Legolas in the Lord of the Rings series has a unique quiver that produces non-stop arrows when shot from his bow. This quiver is either a magic quiver or he uses foreign arrows on his Lorein bow. He has to go scrounging for arrows after Boromir’s death at Amon Hen, where he and Gimli reach Aragorn and Boromir after fighting through orcs. In the books, Legolas does run out of arrows, but Tolkien writes about using his white knives on occasion.
Peter Jackson did not waste time drawing attention to the contents of Legolas’ quiver unless it facilitated a compelling moment, such as his fight with Bolg. Some argue that Legolas uses two bows and two quivers for the movies, and he has two sets of arrows. Galadriel gifted him a longer, stouter bow, the Bow of the Galadhrim, which was larger and stouter than his previous weapon.
However, Legolas does run out of arrows, and the only “magic quiver” mentioned is in Peter Jackson’s movie where the quiver is always full. The magic quiver aspect is from the Percy Jackson universe and has nothing to do with Legolas. He is seen many times shooting arrow after arrow, yet never seems to run out. In The Hobbit, he did run out of arrows, but refilling his quiver before every major battle and recovering them afterward would have been realistic but not very exciting.
📹 The Lord Of The Rings’ Legolas Problem
The Lord of the Rings will forever be one of the greatest film trilogies to ever hit the silver screen. Not counting The Hobbit movies, …
What weapon does Legolas have?
In The Lord of the Rings, Legolas, an Elf-member of the Fellowship of the Ring, uses a bow as his main weapon. Galadriel gives Legolas a new bow, which he uses to shoot across the Anduin river and defeat an airborne Nazgûl. The film trilogy assigns a bow to Aragorn and crossbows to the Uruk-hai, but in Tolkien’s writings, Aragorn is armed with the sword Andúril and crossbows are only mentioned in connection to hunting by Númenoreans.
Some arrows are given special mention in Tolkien’s works, such as the Black Arrow in The Hobbit and the Red Arrow in The Lord of the Rings. However, in the film trilogy, the Red Arrow is omitted and its role is conflated with the Beacons of Gondor.
What is special about Legolas bow?
Before the Company of the Ring left Lothlórien, Galadriel gifted Legolas a longer, stouter bow made by the Galadhrim, strung with elf-hair and a quiver of arrows. This bow proved useful as Legolas used it to shoot down the descending Fell beast near the rapids of Sarn Gebir. The bow was a gift from Galadriel, who was known for her stouter and elf-hair-strung bows. This story is part of J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring, “Farewell to Lórien” and “The Great River”.
Why is Legolas so good at archery?
Legolas, a legendary character in fantasy literature, is known for his proficiency with the bow and arrow, attributed to his Elven abilities, including enhanced eyesight and hunting experience. His skills were honned within the shadows of Mirkwood, making him a valuable ally on the battlefield. Throughout the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Legolas’ deadly accuracy was showcased in his “orc-slaying” competition with his dwarf friend Gimli. Tolkien described him as a dead shot, and he displayed his skills in his “orc-slaying” competition with his dwarf friend Gimli.
This connection between the Elven people and the weapon has become a cliché in high fantasy stories. Tolkien developed detailed backgrounds for his make-believe world, including Legolas, and the reasons for his deadly accuracy are quite dark. The early years of Legolas’ life remain shrouded in mystery, but they point to a definitive cause for his deadly accuracy. The Council of Elrond took place in The Lord of the Rings, where Frodo and the Hobbits journeyed to Mordor to destroy the One Ring.
Why does Legolas not blink?
In both The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, Legolas blinks only when surprised or wounded.
Is Legolas a pure Elf?
Legolas, a son of Elven-king Thranduil, was at least half Sindar, with his mother’s identity unknown. The Sindarin minority in Northern Mirkwood, ruled by a small minority, reverted to a simpler society after Morgoth’s defeat and the destruction of the grand Elf-kingdoms of Beleriand. Legolas had great respect and appreciation for nature, and longed to return to explore its wonders after the Fellowship left Fangorn Forest. He was kind and caring for his friends, even Gimli the Dwarf, though Elves and Dwarves rarely expressed liking for one another in Middle-earth.
As an Elf, Legolas had typical abilities, such as walking silently on grass and snow, seeing through great distances and in the dark, and sleeping while walking. He could travel 45 leagues in less than four days with Aragorn and Gimli, and tamed unruly horses with only a few words without needing reins or saddles.
Does Legolas have any powers?
Legolas, a Sinda Elf prince from the Woodland Realm of Mirkwood, played a significant role in the War of the Ring, representing the Elven in the Fellowship of the Ring. His abilities, including superior sight, hearing, lightness of foot, and skilled archery, were invaluable to his companions. His friendship with Gimli, son of Glóin, was considered odd due to long-standing grievances between Dwarves and Elves. Legolas’ life before and during the Third Age is limited, except for a few words he himself has said.
During the War of the Ring, Gollum, a creature captured by Aragorn, managed to escape with the help of Sauron’s Orcs. Legolas was sent to Rivendell to deliver this news to Elrond and Gandalf. His life is largely unknown, except for a few words he himself has given.
What is Legolas’s weapon of choice?
In the Woods of Lothlórien, Galadriel and Celeborn learn about Gandalf’s death, but Legolas only informs them about his loss. Galadriel believes Gandalf’s actions were not unnecessary, even though they led to his death. The Elven lady gives Legolas a new bow, which he uses for the rest of his journey. Gimli laments leaving Lothlórien and the beauty of Galadriel, and Legolas asks her what her gift was for him.
As they travel down the river, Legolas’s far sight alerts him to the presence of Uruk-hai scouts. He urges Aragorn to lead them away at Parth Galen, as he can sense the Uruk-hai approaching. The company is attacked, and Legolas arrives to see Boromir’s final moments before he succumbs to his wounds.
After sending Boromir’s body along the river, Legolas prepares to follow Frodo and Sam, but Aragorn decides to rescue Merry and Pippin from the Uruk-hai. Initially disappointed, Legolas sees hope in the Fellowship’s trueness and eagerly joins Aragorn and Gimli in hunting down the Uruks.
Who does Legolas marry?
Legolas, the son of Thranduil and grandson of Oropher, is the last of his line and does not marry or have any children. Tolkien does not reveal the mother’s death or whether she traveled to the West, leaving Thranduil and Legolas behind. Legolas does not marry or have any children, and when he sails into the West at the beginning of the Fourth Age, he leaves no family members behind.
