anyone ever doubts Gimli, they just need to look at his gift from Galadriel, as you explained. (Almost as touching as: "Well, I'm back.")
I love both versions of Gimli for very different reasons. In the book he is the pinnacle of dwarfs; wise, diplomatic, honourable and appreciative of the wonders shown to him. He is placed numerous situations beyond his abilities yet nwver fails to rise to the challenge. He and Legolas are equals, two sides of the same coin. The movies downplay many of Gimli's best moments, sadly, presenting him more like a cliche DnD dwarf. That said, he shines in Fellowship with some great moments (trying to destroy the ring, the entire Moria sequence). In Two Towers he faces insurmountable odds in the name of friendship and makes strides befriending the Rohirim. The Return of the King shows him conquering fear on The Path of the Dead. He's less nuanced but still very capable
One of the sources that you ought to look at when investigating the modern fantasy stereotype of the dwarves is the character Hugi in ‘Three Hearts and Three Lions’, by Poul Anderson. That’s the earliest use of cod-Glaswegian to represent the dialect of a dwarf that I know of.
I think Farimir got it worse. Bc if the treatment were reversed he would have cussed at Galadrial only to soften later. That, I think would have been worse than what did happen to Gimli
Tolkiens' Dwarves have a deeply meaningful history, perhaps moreso than any other of the peoples of Middle Earth. It was a great shame that their main representative was reduced to the role he played, considering his peoples' tragic past. A very strong case could be made that they were intended to resemble Eastern Europeans, with many qualities in common with the Jewish diaspora. Even their language has some resemblance to how he may have perceived Yiddish. Phrases like "Baruk Khazad!" are good examples of this. If this is indeed the case, it makes Gimli's depiction even more unfortunate. In any case, thanks for the thought-provoking video!
@@Kuhmuhnistische_Partei I never said they were. I said the trope of portraying them as silly. And Gimli in the movies was made into mere comedy relief.
I don't think the reason Dwarves evolved into the modernized characterization of the loud angry drunken Scotsman comes from 1 particular source, but rather it was done because it was Cool. It's just the natural progression between the races of elves, dwarves, and men in peoples collective consciousness.
For me, Gimli and Legolas planning to see the glittering caves was one of the most memorable moments from the books. It was such a striking example of how their bond had overcome the elf-dwarf divide, and a key example of LotR's theme of deep friendship. As someone who has still not gotten around to seeing the second and third Peter Jackson movies, it was disappointing to hear that there isn't a version of the cave-road-trip-planning in there.
You may be happier not bothering with movies two and three. They only get worse as they continue imo. The best reason to watch the movies is the music, which you've already gotten the flavor of with one. IMO that's the best contribution the movies made to Tolkien's work. The last time I revisited the series it was in audiobook format and the music had been incorporated into it in something of an audio production instead of a straight read, including voice work meant to match the actors from the movies, which I also felt was a nice touch. It was wonderful.
While I agree with your comparisons, I've got to say the highlight of this video was your take on the song! You have a lovely voice and came up with a fitting melody! Have you done this for any of the other songs? If not, I'd love to hear more renditions.
Sometimes commercials can unintentionally add a bit of comic relief to videos. So right in the middle of where Gimli were telling everyone about mines, hospitality of the dwarves, and malt beer a commercial cuts in “welcome to McDonald’s”. I almost choked on my tea.
I think the Hobbit played a part in how modern fantasy paints Dwarves. We meet a lot of them and we’re introduced to them as the brawns that storm a house uninvited (cause they don’t know any better obviously) making fun of their host for being concerned about his furniture and cookware and celebrating their community. Of course the story then paints them as benevolent and loyal heroes, but the introduction always counts double, it sets the stage.
It's also very clear that Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as Bilbo Baggins. The portrayal of Dwarves as loutish yahoos was a bit of Baggin's own racism coming through. It's the same as The Silmarillion, written from a triumphant Elvish historian doing what triumphant historians do best; ignoring the flaws and playing up the defeats. When you read between the lines, you can see how the Elves are fairly shady characters
This, along with the the removal of all the poetry, Frodo kicking Sam from the party and forgetting 'Oh Elbereth' in Shelob's lair killed a lot of the magic in those movies for me.
Great question on why they did this. I have my theory. Why they change Gimli in the movies is the same reason why they changed Boromir, and started the film with the story of the ring. Movies are a visual art, unlike books and they have only a few hours to tell the story of the Fellowship. Boromir being a less complicated, fallen hero, gets the viewer to appreciate the character in the time allotted. Like Gimli they are both far too complex and interesting to put in a movie with 9 leads, half of which don't appear until 50% of the way through the film. And dwarves are short, so they're funny. Look at the hobbits, except the two in great peril. They're both great works, just not the same.
2:08 "the light elves, the fair and heavenly creatures". Nice description of yourself. 🥰 10:00 Peter Jackson did not only simplified Gimli to a comic relief character, everyone is simplified: Pippin is dumb, Treebeard is boring, Frodo falls to the ground... Treebreard is probably the one with the worst treatment. In the book, the hobbits were in awe before him instead of being bored to sleep. 14:18 funny thing is, the 1978 cartoon movie played that scene more or less like the book. 19:24 no, I maintain Treebeard is the character that got done dirty the most in the Peter Jackson movies. Gimli at least was still fun to watch.
And Elrond is agent Smith, rather having an "ageless" face. The face of Elrond was ageless, neither old nor young, though in it was written the memory of many things both glad and sorrowful. His hair was dark as the shadows of twilight, and upon it was set a circlet of silver; his eyes were grey as a clear evening, and in them was a light like the light of stars. Venerable he seemed as a king crowned with many winters, and yet hale as a tried warrior in the fulness of his strength.
I'll see your boring appeasing Treebeard and raise you with a Denethor so two-dimensional the character blows away in a strong breeze. I also don't like the way they portrayed Isildur. Unfortunately, the movies also have to appeal to a mass audience who haven't read the books. So we get slovenly Gimli, Neville Treebeard, instantly corrupted Isildur, and raving Denethor.
@@colindunnigan8621 where have you seen a two dimensional Denethor? I only saw a one dimensional jerk drunk with power. The movie did not portrayed Isildur, they only showed a couple of still-framed of his life with no characterization. In the movies, we only learned that he was the son of a king and he was affected by the ring like everybody else.
I wonder, a book you can put down and pick up again in a few hours or days if you find it's getting dark or heavy. A movie you are probably going to watch beginning to end with minimal break(s). So, did the movie require a little comic relief to make it more palatable while the book did not? Ultimately, I loved the books and the movies while recognizing there were differences. Kudos to Jackson for film depiction of that wonder tale. :)
Completely agree with your thoughts on Gimli. However, if memory serves, Gloin is also featured in the book. Not in depth, of course. But he shows up at the Council of Elrond to give an account of Balin's mission to reclaim Moria and to warn Bilbo about the messenger that Sauron had sent several times to Erebor, asking about "Baggins".
What a fantastic dive into Gimli, son of Gloin! Thank you! I first read The Hobbit in 2nd Grade, and LoTR in 3rd. As I grew up in the 80s, and started playing D&D in 3rd Grade, I always gravitated to elves over the other fantasy folk options. I think that was in large part because of Tolkien and the wonder and awe that the Hobbits had for them. They were quick, and magical, and an odd combination of old and young at the same time. I've found, however, that as I became an adult and grew a bit more wise and understanding of the world, I've developed a much more keen appreciation for dwarves. Their reliability, sturdiness, grit, and even their stubbornness are things to aspire to, and novel-Gimli provides insight into all of those, while also showing that one can still grow and learn new things later in life. I initially had GimliGloinson as my email back in the Excite days. That grew into an avatar called GimliFett: basically Gimli's body and axe with Boba Fett's helmet. Good times. Finally, I have evolved it to GimliKenobi, a combination of 2 of my absolute favorite characters, who share many traits and aspects.
So happy to find your channel because the algorithm saw fit to share this video with me! Love how you highlight Tolkien’s remarkable emotional literacy
Start speaking a new language in 3 weeks with Babbel 🎉. Get up to 60% OFF your subscription ➡Here: go.babbel.com/t?bsc=1200m60-youtube-parttimehobbit-aug-2023&btp=default&TH-cam&Influencer..parttimehobbit..USA..TH-cam
Ich weiss, dass einige Amerikaner Deutsch in der Schule lernen, aber ich war positiv überrascht. Bleib am Ball! 🙂
Nope - I am not going to learn any more languages until a significant majority of Americans learns to speak more than one. Get to learning Americans!
