Arwen-Undomiel.com
http://arwen-undomiel.com/forum/

Legolas - Yay or Nay?
http://arwen-undomiel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=17149		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Johnny's Fan [ November 27th, 2007, 9:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Legolas - Yay or Nay?
Sorry if there has already been a topic like this, but I couldn't find one anywhere. :no:

Ok, well I'm not one to go poking at anything to do with LOTR, and although I love the films just as much as ever, watching them all again this week there were aspects of them that I would change or there were things that didn't quite work... but hey, is there ever going to be the perfect film? No. And then there were parts of them I had only just noticed were even there, and scenes that made me cry that had never bothered me before. So all is good.

BUT... for the first time ever... it hit me how useless Legolas is. Now before the Legolas fans tie me to a chair, tickle me with a feather until I scream out "I ♥ Leggie", I realise that on the whole, his character wasn't written that well for the film, in the books he may be like the uber-Elf... but in the film he was not only Mr. Obvious but Mr. Dull and Mr. I'm-only-here-because-I-look-nice.

Seriously, I have no idea why he was in the films. And never before have I sat there thinking "what's with the skate-boarding Elf"? :blink: Maybe I'm slow with these things, or maybe I was so into LOTR this time watching it, and the awesome characters and battles... when it came back to Legolas.. I realized how un-awesome he is.

Although in fairness, in another older and wiser actor's hands, he may have turned out OK. Perhaps someone who could have made something out of practically nothing.

So... yeah... I had to get that out really. :teehee:

Anyone else out there who might possibly agree with me?
Author:  Christian [ November 28th, 2007, 6:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
I agree. I have had those thoughts as well. His character had been one of the few that had not been needed in the film had he not been in the fellowship.

In my opinion, all of the scenes that had been there to add to his character had not done so. One of the scenes I am referring to had been the one that you said looked as though he had been on a skate board. I thought that such scenes were attempting to make up for the lack of depth in his character.

Anyway, you are not alone in your thinking. :teehee:
Author:  Altariel Frodo [ November 29th, 2007, 11:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ooh, one of my favorite topics. *gets down to business*

I have to agree with you. Basically with Legolas they had a whole bunch of raw potential, and they squandered it. Legolas is the only elf you really see "up-close," the only one who's head you have a chance to get into.
It could have been so amazing. And instead they squandered it.

I am not going to blame it on Orlando Bloom; admittedly, a better actor could've done more with what he was given, but Orlando was young, and I still think he did what he could with it. The bottom line is that apparently the screenwriters were desperately searching to find a purpose for Legolas, and this is what they found: he would explain everything to all the fangirls who were only watching him anyway.

So basically Legolas is degraded to nothing more than a convenient script device. This bothers me. A LOT. Because I could have really liked Legolas. He had so much potential.

*gets off soap-box* I'll stop now before some fangirl comes in and barbecues me. :whistle:
Author:  goldelf [ November 30th, 2007, 2:00 am ]
Post subject: 
well i'm definately on the pro-Legolas side here.i've always seen him as a brilliant and interesting character.i thought Orlando did a great job with him,its not his fault he was given a few drab lines and not very much character development.and as for him being useless,well i thought he kicked @ss! i'm not trying to argue with you guys i'm just stating my opinion.
Author:  Peregrin Took [ November 30th, 2007, 9:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, he doesn't do much. He has hardly any lines in the movies! He did do more in the books. I liked him better in the books too!
Author:  Ánië Súrion [ November 30th, 2007, 10:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
I will agree, he has a LOT more depth to him in the books. As incredible a job PJ and Fran and all the others did with the screenwriting, I do wish they'd put in a bit more insight into Legolas' character as was in the books. But I guess we need him because otherwise there wouldn't be Nine Companions, only Eight, which would kind of mess up the plot a bit. :P
Author:  Fíriel_18190 [ December 1st, 2007, 5:13 am ]
Post subject: 
^
yeah I can only agree with that. I think Legolas lost his depth in the movies. In the books there are still situations where the reader recognizes that he's an elf and since all elves have something special about them he's special too even though he's not really a main character.
And in the movies he really just hasn't got this special elvish thing anymore.. kinda hard to describe.
Author:  ~ladyofrohan* [ December 8th, 2007, 5:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
naaaaayyyyyyyyy
never Liked him.
Author:  Eä [ December 26th, 2007, 4:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
It's interesting to read everyone's opinions here. Poor Legolas beging degraded to the skateboarding dude with the pointy ears!

I agree that it was a shame they didn't manage to add more of Tolkien's depth to his character but shamefully reduced him to a fangirl treat along 'we'll give 'em something pretty to distract them from the gore in the long battles scenes'.
And yes another (more experienced?) actor might also have been able to perform magic with the very thin material given, but that's not strikingly relevant now since the movie is made.

But I was thinking about Gimli, what is he doing in the Fellowship? Like Legolas he is mostly there as a representative for his race and a travelling companion to Aragorn. The other members of the Fellowship are given plot-carrying key roles by the script writers. But strictly speaking, if Legolas is superflous, so is Gimli. Gimli who many times especialy during TTT was reduced to the comic relief 'let's make jokes about the short guy so the audience don't fall asleep during all the running'.
Author:  ~ladyofrohan* [ December 27th, 2007, 5:43 am ]
Post subject: 
I find Legolas as a charactar OK but orlando?NAY
sure he may be "hot" but can he act?????NAY
in my honest opinion he is insipid,and does not deserve all the credit some give him as a GREAT "actor"
Author:  Aredhel Ar-Feiniel [ December 27th, 2007, 5:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well to put it simply... obviously Legolas serves a huge purpose in the story... if you take out just one character, the story would just go all floppy. Take out Legolas, and you won't have an Elf in the Fellowship.
Author:  Teh FF [ January 1st, 2008, 10:55 am ]
Post subject: 
I get your point, JF. What hit me first was that there isn't a single conversation between the hobbits and Leggie. Isn't that strange? He's supposed to defend Frodo and then he doesn't even talk to him during the journey! :confused:
Author:  ~ladyofrohan* [ January 1st, 2008, 11:58 am ]
Post subject: 
i agree with foreverfrodo..I mean...I never speaks or "helps frodo in the way ...aragorn does.
Author:  ethelfleda [ January 1st, 2008, 12:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
i agree that legolas wasn't written particularly well in the films, and it wouldn't make much difference to the plot if he'd been cut, but he still has to be there. i mean, people went nuts when PJ cut bombadil, so can you imagine what would have happened if he's have cut a member of the fellowship? and of course, there had to be an elf in the fellowship so that all the races were represented.

essentially, i think that peter jackson and co can't write rounded, interesting characters - in my opinion, every single character is duller and flatter in the film than in the book, it's just more obvious with legolas.
Author:  Teh FF [ January 2nd, 2008, 5:37 am ]
Post subject: 
^I don't agree in general that all characters are flatter in the movies (Frodo, Gollum or Aragorn are not). I totally understand that they had to change things to make a good movie of the book, but I agree with you that sometimes it didn't work out (like with Legolas). Well, I love tha book and the movie, but remember that the movie is still an interpretation of the book, and not more. :)
Author:  Fíriel_18190 [ January 2nd, 2008, 7:02 am ]
Post subject: 
^
yeah I agree with that. I think that Gollum e.g. was portrayed very well in the movies, I really really liked that.
To what Eä said about Gimli.. yeah, I can agree with you, but I think with Gimli it's not as bad as with Legolas, because Gimli still has some typically dwarvish character traits in my opinion.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/