The most famous friendship between an Elf and a Dwarf in Middle-earth is between Legolas and Gimli. Initially polite, they become friends during their long stay in Lórien. They playfully compete to see who can kill the most Orcs during the battle of Helm’s Deep and later make a pact to travel together after the war is over. Their friendship endures even beyond the scope of the trilogy, as they settle near each other and eventually sail together to the Undying Lands in the West.
In summary, Legolas is the last of his line and does not marry or have any children. His friendship with Gimli is a significant aspect of Middle-earth’s history, and their friendship continues to grow throughout the book.
How long can Legolas live?
As is the case with all Elves, Legolas is immortal until the end of the world. Following Aragorn’s demise, he embarked on a voyage to the Undying Lands, where he resided until his own demise.
Did Legolas have a magic quiver?
In the Percy Jackson universe, Legolas is renowned for his swiftness and dexterity in reloading his quiver, a quality often linked to the concept of the magic quiver, which bears no direct relation to the LOTR world.
How many arrows does Legolas have in his quiver?
In The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring film, Legolas, a legendary Elven archer, ran out of arrows after fighting Orcs and Cave-trolls in the Mines of Moria. He left Lothlórien with a new, ornately decorated quiver and several arrows, which were visually distinct due to their greenish-yellow feathers. In later films, Legolas could have resupplied at other safe locations, such as Edoras, Helm’s Deep, and Minas Tirith. However, he ran out of arrows twice in Jackson’s films.
The first instance occurred during the Battle of Helm’s Deep in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, where Legolas shot his last few arrows on the way down. Later in the battle, his quiver was full again, so he must have refilled it off-screen. There may have been spare arrows along the wall or he might have needed to take some arrows from the quivers of his fallen allies. In the film, Legolas’ Quiver from Lothlórien featured a peacock design.
📹 Orlando Bloom Was Paid $175,000 for “Lord of the Rings” Trilogy
Orlando Bloom shares his experience auditioning and filming “The Lord of the Rings.”
I think it’s okay to have Legolas there just to help. He’s incredibly old, wise and skilled. He doesn’t need an arc. He’s like Brad Pitt in the Ocean’s movies; he’s done stuff like this before, he’s good at it, he’s unimpressed and not talkative. He’s mostly there to show that the elves care about this cause which adds gravity to the story. tbh if he had a more significant arc it would have over-crowded the movie more than people think it already was. He’s as important as the sword Sting and I think that’s okay because they both serve valuable and memorable roles but not main characters.
I agree with many of the comments: Legolas doesn’t need a character arc, -he’s over a thousand years old and is a supporting character. Despite that, he does have heart-to-heart moments with other characters where he is often humble to confess personal error. The good trilogy definitely could have used some of his book humor to add character, however.
You can’t just say “He’s a boring character other than his relationship with Gimli”. That’s like saying Hamlet is a boring character aside from the whole revenge thing. Legolas’ prejudice-to-friendship with Gimli is just as important as Aragorn’s reluctant king arc or Merry and Pippin’s arcs of bravery. Diversity is one of the core themes of LotR, that’s what Fellowship is. Legolas and Gimli are a microcosm of Elven and Dwarven society, their friendship represents the rekindling of ancient alliances that are outside the scope of what the audience is show. We have 4 hobbits to represent their society, we have Aragorn, Boromir, Faramir, Théoden, Éowyn, and even Denethor to represent the relationships between various cultures of Men and how they see other races, but for elves we only get Galadriel in 1 scene (who is obviously very different from all other Elves), and Elrond in 2 scenes. There isn’t that constant presence in the story like there is for the other races. And for Dwarves, it starts and finishes with Gimli. Without Legolas, we’d have no idea how Elves perceive Dwarves for the vast majority of a story about how diverse Free Peoples have to learn to unite to defeat oppression. Their friendship is just as important as Frodo’s with Sam, or Gandalf’s with Pippin, or Merry’s with Éowyn.
I disagree. I think you are nitpicking this to oblivion. Legolas, according to estimates was 1000 to 2000 years old when the events of LOTR happened. What kind of character development do you expect from someone who lived for so long? I say he is very much developed already. No Elf shows any character development in the trilogy. They are mostly ideal paragons of wisdom or skill and this is fine. Not all characters need to be flawed and change to be interesting.
You will never have a higher number of people disagreeing with your take, than you will get with this article. Legolas was spectacular, he didn’t need to do extra. Him being an elf was already loud enough, getting him to do more will take away from the rest. He is a typical example of “show us, dont tell us”. And that was just enough for all of us to fall in love with the character
I think the whole 11 hours of runtime is unfair. Frodo is only with Legolas for half of one movie, and establishing his relationship with Gandalf and Aragorn and Boromir is simply more important. Legolas on the other hand, has business with Gimli. Legolas doesn’t hve a problem in LOTR, he does in the hobbit, which is where you got your thumbnail from
Legolas was too busy stacking combos and making up 90% of the Fellowship’s kill count to have a personality I think his role in the films was one of action more than dialogue, to embody the incredible incredible skill of the elves in the story; showing style and personality through that. I personally feel that you see plenty of his playful character in his interactions with Gimli.
Not every character has to have a definitive character arc. Legalas has a minor character arc in the book to do with befriending Gimli – he realises that strong friendship can surpass race. That’s the only character arc he needed to have. None of the elves have strong character arcs, and that was deliberate on Tolkien’s part: the elve’s time in Middle Earth was finishing – their time was finishing. Their arc was almost over. Had Tolkien put in strong character arcs for the elves, that would have belied that very important fact. Not every character has to have a character arc, sometimes the lack of an arc might actually be a deliberate feature, and you can usually find a reason for an author’s choices, particularly an undisputed celebrated classic author such as Tolkein, if you look and think about it properly…
One thing that is brought up far too often when discussing characters in movies/novels or whatever is their “character arc” or lack there of. Just wanted to say that having a character arc is not mandatory in order to have a good or interesting character. Some character might be the same at the end of the “journey” and still be awesome, because the nature of the story is different. Legolas is a supportive, secondary character, he doesn’t inherently need a character arc, he just needs to fullfill his role in the story (basically, an elf representative in the Fellowship and the Three Hunters that is kinda fun and cool). He does that and it’s fine. Is like saying that James Bond for example is a “bad character” or that his movies are bad because of the lack of development… Thing is, he doesn’t need one, the movie is about a cool dude doing cool things, and we follow along in the journey. That’s fine too. Same with Legolas here. I don’t think that’s a valid criticism. Same with all the different dwarves in the Hobbit; although I dislike the movies with a passion, they didn’t have “character arc” or relationship with Bilbo, in the books or in the movies, because they don’t really need it. They are kind of a joke to be honest (I think that this is said by Tolkien himself btw). Bunch of dwarves with funny names that are somewhat irrelevant to the story, that is about Bilbo, Gandalf and Thorin.