@@whynottalklikeapirat The way I grew up, I should be able to speak Pennsylvania Dutch, Klingon & Elvin!
@@timm1139 I’ll take that any day of the week, Timm Elvin
I see Gimli as the link to The Hobbit and Bilbo's original adventure being the son of Gloin, one of the 13 Dwarves in the original Thorin and Co. He serves many roles in the story, often adding a unique perspective on key plot points.
However, I would look to The Hobbit for the most in-depth look at the Dwarves and who they are.
Another interesting factoid is that Walt Disney's Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs was released the same year that The Hobbit was first published in, 1937. And they too mine for gems and gold and wear hoods and all but Dopey have beards. So, there is a mythology of Dwarves/dwarfs that predates Tolkien that at least superficially, they appear very similar.
Also, isn't it kind of a general societal trope that short round bearded men are loud and overly masculine to compensate for their short stature? I call it the Yosemite Sam syndrome. They often are tobacco chewers or cigar smokers, quick to anger, never back down from a challenge,...you know the type.
That may have a lot to do with how we expect Dwarves to behave.
Gimlis line in the films were he is standing on Balins tomb and he says."let them come, for there is one dwarf in Moria who still draws breath." Not a line in the books exactly. But I love it. Gives me chills.
Agreed! I loved this line!
And then the troll smach the tomb and balins remains to dust and he like, ah dumb of me standing there like a disrespecting human.
he stands on balins tomb to try and protect it. stop hating buddy@@giftsvampen
B A S E D Gimli
Not "exactly" but he does get on the tomb and declare he's ready to battle the goblins so it is accurate to the books...even if it's an ABSOLUTE adaptation you can't have it be word for word
While they did a disservice to Gimli as a whole in the movies, John Rhys-Davies did an amazing little bit of acting when discovering the fate of the Dwarves in Moria. Gimli's grief was palpable.
John Rhys-Davies is the one thing that made movie-Gimli tolerable.
His acting when telling Legolas about Galadriel's gift is just stellar
His voice cracking while saying "she gave me three." Always hits deep.
@@calebhein2788 It's a sublime line reading
Fun fact, the sword Narsil, the sword that cut the ring from Sauron's hand, was forged by dwarves. Later it was reforged by elves and renamed by Aragorn as Anduril, Flame of the West. So, one of the things that proves Aragorn's claim to the throne of Gondor is through the help of both elves and dwarves.
I love that Gimli in the books while in Moria, the fellowship hears knocking on rocks coming from deep within the mountains and Gimli is the only one who can tell what it is by sound alone. He cannot tell who's making the sound but he knows what's making the sound, it's a light working hammer and he knows it's not a natural sound. That's something the films never mentioned, Gimli has a lot of talent.
Agreed. That was the sound of a hammer or I've never heard one.
He does know how to forge armor and weapons.. I think it's one of those things that all dwarves are somewhat proficient in.
That was really beautiful singing!
I wonder what it would have sounded like with Gimli singing accompaniment.
Just imagining that song echoing in the vacant halls of Moria gives me chills
It was dishonorable to have Faramir be tempted by the Ring as he was not in the slightest. This is much worse than becoming a comical punching bag.
You cannot say Faramir was not tempted by the ring. In the book he doesn't want to even see the ring, because he knows he would be tempted and possibly fall to it if he did. He doesn't have superhuman willpower that allows him to resist the ring (like Aragorn has because of his heritage and upbringing), but he is wise enough to not give it the chance to tempt him in the first place.
The movie version shows what would happen if Faramir didn't take this precaution: he would be tempted and fall just like any normal man who isn't Aragorn. It's an unnecessary change and I agree that it shouldn't have been made (because I'm not a fan of changing the originals in the first place), but it doesn't actually break the character of Faramir.
I presume the change was made because the story made such a big deal of the corrupting influence of the ring but - because the Fellowship consists mainly of non-humans and a superhuman who can resist its influence - only one person was actually tempted and fell to it (Boromir, two if you count Smeagol in the flashback). I still think they should have left it how it was in the boon, but I understand the reasoning
It's not just the thousand plus year rivalry of Elves vs Dwarves that Gimli put aside with his friendship with Legolas, but a family rivalry as well. After all, it was Legolas's father who imprisoned Gimli's father in the Hobbit.
Well...6,546+ year grudge, but who's counting?
@@frocat5163Tbf, it WAS a very shiny stone back then.
@@kazaddum2448, that it was! 😊
I think that was more on Gimli's mind than any long grudge. After all, he is of Durin's House, and the Dwarves of Durin's House were Elf-friends (at least with the Elves of Eregion, of whom Galadriel was one) at least at the time of the Making of the Rings. Basically, it was much more recent history than anything ancient.
@@NemisCassander Dwarfes put terror in elves since Thingol man, the Eregion thing is a peaceful momento only
Vocalize everything I’ve been thinking about this character for decades. He’s not just comic relief, he’s a deep, complicated, intense character that happens to have humorous elements.
Love you Gimli! 🪓
For the last couple of decades, I've often thought about how incredibly much more impactful Gimli's "That still only counts as one!" line would have been, if he had otherwise been portrayed as a serious character, like in the novel.
I think that also it missed out on being a way to show the character development between Legolas and Gimli. Their dialogue could have been a lot more abrasive at the start, mellowing out across the three films, until you reach the dying beside a friend bit. You could still have the comedy, but less damaging to the authority of Gimli as a character
Nothing could save that line in its context, by the time PJ has let himself go so much as to have cgi Legolamb bouncing about and taking down a Mumakil single handedly like a demented Mario for the sake of a one-liner its so far gone from the tone of the books Battle of the Pelennor as to be unrecognisable anyway.
@@neilbiggs1353Parkour Legolas was a major annoyance in the films. It just looked ridiculous instead of awesome.
@@stefanlaskowski6660 I'd support arguments about toning down the Legolas stunts, I was just concentrating on the Gimli side of the issue
@@stefanlaskowski6660 It's hard to say when the Hobbit films "jump the shark" because most of the action scenes are like that, but Legolas jumping falling pieces of bridge like Mario just about takes the shark's biscuit.
My biggest gripe was his actions at Helm's Deep. Dwarf tossing? Really? Compare that to the book, where he sneaks out unseen, and as ´Eomer is about to get attacked, Gimli rescues him. Not just with his axe, but with his war cry. There were a bunch of orcs, and Gimli kills two. The rest flee. Maybe it's the fear of an attack they weren't expecting, but I always felt it was hearing "THE DWARVES ARE UPON YOU" from out of nowhere.... because that's a really scary thought to an orc. And communicates a look at the history of those two races. Orcs will attack a bunch of men, but when they hear the dwarves are there? uh uh. They're gone.
Oh, and Jess: please, Please, PLEASE make a recording of all the songs in LoTR. You have a breathtaking voice, and I've never heard most of these songs actually performed.
Can you imagine a dwarven war cry being scary? Me neither. Many things from books are not transferable onto the screen. That's the simple truth. Dwarves in general are not scary to the orcs of Middle-Earth in any special way, what makes you think that? They never had any issues with attacking them.
Well, the dwarves messed them up at Dimrill Dale. And the ones at Helm's Deep ran away when Gimli gave his cry. @@May04bwu
@@May04bwuDwarves are pretty tough and broad. Strong and with good arms and armor and booming voices. I can imagine a war cry being fearsome. They are probably thought of as being trouble to fight by orcs, having been their fearsome rivals in their mountain home turf. But no the dwarves accompanying Bilbo do not give the impression of being particularly feared by orcs.
12:40 Yes! I do would love to hear her recordings! I doubted that singing was her own because it was so professional-alike that I guessed it was drawn from some cut scenes. I'm mesmerized!
If you wish to hear a lot of Tolkien's songs performed, check out Clamavi de Profundis. They've got a bunch of the songs, including the Song of Durin.
8:00 to 8:
Something important to mention is that he doesn't want to treasure it just for its beauty, but also, as he puts it, as a symbol of friendship between elves and dwarfs, which to me signifies that he plans on attempting to change his people's stance on elves on his return. He is basically saying that if he comes back home, he'll talk about the elves he met in a positive light to establish a friendship. Which, by the way, is why I think she gives him the strands of hair: she understands that Gimli's motivation behind the request is different from Feanor's. Gimli's word alone that "Elves are really good people, y'all" might be ignored by others, but Gimli coming back with 3 strands of hair and saying "Lady Galadriel gave me this because she's cool with dwarfs" is totally different.
Plus he turned them into a museum exhibit that anyone could come and see.