The main reason Legolas – and largely the elves seem so “bored” or almost “disinterested” in the happenings of LOTR and more – is their life span. Do remember, that besides being lightfooted, and skill full – they are literally Thousands of years old – even older than the wizards for example. It is thus quite understandable that they have a solemn – almost detached, melancholic manner to how they perceive events and time, and they even age slower than the other ancient beings (like Ents) As for Legolas’s growth during the LOTR trilogy? He followed – clearly the least of the two beings the Elves had regard for at the time – Dwarves & Men. Elrond literally says – “Men are weak”, and “Dwarves are greedy, selfish” and yet Legolas – being a Prince of the Elves no less – chooses to follow them. With all the solemnity, “superpower” and everything – he puts his faith in them. And Finally, Elves also possesses a rare gift – including Legolas – which explains their demeanor – which is: foresight. Legolas not only sees far but also possibilities in the future coming up – having lived thousands of years. Legolas’s gift is his restraint, in all events, times, and places – and the rare times he does show emotion show how taken he is towards his Fellowship when they die or are lost. He’s a watchful guardian, but probably the most mature amongst them in warfare for example. Another way of interpreting it – as most of us did possibly during that time – is Legolas is a man of few words but heavy on action, and in that regard, I would say Peter Jackson knew exactly what he was doing with the character in the LOTR Trilogy.
I’m sorry but if one thinks a character is lacking because they lack a personal relationship with the protagonist then I think you will miss out on a lot of fictions. The fact that Frodo may not even know Legolas by name goes to show how strangers in our lives can play a significant role in shaping our shared reality. How is that not a powerful message that is so easy to overlook in real life.
I couldn’t disagree more .Legolas has a great character development with is friendship with gimli, which is incredibly important seeing the tension between the two races and adds to the feel good ending of the movie. I think you have forgotten that one of the main takes from the movie is the value of friendship.
Legolas effectively plays the role of a near-perfect being in every way, including morally. He lacks a character arc as a result, but viewers are able to project on him and fill in the gaps. He is particularly unique and unlike any character in a truly compelling ensemble production, but his lack of influence on the plot and lack of character arc isn’t a flaw of the series but instead a feature that I believe adds to the story. I hate the hobbit movies tho…
I think Legolas’s funny moments are more impactful because of his overall reverent/solemn attitude. His race is leaving middle earth regardless of the outcome of the war. I think it’s fitting he would be less playful at such a time. You feel the underlying sadness with all the elves, none of them express a lot of joy and I think it’s meant to communicate the tone of it being the end for these people and it is very sad. So in a very sad time for the elves you see a more reserved Legolas who has fleeting moments of happiness where he can joke and smile and momentarily forget that his time here is ending. Would it have been nice to get more playfulness? Probably. There is definitely more to be desired, especially once you include the Hobbit. Legolas is pretty much the same in that movie, he’s very serious and definitely hates dwarves but for some reason still thinks to help them even when Tauriel isn’t with him. I think the Hobbit is probably what “ruins” his character when you look at as a whole because he is exactly the same person essentially. I think it would have made more sense for him to be less serious and more playful in the Hobbit since it’s before Sauron’s return and elves have not started fleeing the lands yet I don’t think. This would have better communicated a different time for elves and shown a different side of Legolas that we didn’t get before.
I saw Return of the King in the theater like 3 weeks after it came out. It was packed. When Legolas came sliding down the trunk of the elephant, all the women screamed, whooped and hollered, like a bachelorette party. I didn’t know Gimli said” that still only counts as one,” until I saw it on article. You couldn’t hear it in the theater. The women were still screaming
“He was tall as a young tree, lithe, immensely strong, able swiftly to draw a great war-bow and shoot down a Nazgûl, endowed with the tremendous vitality of Elvish bodies, so hard and resistant to hurt that he went only in light shoes over rock or through snow, the most tireless of all the fellowship.” -J.R.R. Tolkien
I think it might also be hard to really have much of an arc in a character that’s already thousands of years old. The whole timespan of both movie trilogies is a blink in Legolas’ total lifetime, its like asking a human to change their entire personality in a day. Time as we experience it is a whole different things than what Elves experience, because of their immortality.
There isn’t a problem with Legolas at all. In LOTR elves are angelic they bring wisdom, insight and protection to others around them. Elves aren’t suppossed to have character arcs at all because they are already divine. Legolas is a highly skilled demon slaying badass archangel who is happy to help the cause and he also brings more depth to the action scenes. I believe the movies nailed him perfectly.
I’m glad to see most everyone disagrees with this article. My two cents(in agreement with many) is that we should expect much development from such an ancient character. His stoicism and skill are completely expected of a man that had millennia to hone himself. His arc with Gimli is enough. One way I agree with the article is their dialogue at the end of RotK still brings a tear to my eye.
One thing you didn’t address though is that legolas brings the hunk factor. And there is value in that too. Little 13 year old me felt there was a space for me in the LotR fandom, even if it was only to lust after Legolas. Like I felt it was socially acceptable to watch a “nerdy boys movie” cause I could hide behind the pretty face of Orlando Bloom
In LOTR there had to be the man, elf, dwarf, hobbit coalition.That was the whole point – them all coming together to defeat the evil threat. Without Legolas (to another elf representative) the story would be incomplete, no matter who he did or didn’t speak with. Anyway, I kinda liked his aloofness – it made him more ethereal.
In Tolkiens drafts glorfindel was supposed to take the part of legolas. Tolkien himself decided that this needs to be toned down since glorfindel, being incredibly ancient, having killed a balrog already and being basically reborn “gandalf style” would have taken way to much of a presence. Legolas is deliberately a toned down version of glorfindel so he wouldn’t outshine other characters.