This made me cry wtf
*dwarves
I think, too, that not only was Gimli's motivation different, but he didn't even want to make the request for a strand of hair in the first place; he only spoke his desire when pressed upon it. I think that his humility touched her as well.
Gimli was very proud of his culture and when Galadriel referred to Moria by the proper dwarven name of Khazad-dum. It really opened his eyes that not all the elves were ignorant of his culture and one of the most influential elves in the history of middle earth respected and honored it. Combine it with her beauty and grace and its no wonder his attitude turned around. And when she gifted him her three hairs it opened Legolas's eyes to see that he had many misconceptions and prejudices against the dwarves. That Gimli was worthy of something that the mighty Feanor was denied.
This is the first time I’ve stumbled on your page and I was completely blown away when you actually sang what Gimli sang to Sam. You have a beautiful voice!
Right? It stopped me right in my tracks when I heard it.
I would pay actual, real-world money to have an album of her covering LOTR songs. Her voice is beautiful!
Granted, Gimli didn't actually sing but just recited, but Jess does have a gorgeous voice.
@@erinhaury5773 "Shut up and take my money!" in other words, yes please!
Yeah, but she doesn't sound like Gimli.
After Helms Deep where he talks to Legolas about the majesty of the caverns, touched me deep-ly (sorry for the Pun), and his retort "Do you cut down groves of blossoming trees in the springtime for firewood?" Pure awesomeness.
Your singing voice is beautiful.
The War in the North video game people were so moved by that line that they tried to show a similar cavern in the northern dragon mountains where the Dwarves had found great natural beauty and only worked their artifice to frame in rather than pave over it. The game's art doesn't quite carry it, but it's still a very good attempt.
I love their story in the appendices, where they go on a road trip together then sail west together near the end of Gimlis life. I can imagine a barely aged Legolas caring for a very elderly Gimli, so sweet.
I actually love Gimli's character in both the book and the movie, but I appreciate how seriously he's taken in the book.
Same, he was my favorite character
I understood Elrond's position on oaths a lot better after I read the Silmarillion, in which he and his twin brother Elros were held captive as small boys by Maedhros and Maglor, the last surviving sons of Fëanor. Fëanor's infamous oath drove the Noldor and especially his sons to repeated mass murder of other elves in pursuit of the Silmarils, to the point that even Maedhros and Maglor were sick of their crimes. It made perfect sense that Elrond was allergic to the entire idea of oath-swearing.
Man, start a discussion on anything people said in LoTR and it ends up leading several layers deep. So amazing.
To be fair, Maedhros and Maglor were fundamentally decent people (unlike some of their brothers). They spoke the oath in haste, and were bound by it, but outside of that they often did things they felt were right. I don't doubt they were sick of their crimes from the very first, but were bound to follow through (and in the end they do fulfil it, despite the torment they endure in the fulfilling, with Eärendil's Silmarill beyond the scope of the oath having left the confines of the world, and the other two deep in the earth and sea where none might hold or take or keep them from the Fëanoreans were any of them still left embodied outside the Halls of Mandos).
I think this only adds to your point.
Damn, that's a great point. I've never made that connection. But then again, I've only read the Silmarillion once, recently, and didn't reread LotR after that.
Those were the two that ACTUALLY got the silmarils after a third fratracide correct?
@@theyellowjesters, correct. Maedhros and Maglor killed the (presumably Elven) guards watching the two remaining Silmarils after the Valar defeated Morgoth and dug them from his iron crown. Both brothers found to their dismay that the Silmarils burned their hands, which in Maedhros's case was especially bad because he had only one hand left. Maedhros jumped into a fiery chasm somewhere while Maglor threw his into the sea, so both jewels were lost forever. Earendil continued wearing the third Silmaril on his brow while crossing the sky every night in his great ship the Vingilot.
Gimli's great strength is the love he bears for his fellow members of the company. He really cares for them and he's truly in touch with his feelings. When he scolds them it's his way of showing how much he cares for them. Also, when Aragorn's company rides through Dunharrow Gimli rides at the back and he can feel the fear of the dead at his back. This does not mean that he is cowardly but, rather, that he is brave enough to bear this fear that others might not have to suffer it.
I am 51 so I was very much into the books well before the movies. I read The Hobbit when i was about 8 and read the trilogy around 11 or 12 and must've reread it almost anually. I was impressed buy Peter Jackson's film adaptations but you are spot on about Gimli. He stuck out like a sore thumb as a crosseyed clown. Not the character I imagined as I read him. Far more serious. Good take Jess.
47. Dad read The Hobbit to me to sleep before I could read. Peter Jackson did a great job. But movies are going to movie. When they came out, dad and I saw them in theatre. We knew full well that this was going to happen. How can you capture the nuance that Tolkien wove in written word? Can’t happen. Poor Gimli.
I'm 55 and I have similar first reading ages so yeah. Same as you plus only a couple to a few years.
54. Me too! I read the books repeatedly growing up. I confess the last time I read them was before the movies came out. Back in the days when I read the books before watching the movies.
I agree but him and the two hobbits were the comic relief and the films needed that.
I had much the same experience with the books as you did. I read them every summer from the age of 11 or twelve until into my 20’s and after that, I have shared them often with my kids. Even today, I listen to the books while doing housework. 52 last April.
I think the characterization of Gimli is one of the shortcomings of that great trilogy. My best guess as to "why?" is that PEter Jackson felt he needed some "comic relief" in the storytelling, and that fell on to Gimli. One of the best passages, I believe, from the book is where he, Aragorn and Legolas follows the orcs across the Rohan plains. There is a passage where he describes how much it hurts him to think of the two hobbits being at the mercy of orcs. Gimli and the dwarwes are loyal to a fault: If you hurt one of theirs, they will hunt you to the ends of the earth (as Azog found out a few hundred years previously).
"All debts paid. Nothing Forgiven, Nothing Forgotten"
I also have a bit of an issue with some of the 'comedy' parts in the Hobbit films, about the only bit of 'Dwarf funny business' that comes close to the book version is the Unexpected Party.
Didnt the elves sometimes hurt dwarves, but dwarves didnt still hunt them to the end of the world to destroy them compleately. Didnt Azog find that out sixty years earlier tho, when that was how much earlier Hobbit took place in compared to Lord of the Rings.
@@jout738Azog is dead during the time the Hobbit happens. He is killed some decades before. For some reason they revived him for the movies.
There are four hobbits in the movies already, two of them rather mischievous. Isn't that enough comic relief? Why did Jackson additionally need a dwarf for comic relief?!
@@jout738
*"Didnt the elves sometimes hurt dwarves, but dwarves didnt still hunt them to the end of the world to destroy them compleately. "*
Yes and no. In the First Age, King Thingol of Doriath commissioned the Dwarves of Belegost to convert the treasures of Nargothrond into many pieces of jewelfy. The greatest piece the dwarves made was a necklace of silver and opal called the Nauglamir. Thingol then had the Dwarves of Nogrod add the Silmaril that had been recovered by Beren and Luthien to the Nauglamir. Once complete, the dwarves demanded the necklace as a dwarven heirloom stolen from Nargothrond, but Thingol not only refused to give them the necklace, he insulted them. The dwarves then attacked Thingol, which led to a battle in Menegroth between the elves and dwarves. The dwarves eventually escaped with the Nauglamir, but were subsequently ambushed by elves who retook the Nauglamir. Only two dwarves returned to Nogrod where they convinced the rest of the city that Thingol had refused to pay them for their work and attacked them. The Dwarves then assaulted Doriath and sacked Menegroth, killing many of the people living there. This is about the only major confrontation between elves and dwarves in all of Middle-earth's history, and I think it's fair to say sacking an entire kingdom over an insult and then holding a grudge about the whole incident for literally thousands of years qualifies as "hunting to the ends of the earth."
*"Didnt Azog find that out sixty years earlier tho..."*
Azog was killed in Third Age 2799, the events of _The Hobbit_ take place in Third Age 2941 - 2942, just over 140 years later.
*"...when that was how much earlier Hobbit took place in compared to Lord of the Rings."*
You can't use the nonsense in the Hobbit trilogy to discuss Tolkien lore. The LotR films are bad enough regarding the finer points of the lore (like skipping the 17 years that passed between Bilbo's 111th birthday party and Frodo leaving the Shire with the One Ring), but the Hobbit films are complete garbage when it comes to the lore.
The "Scottish Dwarf" trope likely comes from a book called "Three hearts and Three Lions" While I'm pretty sure that book didn't have any influence on LOTR, that book *did* have an influence on Dungeons and Dragons, which went on to influence fantasy in general much like LOTR did, and I think Gimli having a Scottish accent in the movie is sort of this coming full circle.