Legolas’s fighting scenes in the first film are fine. The speed with which he fires his arrows and even the improvisation of sticking an arrow in an orc’s eye before pulling it out and using it for its designed purpose as a missile was good as it showed his inventiveness. Elves are, after all, supposed to be a lot more proficient than the other races. However, the shield surfing and oliphant scene just seem silly. It was as if Jackson was always looking to go one better, rather than sticking with what works. The rest of the stuff is on the money. He doesn’t really do a lot and his character doesn’t develop. However, there is a suggestion that Tolkien did little to flesh out his character in the book. As you point out, most of what he does appears in the appendices. If I remember correctly, another article I watched posited the idea that Tolkien had been toying with Glorfindel being the elf member of the fellowship. On deciding against this ( probably because he was just too powerful ) he chose Legolas but he didn’t really have much of a backstory for him and, consequently, not much of a story at all.
Couldn’t you say that about his character in the book? As far as I remember he doesn’t really develop apart from his relationship with Gimli which is what the film also focuses on. If the character is a poorer one in comparison to the others then that is an issue with the book if the film-makers were loyal to it, which they mostly were.
I think he served his role very well in the LOTR trilogy as a supporting character. His athleticism and friendship with Gimli was sufficient as to not detract from the story revolving around the main characters. He has a flat arc for the most part, but that’s okay. As for the Hobbit… that’s another story. He shouldn’t have been in there in the first place imo.
He’s the lancer.lancers usually shows up early already badass, doing badassery while the lead character is developing to give early excitement to the story.most of lancers don’t even have an origin story,they just appear on a scene kicking the hell of bad guys.they don’t really need deep story line, just kick a lot of ass
I thought Legolas’s arc was observing all the more human types of characters and slowly becoming more human himself. He learned about friendship, forgiveness, loss, sacrifice, etc. His most interesting moments were when he was struggling to grapple with human nature, values, and emotions he’d never before encountered
My biggest red flag against this narrative is that ain’t nobody not only complains about Legolas role but that he in fact is one of the most popular characters in the 11 hours of film So popular in fact that he was put into a whole ‘nother trilogy where, as you rightly point out, has no (middle) earthly business being in. Fact is, his minimalist presence and arc served as the enigmatic less is more kinda impact. Face it, Legolas is beloved.
When you have this large of a main cast, not every character needs a dramatic arc with “the” main character. He has plenty of interaction with the other characters – primarily Aragorn and Gimli. And it feels more believable that at least one character doesn’t have a huge arc that revolves intently around the main character. When 99% of people watch the movies, they don’t feel the way you do about Legolas. I’ve never heard anyone describe not liking him or his character or him feeling 1-dimensional. This article feels like you’re trying to figure out “Why do we all feel this way?” when no one was saying they felt this way. There’s just the running joke that Legolas has only the one line to Frodo, but very few people feel like that’s an actual issue – just kind of like “Ha, that’s funny.” But it doesn’t distract from the story in any way while you’re perusal it – just something funny to look back at later.
I thought Legolas was fine with his BFF arc with Gimli and further development might’ve served to distract. Imagine if there were 2 mistrusting people in the fellowship (boromir and Legolas). Boromir dying and coming to terms with his folly was a perfect end to his arc. Idk how we would’ve been convinced Legolas would be won over other than some exposition, which probably would’ve left many of us unsatisfied.
6:20 he was a loyal friend because they already knew each other well from the past, I believe ever since Aragorn was young. Unfortunately this doesn’t come across well in the movie, their relationship isn’t explained if I remember correctly (I haven’t seen the trilogy in many years). Still I don’t mind him being this “extra” that you think doesn’t do much in the fellowship, I never saw him like this, I really liked him in the movies and the books as well.
I have to add my disagreement to the many others here: I like Legolas just the way he is. He’s like Spock (the 1960s Spock, not modern day versions.) Not every character has to be angsty and complicated. It’s good to have one stoic, uncomplicated person who is there to do a job, and do it well, without a lot of messy emotional chaos. Those characters always become my favorites.
Legolas is perfect. Not every character need to be a main character. He is important to show the relationship between the Dwarves and the Elves and they did it perfectly by showing his relationship growing with Gimli. They fought at the councel of Elrond but were ready to die side by side like friends at the Black Gate. And thats why Legolas is one of my favorite LOTR characters. He is badass and his brother relationship with Aragorn and how he becomes best friends with Gimli even when both their races hate each other and went to war is perfect.
Book Legolas is the original deadpan snarker. He is constantly trolling the others, especially Gandalf. And his best moment is when Aragorn spends ages listening to the ground and says, ‘There are riders coming’, only for Legolas to say basically, ‘Yeah, I can see them, this is what they look like…’
While it is a shame that they removed his jovial personality, I think he still plays an important role, because ultimately without him they’d all be dead. He offers plenty of things to the fellowship (They’re taking the hobbits to Isengard -> his eyesight) and he’s an important character. Also, Legolas is 2000-3000 years old. Hes been there and done that. Along with that, the books describe elves as feather weight (aka why he didnt sink on Carahadras), and the combination of feather weight and 2000 years of practise would lead to some pretty amazing stunts I’d think. And although it was ultimately unnecessary to have him in the Hobbit movies, I think they did that to really highlight his extreme hatred for dwarves (that he GREW UP with because of Thranduills bad relationship with the dwarves) and therefore highlight the character development of becoming friends with them (especially due to the line of “what is this? a goblin mutant?” “thats me wee lad gimli”). So while it could have been better, the way they portrayed him was still brilliant.
Apart from his character arc with Gimli where they represent showing and overcoming the prejudice between elves and dwarves, Legolas is basically the “loremaster” of Middle-Earth for the viewers. He explains the world to the audience as he is one of the oldest beings – he is the one to reveal the true identity of Aragorn (given their longlasting friendship), he makes sure the audience knows what the horn of Gondor sounds like, he understands unlike anyone else who Balrog is and he tells us about the Dimhold Road. He is integral in making the audience believe the world they are shown and provides its necessary gravitas. He was always a favourite of mine and I loved Jackson´s portrayal of him – minus the oliphant scene, however, that is a problem that runs through the whole Return of the King.
2:02 contrary to your proposition, there is nothing wrong with elegant etherial elves, he is the strongest link in the entire trilogy to my daughter 😂 And to a being that will live for thousands of years.. if there is an event that made a drastic change to their character with a period of a couple years, it is called a trauma 😅 at least he and Gimli forms an unbreakable and unconventional bond.. that is a huge process that has effects ripple through the ages
I couldn’t disagree more. Legolas’ place as the exposition machine makes the most sense to both provide the audience with more understanding of what is going on and to further Legolas as the ancient, wise, and inhumanly perceptive being he is. Consider also that this takes place over the course of a year and Legolas is likely at least a thousand years old. It would make no sense for him to start doubting his friend and then overcome it in such a short time. Further, as this one year is the equivalent of about 4 and a half weeks in the life of a Man who lives to be 90, it makes much more sense for his character NOT to go though another major shift than the overcoming of the racism that he’s been indoctrinated with throughout his life. This is huge progress in itself (consider a 89-year-old who has been brought up and lived among racists his whole life befriending a black man in the course of a month and a half), and the unchanging nature of Legolas’ character aside from this makes total sense for both his character and to portray his people’s higher levels of resilience and strength.