This makes sense. Movie Gimli reminds me more of a D&D dwarf than he does of book Gimli.
D&D's creation really was inspired by a mishmash of fantasy races from many different sources and I really think has ended up being the blueprint for our modern pop culture understanding of fantasy creatures. Dwarves weren't the only victims, I would argue elves and even orcs have had more of their current perception drawn from there than from Tolkien's books.
@@jakerockznoodles lots of creatures got shafted. Orcs, gnomes, kobolds, goblins. Luckily D&D is the kind of game where you can change the lore these around if you want.
There's a channel called "Map Crow" that has an especially cool interpretation of kobolds, for instance.
I heard that Jackson's Gimli had a Scottish accent because the Bakshi movie used the Scottish accent for dwarves.
Three Hearts (Poul Anderson) was published in 1961, so absolutely had no influence on LotR, written from 1937-1949.
Schön, dass Du den wahren Charakter von Gimli so treffend heruas arbeitest, seine reine, von Herzen kommende, Verehrung für Galadriel und seine störrische Loyalität hast Du wunderbar beschrieben. Danke
Ich bin Peter. Du bist Paul. Ich bin fleissigh. Du bist faul!
Imagine for a moment if Legolas was the humorous one of the Three Hunters. Not in a broad slapstick way, but more like a deadpan, overly observant, slightly ADD character taking in as much of Middle-earth as possible while the more serious warriors had to remind him to keep focus.
That being said, it's really because John Rhys-Davies is a damn good actor and handles comedy well that film!Gimli is still enjoyable to watch even with his characterisation being off from the books.
full agree. if the whole trio of gimli-legolas-aragorn were all chivalrous, well-spoken scholars it would have been more bland for a movie. in the books its okay because the dialogue is so well written
@@aluminumbeluga I get what you mean, but that's not quite what I meant either. If they were as well spoken and princely as each other, you could still have the chemistry of Viggo, Orlando and John Rhys-Davies, and Tolkien's dialogue, to create distinction. But I meant, what if Legolas was explicitly the humourous one in a snarky fish-out-of-water way, as a thought exercise.
@@aluminumbeluga "if the whole trio of gimli-legolas-aragorn were all chivalrous, well-spoken scholars it would have been more bland for a movie" They are not portrayed that way in the book.
@@archvaldor seemed to me they were, which one deviated from that description?
Years before the live action movie when the Internet was young there were speculations on the Tolkien Usenet boards about casting for a movie. There was widespread variation in the proposals for the characters, but as I recall about half of the posters picked John Rhys-Davies for Gimli, and I agreed then and now. I think they overdid his makeup. to the point of handicapping his performance. The TNG Klingon forehead job restricts the range of expression. All he needed was a wig, a nose, a beard, and regular movie makeup.
In the film, gimli tries immediately to destroy the ring. He's never under its influence. I love that.
In the book, nobody but _nobody_, could willingly harm it.
That's the answer to the question why not ask the eagles to help get a small contingent to take the Ring to Mordor. What happens when Frodo riding in front of Gandalf freezes and then claims it as it takes him? Gandalf would have to half destroy him to take it by force, and then he would be taken.
Not an eagle, not Elrond nor Galadriel could have harmed it.
In the book, Frodo had already seen that his little fire didn't harm it, and when challenged to toss it into his fire, inadvertently slips it into his pocket instead.
Ask PJ why the dwarf was able to. His usual answer to why he changed things is "to save time and move the main story along. For instance, when Faramir kidnaps the hobbits and takes them away from their purpose? When Aragorn falls off a cliff?
It's only one of the dumbest scene in all of Jackson's films. And there are a lot.
@@n333k333 Why don't you get a hobby instead of making hating on 25 year old movies your entire personality? 😂
@@Noooiiiissseee We could say the same to you about hating on people who criticize that movie.
@@JFrazer4303 No you couldn't. My opinion is only a reaction to other people being children. I have no opinion otherwise. What an absurd comparison.
I was really gutted to see how they (ab)used Gimli to be the comic relief character every modern movie needs nowadays. He's so much more than that. Also dwarven culture is much more rich and complex.
I can look past it and still enjoy the movies, but it was still a true shame.
I think THE HOBBIT kinda half redeemed them. The non-speaking characters were clowns (Bombur...deserved better), but Dwalin, Balin, Nori, Thorin, and even Bofur had pathos and personality to spare. From them you really got a sense of how diverse and rich Dwarf culture was. And seeing Erebor, even in decay, you could see how sophisticated it was to boot. But even Tolkien underdeveloped the Dwarves. He didn't get anywhere near as close to finished with their language as he did with Elvish.
It gets worse in The Hobbit, of course. Tolkein's Dwarves are a sophisticated, well mannered culture with a depth of history, not to mention skill. I cringed at the portrayal in both film stories. I havent decided whether what Peter Jackson did to the Dwaves is worse than what he did to Faramir.
I can def understand where you are coming from but I am kind of glad they put some humor in there. The movies could have gotten pretty dreary without it. Luckily most of the worst Gimli stuff is only in the extended editions. I totally see why it left out of the real versions lol.
The way that she explains it sounds like Legolas and Gimli are gay for each other, Peter Jackson just show how today's male friendship works
Male friendships can be seriously misrepresented in films.@@stellviahohenheim
I've read the books when i was 11 and gimli was my favourite character
And i was furious about his depiction when the movies came out
Same. Gimli was my favorite, and I didn't love the movie as the dwarves are comic relief.
I see the conversation between Gimli and Elrond as being two wise ones whose words are both true even though they also contradict. Wisdom calls for discerning between contradictory advice that are both good. It's like the Elves tell Frodo and Sam just outside the Shire, that advice can be a dangerous gift, even from the wise to the wise because all roads may go ill.
yes! and upon reread, I thought Elrond references a vision of Aragon taking the Paths of the Dead . That is another major breaking point of the fellowship. Even Gimli feels the fear of the Paths of the Dead and doesn't seem to judge those who didn't go with Aragon. He has to force himself to stay true to his word, which to me strengthens his character.
Go not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes.
I have to say that the competitive nature of Gimli and Legolas in the movies is much closer to how men bond. I wouldn't however begrudge a lady thinking the book version was deeper in meaning.
One of my favorite Gimli scenes from the book is when he bows respectfully to Treebeard and his axe slipped onto the ground.
They are very similar characters. Both share a deep understanding of the things they love/admire in the world around them. If you were to ask either of them a question, they would think before answering to the best of their ability. Neither are they prone to Idle banter. And both show a deep wealth of lore, that creeps to the surface now and then. But you'd never hear them claim to be great lore masters.
@@theressomelovelyfilthdownh4329 would be cool to see them have a long discussion and get to know each other
I like it when he says AND MY AXE
Thank you very much for this! The portraying of Gimli as a comic relief in the second and third movie almost destroyed the experience for med, and that is a feat considering how well done all the films are!
Gimli has always been my favourite character of the Fellowship. I love his friendship with Legolas. His adoration of Galadriel. His rivalry with Eomer. His rhapsody about the glittering caves. He is poetic and steadfast and as solid as a rock. And his forgiveness of Eomer for picking Arwen over Galadriel is perhaps the most beautiful writing in the whole book.
His being comic relief was my least favourite part of the films, along with the flattening of Denethor's character.
Agree. His arguments with Eomer always makes me chuckle but the conclusion of their "rivalry" is lovely. I feel it is understood that they are both too wise to take to arms over such a silly argument so they simply agree to disagree.
_"You have chosen the Evening; but my love is given to the Morning"_
@@joppek77 "and my heart forebodes that soon it will pass away forever"
He really wasn't comic relief until the 2nd film
@@pyropulseIXXI "nobody tosses a dwarf" was in the 1st movie, and way out of place. Also him hitting the Ring with an axe.
You have a beautiful voice. Nicely sung!
I find it funny how the stereotypes of fantasy elves and dwarves turned into “elves = upper class Londoners and dwarves = either lower class Scottish highlanders or rural Irish folk.”
The ways British classism can sneak into everything is quite… extraordinary 😂
Funnily enough this actually comes from American fiction, being popularized by D&D which was inspired by the likes of Robert E. Howard and other primarily American pulp authors.
This is why the Mindflayers look like Cthulu; because Gygax was a pulp fiction fan.
As a Londoner, elves are not from around here. More like Welsh ,
@@grimjoker5572 that’s partially what I was meaning. I wasn’t accusing the people of Great Britain of creating this. Instead I was pointing to how historical stereotypes about the ways different classes/ localities supposedly behave in British media influenced other cultures. (And even though the US won’t like to admit it) American culture is heavily influenced by Britain, so that’s why it’s “extraordinary” that British ideas of class seeped into the USA’s characterization of the different fantasy races.
Also, when I likened the elves to “upper class Londoners” I wasn’t necessarily saying they act like the real people. I was more so referring to how the stereotype of the posh wealthy sophisticate has been used as an analogue to eleves in the more tropey fantasy media. I’m sorry if I made it seem like I was equating actual Londoners to eleves.
@@purplesoda793
Aye, just thought it funny that it actually comes from the US.
@@grimjoker5572 That's what we do. We invented the remix centuries before the word was even invented.
They definitely dumbed him down for the movies but John Rhys-Davies is a saint of a man and absolutely made it his own thing.
Gimli is also diplomatic, able to defuse a tense situation with well judged humour, unlike Legolas early on. Gimli is crucial in Legolas growing up, or at least growing in character, in the wider world i feel.
I imagine a lot of it had to do with John Rhys Davies just leaning into his strengths as an actor. Absolute legend.
Best take
John Rhys Davies can absolutely do the warrior pet thing too though. The man CAN do serious, and he can do reverent and respectful. He's a preacher and theologian of sorts!
It's exactly what happened. He brought to the set and his character what he considered to be his classic hollywood experience, he always angles his experience of making the movies to his LA experience. And just like it was with Ian McKellen or Christopher Lee, PJ and Walsh weren't really in a position to tell these veteran actors how to play the character. The crew probably rolled with his take and it worked for the movie, at the expense of book Gimli
One thing that occurred to me is that the whole idea of the "Dwarf as servant/helper" to the heroes is completely flipped in The Hobbit where our hero is a servant and helper to the Dwarves. The thing about Gimli is he both exemplifies Dwarvish virtue better than any other Dwarf yet subverts Dwarvish vice. I think he understands well enough what Thorin learned at his deathbed. He is not greedy. He just loves that which is beautiful. This is shocking to the Elves, and it is shocking also that Galadriel judged Gimli worthier than her own kinsman Fëanor (especially if you take the position that Fëanor did nothing wrong…)
Yes, I agree Gimli was worse than Faramir. By ruining Gimli, the films ruined the entire Dwarvish race. The Hobbit trilogy gave us a slightly better grasp on the serious element to Dwarves, but they were weird and over-the-top also. Further, if you need a comical character, why Gimli? The hobbits generate the most comedy in the books, especially Sam and Pippin. Sam is excellent in the book at being funny yet feeling real at the same time. Why not emulate that?
Also, I do not agree that Gimli's core character in the book does not directly conflict with his character in the film. They lose his sense of chivalry, honor, and loyalty, which is core to any Dwarf of Dúrin's Folk. Even in The Hobbit, Thorin did risk his own people to save Bilbo long before he was useful to them and nearly got eaten because of it. But Gimli's whole thing is loyalty and honor. Yet in the films he suggests, among other things, that Aragorn break his promise and not free the Oath-breakers. Yes, Dwarves are known to have trouble with forgiveness and things, but his argument was not "they don't deserve it until they've defeated Sauron" but rather "they're useful in a fix, despite the fact that they're dead". Further, in Lothlórien, in the book, Gimli is polite and honorable yet is horribly mistreated by what I can only call "racist" Elves, which is why his apparent forgiveness of them once he meets the kindness of Galadriel means so much. In the films, Gimli is the "racist" Dwarf and the Elves are calm and cool, which gives the hair-gift much less significance.
Personally, I think it might have helped if they had not used so many facial prosthetics and the weird accent, and rather just let him act. I am sure if they had just made him usually soft-spoken with a less pronounced Scottish accent and kept a brief scene in the extended cut with him arguing with Elrond about taking oaths, as well as had Celeborn and the other Elves be rude and suspicious about him being a Dwarf, and maybe had a few more scenes where he defends Galadriel, audiences could have managed it. He is something of the down-to-earth viewpoint character when hobbits are not around anyway, since he is surrounded by affairs in which historically Men and Elves have taken a greater part anyway, which makes him more relatable.
Really like this comment, but how can anyone take the position that Feänor did no wrong? Never forget Alqualondë.
@@lieutenantoin929 No idea. However, there exists a Reddit group of 6.1 thousand people who hold to that position. Why they hold this view or if every one of them is a genocidal maniac, I do not know.
If they wanted a comic relief character then they needed look no further than Legolas "Sass & Practical Comedy" Greenleaf.
@@matthewbreytenbach4483I agree. Legolas would have to be a different kind of comedy and more of the type making constant quips, but that would be less of a character assassination.
I think that the accent is a huge part of his characterization, they just butchered that too. Tolkien puts a lot of emphasis on the Jewish influence of his dwarves and the accent is supposed to reflect their insular culture-not entirely comfortable being so close to outsiders who are historically as likely to persecute as be friendly.
The dwarves of Middle-Earth have always been one of my absolute favorite fantasy depictions. I used to re-read the portions of LotR that featured Gimli, and loved the relationship that he developed with Legolas. However, the movies are more of a result of the tropes that have developed since the time of Tolkien and the current state of D&D and modern fantasy at the time of the movies. I would look at Paul Anderson as one of the primary sources for how modern fantasy dwarves are depicted, as well as the mass media fantasy from Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance of the 80s and 90s.
R. A. Salvatore... He's to blame for the vast majority of film Gimli. It's almost note for note how he portrays dwarfs in his books.
@@theressomelovelyfilthdownh4329 ***Dwarves*** Dwarfs are Disney characters who sing heigh ho, heigh ho.
Gimli's and Legolas's relationship is one of my favorite themes in the book. Maybe #1 for me. It's one of Tolkien's most powerful anti-racist statements, and one of the great examples of close male platonic cameraderie. Especially powerful because they are equals, compared to Frodo and Sam, who are master and servant. The very last event/entry in Appendix B, The Tale of Years, is Legolas building a ship and taking Gimli with him sailing to Valinor. Jackson ferked all of that up completely. I hates it.
@@Slug002exactly. He hated allegory and anything like it.
@@Slug002 Sorry you like racism. Tolkien did not.
@@Slug002 Where do you find that definition? Here's a definition from Boston University: Anti-Racism is the practice of actively identifying and opposing racism. The goal of anti-racism is to actively change policies, behaviors, and beliefs that perpetuate racist ideas and actions. The National Action Committee defines it thus: Anti-racism is the active process of identifying and eliminating racism by changing systems, organizational structures, policies and practices and attitudes, so that power is redistributed and shared equitably. Not sure why you're all snotty about this when you're dead wrong.
@@zzodysseuszzHe got annoyed with people reading too much into it, like assuming it's all about his war experiences, or saying that Sauron is allegory for nuclear war. Doesn't mean there's literally no relation to things in the real world, that would be silly.
As a kid growing up watching the movies endlessly, I loved comedic Gimli, but I definitely appreciate the book version more and more as I get older.
I was just rereading LOTR (after reading the Silmarillion) and the conversation between Elrond and Gimli struck me as Elrond trying to make sure they didn’t go down the road Feanor’s sons went down with their oaths.
Male bonding is different than it was in Tolkiens’ day. Performative “ball-busting” is what most men of Gen x and millennials grew up with and so the nature and growth of Gimli and Legolas’ friendship was changed to reflect how modern audience members would expect two budding besties to act like. I’m sure they expected men to be their primary audience.
The fact that Gimli was the only dwarf and all of the other elves are portrayed with such elegance meant they couldn’t make Legolas into a frat boy version of an elf and so Gimli had to always be the butt of the joke. Having said that, they always portrayed him not having a fragile ego or feeling threatened or bothered by looking silly in a situation and I think that also shows a lot of dignity and grace of another kind.
Random... A while back the TH-cam algorithm recommended your channel to me and I randomly clicked. I've only seen the movies once, haven't read the books and never considered myself much of a fan, but your discussions are getting me interested again. The internet is weird. But, thank you!
Fucking thank you. Been waiting a decade on someone else to mention this.
Put significantly more considered and eloquent than i am capable of
Do one of these for Denethor please!
I would also love the portrayal of the Denedein or the Men of the Mountains in the book vs in the movies.
Damn you're right. Haven't read the books in over 20 years but now that you mention it I seem to recall Gimli being just as poetic as Aragorn in many instances.
Denethor's image was the number one character assassination of the films. At least we could laugh at Gimli, Merry, Pippin.