I have to disagree about Legolas having no business being in the Hobbit. A significant part of the story takes place in/around Mirkwood, which is his home and his father is the elven king. He was clearly put in for fan service but it made sense for him to be there, unlike how they initially wanted to have Aragorn show up. The part where Thranduil tells Legolas that he should find the ranger named Strider has no business being in the film since Aragorn was like, 12 during the events of the Hobbit
Honestly, I never felt any issue with him in the movies. I can see some of your points, but considering everything else going on, I think it was easy to enjoy what Legolas did bring to the table and not require much more from him. I immediately knew he was a badass in the first movie towards the end when he’s taking down the Orcs. That was enough for me to understand a lot about him, even though I don’t know much of his back story. From there on, as you said, I assumed he was this cool, badass fighter who was always pulling off eye catching stunts in combat. Nothing wrong with that. You can take it back down to old school perusal Aragorn or Gimili fight. I also don’t think he belonged in the Hobbit movies but was thrown in there, because by the end of LOTR Legolas had a huge fan following for what he did do in LOTR. I think that explains enough in that they were willing to include him in another trilogy because of the fans enjoyment from the LOTR trilogy.
Since I have been aware of LOTR, which I hate to admit started with Jackson’s film adaptations, there hasn’t been a moment where I asked if there was more to Legolas than what he cinematically was, and what he narratively served, which makes this article essay seem strange. I do see a lot of takes from this website but this one is one that appears unanimous in its frivolity. When talking Tolkien’s elves, one has only to look at “The Silmarilion” and realize that any arc they experience and express would span so many years as to defy any cinematic or visual adaptation, except as written history, which was the way Tolkien chose in relating them. I will agree that Legolas’ inclusion into “The Hobbit” wasn’t anything but a ploy to bring back a demographic to a franchise, that was obvious. The point here, though, shouldn’t be what more they could’ve done with a story that already had enough of it, 11 hours of it, in the extended versions, but how much more in the actual literature that one can explore for themselves. Besides, Schwarzenegger doesn’t necessarily need to use such a large machine gun in his action movies but would it be much of a Schwarzenegger action movie if he didn’t? I think Legolas serves that very purpose, but in fantasy epic terms.
I think it works well actually because elves are supposed to be much more refined and less attached or outwardly emotional. The whole point is that he has a totally different role and presents in the story, because he is different from everyone else, being an ancient immortal being. I don’t imagine the Aragorn could have achieved everything he did without Legolas and Gimli who accompanied him for the whole story. When you read the silmarillion and hear about the incredible things that the elves did, then I think the action scenes actually harken back to that very well. Legolas being so proficient and skilled as a warrior reminds me of other Elfords like Fingolfin duelling Morgof or Glorfindel against a balrog. Epic courage and skill that Legolas echos into the 3rd age.
Orlando Bloom is known for not being able to say more than one line at a time. If he’s given a monologue, he might explode. I remember when I saw Two Towers in the theater. Girls behind me screamed when Legolas slid with his bow down the stairs. A guy stood up and shouted, “You know that can’t actually happen!”
Even Tolkien himself acknowledges in one of his posthumously published writings that “Legolas achieves the least of the Nine Walkers”, but the Fellowship needed an Elf to fulfil the ‘four kindreds’ bit. Even so, it’s rather glaringly OTT that the Prince of Mirkwood himself is sent out simply to tell someone west of the mountains that Gollum has escaped. Could no-one else have been commanded to go?
You can’t deny that many of his lines delivered were flat. I, for one, would have liked to have seen a more jovial performance in some of his lines. Something, anything other than the blank expressionless stare which got accompanied by his dialog. That is not 100% Bloom’s fault. Albeit he could havre fought for tweaks in performance, ultimately it is the director’s responsibility and fault. Anyone about to argue against this, I ask you this: Are you so delusional that you’re willing to lie to yourselves? If you love the character so much, well, who WOULDN’T want this iconic character to shine brighter? The argument that giving him more personality would have “overshadowed” or “drown out other cast” is ridiculous at best and akin to typical echo chamber mentality. There is always room for improvement. It’s a real shame, truly, as all he brings to the table is a Mary Sue type of character that always wins. Jackson did Bloom, the elves, and Tolkien an injustice with Legolas’s portrayal. It’s even twice as grim in The Hobbit. Oof. Man… OOF I do, however, love TLoTR and that alone is a testament to how great its production was. Even with modified, removed, and/ or added scenes and cast. Still the best trilogy to ever grace the big screen. Doubt we’ll see anything better in our lifetime either.
Like other viewers… I totally disagree. Legolas had an important role to play in which I loved his character… not every role has a huge or even a character arc, as elves lived such long lives the movies only took up a small portion of his characters life in the movies. I can’t recall how many times I’ve had a LOTR lazy weekend perusal all the extended versions and each time I love them. The best move in the whole franchise was starting filming again after a couple of days when Viggo took over the role of Aragorn… Legolas’s and Aragorns friendship was heartfelt throughout the 3 movies… he was Aragorns ‘side kick’ and I thought necessary. Show me someone who doesn’t like perusal an elf such as Legolas using his bow he’s amazing (yes I know it’s all made to look perfect) and skating down the stairs at Helms Deep I can’t how many times I’ve rewound and rewatched that scene… the ultimate of coolness with a bow. His friendship with Gimli and the other cast members is all that’s warranted. Aragorn, Gandalf & Legolas are my 3 fav roles from the movie, I wasn’t a fan of Froddo’s and didn’t care much for Eliah Woods playing that role but I accept that in any movie/franchise there is always going to be one character you often care less for, but hey the others all make up for that for me! I’m now 60 and still have my occasional lazy LOTR weekend and absolutely love the franchise.
As a kid, I didn’t like Boromir because, well his betrayal. Now as an adult, he’s one of my favorite characters in the series, and someone I’m constantly defending to my wife and friends. I love the extended editions fleshing out Boromir, and showing his heroic nature, and the pressure he was under because of his father.