It's true that what we see in the movies is a little bit exaggerated when compared to the books, but the truth is that by the time we get to him Denethor is basically insane. The main difference between the book and the movie is that the book provides hints that he wasn't always like that and eventually provides an explanation of what drove him insane. Once you realize that he was using a Palantir, and thus presumably subjected to the same pressures that Saruman was, you can't help but notice that as bad as he's become he's still held up better than the wizard did.
@@hkpew Book Denethor is not insane, broken yes, but not insane. He has Gondor prepared as best it can be, book version had lit the beacons long before, called in the reinforcements available from the coastal and other Gondorian fiefdoms, hell he even slept in his armour as a sign and morale boost to his people that Gondor was ready and prepared to defend itself at any moment, and he still holds regular council with his Captains and doesn't make suicidal tactical decisions. It's despair, loss and a building sense of inevitable doom and the fall of Gondor (compounded through his palantir use) that eventually causes his mental collapse, but he is by no means insane, nor does he for the most part in the book act insane. Its only in the films he is reduced to a pantomime caricature of a villain, he may as well have a moustache to twirl.
@@pettytyrant2720Totally agree. Movie Denethor was a cartoon villain.
Frodo was the worst because he was the main character. Jackson made him a wimp. He’s as tough as hell in book. Faramir is the second worst assassination.
wonderful, thanks for this refreshment of that noble race :) (and wow your singing of the song of Durin was beautiful)
Loved the singing! I havent seen enough of the films to comment but i completely agree on the subtlety of gimli in the book. His physical endurance on the run in rohan also in the mountains is also notable.
While the contrast between the book and movie are big. The Gimli from the movies is still my favorite of the two. As a kid growing up with these movies and not have read the books. Gimli came across as a character who was able to be funny at times, even if it was at his expense. Then turn it around and be a fierce warrior who stood by his friends. As for his friendship with Legolas in the movies, to me it was a friendship built on the premise of brothers in arms. A respect for others who were going to uphold their word and hold true.
Same! Glad there’s a few who liked his char in the movies lol
Hear, hear!!
Gimli was quite a profound character in the book.
Also, re. dwarves' norse origin, how much cooler would have been a book-faithful Gimli speaking with a Scandinavian accent.
And wow is no one else going to bring up her rendition of Gimli's song? That kind of authentic sounding chant-singing is really hard to get right; composition and performing. But you nailed it! It actually stopped me in my tracks.
Giving Gimli a Minnesota Norwegian accent would have been a different flavor of comic relief.
Staying true with Tolkien, Gimli should actually have a Yiddish accent, because he modelled the dwarven tongue Khuzdul on Semitic languages. Gimli should sound like Mel Brooks. 😅
Her singing was absolutely beautiful ❤
@@revylokesh1783 The Semitic language family is a rather broad one, so without me personally knowing which of the languages Tolkien drew from when creating Khuzdul, I'd say it's fair that Gimli could have any sort of accent. However, given the Norse and *Germanic* (i.e. around Central Europe) origins of dwarfs in real life mythology, it's fairly astute of you to suggest Yiddish.
@@revylokesh1783 Yiddish isn't actually a semitic language, it's a westgermanic language with traces of slavic and romance languages and some semitic influences.
This was so very well put. Gimli has always been my favourite character for several reasons but I am glad to see videos like this one!
Jess, your characterization of dwarves in modern fantasy - with the exception of being the butt of jokes - is how Bilbo perceived his companions during much of their journey. When they made their escape from the elves' dungeons, Bilbo was afraid that the "dwarvesh racket" his friends made would give all of them away, and that they would be captured and put back in their cells. If modern fantasy writers are following Tolkien's lead, they are following the lead found in The Hobbit.
I'm quite surprised that no one else has commented on this. One of my most vivid and fond memories I have of reading The Hobbit as a child is the dinner with the dwarves at Bilbo's house. It's definitely one of the seeds that led to the current portrayal of dwarves. Much more exaggerated, almost caricatured, but along the same lines.
@@Humdebel I can see not reading all of the writings proceeding Rings, all save The Hobbit. Although, I am biased as that describes me. Actually, not quite. I have read the first edition of the silmarillion twice. And I have a passing familiarity with his published letters. The other stories, however, remain a mystery to me for the most part.
As I recall, the "dwarvish racket" line was somewhat ironic; it was only a "racket" by comparison with the extreme stealthiness of hobbits, but the narrator noted that a human walking by would have noticed nothing. So to Bilbo, it was dwarvish racket, but it was still far quieter than humans.
Gimli is one of the most emotional and identifiable characters in the whole story. The part where he describes the caves at Helm's Deep is beautiful. You can really feel the impact that beauty had upon him.
I agree with you in each respect. Thank you for giving dwarves the respect and honor they are not usually given!
I think a massive issue for Gimli is how much of the two towers is lost in the movie. Like yes the movie is phenomenal but the book is up there as my all time favourite. I think even though the quippiness across Rohan at the start is very similar you don't get that same feeling of fire from Gimli where he is so determined to catch the orcs he wants to run all night. The relationship between Gimli and Eomer (which serves the books as a pretty banterish relationship) is entirely missing in the movie which is the backdrop to Legolas and Gimli's growing close (obviously the loss of Boromir and the hobbits has already made them much closer). Legolas taking the time to set Gimli at ease by having him ride with him (while present in the movie not as impactful) shows the two of them interacting in a whole new light, But at Helm's Deep when they think Gimli and Eomer have been overun after the fall of the deeping wall there is a real sense of oh crap they've been separated and Legolas shows how torn he is not to have Gimli by him. The relief Legolas shows in there reunion is really sweet, with Legolas worried about Gimli's wound and Gimli only worried about the glittering caves. Without Eomer around in the movie they just kind of roll his stuff into Legolas.
I do really love the movies and the books but thank you for drawing attention to Gimli's deep and complex character. Dwarves are far too often seen as the boisterous and comedic characters but their steadfast loyalty and kindness often get overlooked by this. We know that the dwarf rings never could turn the Dwarven kings to evil (more gready though), and the fact that Dain won't sell Bilbo out despite them knowing each other pretty loosly. Just such a wholsome race!
Gygax, I think the modern Dwarf owes more to Gygax than Tolkien.
"Dwarves can move very quickly over short distances." That line is the opposite of the Gimli of the book, who has more endurance than anyone, but does not more quickly.
Yep my first thought was DnD was to blame.
Well, in the books, Gimli was quick with the axe... 😉
As a musician i am very impressed by your beautiful singing voice
I watched the movies before reading the books and getting into reading the books, he really stuck out to me bc he was so thoughtful and his character and culture was so rich and interesting, he became my favorite very quickly!
I'm sure a lot of film Gimli's characterization came from John Rhys-Davies himself, as well as the simple fact that trying to undertake something like Lord of the Rings and make it accessible to a general filmgoing audience in 2001 - itself a massive undertaking because this is an audience that would hold fantasy films to the standard of dumbed down schlock that had been the norm in the genre since like the 70s - requires a certain bit of compromise. One needs to incorporate a bit more comic relief than what's in the books, and Gimli was a natural fit for that, since he helps bring out some levity from Aragorn and Legolas. PLUS, John Rhys-Davies was allergic to all the prosthetic makeup he had on and was constantly breaking out in rashes and whatnot, so I imagine a lot of his short and to-the-point one-liners, as well as some of the goofier takes were a product of them wanting to get as much of him as possible before swapping him out with his double.
Oh also, I'm sure the tropes existed before it, but on the subject of where the 'classic' Dwarf comes from, Discworld definitely comes to mind, as well as maybe a general public perception due to things like Snow White, which perhaps affected a lot of early post-tolkien fantasy writers and DnD players' characterizations of dwarves as, well, kinda fun-loving. Also, Norse Mythology tropes from people who maybe don't know about the Svart/Dokkalfar but have general ideas about vikings. Gimli kinda has basic Thor vibes - the mirthful, charismatic warrior who loves battle and food/drink in equal measure.
What a gorgeous singing voice. Although, I imagine Gimli sounded somewhat different. 🙂
Now I read the books for the first time about 15 years before the movies came out. So movie Gimli was not the image in my head character-wise, even if his look was right. But even given that, I enjoyed the portrayal. Yes, I was a little sad that movie audiences wouldn't see the majesty of book Gimli. But I never felt his character got assassinated like Faramir's. He was still a very likable character, and that is a result of the charisma of John Rhys Davies.
Great video Jess. The fair use messages made me giggle. You are definitely following the spirit of the law. You're using small clips as an illustration of the story you're telling.
I really enjoy your channel. It's interesting to see how someone who came to the story through the movies first views the story as a whole.