Bro wanted a lotr that would show every story of a guy included in it. I believe legolas character has been played perfectly and theres no need for any other addition. If thats so, why wouldnt we get to know the back story of the uruk hai or their big orc leaders story that killed boromir? I mean these orcs dont get born this much skilled, smart and strong.. evil has a stroy too. So, whats not writen on the book shouldn’t be told as part of it. And peter jackson did exactly that. Legolas is presented perfectly threw the film and in my opinion is one the best and most favorable character and i love it. My favorite character ever!
I actually disagree with this take, Legolas was almost the perfect character for these movies (yes I still have some complaints). He was a major supporting character to the main characters and he saved their lives numerous times by being so skilled in combat. Not every character needs crazy character development and his was there but subtle. I enjoyed his more solemn nature with quips and jokes here and there to show he really does have a personality (I feel like it kept the LOTR trilogy serious, but added comedy outside the hobbits and didn’t detract). Saying he had no point in the storyline is wildly false in my opinion, as he was one of the best warriors and sometimes you just need someone who is there to stack bodies so everyone else can complete the objectives unhindered. Still love your articles and a lot of your takes on things!
Honestly, I wish you’d brought up Arwen carrying Frodo over the river and drowning the Dark Riders with her ‘magic’, which was hugely problematic and completely pointless, over something like Legolas. Problematic because Frodo’s resolve is no longer known to the general audience, where in the book he defies the Ring Wraiths despite being inured, weak and poisoned, in the movie he is rescued by Arwen. Sure, this helped Arwen’s character ever so slightly but nobody understood why it was Frodo who was tasked with carrying the ring. And pointless because Arwen taking credit for something Frodo, Gandalf and Elrond did never gets revisited or spoken of again. In fact her character essentially disappears into flashbacks for the rest of the films. Maybe if Peter Jackson hadn’t bastardised that scene we wouldn’t have all the “Sam should have carried the ring” memes. In fact, could you not do that in another article please? Discuss the detrimental impact that 5 minutes of story change can have on the overarching narrative?
Let’s see…At the time of the War of the Ring, if we go by the information given by the production crew, Legolas was 2931 years old. According to the source material, he may be somewhere between 3000 and 5500 years old. That would make him unfathomably old from human standards. How settled would his personality be by now? How much would he have seen? The fact that he overcomes his strong dislike of dwarves during the course of the short period of time (about a year and a half) is huge character development. The problem is, he is being judged by human standards, while not being a human.
As a character, Legolas could’ve been arc’ed better re doubting Aragorn’s capabilities, I’ll grant that. But he’s hardly a failed character. Maybe they should’ve had an everyone-tells-a-short-story-of-their-race’s-past infodump around the campfire just after the Fellowship gets on the road, which helps get the hobbits — and the audience — up to speed about the broader context of what’s going on.
Not everyone liked the LOTR movies. But there were plenty who did enjoy them, myself included. And yes I was perfectly aware of the changes made. Went back to the books and reread them. Then filled-in the missing places in the movie. As though they were just beyond sight. I know there are still a lot of back criticisms for these movies and I had other issues with The Hobbit unnecessary bathroom jokes gag Yet the Misty Mountain song was spot on. All this being said, after seeing ROP, I doubt that anything going forward will be even as close as LOTR films even with all the changes made to them. There was at least a continuity moving from the Shire to Bree and by the second movie Rohan and 3rd Gondor and Mount Doom. And direct quotes were included from the book. “A wizard is neither late nor early.” Noticing also how these lines are blended with scenes painted for the calendars and art inspired directly from Tolkien’s books. John Howe/Alan Lee. To me this felt seamless. Plus today there is a trend to cut out mysticism for believability and gaining a larger non-fantasy audience. The one thing I do agree with above is that Tolkien’s elves are multifaceted not just one thing. They are Ethereal and Elemental and some are rapscallions and a little greedy like Legolas’s Dad. And yes I really hoped that they would have included more poetry and allow Legolas to recite or sing those songs. Yet note at the end how “Into West” borrows both from Bilbo’s song and Legolas’s “song of the sea?”That Always seemed intentional to me.
Most of what you said is a result of the idea that Tolkien’s elves were stoic that is prevalent in modern retelling. Elves are not stoic. They are very emotional. They laugh, they sing, they weep, all openly. They are playful, they get angry. When asked what he thought of elves, Sam said they were nothing at all like he had expected, because they were so happy and so sad, so old and so young. He couldn’t find the right words, but I think that says it well enough.
Legolas demonstrates fellowship with men, hobbits and dwarves. Other Elves are standoffish, and otherworldly. He jumps into the fray, and jokes and demonstrates the alliance of elves with other middle earth protagonists. He makes elven promises real and good. When the elven host shows up to reinforce Helm’s Deep, it is believable because Legolas has been the placeholder for the alliance between men and elves.
I agree with most of what you’re saying, however it doesn’t bother me when perusal the films. He isn’t well written or particularly well played but I still couldn’t imagine anyone else playing him. Something about the clueless and pretty Orlando Bloom is so legendary that even tho he doesn’t exactly act much in this, it doesn’t matter. His action hero type of role in the films is certainly different from the books but in the context, it works well enough not to bother me.
Not all characters need to be dynamic. Static characters, especially when contrasting dynamic ones, can be incredibly valuable. The movies also contain a remarkably large ensemble to try to give every significant character a meaningful arc, and the ageless elf doesn’t really need one in this snapshot of time. On the other hand, I do wish he’d been written with more expressiveness in the movies, though– I too would find it difficult to see this Legolas singing with overwhelming joy or sorrow. Just because the elves’ emotions strike mortal races as unusual or unfollowable doesn’t mean they’re best communicated by a stoic lack of emotionality.
I love this trilogy so much … and I’m very fond of your take on things but while you made some decent points, you forgot that Legolas is *gorgeous*. Yes, he was not the main character and didn’t push the story as much as the main characters but he was neck a neck with Aragorn in keeping the female audience … engaged. A year has not gone by since its release that I have not watched and throughly enjoyed this fantastic adaptation. I was curious for a more robust dive into the mechanics of what you think made The Hobbit fail but I appreciate your take anyway so thank you for sharing 🙂
It’s apparent that the author here has never really walked anywhere, nor ridden a horse. It takes weeks, if not months, to get anywhere when you’re on foot. Think about it, how long would it take you to walk across your county? Your state? There was A LOT of time and conversation on the travels, around campfires at night, that didn’t get put into the story.
Idk if I agree with some of this. I do agree that he could’ve used a bit more development, but at the same time I disagree with him being useless. He’s an extremely capable fighter, his abilities allowed him, Aragorn and Gimli to track the Uruks and Mary and Pippin more efficiently, and his growing friendship with Gimli was fun and engaging. We didn’t need him or Gimli to be anything more than the friends who are there through thick or thin. Besides, giving him more to do is how we end up with how he was portrayed in The Hobbit. Sometimes, just being kinda cool and funny with your best pal who’s also kinda cool and funny, all while being there helping out, is more than enough.
There are many elves in the story. Galadriel and Elrond are the host when they stoped by during the journey. Also Gimli doesn’t have any character development but they also went Moria. I mean during the journey, we saw their country. For Legolas, Lothlorien not exactly his country but close enough. Also, Sam doesn’t have any character development. We don’t know anything about Sam except he being gardener lol. We know Legolas is a VIP because he was in the counsil. He is close friend to Aragorn. He hates dwarves. He has all good skills as an Elf. As a result, you don’t have to talk to Frodo in order to have a character development. We also didn’t see Sauron talks. We only saw reflection of him via Saruman. Sauron didn’t have any character arc except being villian. He had all evil things and that’s all for 12 hours long movie. It is not about character arc actually. It is about emotions and what they represents. For example, Elrond, Galadriel represents Elves and also cleverness. Galadriel talks during the first scene of the first movie. Why? Because they are ancient so you don’t have to have a character arc for Galadriel in order to listen her. She is just a tool for movie to reach listeners. Legolas is also a tool to reach goals because Aragorn can’t do all the things. Also there is Gimli. You remember Gimli and Aragorn cleaned the path from Orcs during Helm’s Deep war in order to get some time for Theoden. Gimli and Legolas just representation from different countries. They don’t have to have a character arcs because all the things that make them different, comes from the core.
Legolas is thousands of years old by the third age, but being immortal they could not die and remained hale and strong throughout. It is not surprising that Legolas has powers beyond that of men. In Tolkien’s world elves were physically stronger, nimble and taller than most men save Elendil. Elves possess an inherent magic tied to the natural world and wood elves, in particular, were used to travelling at speed through dense forests. So he would have powers most men would consider superpowers.
Legolas is thousands of years old, he’s been through many wars. He’s skilled because of how long he’s been alive, these fights are just another day for him. He’s already grown and developed as a character. When you’ve lived for at least a couple thousand years you probably would be pretty strong and not as frantic as the other characters. He deserved more screen time
I felt like Legolas played his role in a way that mirrored the role of elves in Middle Earth. They were very old and slowly fading from the world. And like you said, Jackson leaned more into elves being aloof enigmatic beings of great age, wisdom, and power. And that’s exactly how Legolas came off in the movies. Aloof, powerful, wise, and kind of “above” the comparatively ephemeral problems of the world.
I read something once (I don’t remember who wrote it or I’d credit it)–the author said it is worthy to note that Legolas, in the LOTR, does the least. He represents, in a sense, the elves’ great sin of trying to keep everything as it once was, unchanged (as opposed to man’s desire for eternal life leading to the sin of Numenor), and also of the elves’ diminishing role on Middle Earth, before Middle Earth is handed to men to rule when they return to Valinor.
To me it feels like the Fellowship used Legolas just as that character who carries the fights, like you have in D&D or other pen and paper groups. You need to get through the fights alive and someone dealing tons of damage is definitely useful for that, even if it comes at the cost of personality being underdeveloped.
In the books legolas was an optimist, and an absolutely legendary marksman. He was a great friend to peoples he either did not know, or hardly knew. He never despaired or turned to selfishness. His character literally did not need development, he was a consistent and reliable part of the fellowship from the go, to the bitter end if it came to that. I dont think theres any problem wirh legolas. I guess the problem is that he comes off perfect, in which case – hes an elf
For as long as the film is, though, and as ironic as this is given Peter Jackson’s reputation for over-long films, the Lord of the Rings trilogy in particular is a very compressed and contracted version of the events of the novel. A lot of the more interesting character stuff was excised in favor of making the movie more fast-paced (particularly for the hobbits), and a lot of Hollywood-checklist character stuff was added to check off some of those Hollywood boxes (particularly for Gimli and Aragorn) and the general intelligence level of the cast was lowered for the sake of humor or drama (particularly for Merry, Pippin, Theoden, and Denethor). Not all of it lands as well as it could have done. It’s more the big picture of the excellent film-making craft on display that holds it together; things DO get a bit shaky when you start poking at details. That being said, Legolas’s portrayal in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy in particular actually isn’t that far from what it is in the novel. He doesn’t have much direct interaction with the hobbits there, and most of the interaction he does have with them is minor. Being the Fellowship’s representative elf, his relatively distant role is kind of an underline for the state of Middle-earth’s elves in general, which is far better established in the novel (the film’s only scene establishing that early on in Fellowship is an Extended-Edition exclusive). The rest of the cast not being as “huge of personality” as the more D&D-inspired archetypes used in the film, his aloofness doesn’t particularly stand out and you can more or less buy the entire dynamic that the Company of the Ring has; little moments like Boromir expressing concern for the hobbits at a difficult part of the journey or Legolas walking on top of deep snow to scout ahead while the group is trying to dig their way out of Cahadhras and so on are easier to appreciate as important, because nothing in the books is particularly loud.
I usually love you articles but I think this one and your article about Schmidt from New Girl are really reminding me that you can’t learn everything from someone’s YouTube website. Also, I don’t really think Marshall almost ruined the last season of How I Met Your Mother. That season was pretty bad all on it’s own
I freaky have to disagree here. Yes there are definitely characters who have a bigger arc in this story like Aragorn for example, but: Legolas goes from hating dwarves at the start to being really close friends with Gimli in the end and I also don’t think every single Charakter needs to have a big arc. I mean he’s over 1000 yers old, he’d have enough time to figure out who he is
Legolas hates Gimli because thousands of years ago dwarves caused a massacre of many elves (dwarves believe it’s the elve’s fault so won’t take responsibility). Legolas hates Gimli because of this. However Legolas grows to love Gimli as a friend. The last event recorded of Middle Earth in LOTR is that Legolas and Gimli build a boat together to sail to the undying lands. That’s extreme character development!
I disagree. Legolas is there with his bow. That’s what he promises to Frodo, and that is the promise he keeps. He is an asset in all the fights, and that is his job and function in the trilogy. He is a Fellow of the Ring, but still a side character, and his most important relationship is with Gimli. That’s it. Not every character needs an arc.