As for a future video, how about the criminal underuse of my favorite female character in the book, Rosie Cotton. I realize that by cutting out the Scouring of the Shire, a lot of her presence is lost as well. But that's no reason to turn her into a mute. They had a lovely actress playing her, but it couldn't have hurt the movies to give her some lines. She was what kept Sam going while Sam kept Frodo going, so her presence is important to the story. So making her more than just a pretty barmaid would have given more depth to Sam.
Even in Scouring Rosie barely had any lines.
Thank you for this channel. As a recovering lit major, I appreciate that you can focus your observations from a broad knowledge of Toliien's worlds on the topic. Each of your videos says what it needs to support your point. You have kept this through all your changes of venue and circumstance.
Now for your presentation. I listen to (too many) TH-cam videos. I have spent many years in theater. You have the gift of a voice whose diction is clear, rhythm well-paced., and sentences well-inflected. That makes what you say readily available to your listeners.
Please keep it up.
Most changed character: Gimli vs. Faramir is a good question. It's tough to decide. The way Gimli was used to provide comic relief was certainly unfair to the character, but some of that was less due to Gimli himself being changed than in the way other characters reacted to him and treated him. And in some ways that cuts deeper precisely because, as you point out, he's the only example of his people that we get any significant exposure to in the story, so the entire race is cheapened by his treatment. But Faramir loses his main claim to fame - that he was one of the very few who was learned and wise enough to both understand what the ring was and unequivocally reject the temptation to take and use it. He does end up doing the right thing in the end and is totally redeemed by the end of the movies, though. So you're probably right - Gimli probably gets the worst of the movie treatment.
Of course, if we're just talking how much the character is changed Aragorn probably deserves to be in the mix as well. But in his case it can at least be argued that the movie version is the deeper character, so it's harder to claim that the movie mistreated him.
As far as characters being turned into comic relief, Gimli wasn't the only one to suffer that fate. Merry and (especially) Pippin get the same treatment. And in Pippin's case that's partly true to the books. Pippin was the youngest of the hobbits, and still not fully an adult by hobbit standards. But he isn't the total oblivious idiot he's made out to be in the movies, and Merry in some ways comes across as the most capable and responsible adult in the group at the start of their journey.
True, although they did not really convey Pippin is a hobbit version of a teenager in the films. I would say Gimli is the worst adapted character because for Faramir, Aragorn, Merry, and Pippin, similar points were conveyed. Pippin gets his coming-of-age character arc, as does Merry, even if we lose some of his intelligence and leadership abilities. Aragorn does prove that there is strength among Men. Faramir ultimately does prove himself a better man than Boromir. Gimli becomes friends with Legolas, I suppose, but we do not really learn much of the actual significance of him as an Elf-friend.
At least Faramir made it into the movie, unlike Imrahil.
I might have agreed with you on Aragorn once, but the more I re-read the more I appreciate his emotional arc. Honestly, I don't think a single character was changed for the better.
@@netpackrat You could also have mentioned Glorfindel. But both Imrahil and Glorfindel were pretty minor characters in the books. They both serve to deepen the world by hinting at how much bigger it is than what we are directly exposed to, but that's the sort of thing that really has to be left out of a movie adaptation of a book in order to get the length down to a manageable level. Tom Bombadil is a much more consequential character who was also omitted, and I can't really fault them for that one, either. On the other hand, Tolkien somehow managed to completely overlook Figwit! There's no mention of him in the books at all, not even in the appendices! (For the humor impaired, that's a joke.)
@@juryrigging I just reread what I wrote above, and I think I worded it poorly. Movie Aragorn isn't deeper. But because of the way they changed him he does have a clear character arc in which he comes to accept who he is and embrace his destiny. Book Aragorn has already done that long ago. He's spent almost his entire life - and remember, he's in his 80's - planning and preparing himself for the events in the story. By the time we meet him in the book he is about as prepared for what is to come as anyone could be, and while he may have some doubts about his ability to succeed he has none about what his main goal is and he's going to give it his best effort. To me it seems like book Aragorn doesn't so much become the king over the course of the story as he is revealed to already be the king. If you want to see how he became the king you'd need to find the story of his previous decades learning from the elves, being a ranger, travelling the world (we know he has spent time in both Rohan and Gondor back when Denethor and Theoden were young men), and working with Gandalf. And that's a story I'd love to read, but we only get hints of it in the book.
you are magnetic!
your narration and text makes very hard, almost impossible to skip ahead.
AMAZING!!!
what is imost impressive about your video is that you dont need the support of graphics to make the narration more interesting.
Wow, you’re a great essayist
Excellent video Jess, I liked the level of detail you bought to describe Tolkein's dwarfs to counter New Line's movie dwarfs. This is the third episode I've watched and I'm hooked. 😊
In case no one else has mentioned it. I think that, "Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs," was an incredibly important film in it's time and may have done more than other sources to forge the modern notion of dwarves. Though Tolkien obvious picked the name. =)
I was going to say the same thing. Tolkien loathed the Disney treatment of fairy tales and I'm sure Dopey, Sneezy, et. al. were part of the reason.
Tolkien didn't get anything from Disney. He'd been writing stories about dwarves decades before the Snow White movie. In fact, "The Hobbit" came out the same year as "Snow White", much to his annoyance. Tolkien hated the way Disney made the Seven Dwarfs into comic bumblers, so if that's your idea of "the modern notion of dwarves" then it was Peter Jackson who has perpetuated it, not Tolkien. His sources for dwarves (including many of their names) go back centuries before Snow White and other familiar fairy tales were collected (mostly in the 18th and 19th centuries) to ancient Norse mythology.
I think perhaps you misunderstood me. I didn't say Tolkien derived his idea of dwarves *from* Disney--I said that he thought Disney distorted the ancient stories of dwarves with his comic characters in "Snow White". Tolkien knew the mythology. He loathed Disney.
I don't think it did, though. Yes, Snow White was a huge movie in its day, but the way it portrayed dwarves has very little in common with the common modern fantasy dwarf stereotype. The seven dwarfs were not just short, but small; the fantasy dwarf stereotype is short but broad and muscular, capable of hacking opponents in half. The seven dwarfs were not fighters. They did not drink alcohol or have large capacity for food and drink. They didn't have accents; they sounded like typical American cartoon characters. They served as comic relief, but in a quite different style from what you see in the fantasy dwarf. I really think the portrayal of dwarfs in Snow White had almost zero impact on the portrayal of dwarves in fantasy.
There is a long belief that movies need a comic relief. Goes back to silent movies. The character assassination of Dr Watson in the Sherlock Holmes movies of Basil Rathbone is almost as bad as what was done to Gimli.
The Gimli and Legolas relationships reflect well on their characters in their respective movie and book.
With Gimli being so manly and brutish in the movie, he wouldnt be able to get along with someone like book legolas and would find him "Hoity Toity"
He would want someone he can bash heads with and be rude with, someone that can match his wits, which this legolas does. Guys will get it, its hard to explain. Rudeness is a love language.
Which movie legolas does seemlessly.
I felt bad for what they did to poor Gimli in the movies. Giving him the Jar Jar Binx treatment >.
1:00 . Is he the token dwarf? Or is he the Tolkien dwarf?
Gimli is a big part of why I have such a difficult time with those films.
Never thought of Gimli as humorous. I always thought what was done to him was a travesty. Except for before the Paths of the Dead.
"An Elf go underground where a Dwarf dare not! Oh, I'd never hear the end of it!"
THAT was a decent synopsizing for the script.
Where the film version lost me was: "Nobody tosses a Dwarf!" and "Not the beard!" in quick succession - I might have forgiven one, but not both! But, if anyone ever doubts Gimli, they just need to look at his gift from Galadriel, as you explained. (Almost as touching as: "Well, I'm back.")
I love your voice dear young Jess! It’s the delightful part of you video!😊
I love both versions of Gimli for very different reasons. In the book he is the pinnacle of dwarfs; wise, diplomatic, honourable and appreciative of the wonders shown to him. He is placed numerous situations beyond his abilities yet nwver fails to rise to the challenge. He and Legolas are equals, two sides of the same coin.
The movies downplay many of Gimli's best moments, sadly, presenting him more like a cliche DnD dwarf. That said, he shines in Fellowship with some great moments (trying to destroy the ring, the entire Moria sequence). In Two Towers he faces insurmountable odds in the name of friendship and makes strides befriending the Rohirim. The Return of the King shows him conquering fear on The Path of the Dead. He's less nuanced but still very capable
Great video! Really enjoyed the song of Durin in particular, that was very nice.
One of the sources that you ought to look at when investigating the modern fantasy stereotype of the dwarves is the character Hugi in ‘Three Hearts and Three Lions’, by Poul Anderson. That’s the earliest use of cod-Glaswegian to represent the dialect of a dwarf that I know of.
I think Farimir got it worse. Bc if the treatment were reversed he would have cussed at Galadrial only to soften later. That, I think would have been worse than what did happen to Gimli
Tolkiens' Dwarves have a deeply meaningful history, perhaps moreso than any other of the peoples of Middle Earth. It was a great shame that their main representative was reduced to the role he played, considering his peoples' tragic past. A very strong case could be made that they were intended to resemble Eastern Europeans, with many qualities in common with the Jewish diaspora. Even their language has some resemblance to how he may have perceived Yiddish. Phrases like "Baruk Khazad!" are good examples of this. If this is indeed the case, it makes Gimli's depiction even more unfortunate. In any case, thanks for the thought-provoking video!
he is the toughest in the movies tho. so even if they used him as a comic relief, which helped the movies, they didnt take anything away from him
I think the modern trope of dwarves as silly was a result of Walt Disney's adaptation of Snow White which was the first full-length animated movie.
I don't think they are portrayed there as loud, drunken scottish craftsmen?
@@Kuhmuhnistische_Partei I never said they were. I said the trope of portraying them as silly. And Gimli in the movies was made into mere comedy relief.
I don't think the reason Dwarves evolved into the modernized characterization of the loud angry drunken Scotsman comes from 1 particular source, but rather it was done because it was Cool.
It's just the natural progression between the races of elves, dwarves, and men in peoples collective consciousness.
These are all great points but in fairness Tolkein did create the comedic, drunken Dwarf trope in the Hobbit.
For me, Gimli and Legolas planning to see the glittering caves was one of the most memorable moments from the books. It was such a striking example of how their bond had overcome the elf-dwarf divide, and a key example of LotR's theme of deep friendship. As someone who has still not gotten around to seeing the second and third Peter Jackson movies, it was disappointing to hear that there isn't a version of the cave-road-trip-planning in there.
You may be happier not bothering with movies two and three. They only get worse as they continue imo. The best reason to watch the movies is the music, which you've already gotten the flavor of with one. IMO that's the best contribution the movies made to Tolkien's work. The last time I revisited the series it was in audiobook format and the music had been incorporated into it in something of an audio production instead of a straight read, including voice work meant to match the actors from the movies, which I also felt was a nice touch. It was wonderful.
They don't compare to the books but they are definitely still worth watching.
"one of the most important members of the fellowship." One of ... Would you say he's in the top 9 members?
While I agree with your comparisons, I've got to say the highlight of this video was your take on the song!
You have a lovely voice and came up with a fitting melody!
Have you done this for any of the other songs? If not, I'd love to hear more renditions.
Agreed. Reading the books, I never been able to put tune to words.
I wasn't sure until I actually heard you sing...could I have a hair from your fair head perchance?
Sometimes commercials can unintentionally add a bit of comic relief to videos. So right in the middle of where Gimli were telling everyone about mines, hospitality of the dwarves, and malt beer a commercial cuts in “welcome to McDonald’s”. I almost choked on my tea.
I think the Hobbit played a part in how modern fantasy paints Dwarves. We meet a lot of them and we’re introduced to them as the brawns that storm a house uninvited (cause they don’t know any better obviously) making fun of their host for being concerned about his furniture and cookware and celebrating their community. Of course the story then paints them as benevolent and loyal heroes, but the introduction always counts double, it sets the stage.
It's also very clear that Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as Bilbo Baggins. The portrayal of Dwarves as loutish yahoos was a bit of Baggin's own racism coming through. It's the same as The Silmarillion, written from a triumphant Elvish historian doing what triumphant historians do best; ignoring the flaws and playing up the defeats. When you read between the lines, you can see how the Elves are fairly shady characters
The D&D table top RPG, which took a great deal of inspiration from The Hobbit, had a lot to do with how dwarves are viewed.
So immersive. The moment Jess started singing I felt just like Gimli looking at Galadriel.
This, along with the the removal of all the poetry, Frodo kicking Sam from the party and forgetting 'Oh Elbereth' in Shelob's lair killed a lot of the magic in those movies for me.
Im sure that's exactly how it sounded when Gimli sang it
Book Gimli: "Baruk Khazâd! Khazâd ai-mênu!"
Movie Gimli: "lolz, i'm short!!!"
Great question on why they did this. I have my theory.
Why they change Gimli in the movies is the same reason why they changed Boromir, and started the film with the story of the ring. Movies are a visual art, unlike books and they have only a few hours to tell the story of the Fellowship. Boromir being a less complicated, fallen hero, gets the viewer to appreciate the character in the time allotted. Like Gimli they are both far too complex and interesting to put in a movie with 9 leads, half of which don't appear until 50% of the way through the film. And dwarves are short, so they're funny. Look at the hobbits, except the two in great peril.
They're both great works, just not the same.
2:08 "the light elves, the fair and heavenly creatures". Nice description of yourself. 🥰
10:00 Peter Jackson did not only simplified Gimli to a comic relief character, everyone is simplified: Pippin is dumb, Treebeard is boring, Frodo falls to the ground... Treebreard is probably the one with the worst treatment. In the book, the hobbits were in awe before him instead of being bored to sleep.
14:18 funny thing is, the 1978 cartoon movie played that scene more or less like the book.
19:24 no, I maintain Treebeard is the character that got done dirty the most in the Peter Jackson movies. Gimli at least was still fun to watch.
And Elrond is agent Smith, rather having an "ageless" face.
The face of Elrond was ageless, neither old nor young,
though in it was written the memory of many things both
glad and sorrowful. His hair was dark as the shadows of
twilight, and upon it was set a circlet of silver; his eyes were
grey as a clear evening, and in them was a light like the light
of stars. Venerable he seemed as a king crowned with many
winters, and yet hale as a tried warrior in the fulness of his
strength.
I'll see your boring appeasing Treebeard and raise you with a Denethor so two-dimensional the character blows away in a strong breeze. I also don't like the way they portrayed Isildur. Unfortunately, the movies also have to appeal to a mass audience who haven't read the books. So we get slovenly Gimli, Neville Treebeard, instantly corrupted Isildur, and raving Denethor.
@@colindunnigan8621 where have you seen a two dimensional Denethor? I only saw a one dimensional jerk drunk with power.
The movie did not portrayed Isildur, they only showed a couple of still-framed of his life with no characterization. In the movies, we only learned that he was the son of a king and he was affected by the ring like everybody else.
I wonder, a book you can put down and pick up again in a few hours or days if you find it's getting dark or heavy. A movie you are probably going to watch beginning to end with minimal break(s). So, did the movie require a little comic relief to make it more palatable while the book did not? Ultimately, I loved the books and the movies while recognizing there were differences. Kudos to Jackson for film depiction of that wonder tale. :)
Completely agree with your thoughts on Gimli. However, if memory serves, Gloin is also featured in the book. Not in depth, of course. But he shows up at the Council of Elrond to give an account of Balin's mission to reclaim Moria and to warn Bilbo about the messenger that Sauron had sent several times to Erebor, asking about "Baggins".
Lol 😂 Gimli was one of my favorites as a child because he was funny….But I appreciate this video
Can't help but wonder if the modern fantasy dwarf trope had some roots in Snow White and other older media. Even if it isn't completely so.
What a fantastic dive into Gimli, son of Gloin! Thank you!
I first read The Hobbit in 2nd Grade, and LoTR in 3rd. As I grew up in the 80s, and started playing D&D in 3rd Grade, I always gravitated to elves over the other fantasy folk options. I think that was in large part because of Tolkien and the wonder and awe that the Hobbits had for them. They were quick, and magical, and an odd combination of old and young at the same time.
I've found, however, that as I became an adult and grew a bit more wise and understanding of the world, I've developed a much more keen appreciation for dwarves. Their reliability, sturdiness, grit, and even their stubbornness are things to aspire to, and novel-Gimli provides insight into all of those, while also showing that one can still grow and learn new things later in life.
I initially had GimliGloinson as my email back in the Excite days. That grew into an avatar called GimliFett: basically Gimli's body and axe with Boba Fett's helmet.
Good times.
Finally, I have evolved it to GimliKenobi, a combination of 2 of my absolute favorite characters, who share many traits and aspects.
I think that the comic relief aspects of dwarves comes from how Tolkien portrayed them in the Hobbit.
So happy to find your channel because the algorithm saw fit to share this video with me! Love how you highlight Tolkien’s remarkable emotional literacy
I think this might be why his characters appeal to female fans so much