Legolas, Thranduil, Tauriel, Elrond, Arwen, Galadriel, Celeborn, Haldir and all the elven folk in the 2 trilogies showed middle earth the beauty, courage, discipline, determination, strength, power, patience, strategic in life and battle, loyalty, dedication,honesty,love, and all the other special qualities only the elves have. They could have made movies just about the elves, just my opinion. ❤️
Legolas talked to Frodo in the books, of course Frodo knows him. He did have an arc, leaving his dad’s insular kingdom and going out alone to help other races and learning to be friends with Gimli and Aragorn and bridge the gap that had been driven between elves and dwarves and men. He also had been sheltered and not used to being around anyone other than his elves in Mirkwood, he hadnt even been to Lorien previously. Legolas is probably 2500-3000 years old and couldn’t be more skilled, to a level far beyond any other race, he’s an elf at his peak. I didn’t like the counting game in the film, but movies have action and humor so it’s not 11 hours of war and he was playful sometimes in the books. Legolas is a badass and Bloom did an amazing job. He also brought in the ladies as any man who just helps everyone without talking too much or bragging is worth his weight in gold. I have been a fan of the series since I was a toddler and couldn’t find a thing about Legolas in the movies to complain about, and was delighted they added him to the Hobbit and fleshed out Thranduil. Legolas was perfectly done. Aragorn on the other hand..
Even though Legolas is one of my favorite characters, his lines in the movies are so hilariously meme-ish. Honestly, if they just wanted to play around with the idea of Legolas’ age making him more detached from how to act around mortals, causing him to seem cluelessly obvious in how he talks (for instance: “a diversion” and “this forest is old.”), it would’ve at least added some consequence for him being an elven prince and made it more interesting for how he ties in with the worldbuilding.
Don’t understand why anyone needs to pick apart every single little detail of the movie. It totally worked for me, a life long Tolkien fan of 53 years. I know t he story, I know the mythology of the world. I didn’t need Peter Jackson to tell me the story. I just needed him to bring the world visually to life for me and it worked perfectly. Never once while perusal the trilogy did I ever feel like I WASN’T in Middle Earth, no matter how much people nitpick details. This is why we can’t have nice things. Just leave it alone and enjoy the ride ffs.
It’s not so much that he needs character development, the dude is a thousand years old and just doing what he does, and being really good at it. His arc is indeed his friendship with the fellowship and in particular, Gimli. To me, that’s where the movies did wrong. In the books, everyone was a seriously capable warrior and that includes Gimli, who is arguably the best warrior they have. But in order to demonstrate how awesome Legolas is, they made Gimli stumble about like a fool and that’s a disservice to that character.
Everyone loves Jackson’s LotR movies, but I have to admit that I was disappointed by them. The first movie was pretty good as it followed most closely to the books, but the movies diverged further and further from the books, and Legolas was definitely was one of the problems. So was Gimli, who was relegated to comic relief, which he absolutely was not in the books. And what Jackson did to Faramir is completely unforgivable. Even in Posledniy kol’tsenosets’ The Last Ringbearer, which turns the entire series on its head as the perspective is that of orcs from Mordor, he didn’t do Faramir as badly as Jackson did.
Now I LOVE the movies, all of them, and even their silly or odd little “side plots” and even the made up characters. I think This franchise does fantasy movies right. BUT… I really wish they would have leaned a little more heavily on the “impish” nature of the elves. Like dancing and singing is a HUGE part of Tolkien’s elven culture. I don’t expect big musical numbers or choreographed routines from them, I just felt they were portrayed a little too stiff in the movies. If I had to pick a favorite elf (based on the books and how they translated into the movies), it would be Thranduil (The Elven King if you get my reference). I feel like his tone and attitude in the movies best matched the books.
The most important development in Book Legolas was his friendship with Gimli, from almost enemies to respected friends who praises each other cultures. That’s not reflected in the movie, specially woth Gimli becoming a comic release. Not blaming the movie, but I think if Movie Legolas would’ve explore his relationship with Gimli (who would’ve been less dumb for that purpose) this article night no exist
I can understand the logic of including Legolas in The Hobbit, as he is the son of Thranduil after all, so it’s not unlikely he was there for the events of The Hobbit, even if he wasn’t named. Tolkien himself was constantly reinventing his own works, including some significant changes to certain parts of the Hobbit; most notably Chapter 5 Riddles in the Dark, and it’s probable that, had he lived longer, he might have edited the story to include Legolas. One can also get the impression from reading Lord of the Rings that Legolas hasn’t ventured much beyond his own borders. All that said though, Legolas certainly does feel overused in the Hobbit films in far too many over the top action scenes.
Him looking like him literally helped make the movie what it is. He is the most memorable character in the fellowship with what i remember was one of the largest fanbases ever. Beauty is a virtue often desired in art, if you want me to get philosophical about something as simple as that. We all had our hearts fill with joy and awe, pausing the movie to stare at legolas as children, and here you are not even willing to mention him looking gorgeous and selling a literal elf. Without him the fellowship would be a bunch of lumberjacks of various height and age
I seem to be in the minority at least as far as YouTube opinonators go on Legolas’ “superpowers”. He’s an incredibly gifted archer with thousands of years of training in combat, and elves are apparently also nimble and lightweight. I don’t see anything ‘funny’ about his feats; (at least in the LOTR trilogy) he’s an elite warrior with the climbing dexterity of a squirrel. None of his feats in LOTR seemed out of place to me. In fact, the novelty improved the films.
Yeah, I have been saying this about Legolas for 20 years now. I don’t hate him. I just always considered him the weakest link of the movies. His superhero antics tend to really take me out of the battle scenes. And it doesn’t help that Orlando Bloom kinda overacts but still manages to have a bland delivery in his lines, which is what makes “They’re taking the Hobbits to Isengard” so memable. The one thing I actually did like about his inclusion in The Hobbit is that they made him bleed. It’s a tiny moment of humanity.
I think the reason he doesnt have that much of character development is because well, this is four years if his life. 4 yours of his almost 3000 years old life. I think it is meant to signify that that is how elfs are, ethereal and unchanging. Also while in fellowship he indeed can get a bit boring, you cant say the same for two towers and return of the king.
I wish Tom Bombadil was in the movies, but at the same time the only real bearing that whole thing has on the story is the leaf bladed knives Merry and Pippin carried. I understand leaving him out of things although disappointing. As far as Frodo driving Sam away, it makes me want to strangle someone